Illinois Requests for Production: Rule 214 Guide

Legal content overseen by Nathan Walter, Esq., attorney licensed in California (State Bar No. 313299).

Illinois requests for production are governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 214, which lets one party ask another party for documents, electronically stored information (ESI), tangible things or access to real estate. The party served must either identify the responsive materials and make them available for copying or inspection, or serve written objections (Ill. S. Ct. R. 214(a), (c)).

Rule 214 does not set a fixed response date. The request itself specifies a reasonable time, which may not be less than 28 days after service unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise.

We cover timing, objections, organization, ESI form, the affidavit of completeness, supplementation and the consequences of a dispute below. For non-Illinois background, see our general requests-for-production guide.

What governs Illinois requests for production?

In Illinois state court, a request for production is a written request one party serves on another party under Rule 214. Its scope comes from Rule 201(b)(1), which allows “full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.”

Documents, ESI, tangible things and real estate

Under Rule 214(a), a party may request specified documents, objects or tangible things for inspection, copying, photographing, testing or sampling, or access to real estate for inspections, surveys, photographs, tests or samples. The request may also ask for information calculated to lead to the discovery of the whereabouts of those items.

The item’s “nature, contents, or condition” must be “relevant to the subject matter of the action.” Rule 201(b)(1) says “documents” includes papers, photographs, recordings, records, communications and ESI.

Rule 201(b)(4) defines ESI to include “other data or data compilations in any medium” from which information can be obtained directly or after translation into a reasonably usable form.

Request limits and the scope of this guide

Rule 214(a) through (e) states no numerical cap on requests, but production is not unlimited. Rule 201(a) says “discovery requests that are disproportionate in terms of burden or expense should be avoided,” and Rule 201(c)(1) lets the court issue a protective order “to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or oppression.”

Other devices run under different rules. See our guides to Illinois interrogatories under Rule 213 and Illinois requests to admit. This article covers only Rule 214 requests.

Timing under Rule 214: read the time specified in the request

A reasonable time, ordinarily not less than 28 days

Rule 214(a) says the request “shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than 28 days after service of the request except by agreement or by order of court.” The request must also specify “the place and manner of making the inspection and performing the related acts.”

That is a floor on what the request may specify, not a statement that every response is due in 28 days. The due date depends on the request and on any agreement or order.

Agreements, court orders and extensions

Rule 183 says a court, “for good cause shown on motion after notice to the opposite party, may extend the time for filing any pleading or the doing of any act which is required by the rules to be done within a limited period, either before or after the expiration of the time.”

Rule 183 covers acts “required by the rules” to be done within a limited period; how it applies to a particular request is outside this guide. The timing provisions use these different standards:

• Starting discovery early (Rule 201(d)): Before all defendants have appeared or are required to appear, leave of court on good cause is needed.
• Time to produce (Rule 214(a)): The request specifies a reasonable time, not less than 28 days after service, unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise.
• Extensions (Rule 183): For good cause shown on motion after notice to the opposite party, the court may extend time for filing a pleading or doing an act required by the rules within a limited period, before or after that time expires.
• Supplementing (Rule 214(d)): The duty is to supplement “seasonably.” The rule gives no number of days.

Identify responsive materials and address written objections

Rule 214(c) gives a served party two paths: under (c)(1), identify the responsive materials and provide copies or a chance to copy or inspect them; under (c)(2), serve written objections. The paths combine when an objection reaches only part of a request.

Identification must lead to copying or inspection

Subsection (c)(1) requires the party to “identify all materials in the party’s possession responsive to the request” and to “copy or provide reasonable opportunity for copying or inspections.” A list alone is only half of that duty.

The 1995 Committee Comments add that the producing party and that party’s attorney must make a “good-faith review” of the documents produced to ensure full compliance with the request. Those comments are commentary, not operative text.

Object to the disputed part and comply with the remainder

Rule 214(c)(2) allows written objections “on the ground that the request is improper in whole or in part.” The rule then says: “If written objections to a part of the request are made, the remainder of the request shall be complied with.”

By its wording, an objection to one portion does not excuse compliance with the rest. Rule 214(c) also provides that “[a]ny objection to the request or the refusal to respond shall be heard by the court upon prompt notice and motion of the party submitting the request.”

Tie proportionality to Illinois’s stated factors

Rule 214(c) expressly allows a party to object that “the burden or expense of producing the requested materials would be disproportionate to the likely benefit, in light of the factors set out in Rule 201(c)(3).”

Those factors appear in Rule 201(c)(3): when making an order under that section, the court “may determine whether the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery, including electronically stored information, outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.”

The rule uses “may,” so the balancing is the court’s discretionary call. The 2014 Committee Comments to Rule 201 say subparagraph (3) “requires a case-by-case analysis.”

