HOLLY WIER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant No. 19 CV 7000 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division Filed: December 16, 2020 Counsel Michael J. Merrick, Merrick Law Firm LLC, Chicago, IL, Karen J. Doran, Karen J. Doran, Attorney at Law, LLC, Wheaton, IL, for Plaintiff. Sean C. Herring, Dana Elfvin, Sabreena Torez El-Amin, Jackson Lewis P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant. McShain, Heather K., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Defendant United Airlines, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Executed Medical Release and Records [43][1] seeks an unlimited release from Plaintiff in order for Defendant to subpoena Plaintiff's healthcare providers for all of Plaintiff's medical records. The Court has considered Defendant's motion and exhibits [43, 44, 45], Plaintiff's response and exhibits [48], and argument by both parties made in anticipation of the instant motion [42]. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion to Compel Medical Release and Records [43] is denied in part and granted in part. Legal Standard “In ruling on a motion to compel, the discovery standard set forth in Rule 26(b) applies.” Mendez v. City of Chicago, 18-cv-6313, 2020 WL 4736399, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2020). Civil Rule 26 provides that a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “The party requesting discovery bears the initial burden to establish its relevancy.” Mendez, 2020 WL 4736399, at *3. Courts have broad discretion in resolving such disputes. Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002). Discussion Plaintiff's eight-count Complaint alleges claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and the Illinois Human Rights Act arising from Plaintiff's termination for alleged FMLA fraud. [1] As alleged in the Complaint, prior to her termination, Plaintiff experienced worsening anxiety and depression in 2016 and 2017, prompting her to apply for FMLA leave, which she received. [Id.]. Plaintiff also alleges emotional distress caused by Defendant's alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment. [Id.]. In light of Plaintiff's allegations [1] and her supplemental discovery responses confirming that Plaintiff suffered from no other serious health conditions and that she left her job at Advocate due to COVID-19 concerns [43-5] 3-6, the Court finds in this case that Defendant has not shown that all of Plaintiff's medical records are relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence and, as a result, Defendant is not entitled to subpoena all of Plaintiff's medical records. See, e.g., Ashley v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., 12-cv-08309, 2014 WL 972154, at *5–6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2014) (rejecting the defense's argument that it was entitled to all of plaintiff's medical records (as opposed to mental health treatment records) in wrongful death suit where plaintiff sought pecuniary damages for loss of society of her daughter); Warner v. Velardi, 16-cv-1924, 2017 WL 3387723, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2017) (rejecting claim that defendants were entitled to all of plaintiff's medical records in Section 1983 case alleging failure to treat and ordering that defendant was entitled to narrower subset of plaintiff's medical records, limited to allegations that centered on plaintiff's broken hand and treatment thereof); Anderson v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 06-cv-991, 2007 WL 1994059, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 2, 2007) (holding in employment discrimination case that defendant was not entitled to all of plaintiff's medical records and instead was only entitled to unprivileged records regarding injuries resulting from plaintiff's alleged wrongful termination). *2 Rather, the medical records to which Defendant is entitled are those relating to Plaintiff's anxiety, depression, and the emotional distress Plaintiff experienced as a result of her alleged wrongful termination. See [48-4] 5 (ruling on a similar motion to compel in an ADA, FMLA, and IHRA case, Judge Chang ordered that the scope of any subpoenas served on plaintiff's medical care providers be limited in scope to “diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for alcoholism and any conditions caused by alcoholism,” Torzewski v. COSCO Shipping Lines North America, Inc., 18-cv-04266 at docket entry 50). This subset of Plaintiff's medical records is relevant to Plaintiff's claims. The Court notes that the parties' dispute resulting in the instant motion is not based on Plaintiff's assertion of privilege, namely the psychotherapist-patient privilege, or a dispute as to whether Plaintiff has waived that privilege in light of her allegations. This issue was framed by Plaintiff's counsel at the status hearing when the parties raised this prospective motion [42], and Plaintiff confirms this in her response brief [48]. Specifically, Plaintiff represents in her response brief that she produced to Defendant unredacted versions of her records from her two mental healthcare providers, including unredacted therapy session notes,[2] and Plaintiff does not raise an objection in her response to Defendant subpoenaing her records directly from any of her healthcare providers, including her mental health providers. [48] 5, 7-8. See, e.g., Santelli v. Electro-Motive, 188 F.R.D. 306, 308–10 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (discussing psychotherapist-patient privilege and whether, and when, that privilege is considered waived in an employment discrimination case where plaintiff claims damages for emotional distress). For these reasons, Defendant's motion to compel [43] is denied to the extent it seeks an unlimited release from Plaintiff in order for Defendant to subpoena all of Plaintiff's medical record. The motion is granted with respect to Defendant subpoenaing Plaintiff's providers (with an executed release to be provided by Plaintiff) for a more limited scope of Plaintiff's medical records, as follows. Defendant may subpoena Plaintiff's healthcare providers, but the scope of the subpoena(s) is limited to, for the time period of 01/01/2013 to present, records regarding diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for anxiety, depression, and Plaintiff's alleged emotional distress caused by Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct including the wrongful termination of her employment. Conclusion Defendant United Airlines, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Executed Medical Release and Records [43] is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant may subpoena Plaintiff's healthcare providers for the time period of 01/01/2013 to present for all records regarding diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for anxiety, depression, and Plaintiff's alleged emotional distress caused by Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct including the wrongful termination of her employment. By 12/21/2020, in conformity with this ruling, the parties are to file an agreed motion for entry of a HIPAA order and Plaintiff is to provide to Defendant an executed limited authorization medical release. By 12/23/2020, Plaintiff is to provide to Defendant a privilege log with respect to the redactions in the medical records Plaintiff has produced to date. If there are disputes as to the redactions based on Plaintiff's assertion of privilege, the parties are to exhaust meet-and-confer requirements before filing any discovery motion. Finally, each party is to bear its own costs and fees with respect to this motion. Footnotes [1] Bracketed numbers refer to entries on the district court docket. Referenced page numbers are taken from the CM/ECF header placed at the top of filings. [2] In her response, Plaintiff states that any redactions made to the therapy notes regarded the private health and financial information of non-parties. [48] 5.