Article I. General Rules · Last amended 1996 · Last verified July 20, 2026
In one sentenceRule 89 lets parties in mandatory arbitration use standard discovery, following the shortened timelines allowed under Rule 222, but cuts off discovery after the hearing unless the court permits more.
Full Text of Ill. S. Ct. R. 89
Text size
Discovery may be conducted in accordance with established rules and shall be completed prior
to the hearing in arbitration. However, such discovery shall be conducted in accordance with Rule 222, except that the timelines may be shortened by local rule. No discovery shall be permitted after the hearing, except upon leave of court and good cause shown.
Plain-English Summary
Discovery in an arbitration case works like discovery anywhere else, following Rule 222, except that the local circuit rule can shorten the usual timelines to fit the faster pace of arbitration. Everything needs to be finished before the hearing takes place.
Once the hearing starts, the door to new discovery closes. A party can only get more discovery afterward with the court's permission and a good reason, which keeps a party from using the hearing itself as a way to scout the other side's case before a later trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which discovery rule applies to arbitration cases?
Rule 222 applies, though local rules can shorten its timelines for arbitration.
Can discovery continue after the arbitration hearing?
Only with leave of court and a showing of good cause.
Why does Rule 89 cut off discovery after the hearing?
To stop a party from treating the hearing as a discovery tool for a later trial instead of a real attempt to resolve the case.
Can a local circuit shorten discovery deadlines for arbitration?
Yes, Rule 89 lets a local rule shorten the timelines that Rule 222 would otherwise set.
What happens if I need more discovery after losing at arbitration and rejecting the award?
You would need to ask the court for leave, showing good cause, since new discovery isn't automatic just because the case is heading to trial.
Committee Comments
The rules for discovery are intended to provide the means to obtain fair and full disclosure of the facts; they are not intended to provide a weapon for abusive tactics. The Committee anticipates a good faith effort on the part of the bar to utilize discovery to an extent and in a manner consistent with the value and complexity of arbitrable claims.
If the amount of the claim is stated to have a value not in excess of $50,000, Supreme Court Rule 222 would apply. Note that the timelines provided in Supreme Court Rule 222(c) for full compliance may be amended by a local arbitration rule. Relief from any undue restrictions under the rule should readily be forthcoming from the court; preferably counsel will cooperate to meet their recognized requirements in that regard.
Our study has disclosed relatively little use of depositions for discovery and preparation for the mandatory arbitration hearing. Rather, there has been a more extensive use of interrogatories. We are not aware of the requirement of disclosure statements in the other jurisdictions as are required under our Rule 222. It may be that the content of the disclosure statements, if fully and fairly revealed, may make sufficient the limited number of interrogatories permitted. If the allowance of more interrogatories would obviate the need for taking one or more depositions, the cost savings alone would justify such alternative.
An early and timely disposition of arbitrable matters must be doomed by courts that are tolerant of late attention to discovery. Firmness of the courts in the implementation of this rule will help to insure the successful results that are available from this procedure.
Prohibiting discovery after award places a premium on as early, and as thorough, a degree of preparation as is necessary to achieve a full hearing on the merits of the controversy. Neither side should be encouraged to use this proceeding, i.e., the hearing itself, merely as an opportunity to discover the adversary’s case en route to an eventual trial.
If the lapse of time between an award and a requested trial is substantial or if in that period there has been a change in the circumstances at issue, additional discovery would appear to be appropriate and should be granted.
Amendment History
Adopted May 20, 1987, effective June 1, 1987; amended March 26, 1996, effective immediately.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Committee Comments, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Supreme Court Rules,
promulgated by the Supreme Court of Illinois. Last verified July 20, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:arbitration discovery rules Illinoisdiscovery deadline mandatory arbitrationcan I get more discovery after arbitrationRule 222 arbitrationdiscovery cutoff arbitration hearing