Make express privilege claims

When information or documents are withheld on a claim of common-law or statutory privilege, Rule 201(n) says the claim “shall be made expressly” and “shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications or things not produced or disclosed and the exact privilege which is being claimed.”

The rule does not prescribe a log format. A manual worksheet listing each withheld item, a description of its nature and the exact privilege claimed is one way to capture what the rule asks for.

Organize the production and choose the ESI form

Usual course of business or labeled request categories

Rule 214(c) says production of documents “shall be as they are kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the request.” The rule offers alternatives, not both.

The 1995 Committee Comments say that failing to organize documents as the rule requires “constitutes a discovery abuse subject to sanctions under Rule 219.”

A Bates number range does not by itself show which organization method was chosen, and the rule does not mandate Bates numbering. For organization methods, see our guide to organizing discovery documents.

If the request does not specify an ESI form

Under Rule 214(b), if a request “does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.”

Rule 214(b) does not say every ESI production must be native, PDF or printed, and organization under 214(c) is a separate step from choosing the form.

A plaintiff-side production example

These examples are invented and are not service-ready forms.

Suppose a plaintiff in a rear-end collision case is served with a Rule 214 request. Category 1 asks for photographs of the damage and scene, and category 2 asks for wage records. The plaintiff’s team builds a manual map:

• Request 1, Collision photographs: Phone photographs of the vehicle and scene; repair-estimate photographs. Production reference: P000001–P000011.
• Request 2, Wage records: Pay stubs; employer wage statement. Production reference: P000012–P000018.
• Request 2 (one part): Written objection served on that part; remainder complied with. Production reference: Not produced as to the objected part.

The identifiers P000001–P000018 are hypothetical. The map labels each range to correspond with a request category, one of the two organization options in Rule 214(c). It also shows the partial-objection structure: the objected part is addressed in writing, and the remainder is still produced.

Briefpoint can help assemble a map like this one. Its Autodoc feature finds responsive documents and adds page-level Bates citations. An attorney still reviews the result.

Furnish the affidavit of completeness and address missing materials

State whether production is complete

Rule 214(c) says: “The producing party shall furnish an affidavit stating whether the production is complete in accordance with the request.” The affidavit is mandatory and speaks to whether production is complete, so it may report that it is not.

The 1995 Committee Comments say the affidavit was made mandatory; previously it was not required “unless requested.” Copies of identifications, objections and affidavits of completeness “shall be served on all parties entitled to notice.”

The rule text does not supply an affidavit form, and this guide does not either.

Possession, control and known whereabouts

The identification clause in Rule 214(c)(1) speaks of materials in the party’s “possession”; the examination sentence and Rule 214(d) say “possession or control.” The rule text does not define control, and neither does this guide.

Rule 214(c) provides that if a party “claims that the item is not in his or her possession or control or that he or she does not have information calculated to lead to the discovery of its whereabouts, the party may be ordered to submit to examination in open court or by deposition regarding such claim.”

The 1995 Committee Comments add that when responsive materials are not in the responding party’s possession, “the compliance affidavit requires the producing party to identify the location and nature of such responsive documents, objects or tangible things.”

Seasonably supplement later-known materials

Rule 214(d) provides: “A party has a duty to seasonably supplement any prior response to the extent of documents, objects or tangible things which subsequently come into that party’s possession or control or become known to that party.”

A wage statement a plaintiff receives from an employer after serving a response is the kind of material this duty addresses. The rule supplies no interval, such as a number of days.

Serve the required materials and distinguish nonparty discovery

Copies to all parties entitled to notice

Rule 214(c) says “[o]ne copy of the request shall be served on all other parties entitled to notice,” and the same goes for copies of identifications, objections and affidavits of completeness.

Serving is separate from filing. Rule 201(m) provides that “[n]o discovery may be filed with the clerk of the circuit court except by order of court or when authorized by Supreme Court Rule.” A party serving discovery “shall file a certificate of service of discovery document.” Service follows Rule 11, which this guide does not cover.

Nonparties, subpoenas and Rule 214(e)

A Rule 214 request goes to a party. The 1995 Committee Comments say the request procedure “may be utilized only when discovery is sought from a party to the action,” and that documents in the custody or control of a nonparty “may be obtained by serving him with a subpoena duces tecum for the taking of his deposition.”

Rule 214(e) is not a subpoena rule. It says only that Rule 214 “does not preclude an independent action against a person not a party for production of documents and things and permission to enter upon real estate.”

Rule 201(o) requires that a copy of any discovery request to a nonparty be filed with the clerk. Subpoena deadlines, forms, service and fees are outside this guide.

Resolve production disputes before seeking court relief

Make the reasonable attempt Rule 201(k) requires

Rule 201(k), titled “Reasonable Attempt to Resolve Differences Required,” says the parties “shall make reasonable attempts to resolve differences over discovery.”

Every discovery motion must include a statement that “counsel responsible for trial of the case after personal consultation and reasonable attempts to resolve differences have been unable to reach an accord or that opposing counsel made himself or herself unavailable for personal consultation or was unreasonable in attempts to resolve differences.” The wording emphasizes personal consultation by trial counsel; it does not say a letter alone is sufficient in every case.

Motions to compel and Rule 219 consequences

Under Rule 214(c), an objection or refusal to respond is heard on prompt notice and motion of the requesting party. Rule 219(a) separately provides that a party serving a request who faces a failure “to comply with a request for the production of documents” may move “for an order compelling an answer or compliance with the request.”

Expense-shifting depends on the court’s findings. If the refusal or failure “was without substantial justification,” the court “shall require” payment of the reasonable expenses of obtaining the order, including attorney’s fees. If the motion is denied and was made “without substantial justification,” the moving party pays the refusing party’s reasonable expenses of opposing it.

Under Rule 219(c), if a party “unreasonably fails to comply with any provision of part E of article II” of the rules, or fails to comply with an order entered under them, the court “on motion, may enter” orders “as are just.” The listed examples include:

• staying further proceedings until compliance;
• debarring the party from maintaining a particular claim or defense on the issue;
• barring a witness from testifying on the issue;
• entering a default judgment or dismissing an action, with or without prejudice, as to claims or defenses to which the issue is material; and
• striking portions of the offending party’s pleadings relating to that issue.

The word is “may,” and a missed requested date does not automatically trigger any of these. The 1995 comments to Rule 219 add that sanctions “may not extend to other issues in the case.” Rule 219(d) lets the court enter any paragraph (c) order if a party “otherwise abuses these discovery rules.”

A final-review checklist

This checklist combines duties cited above. It is workflow guidance, not a rule:

1. The time specified in the request, and any agreement or order.
2. Identification of responsive materials, with copying or inspection available.
3. Usual-course or category organization.
4. The ESI form requested, or the Rule 214(b) default.
5. Written objections, with the remainder complied with.
6. Express privilege descriptions under Rule 201(n).
7. The affidavit of completeness, served on all parties entitled to notice.
8. A supplementation checkpoint under Rule 214(d).

Prepare production materials with Briefpoint Autodoc

Briefpoint drafts responses and objections to requests for production. The output is editable in Microsoft Word, and attorneys keep final review of every draft.

Autodoc finds responsive documents, adds page-level Bates citations and builds a Bates-numbered production package. For plaintiff firms working through a Rule 214 request, that supports the assembly work described above. The editable Word output remains a draft for an attorney to review before use.

The software does not decide the legal questions in this guide or certify that a production is complete or compliant. An attorney evaluates scope, privilege, completeness, organization and the applicable request or order, and decides what the affidavit of completeness states. The platform also offers Supplemental Responses, which is relevant to the Rule 214(d) update workflow.

Book a demo to explore Briefpoint Autodoc.

Watch this video:

FAQs About Illinois Requests for Production

How long do you have to respond to Illinois requests for production?

The request specifies the time, which must be reasonable and not less than 28 days after service unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise. Rule 214(a) does not set one fixed response deadline. The request must also specify the place and manner of the inspection and related acts.

Does Illinois Rule 214 require an affidavit of completeness?

Yes. Rule 214(c) says the producing party “shall furnish an affidavit stating whether the production is complete in accordance with the request.” The affidavit speaks to whether production is complete, so it may report that it is not. Copies of identifications, objections and affidavits of completeness must be served on all parties entitled to notice.

Can you object to part of an Illinois request for production?

Yes. Rule 214(c) allows written objections “on the ground that the request is improper in whole or in part,” and says the remainder “shall be complied with.” A burden or expense objection may rest on the Rule 201(c)(3) proportionality factors. The court hears objections on prompt notice and motion of the party that submitted the request.

How must electronic documents be produced under Rule 214?

If the request does not specify a form, Rule 214(b) requires production in a form or forms in which the ESI is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. ESI is defined in Rule 201(b)(4). Organization is a separate question: Rule 214(c) requires documents as kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond with the request’s categories.

What if requested documents are not in your possession or control?

Rule 214(c) says a party who makes that claim, or who claims no information leading to the item’s whereabouts, may be ordered to submit to examination in open court or by deposition about it. Under Rule 214(d), materials that later come into the party’s possession or control, or become known to the party, trigger the duty to seasonably supplement.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser. Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, contributing law firms, or committee members and their respective employers.