An Illustrative Case
Earlier this year, Illinois’ Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld a directed verdict for the plaintiff because the defendant violated a witness sequestration order under Illinois Rule of Evidence 615. See Mogensen v. SCF Lewis & Clark Fleeting LLC, 2025 IL App (5th) 230501.
At the final pre-trial hearing in this personal injury case, defense counsel invoked Illinois Rule of Evidence 615. This Rule allows a party to request that the court exclude witnesses from the courtroom so they can’t hear other witnesses’ testimony. However, over the course of trial, defendant’s attorneys discussed prior witness testimony with another key witness in violation of Rule 615. As a result, the trial court granted plaintiff’s request for a directed verdict and struck defendant’s pleadings as a sanction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219. The jury, deciding the sole issue of damages, returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding him $3.31 million in damages, including $2.75 million in pain and suffering.
On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by striking its pleadings. The Fifth District, noting that defendant had invoked Rule 615, upheld the trial court’s judgment. It found that imposing this sanction was not excessive since the defendant violated its own clear and concise motion.
Why Rule 615 is Important in Medical Malpractice Litigation
While Rule 615 is often invoked by either party as a routine procedure at trial, the rule has heightened significance in medical malpractice litigation. In those cases, defendants rely on testimony from treating physicians, nurses, other hospital staff, corporate representatives, and expert witnesses. The Rule protects the integrity and credibility of independent treating physicians as well as controlled expert witnesses whose testimony is critical to medical malpractice trials.
Treating physicians, nurses, and other medical staff maintain credibility by independently recalling the care they provided and their interactions with patients. If one of these witnesses observes or is briefed on another’s trial testimony, their own testimony may appear improperly influenced, coordinated, or coached. As evidenced by the holding in Mogensen, intentionally violating sequestration orders can create grounds for sanctions, including striking a defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses.