IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, 

EASTERN DIVISION 

SYMBRIA, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 20-cv-04084 

Hon. Mary M. Rowland 

v. 

JOHN R. CALLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

JOINT STATUS REPORT CONCERNING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

Plaintiffs Symbria, Inc. (“Symbria”), Symbria Rehab, Inc., Alliance Rehab of 

Connecticut, LLC, and Alliance Rehab HVA, L.L.C. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) and 

Defendants John R. Callen, MedRehab Alliance Holdings, Inc., MedRehab Alliance, LLC, 

MedRehab Alliance Interstate, LLC, Illinois Ancillary Services Network, LLC, Pearl Health 

Care Services, Inc., MedRehab Therapy Associates of Illinois, LLC, Joint & Neuro Rehab 

Associates, LLC, MedRehab Alliance Wisconsin, LLC, United Methodist Homes & Services, 

Christos V. Dilmas and Chicago Rehabilitation Collective PLLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) 

hereby submit a Joint Status Report Concerning Expedited Discovery in response to the Court’s 

Order dated August 18, 2020. (Dkt. No. 37.) Counsel for the parties have conferred and propose 

the following: 

I. Expedited Discovery 

Plaintiffs’ Position: Expedited discovery should be focused on facts relating to claims and 

defenses that are at issue in Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and not on matters 

that will be addressed only at later stages of the case such as at summary judgment or at trial. 

Defendants’ Position: Defendants believe that discovery should only proceed on the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:2260
 -2- 

limited issues concerning Plaintiffs’ trade secret claims pending resolution of the state court 

declaratory judgment lawsuit and should proceed at normal non-expedited pace as suggested by 

Defendants in the Joint Status submissions. If the Court determines that expedited discovery is 

appropriate, Defendants agree that the limited scope set forth herein is more realistic than the 

discovery and time frame requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery. 

A. Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of the defendant entities and interrogatories. 

The parties conferred about subjects for examination in Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of the 

ten defendant entities and possible ways to streamline Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of those 

Defendants. The parties have agreed that in lieu of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, Plaintiffs will 

serve interrogatories to the defendant entities based on the topics for examination that Plaintiffs 

have provided to Defendants, and that the ten defendant entities will answer those interrogatories 

within fourteen (14) days of service. Defendants have objected to proposed 30(B)(6) topics #7 

and #8 and have suggested an alternative manner to disclose highly sensitive information to 

Plaintiffs that would be acceptable to Defendants. Further, UMHS objected to topic #10 and 

identified the necessity to narrow the scope of the topics in the Draft Rule 30(b)(6) Notice as 

they relate to this Defendant, Plaintiff agreed, but has not yet provided the proposed topics for 

interrogatory to UMHS. The parties acknowledge that there may be some need for follow-up 

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of the defendant entities on some of the topics but anticipate that those 

depositions will likely concern fewer topics than those set forth in the interrogatories. Plaintiffs 

reserve the right to seek full Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of the defendant entities in the event that 

they believe the interrogatory answers are insufficient. 

Defendants’ Position: Defendants anticipate the need for at least one 30(b)(6) deposition 

of Plaintiffs. Defendants are in the process of providing a topics list to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2261
 -3- 

not yet provided 30(b)(6) topics to the parties not represented by Roetzel & Andress, LPA, and 

those Defendants reserve the right to object to Rule 30(b)(6) topics. 

B. Document requests 

Plaintiffs’ Position: Defendants agree to respond to Plaintiffs’ document requests 

attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery within fourteen (14) days and to produce 

responsive documents not objected to ten (10) days later. 

Plaintiffs will respond to Defendants’ document requests within fourteen (14) days of 

service of document requests and to produce responsive documents not objected to ten (10) days 

later, or on the same schedule as Defendants if the Court orders a different schedule than that set 

forth in the previous paragraph. Plaintiffs reserve the right to object to Defendants’ document 

requests, which have not been provided to Plaintiffs as of this time, and to request the use of 

search terms for searching for responsive documents consistent with the proportionality standard. 

Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to confer as needed concerning search terms and a 

protocol to be used in responding to document requests for electronically stored information so 

as to meet the proportionality standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Plaintiffs agree to confer with counsel for Christos Dilmas concerning a protocol to be 

used in a forensic examination of Mr. Dilmas’ personal electronic media pursuant to Plaintiffs’ 

Request for Production Number 1. 

Defendants’ position: Based upon the discovery requests that have been attached to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery, it is anticipated that there will be objections to scope 

and time frame regarding the requests and there also will be the need to use agreed upon search 

terms to locate and produce discovery and ESI. Defendants propose the following procedure and 

time frame to accomplish the discovery requested in Plaintiffs’ motion: 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:2262
 -4- 

 Within seven (7) days of the entry of an order regarding this status report, the 

parties propound the discovery requests contemplated herein. 

 Within fourteen (14) days of serving written discovery to each other, the parties 

provide objections to the discovery and request for search terms where needed. 

 Within seven (7) days of responding to written discovery the parties meet and 

confer to develop agreed upon search terms, and meet and confer on objections. 

 To the extent that objections cannot be resolved, parties should file prompt 

motions to compel but the parties proceed with the production of documents that 

are not objected to. 

 Within seven (7) days of search terms being agreed upon, the parties shall provide 

search “hit numbers” to determine viability of search terms. If the hit numbers are 

“reasonable” parties should commence review for relevance and privilege and 

produce documents within sixty (60) days. To the extent that search terms 

produce extraordinarily large amount of documents, the parties should meet and 

confer and agree upon revised search terms and then commence review and 

production within sixty (60) days from the establishment of acceptable search 

terms parameters. 

 In response to the Court’s instruction that the Parties consider the existing schedule of 

counsel in setting forth a realistic expedited discovery schedule, Defendant, UMHS, 

advised the Parties that its attorneys will be engaged in a bench trial in Cook County, 

Illinois, beginning October 5, 2020. scheduled to proceed for at least fourteen (14) days. 

UMHS will make every effort to fully comply with the proposed written discovery 

schedule but recognizes that at this time the full breadth of documents that may be 

recovered as responsive to the search terms is unknown, and the time necessary to review 

and produce these documents cannot be fully accounted for presently. Counsel for 

UMHS and Plaintiff have conferred on this issue, and UMHS has requested that if 

necessary, additional time be granted regarding UMHS’s compliance with written 

discovery in consideration thereof. 

C. Depositions 

The Plaintiffs anticipate taking the depositions of the following individuals, who are all 

employed by a Defendant entity, pursuant to notice: (1) John Callen, (2) Christos Dilmas, (3) 

William Lowe, (4) Brad Miller, (5) Kathleen Rice, (6) Amanda Ambrose, and (7) Tammy 

Buckley. 

The Defendants anticipate taking the depositions of the following entity and individuals 

employed by Plaintiffs pursuant to notice: (1) a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Symbria concerning 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:2263
 -5- 

trade secrets issues, (2) Jill Krueger, (3) Linda Kolleng, (4) Mark Candiotti, (5) Leena Baldwell, 

(6) Shelly Ann Vickers, and (7) Courtney McGhee. 

Plaintiffs’ position is that a deposition may commence during the expedited discovery 

period pursuant to reasonable notice. Defendants’ position is that no deposition shall commence 

until production of documents are completed by the parties. 

Time spent by both sides deposing witnesses during expedited discovery on Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall count toward the seven-hour limitation on deposition 

time, and any second depositions after the preliminary injunction hearing of the same witnesses 

will not involve matters addressed in the first deposition of any witness. Without agreement of 

the parties or leave of Court, no witness shall be deposed for a total of more than seven hours 

total in the case.

D. Required initial disclosures 

The parties agree to make the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) 

within fourteen days (14) days of entry of an order by the Court on this report. 

E. Non-party discovery 

 The parties may not seek discovery on an expedited basis from non-parties pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. The parties reserve the right to seek discovery from non-parties on a nonexpedited basis. 

F. Expert discovery

To the extent the parties intend to use expert testimony during the Preliminary Injunction 

hearing, experts, their opinions and the basis therefore should be disclosed thirty (30) days prior 

to the Preliminary Injunction hearing. The parties’ reserve the right to disclose a rebuttal expert 

fifteen (15) days before the Preliminary Injunction hearing if they deem it necessary. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:2264
 -6- 

II. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

A. Nature of hearing: 

Plaintiffs’ position: The Court should hold a live evidentiary hearing to hear witness 

testimony, beginning on January 11, 2021. 

Defendants’ Position: In light of holidays and previously scheduled travel the evidentiary 

hearing to begin January 25, 2021. Defendants further submit, due to COVID-19 National 

Emergency, that no evidentiary hearing be held, and the court instead rule based upon briefs and 

deposition testimony only. 

B. Hearing length: 4 days; each side will have one-half of the hearing time to present 

its witnesses (including cross-examinations). 

C. Plaintiffs’ Position: There will be no opening statements or closing arguments. 

Defendants’ Position: There will be opening statements and closing arguments. 

D. Witnesses:

1. Each side can present up to six witnesses through live testimony, either via 

Zoom or other video conferencing means pursuant to the Court’s Fifth 

Amended General Order 20-0012 dated July 10, 2020 In Re: Coronavirus 

COVID-19 Public Emergency, or live in the courtroom if the Court 

amends that order to permit such proceedings by that time. 

2. Plaintiffs’ position: The parties will exchange witness and exhibit lists 

seven (7) days before the hearing. 

Defendants’ position: The parties will exchange witness and exhibit lists 

twenty-one (21) days before the hearing. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:2265
 -7- 

3. Each side can present testimony of witnesses who do not testify live 

through deposition designations to the Court, regardless of whether the 

witness is available to testify live. Plaintiffs propose that if a witness has 

not been deposed during the expedited discovery period, a party can 

present witness testimony to the Court through a sworn declaration. 

