UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF’S UNREDACTED MEDICAL RECORDS

Defendant Charlotte A. Burrows, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, by John R. Lausch, Jr., United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, 

moves to compel plaintiff Elizabeth Gonzalez to provide unredacted versions of her medical 

records in this disability discrimination case during the relevant time period. In support of its

motion, defendant states as follows:

1. This employment discrimination case alleges that plaintiff Elizabeth Gonzalez, a 

former probationary employee of the EEOC, was constructively terminated due to disability 

discrimination. She was employed by the EEOC from December 1, 2014, to November 25, 2015. 

Defendant EEOC asserts that she was terminated due to excessive absences in her first year of 

employment. Gonzalez claims that the EEOC’s failure to accommodate her depression, anxiety, 

vertigo, and migraines was the cause of her termination and not her excessive absenteeism.

1

 Current EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows is automatically substituted for former Chair Janet 

Dhillon under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

ELIZABETH GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, Chair of the 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission,

1

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20 C 2111

Judge Kennelly

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:478
2

2. The EEOC moves to compel Gonzalez to produce her medical records during the 

relevant time period in unredacted form. Gonzalez disclosed four medical entities where she 

received care and treatment: Friend Family Health Center, Holy Cross Hospital, Rush University 

Medical Center, and University of Chicago Medical Center. The EEOC attempted to subpoena 

those records and Gonzalez, after receiving a notice of subpoena, objected and withdrew her 

consent by letter. Counsel met and conferred and reached an agreement that Gonzalez would 

subpoena the medical records, redact the records, and then produce to the EEOC. If there were 

issues with the redactions, the parties would attempt to reach an agreement and, if unable to, seek 

court involvement, as described in the parties’ joint motion, Dkt. 53. Unfortunately, the parties 

were unable to reach an agreement on the majority of the redacted records, and thus, the EEOC 

seeks a court ruling on this discovery issue. Please see the chart below which specifies the Bates 

numbers and total pages of medical records that have been redacted for each medical entity. 

MEDICAL PROVIDER BATES NUMBER RANGE TOTAL PAGES 

REDACTED

Friend Family Health 

Center

GONZALEZFRIENDFAMILYHEALTH-00010 to 

000245

236 Pages

Holy Cross Hospital GONZALEZ-HOLYCROSS-000786

GONZALEZ-HOLYCROSS-000788 

to 000803 

GONZALEZ-HOLYCROSS-000807 

to 000810

GONZALEZ-HOLYCROSS-000812 

to 000849 

GONZALEZ-HOLYCROSS- 000852 

to 000864

GONZALEZ-HOLYCROSS-000866 

to 000867 

GONZALEZ- HOLYCROSS-000871 

to 000895

105 Pages

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:479
3

Rush University Medical 

Center

GONZALEZ-RUSH-000246 to 

000443 

GONZALEZ-RUSH-000528 to 

000545 

GONZALEZ-RUSH-000587 to 

000592 

GONZALEZ-RUSH-000593 to 

000617

247 Pages 

University of Chicago 

Medical Center

GONZALEZ-UCMC-000639 to 

000643

GONZALEZ-UCMC-000645 to 

000664

GONZALEZ-UCMC-000671 to 

000776

31 Pages

3. Rule 26 outlines the scope of permissible discovery and provides that parties to a 

civil dispute are entitled to discover “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim 

or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,” regardless of admissibility. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(1). Proportionality is determined by considering “the importance of the issues at stake 

in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the 

parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden 

or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. The scope of permissible 

discovery is broad. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Gonzalez’s

medical records are certainly relevant here because whether she was a qualified individual with a 

disability is a key element of her claim. Gonzalez must show that she had “a physical or mental 

impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities.” 29 

U.S.C. § 705(20)(B)(i). Gonzalez’s medical history is directly relevant to her allegations that her 

alleged disabilities—depression, anxiety, vertigo, and migraines—were the cause of her 

termination and not her excessive absenteeism. Courts in this district have compelled the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:480
4

disclosure of medical records in disability discrimination suits, even going further and compelling 

the production of medical records that were not the plaintiff’s. See, e.g., Romano v. City of 

