CBA Record July-August 2025

The Appellate Court rejected that argu ment, stating unequivocally that there was no abuse of discretion in imposing the sanc tion. Only in a criminal case, or in a civil case where the defendant faces the possibility of jail, may the defendant require the plaintiff to prove their case even though the defen dant has no defense. May a defendant refuse to admit or deny the content of a writing on the basis that the writing speaks for itself? Absolutely not. Every defense lawyer’s favor ite answer to a plaintiff’s allegation about a contract, statute, regulation, or other writing is: “Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegation, because the document speaks for itself.” A litigant has no right to refuse to answer any allegation of a pleading concerning a writing on the basis that the writing “speaks for itself.” • 735 ILCS 5/2-610(a) mandates: “Every answer...shall contain an explicit admis sion or denial of each allegation of the pleading to which it relates.” • 735 ILCS 5/2-610(b) states: “Every allega tion ... not explicitly denied is admitted ....” • In federal courts, F.R.CIV.P. 8(b)(l)(B) and 8(b)(6) effectively say the same thing as 2-610(a) and (b). There is no exception in 2-610(a) or

Four years earlier, Judge Shadur had said the same thing in Controlled Environment Systems v. Sun Process Co., Inc., 173 F.R.D. 509,510 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Apparently, defense counsel in Riley never got the message published in Controlled Environment. Judge Shadur’s remedy in both cases was to strike the offend ing paragraphs of defendant’s answer sua sponte and order a proper answer to be filed. Interestingly, in Rudzinski v. Metropoli tan Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2973830, *4 (N.D. Ill. 2007), and In re Harvey , 2020 WL 1237936, *5 (Bk. W.D. Wisc. 2020), the judges in those cases not only struck the defendant’s defective “speaks for itself’ answer but also deemed each plaintiff’s allega tions to be admitted by each defendant. Those defense pleaders also apparently never got the messages in Riley and Controlled Environment Systems .

2-610(b) or 8(b) for allegations based on written instruments on the ground that the writing “speaks for itself,” or for any other reason. Labeling an allegation of a complaint as speaking for itself and then refusing to admit or deny the allegation is a completely improper attempt to self-amend § 2-610 or Rule 8(b ), and actu ally creates a binding judicial admission. The late Judge Milton Shadur makes this point clear in his delightful ruling in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Riley , 199 F.R.D. 276,278 (N.D. Ill. 2001): Another unacceptable device, used by lawyers who would prefer not to admit something that is alleged about a docu ment in a complaint (or who may perhaps be too lazy to craft an appropriate response to such an allegation) is to say instead that the document ‘speaks for itself.’ This Court has been attempting to listen to such written materials for years (in the forlorn hope that one will indeed give voice) — but until some such writing does break its silence, this Court will continue to require pleaders to employ one of the three alternatives that are permitted by Rule 8(b) in response to all allegations about the contents of documents (or statutes or regulations).

Richard Lee Stavins is of counsel to the Buchalter law firm in Chicago; he concentrates his practice in trial and appellate litigation and recently completed his 146th appeal. He is a 50-year member of the CBA and serves on the CBA Record Editorial Board.

CBA RECORD 31