Defendants object to this proposal. 

4. If a deposition is videotaped, the party may request that the Court watch 

the designated portions outside of hearing time, and/or submit the 

deposition transcripts. 

E. Post-hearing briefs: 

1. Within fourteen (14) days after the completion of the preliminary 

injunction hearing, Plaintiffs will file an opening brief of no more than 40 

pages; 

2. Plaintiffs’ position: Fourteen (14) days thereafter, Defendants shall file 

any response brief(s) of no more than 40 pages if they submit one joint 

brief or no more than 60 pages collectively if they submit separate briefs; 

Defendants’ Position: Defendants propose twenty-one (21) days to file 

any response brief(s). 

3. Seven (7) days thereafter, Plaintiffs shall file a reply brief limited to the 

greater of 20 pages, or one-half the number of total pages submitted by all 

Defendants. 

4. The parties will provide oral argument if the Court wishes. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:2266
 -8- 

DATED: August 31, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

SYMBRIA, INC., SYMBRIA REHAB, INC., 

ALLIANCE REHAB OF CONNECTICUT, LLC, 

AND ALLIANCE REHAB HVA, L.L.C. 

By: One of Their Attorneys 

/s/ Matthew J. O’Hara 

Matthew J. O’Hara (Ill. ARDC No. 6237795) 

Daniel F. Lanciloti (Ill. ARDC No. 6225408) 

Matthew D. Anderson (Ill. ARDC No. 6316734) 

Freeborn & Peters LLP 

311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 360-6000 

mohara@freeborn.com 

dlanciloti@freeborn.com

mdanderson@freeborn.com 

JOHN R. CALLEN, MEDREHAB 

ALLIANCE, LLC, MEDREHAB ALLIANCE 

INTERSTATE, LLC, ILLINOIS 

ANCILLARY SERVICES NETWORK, LLC, 

PEARL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., 

MEDREHAB THERAPY ASSOCIATES OF 

ILLINOIS, LLC, JOINT & NEURO REHAB 

ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND MEDREHAB 

ALLIANCE WISCONSIN, LLC 

 By: One of Their Attorneys 

/s/ Marc Kallish 

Michael J. Scotti (Ill. ARDC No. 6205868) 

Marc Kallish (Ill. ARDC No. 6231021) 

Roetzel & Andress, LPA 

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2800 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 580-1200 

mscotti@ralaw.com

mkallish@ralaw.com

UNITED METHODIST HOMES & SERVICES 

By: One of Their Attorneys 

/s/ Paige Manley Canepari 

Kevin O’Hagan (Ill. ARDC No. 6211446) 

Paige Manley Canepari (Ill. ARDC No. 6274052) 

O’Hagan Meyer LLC 

One E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312) 422-6100 

Kohagan@ohaganmeyer.com 

pcanepari@ohaganmeyer.com 

CHICAGO REHABILITATION 

COLLECTIVE, PLLC and CHRISTOS V. 

DILMAS 

 By: One of Their Attorneys 

/s/ Thomas G. Griffin 

Thomas G. Griffin (Ill. ARDC No. 6202401) 

 Matthew Casey (Ill. ARDC No. 6299254) 

Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP 

One N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 244-6700 

tgriffin@walkerwilcox.com 

mcasey@walkerwilcox.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:2267
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned attorney certifies that on August 31, 2020 he caused the foregoing Joint 

Status Report Concerning Expedited Discovery to be filed via ECF, which will serve it upon the 

following attorneys of record: 

Counsel for John R. Callen, MedRehab 

Alliance, LLC, MedRehab Alliance Interstate, 

LLC, Illinois Ancillary Services Network, LLC, 

Pearl Health Care Services, Inc., MedRehab 

Therapy Associates of Illinois, LLC, Joint & 

Neuro Rehab Associates, LLC, MedRehab 

Alliance Holdings, Inc. and MedRehab Alliance 

Wisconsin, LLC: 

Michael Scotti III 

Marc H. Kallish 

Roetzel & Andress 

30 N. LaSalle Street 

Suite 2800 

Chicago, IL 60602 

mscotti@ralaw.com

mkallish@ralaw.com 

Counsel for Chicago Rehabilitation Collective 

PLLC and Christos V. Dilmas: 

Thomas G. Griffin 

Matthew Casey 

Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP 

One North Franklin 

Suite 3200 

Chicago, IL 60606 

tgriffin@walkerwilcox.com 

mcasey@walkerwilcox.com

Counsel for United Methodist Homes and 

Services: 

Paige M. Canepari 

Kevin O’Hagan 

O’Hagan Meyer 

One E Wacker Dr. 

Suite 3400 

Chicago, IL 60601 

pcanepari@ohaganmeyer.com 

Kohagan@ohaganmeyer.com

 /s/ Matthew J. O’Hara 

5377666v1/33678-0001 

Case: 1:20-cv-04084 Document #: 41 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:2268