Hammond Police Dep’t, No. 06 CV 342, 2010 WL 11583127, at *5 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 5, 2010). It 

is important to note that information within the scope of discovery under Rule 26 “need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

4. Courts also require the production of medical records in cases where the plaintiff’s 

medical condition is relevant to her claims of emotional distress. See Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 

F.3d 704, 718 (7th Cir. 2006) (defendant would be entitled to a Rule 35 exam of plaintiff seeking 

emotional distress damages allegedly resulting from workplace harassment); Owens v. 

Sprint/United Management Co., 221 F.R.D. 657, 660 (D. Kan. 2004) (finding that records relating 

to plaintiff’s medical care, treatment, and counseling were relevant to claim for emotional damages 

under Title VII as well as to defenses against claim because the records could reveal unrelated 

stressors that could have affected her emotional well-being); Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 

634 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (finding that medical records involving mental health, including physical 

conditions tied to mental health, were relevant); Payne v. City of Philadelphia, 2004 WL 1012489 

(E.D. Pa. 2004) (finding that mental health records were relevant because they might suggest 

whether plaintiff’s mental injuries were due to circumstances prior to or as a result of incident at 

issue, or whether he suffered injuries at all, and interests of adequate and fair discovery favored 

discovery); Garrett v. Sprint PCS, 2002 WL 181364 (D. Kan. 2002) (finding that plaintiff’s intent 

not to present expert testimony in support of her emotional distress claim did not make medical 

records and information any less relevant); LeFave v. Symbios, Inc., 2000 WL 1644154 (D. Colo. 

2000) (finding that medical records were relevant to claim for emotional distress damages and to 

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:481
5

defense against claim because they could reveal unrelated stressors); see also Merrill v. Waffle 

House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 467, 473 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (collecting cases). 

5. Here, Gonzalez’s medical records are relevant because this is a disability 

discrimination and failure-to-accommodate case, and therefore plaintiff has put her medical 

condition directly at issue. Defendant is entitled to plaintiff’s unredacted medical records to 

understand her medical condition at the time of her employment and just prior to her employment 

because whether she was disabled and whether there was an available reasonable accommodation 

is a key element of her claims. Defendant is also entitled to plaintiff’s unredacted medical records 

to understand her medical condition at least shortly after her termination for damages purposes. 

In addition, outside of the issue of whether Gonzalez was an individual with a disability, there is 

an issue of whether there was any possible reasonable accommodation available that would have 

allowed her to resolve her serious attendance issues at work. 

6. These unredacted medical records are needed for expert discovery. If the court 

denies the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment (due to be filed on April 22, 2022), and the 

parties proceed to expert discovery, the EEOC intends to retain experts to review the medical 

records and provide their expertise on these issues. We can hardly be expected to ask an expert 

to opine given the heavily redacted version of the medical records currently provided. This would 

prejudice the EEOC’s ability to present necessary expert testimony on relevant issues at trial. 

7. Currently, many of Gonzalez’s medical records are so redacted as to be unusable, 

and it is impossible for EEOC to determine even what medical specialty was involved with 

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:482
6

Gonzalez’s treatment at many of these medical visits. Examples of the redactions are included in 

Exhibit A.

2

 To illustrate a few specific examples: 

a. Medical records from Holy Cross Hospital dated February 4, 2015, indicate that Gonzalez

was at the hospital for a “behavioral emergency/suicidal” but again, almost the entire 

record is redacted including all comments under the following headings: Initial comments, 

ROS [review of systems] and Patient History, Medication and Physical Exam, Clinical 

Data and ED Course, Disposition/Patient Discussion. Not only did this medical record 

occur during Gonzalez’s employment with the EEOC, this medical event is directly 

mentioned in her amended complaint and relates directly to her allegations of disability, 

specifically depression. 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25-26, Dkt. 40 (“Plaintiff had a medical event 

at work and went to the emergency room at Holy Cross Hospital because of her medical 

condition on February 3, 2015. Plaintiff notified her first-line supervisor, Tyrone Irvin, and 

informed him that she was at the hospital with the medical condition on February 4, 

2015.”). Ex. A at 13-15. 

b. Medical records from Friend Family Health Center dated May 22, 2014 (GonzalezFamilyFriendHealth 44-45) are so heavily redacted that it is unclear what the visit even 

involved. This doctor’s visit occurred about six months before Gonzalez began working 

at the EEOC, and it would be relevant in understanding her medical condition at the time

she began working for the EEOC. Ex. A at 1-2. 

c. Another set of medical records from the Friend Family Health Center (GonzalezFamilyFriendHealth 189-196) are so redacted that it is unclear whether these records are 

2

 Exhibit A will be filed under seal in an abundance of caution but given that many of the 

pages are almost completely redacted, it is likely unnecessary.

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:483
7

from an office visit that occurred during her employment at the EEOC because even the 

date of the visit and the name of the physician who signed the medical records are redacted. 

Ex. A at 3-11.

d. Medical records from Holy Cross Hospital (Gonzalez-HolyCross 799, 814, 817-18)

indicate the Division of Cardiology but most of the records do not indicate what date the 

record is from or the name of the physician. Ex. A at 12, 16-17.

e. The specified medical records from Rush University Medical Center (Gonzalez-Rush 246-

251) are entirely redacted except the heading which does not even indicate the date of the 

office visit, the treating physician, or what the visit concerned. Ex. A at 18-23.

f. The specified medical records from the University of Chicago (Gonzalez-UCMC 639-43) 

are so heavily redacted that it is unclear: (1) what date these records are from, (2) who the 

treating physician was, and/or (3) what the visit or procedure concerned. Ex. A at 24-28.

The almost-complete redactions of Gonzalez’s medical records in her disability 

discrimination case make it impossible for the EEOC to discover and fully understand Gonzalaez’s

medical condition during the relevant time period. It also does not allow the EEOC to discover 

inconsistencies in Gonzalez’s statements about her medical condition, if any. Because Gonzalez

has put her medical condition at issue in this case, the EEOC is entitled to the unredacted medical 

records for all records that occurred at least up to three years prior to her starting her employment 

at the EEOC and to the unredacted medical records for at least two years after her termination (and 

longer if she is asserting that emotional damages related to her termination persisted for longer 

than two years after the event). Thus, the EEOC moves to compel Gonzalez to provide unredacted 

copies of her medical records during the most relevant time period, specifically from December 1, 

2011, to November 25, 2017 (and even longer if she is asserting continued emotional damages).

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:484
8

8. Granting this motion will not delay the proceedings of this case. The EEOC does 

not need these records for its motion for summary judgment (due on April 22, 2022), and thus the 

court ruling on this issue and, if applicable, the subsequent production will not delay summary 

judgment briefing.

9. Fact discovery was currently set to close on Tuesday, February 21, 2022. The 

undersigned and plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred by video conference on several discovery 

issues on Friday, February 18, 2022. Although the parties were able to resolve some discovery 

disputes, they were not able to come to an agreement on this issue. Consistent with the parties’ 

joint motion, Dkt. 53, and given that the parties are unable to reach agreement, the EEOC now 

seeks court resolution.

10. The parties have both consented to a referral to the magistrate judge for this and 

other discovery issues, if the court would prefer to refer this matter.

WHEREFORE, defendant EEOC moves to compel plaintiff Elizabeth Gonzalez to provide 

unredacted copies of her medical records during the relevant time period in this disability 

discrimination case.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr.

United States Attorney

By: s/ Valerie R. Raedy 

VALERIE R. RAEDY

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-8694

valerie.raedy@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:485
Exhibit A

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:486
Redacted

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 64 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:487