IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Susan Dobrzeniecki,

Thomas Dobrzeniecki Sr., 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

Rebecca Vela Salisbury, 

James Vela, 

Robert Grossman,

Timothy Holevis, 

Christopher Mueller,

Village of Sauk Village, 

St. James Hospital, 

Dr. Heather Brown

Dr. Joseph R. Yates, 

John Doe (Security Guard), and 

John Doe Security Company, 

 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 11-cv-07956

Hon. James F. Holderman

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED RESPONSE

TO MOTION FOR A QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Susan Dobrzeniecki does not object to a qualified protective order in this case, 

but she does object to the current form of the order presented by St. James Hospital (“St. 

James”). (Dkt No 49-1).

1. In summer 2011, Plaintiff Susan Dobrzeniecki obtained a set of her medical 

records from Riveredge Hospital, the psychiatric hospital to which St. James Hospital sent 

Ms. Dobrzeniecki without her consent on November 10, 2010.

2. On or about March 27, 2012, Ms. Dobrzeniecki’s counsel informed St. James’

counsel that she would willingly provide a copy of the Riveredge medical records as part of her 

Rule 26 Disclosures, after the Court ruled on the currently-pending motions to dismiss. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 53 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:266
3. At that time, St. James’ counsel indicated that a copy of the Riveredge medical 

records from Ms. Dobrzeniecki was not sufficient and that St. James would have to subpoena its

own set of the records. While that seemed to be an inefficient use of the discovery process, Ms. 

Dobrzeniecki’s counsel indicated: (1) that she would not oppose such a subpoena provided a 

proper HIPAA Protective Order was put in place; and (2) that the process should probably await 

the Court’s rulings on pending motions to dismiss. 

4. On April 3, 2012, St. James filed its motion for protective order and proposed 

order. A copy of the proposed order had never been previously provided to Plaintiff 

Dobrzeniecki or her counsel for review or comment. 

5. Having now reviewed St. James’ proposed protective order, Ms. Dobrzeniecki 

objects on the following grounds: 

a. Paragraph 4 of the proposed order allows for a broad scope of people to have 

unfettered access to Mrs. Dobrzeniecki’s medical records, including but not 

limited to “the parties, their attorneys of record, the attorneys’ firms (i.e., attorneys, 

support staff, agents, and consultants), the parties’ insurers, experts, consultants ...” 

The scope of people covered by the order is overly broad because of the sensitive 

nature of Mrs. Dobrzeniecki’s mental health records and the lack of any requirement 

that the recipients of those records be bound by the protective order.

b. Paragraph 5 of the proposed order dilutes the requirement that Defendants in the 

litigation have to destroy all copies of Mrs. Dobrzeniecki’s medical records at the 

close of the litigation against them.

Ms. Dobrzeniecki is concerned about the widespread dissemination of her mental health records, 

particularly in light of the ongoing animosity between her and the Sauk Village police officer 

defendants.

Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 53 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:267
6. On April 6, 2012, in an effort to address these concerns without the Court’s 

intervention, Ms. Dobrzeniecki’s counsel sent St. James’ counsel a red-line to the proposed 

protective order, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. 

7. On April 9, 2012, St. James rejected Ms. Dobrzeniecki’s proposed changes.

8. Ms. Dobrzeniecki’s proposed changes are not substantial but are necessary: (a) to 

ensure that all persons who receive the records agree to be bound by the protective order; and (b) 

to maintain the confidentiality of Ms. Dobrzeniecki’s medical information at the close of this 

litigation. 

For the reasons stated, Ms. Dobrzeniecki requests that the Court enter the order proposed 

by St. James, but with the changes Ms. Dobrzeniecki has proposed in paragraphs 4 and 5. (The 

requested change to paragraph 6 is withdrawn.)

Dated: April 10, 2012 SUSAN DOBRZENIECKI 

THOMAS DOBRZENIECKI SR.

By: /s/ Stuart J. Chanen ____ 

 One of Their Attorneys

Stuart J. Chanen

Henry Turner, Jr.

VALOREM LAW GROUP LLC

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 3000

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 676-5460 (Telephone)

(312) 676-5499 (Facsimile)

stuart.Chanen@valoremlaw.com

hank.turner@valoremlaw.com

Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 53 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:268
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Henry Turner, an attorney, certify a copy of this brief was filed electronically on April 

10, 2012. A copy of this Response will be sent to all counsel of record.

/s/ Henry E. Turner

Henry E. Turner

VALOREM LAW GROUP, LLC

35 E. Wacker Drive, Ste. 3000

Chicago, IL 60601

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorney

Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 53 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:269