Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204 is the rule that governs how a party in an Illinois civil lawsuit compels someone to appear for a deposition or produce documents and physical items. It applies to both parties and non-parties, but the mechanism is different for each, and a separate “records-only” track lets most third-party document requests happen without anyone ever sitting for a deposition.1Illinois Courts. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204 – Compelling Appearance of Deponent
What the Rule Reaches
The rule is titled “Compelling Appearance of Deponent,” and its reach is wider than the title suggests. A Rule 204 subpoena can require the recipient to sit for a deposition, produce documents and tangible items, or both. Anything requested has to fall within the scope of discovery allowed by the Illinois Supreme Court Rules, and it remains subject to the protective limits in Rule 201(c), which lets a court deny, limit, or condition discovery that would cause unreasonable expense, embarrassment, or oppression.2Illinois Courts. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201 – General Discovery Provisions
In practice the materials sought under Rule 204 include contracts, emails, business records, electronically stored information, and physical objects such as a product alleged to be defective. The single hard limit is relevance to the claims or defenses in the case.
Parties vs. Non-Parties
Rule 204 is not just a third-party rule. It reaches anyone whose testimony or records are wanted, but how you compel that person depends on their relationship to the case.
For a party, or someone currently serving as an officer, director, or employee of a party, a notice of deposition served on the party’s attorney is enough. No subpoena required.1Illinois Courts. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204 – Compelling Appearance of Deponent The notice itself obligates the person to appear and bring whatever documents it lists.
For a non-party, a subpoena is required. The clerk will issue one on request, or an Illinois-licensed attorney of record can issue one directly. Typical non-party targets are banks holding financial records, former employers with personnel files, and hospitals or clinics with medical records.
The Records-Only Shortcut
Most Rule 204 requests to non-parties never involve a live deposition. Under Rule 204(a)(4), the notice or subpoena can excuse the non-party’s appearance if they deliver copies of the requested documents by a specified date. This is how the vast majority of third-party document requests are actually handled.
When records come in through this procedure, the attorney who receives them must serve true and complete copies on the other requesting parties at least three days before the originally scheduled deposition date, then file a certificate of compliance with the court. Choosing the records-only route does not bar anyone from later scheduling a live deposition of the same person if the documents raise new questions.
Issuing a Valid Subpoena
Getting a Rule 204 subpoena to stick means handling two audiences at once: the other lawyers in the case and the non-party being subpoenaed.
- Serve a notice on counsel for every other party in the lawsuit. The notice identifies the non-party, describes the documents or items sought, and states the deposition date. A copy of the subpoena has to be attached to the notice and filed with the court at least 14 days before the scheduled deposition.3Supreme Court of Illinois. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204
- Serve the subpoena on the non-party, commanding production of the specified items by a set date or personal appearance for a deposition. Under the records-only path, the subpoena typically states that no appearance is required so long as the documents arrive by the deadline.
- Tender the statutory witness fee and mileage with the subpoena. Without that tender, the non-party has no legal obligation to respond.
That last step is what most often derails an otherwise proper subpoena. A non-party only owes a response to a subpoena they actually received and for which fees and mileage were tendered. Skip the tender, and the recipient has a clean reason to ignore the request.
Witness Fees and Production Costs
Illinois law entitles every witness attending court or complying with a subpoena to $20 per day of attendance and $0.20 per mile of necessary travel, each way.4Illinois General Assembly. Illinois Code 705 ILCS 35/4.3 The amounts are small; the requirement is not optional.
On top of the statutory fee, the records-only procedure requires the requesting party to pay the non-party’s reasonable charges for producing the documents. Other parties who want their own copies pay their own reasonable copying and delivery costs.1Illinois Courts. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204 – Compelling Appearance of Deponent For large productions of electronically stored information, those charges can be significant, and the non-party can push back through a protective order under Rule 201(c) if the burden is disproportionate.
