Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de269> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de269 RegisterActionDate "2014-04-08" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de269 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Currently pending before the court is Defendants 99201E7 and C79E913 Motion to Compel Production of Audit Working Papers. (R. 261.) In response to the motion, third-party respondent Scanlon & Matthews LLP has taken the position that the information the defendants seek is protected by the Illinois accountant-client privilege, codified at 225 ILCS 450/27. In briefing the motion the parties have relied on cases from this district determining that the Illinois accountant-client privilege inures to the benefit of the accountant, rather than the client, and concluding that the privilege is the accountant's to raise or waive. See, e.g., Stopka v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 816 F.Supp.2d 516, 525 (N.D. Ill. 2011); In re American Reserve Corp., Nos. 87 C 3086 & 86 C 833, 1990 WL 208679, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 1990); Western Emp'rs Ins. Co. v. Merit Ins. Co., 492 F.Supp. 53, 55 (N.D. Ill. 1979). On March 27, 2014, the day before the defendants filed their reply in support of the motion, the Appellate Court of Illinois issued an opinion addressing this issue directly. See Brunton v. Kruger, No. 4-13-0421, __ N.E.3d __, 2014 WL 1258800, at *7-*8 (Ill. App. 4 Dist. Mar. 27, 2014). In that decision, the court recognized that federal cases had held that the accountant is the holder of Illinois's accountant-client privilege, but expressly disagreed with those cases. Id. at *7. After examining the statutory language and cases interpreting similar confidentiality statutes in other states, the Illinois court concluded, "[w]e likewise hold that the client, not the CPA, is the holder of the privilege that section 27 creates." Id. at *8. Based on this recent shift in authority on a question the parties have briefed here, this court invites the parties to supplement their briefs by addressing the impact of Brunton v. Kruger on the pending motion. The parties may file supplemental briefs of no more than 5 pages addressing this question on or before April 18, 2014. The relevant parties should also confer and explore whether a compromise can be reached on the subpoena. The deadline for filing the supplemental briefs is firm. Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 04/08/2014)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de269 AdministrativeID "269" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de269 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.