UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Case No. 20-CV-03794

DISTRICT JUDGE: CHARLES R. 

NORGLE

CARLA SNYDER & BRIAN SNYDER,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR BEECHER 

COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 201

U, et al,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

STATUS REPORT PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 26(f)

Pursuant to the Court’s order of June 7, 2021 (ECG DKT. #16) and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(f), counsel for the Plaintiffs, Steven Glink, respectfully submits this statue report as 

follows:

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

A. JURISDICTION

The Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

1392, as Plaintiffs’ claims were based on federal questions, to wit, violations of Title IX and the 

alleged denial of plaintiff’s rights to due process and equal protection via 42 USC 1983, et al. 

B. Nature of Complaint

Plaintiff alleged that defendant Vidmar, while employed by the board of education for 

Beecher CUSD # 201U as a music/ band teacher set up video cameras in a room where he then 

directed students, including Carla, to change from civilian clothes to band uniforms. It is alleged 

that Vidmar recorded plaintiff and other students in a state of (at least) partial nudity without 

their knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs sought to impose liability on the various school defendants 

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/30/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:89
-2-

based primarily on principles of respondeat superior.

Defendant Vidmar has not formally filed any appearance-either through an attorney or 

pro se in this matter. Nor has Vidmar formally filed any responsive pleading in this matter. 

Vidmar has contacted plaintiff’s counsel by letter and by email with what purports to be an 

Answer. Counsel sent Vidmar a copy of the Court’s order regarding this status report. Vidmar 

told counsel that he mailed his version of a status report to counsel. As of the date that this report 

is filed, counsel has not received that document.

Vidmar has felony and a misdemeanor cases pending in Will County. Those cases are 

still in the discovery stage.

C. RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff are seeking money damages in the amount of $200,000.

D. There is no current jury demand

E. STATUS OF SERVICE:

Service on all parties is complete. Defendant Vidmar was served on or about October 19, 

2020 and has yet to file an appearance or any responsive pleading. The school defendants’ 

attorneys have filed appearances in this matter.

II. PENDING MOTIONS AND CASE PLAN

A. The school defendants filed a Rule 12 (B) (6) motion to dismiss. The Court granted that 

motion on June 7, 2021 (ECF DKT. # 17). Plaintiffs plan to file a motion for default 

judgment against defendant Vidmar.

B. Subject to the Court’s direction and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), plaintiff’s 

counsel request that the schedule of pretrial discovery and trial dates be deferred until 

Vidmar’s status is resolved and/or until the Court determines whether it intends to retain 

jurisdiction of this case.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/30/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:90
-3-

Deadline for Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures Deferred

Deadline to issue written discovery Deferred

Completion of all discovery Deferred

Pre-close of discovery status hearing Deferred

Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert witnesses Deferred

Defendants’ disclosure of expert witnesses Deferred

Close of discovery status hearing Deferred

Deadline for filing summary judgment motions Deferred

Deadline for response to summary judgment Deferred

Deadline for reply to summary judgment Deferred

Exchange motions in limine, exhibit and 

witness list(s)

Deferred

Ruling on summary judgment motions Deferred to the Court’s discretion

Deadline for Proposed Final Pretrial Order Deferred

Deadline for responses to motions in limine Deferred

Final Pretrial Conference Deferred

Trial TBD by the Court

III. SETTLEMENT and REFERRALS

A. This is a “no offer” case.

B. The parties respectfully decline to have a magistrate preside over this matter.

C. The parties have not informed their respective clients about the possibility of 

proceeding before a magistrate judge.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/30/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:91
-4-

Dated: June 30, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Steven Glink

/s/ Steven E. Glink

Attorney for plaintiffs

Law Office of Steven Glink, #6180869

Attorney for Plaintiffs

PO Box 1053

Northbrook, Illinois 60062

847-480-7749 (voice)

Email: steve@educationrights.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/30/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:92