Deposing a Non-Party Physician
Rule 204(c) sets a separate, more restrictive track for deposing a non-party physician in their professional capacity. You cannot subpoena a treating doctor the same way you would subpoena a bank’s records custodian. The parties must first agree among themselves to take the deposition, and then the physician must consent, or the requesting party has to obtain a court order authorizing the subpoena.
The party scheduling the deposition also has to pay the physician a reasonable fee for the time spent testifying, unless the physician was retained specifically to give an opinion at trial, in which case the court may allocate costs differently.
Medical and Mental Health Records
Subpoenaing medical records from a non-party healthcare provider brings requirements that sit on top of Rule 204. Under federal HIPAA rules, a covered entity that is not a party to the litigation can disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena only after receiving written assurance that the patient was notified of the request or that a qualified protective order has been secured.5U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. May a Covered Entity Not Party to Legal Proceedings Disclose Information by Court Order
Mental health records carry an added Illinois-specific layer. Under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (740 ILCS 110), a subpoena for mental health records must be accompanied by either a written court order authorizing the disclosure or the patient’s written consent that meets specific statutory requirements. A provider who turns over mental health records without one of those documents faces civil liability and possible criminal penalties, so a bare Rule 204 subpoena for those records will almost always be refused.
Objecting to a Rule 204 Subpoena
A non-party who thinks a subpoena is overbroad, seeks privileged material, or imposes an unreasonable burden should not simply ignore it. The correct move is to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena before the production deadline.6Illinois General Assembly. Illinois Code 735 ILCS 5/2-1101 – Subpoenas The court can also condition denial of the motion on the requesting party paying the reasonable expense of production in advance, which is useful when the objection is really about cost rather than relevance.
Common grounds for quashing or modifying a subpoena include overbreadth, privilege (attorney-client, work product, or a statutory confidentiality provision), undue burden relative to the value of the information, and defective service, including a missing witness-fee tender.
When documents are withheld under a privilege, the standard practice is to serve a privilege log identifying each withheld document, its date, the people involved, and the specific privilege claimed. That gives the requesting party enough to challenge the claim if they think it is unfounded. Doing nothing is the worst option; silence invites a motion to compel and possible sanctions.
Protective Orders Under Rule 201(c)
Before or instead of a motion to quash, a non-party or any party can seek a protective order under Rule 201(c). The court has broad authority to deny, limit, or condition discovery to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, or oppression, weighing proportionality between the burden of the discovery and its likely benefit given the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, and the importance of the information to the case.
What Happens If Someone Ignores a Subpoena
Ignoring a valid Rule 204 subpoena carries real risk. The requesting party can file a motion to compel, and if the court orders compliance and the recipient still refuses, the court can hold them in contempt and impose sanctions, including the attorney’s fees the requesting party spent on the motion.
The most severe tool is a body attachment, essentially an arrest warrant directing law enforcement to bring the non-party before the court. Rule 204(d) puts specific safeguards in front of that outcome. A body attachment against a non-party cannot issue unless the non-party was personally served with a rule to show cause or contempt order, and that service must include a copy of the underlying petition and the discovery order or subpoena at issue, served in the same manner as a summons in a civil case. Nobody is arrested for ignoring a subpoena without first receiving formal, in-person notice and a chance to appear.
How Rule 204 Fits with Rules 201, 214, and 237
Rule 204 is one piece of a larger discovery framework, and choosing the wrong rule creates procedural problems.
- Rule 214 governs requests to produce documents between parties during discovery. If you need documents from the opposing party rather than a third party, Rule 214 is the standard tool.
- Rule 237 governs compelling witness appearances and document production at trial. It looks similar to Rule 204 but is limited to the trial context, and document requests under it are generally restricted to items already produced during discovery.7Illinois Courts. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 237 – Compelling Appearances of Witnesses at Trial
- Rule 201 sets the overall framework, including the proportionality standard and the court’s authority to issue protective orders across every discovery rule.
Waiting until the eve of trial to seek third-party documents through Rule 237 when the request should have gone out months earlier under Rule 204 is a familiar mistake, and courts rarely reward it.