{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e0b409", "proof": "sha256:22996593a4d8d8fe3109d6181c1c9481f1ed4ae8ee5b261e632cc5ed837bc18c", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Illinois Official Reports", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Appellate Court", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "Burnette v. Nockels, 2025 IL App (1st) 240485", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "Appellate Court", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Caption", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "MARVA BURNETTE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUSSELL P.", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "NOCKELS, M.D.; IGNACIO JUSUE-TORRES, M.D.; and", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants (Loyola", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "University Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant).", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "District & No. First District, Fourth Division", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "No. 1-24-0485", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Filed December 18, 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Decision Under", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Review", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 23-L-000973; the", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Hon. Scott D. McKenna, Judge, presiding.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Judgment Affirmed in part and vacated in part.", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Counsel on", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Jennifer M. Suttle, Jason Gluskin, and Joseph E. Comer, of Barker,", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Castro & Steinback, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "Leslie J. Rosen, of Leslie J. Rosen Attorney at Law, P.C., and Jason", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Williams, of Smith Lacien, LLP, both of Chicago, and Robert J.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Rooth, of The Rooth Law Firm, of Evanston, for appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Panel JUSTICE OCASIO delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "Presiding Justice Navarro and Justice Lyle concurred in the judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "and opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "- 2 -", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "¶ 1 In this interlocutory appeal, we must decide whether the trial court properly exercised its", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "discretion when it allowed the plaintiff’s request for a live inspection at which her technical", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "consultant would oversee an unfiltered extraction of audit-trail data from the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "hospital’s electronic medical record system. We hold that the trial court correctly based its", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "decision on the discovery rules, not federal regulations, and that it otherwise exercised its", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "discretion reasonably.", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "¶ 3 According to the complaint and its attachments, in May 2021, the plaintiff, Marva Burnette,", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "went to defendant Loyola University Medical Center (Loyola) for a lumbar spinal", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "decompression and fusion. Instead, doctors performed the decompression and fusion procedure", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "on vertebrae in her upper back. In 2023, she sued Loyola and two physicians for malpractice.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "¶ 4 In discovery, Burnette asked Loyola to produce her medical records and their associated", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "audit trails. Loyola produced the medical records. It also produced an audit trail for the period", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "between March 25, 2021, the day Burnette presented at Loyola with the complaints that led to", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "the surgery, and January 4, 2022, the day she notified Loyola that she was transferring her care", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "to another hospital. The data was produced both as five printable PDF files and five Microsoft", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "Excel spreadsheet files.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "¶ 5 Burnette then moved to compel Loyola to produce a complete, unfiltered audit trail and to", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "permit an “inspection” that would amount to Burnette’s technical expert overseeing and", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "directing the retrieval of the audit-trail data from Loyola’s computer systems. She argued that", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "the production was incomplete because it did not contain any audit data showing changes that", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "may have been made to her medical record before March 25, 2021, or after January 4, 2022.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "She also contended that the audit trails appeared to have not included several data fields that", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "they should have and that, because the audit trail was split across five files, there were four", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "gaps in time between the last entry in a spreadsheet and the first entry in the next one. Burnette", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "asserted that she had a right to a complete, unfiltered audit trail for her medical records under", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "both Illinois statutory law and federal regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "(codified as amended in scattered sections of Titles 18, 26, 29, and 42 of the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "Code)).", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "¶ 6 The motion to compel was supported by two affidavits sworn to by Lee Neubecker, who", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "identified himself as a “computer forensics, data analytics, cyber security and technology", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "consultant” who had significant experience reviewing and analyzing electronic medical", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "records and audit trails. According to Neubecker, there were several problems with the audit", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "trail produced by Loyola. First, he noted that Loyola’s production had split the audit trail across", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "five different spreadsheets, which was unnecessary from a technical perspective but created a", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "risk that some data had been omitted by mistake. Second, he explained that a complete audit", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "trail that went all the way to the date of production was necessary to identify whether any", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "records had been modified before being produced. Third, he opined that Loyola had filtered", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "the audit trail data before producing it. He noted that the spreadsheets did not include at least", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "four “standard fields.” He also stated that the entries in the “Event Type” field “appear[ed] to", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "be limited to a handful” of the event types that “commonly” appeared in Epic-generated audit", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "- 3 -", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "trails, suggesting that the production was not complete. To ensure that Loyola produced a", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "complete, unfiltered audit trail, Neubecker recommended that the court consider ordering a", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "“supervised inspection” where Loyola personnel would extract the audit data from its live", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "system while he monitored and directed the process as necessary. He opined that the supervised", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "inspection would require no more than three hours, excluding any follow-ups needed for", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "specific documents, and that it was the most efficient way to ensure that Burnette would receive", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "a complete and accurate audit trail.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "¶ 7 Loyola’s response contended that Burnette had a right to her medical records under", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "applicable law but not a right to be furnished copies of the audit trails for those records.", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, it asserted that it had, in fact, produced a “complete” audit trail. Although", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "conceding that the data it produced covered a limited time period, it argued that Burnette had", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "not shown that data generated outside that period would be relevant and that, in any event,", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "producing that data would be disproportionately burdensome relative to its possible utility.", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "Loyola disputed Burnette’s claim that there were any gaps in the audit trail. It observed that", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "three of the four “gaps” were only a matter of minutes long and that the fourth “gap” was a 19-", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "hour period in between two outpatient appointments, reflecting nothing more than the fact that", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "nobody accessed her record during those time periods. Loyola also argued that its production", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "of the audit trail split across five files, rather than one file, was necessitated by the sheer volume", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "of data involved. Emphasizing that each of the five spreadsheets contained “approximately 1", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "megabyte of data,” Loyola contended that Burnette could not “credibly argue that Defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "is required to maintain a system that can allow for the transfer of 6 megabytes of data in a", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "single file.”1 Loyola characterized Neubecker’s opinion that it had produced a filtered version", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "of the audit trail as being “simply untrue,” arguing that Neubecker’s assertions that the", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "production did not include certain fields or event types he would typically see were", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "unsupported and conclusory. Alternatively, Loyola argued that the proposed inspection", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "protocol, which called for Neubecker to supervise remotely, would violate HIPAA because", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "Zoom did not satisfy the security requirements for transmitting protected health information,", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "and it asked the court to be given a chance to depose Neubecker before being required to submit", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "to an inspection.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "¶ 8 The court granted Burnette’s motion to compel, explaining as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "“Plaintiff is entitled to inspect the audit trail. We have been through this on", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "numerous other cases. They have an affidavit from someone saying that it’s not being", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "fully produced. I don’t see a competing affidavit from the defense end saying, You", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "know what? My IT guy—or here’s the IT guy who says this information either is not", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "locatable or downloadable, or something of that nature. And there’s argument being", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "made, but I don’t see anything of evidentiary value[ ] indicating that the information", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "could not potentially be there in the system.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "* * *", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "*** [T]he bottom line is according to the law, the CFR, everything—I mean, this", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "is the plaintiff’s records. And until the legislature takes this up—and I would encourage", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "you to talk to the [Illinois Trial Lawyers Association] to have them do that—there needs", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "1For context, the common law record in this appeal contains approximately 61 megabytes of data.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "A typical CD-ROM has a capacity of at least 650 megabytes.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "- 4 -", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "to be set guidelines for what needs to be stored, produced, and all that, but we don’t", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "have that.", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "So the plaintiff is entitled to look at what is potentially in that [EMR], so that will", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "be the order today.”", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "After counsel for Loyola protested that an inspection under Neubecker’s proposed protocol", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "would violate HIPAA, the court agreed that Loyola was “entitled to a protocol.” It indicated", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "that, if the parties were unable to work one out by agreement, the court would set the terms of", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "the inspection.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "¶ 9 In a motion to reconsider, Loyola argued that the court had erred by finding that federal", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "law required it to disclose the audit trails to Burnette. It also contended that Neubecker’s", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "“unsubstantiated” affidavit did not make a prima facie case for an inspection. In denying the", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "motion, the court clarified that, in its understanding, Burnette had a right to access her full", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "records, but the manner of that access was left to the court’s discretion:", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "“[Y]ou’re asserting that I wrongfully relied on some mandatory federal regulations that", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "require an inspection. I don’t know—I don’t think I framed it that it was—that federal", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "law necessarily requires an audit trail production to be in any certain [form] or any", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "certain way.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "But, I believe that what the federal regulations do require is that the patient has", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "access to its own—their own record. And how that’s done is completely within the", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Court’s discretion.", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "* * *", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "I will submit to you that, you know, perhaps there’s not a federal—and there’s—I", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "don’t think the CFR lays out exactly how—how audit trails are supposed to be", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "developed. ***", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "*** [B]ut in the absence of that, it’s certainly within my discretion to say that I have", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "reason to believe or I—there’s at least a reasonable potentiality here that the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "has not been provided all of *** her records. And at a minimum, I believe that an", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "inspection is appropriate to make that determination because they’re the ones—it’s", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "their record, it’s their case.", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "They’re the ones that underwent the medical care. They should have a right to", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "confirm or deny that they have all the records. *** I’ll concede that, I mean, there’s not", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "any one factor that makes anything mandatory. But I believe—so I don’t think I", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "misapplied the law in that sense. If I said that, I may have been [in] error.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "But, that doesn’t affect the overall tenor of this, which is that if there’s reason to", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "believe that not everything has been produced in a patient’s chart, or there’s reason to", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "believe that they should at—or—or at least at a minimum, they have a right to confirm", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "that everything has been produced that’s in their chart. To that extent, the motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "reconsider will be denied.”", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "At that point, counsel for Loyola clarified that, as far as he understood it, the dispute was over", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "the audit trails, not the medical records. Burnette’s attorney responded that ascertaining", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "whether the entire medical record had, in fact, been produced was “the entire reason for the", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "audit trail,” and the court agreed:", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "“Yeah. I think—I think a plaintiff has—there’s a reason and there’s a good reason why", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "they should know whether the entirety of their char[t] has been produced. And simply", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "- 5 -", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "relying on defense representations, I mean, that’s all well and good, but, I mean, if all", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "we’re doing here is confirming that—that the entirety has been produced, then the—", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "the inspection should confirm that on your side.”", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "¶ 10 At Loyola’s request, the court set a compliance date to allow it to decide whether to comply", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "or to seek to be held in friendly contempt. Loyola chose the latter course, and the court duly", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "entered a finding of civil contempt and imposed a sanction of $50, facilitating this appeal. See", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "¶ 12 On appeal, Loyola challenges the trial court’s order compelling an inspection. Although", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "that order was nonfinal, and therefore not itself appealable, we have jurisdiction to review it", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "because Loyola’s noncompliance with the inspection order was the basis for the trial court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "later contempt order. Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60, 69 (2001). We generally review discovery", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "orders for an abuse of discretion (id. at 70), but the appropriate standard of review ultimately", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "depends on the nature of the specific question the trial court answered. People v. Cole, 2017", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "IL 120997, ¶ 19.", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "¶ 13 Loyola’s primary argument on appeal is that the trial court erred as a matter of law by", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "finding that Burnette was entitled to disclosure of the audit trail for her medical records under", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "federal health-information regulations. The parties both argue that, in granting Burnette’s", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "motion to compel, the trial court found that federal law required Loyola to produce the audit", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "trial upon demand. They dispute whether that proposition was legally sound: Loyola contends", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "that federal law grants patients only the right to access their medical records, not the associated", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "audit trails, while Burnette argues that her right of access includes both her records and the", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "audit trails. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(a) (2014) (establishing right of access); 45 C.F.R.", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "§ 164.502(a)(2)(i) (2013) (mandating disclosure upon request). If the court’s inspection order", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "was premised on a misunderstanding of law, as Loyola contends, then appellate review is", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "necessary to ensure that its exercise of discretion was not “frustrated by an erroneous rule of", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "law.” People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365, 369 (1999). Because the question is one of law, our", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "review is de novo. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "¶ 14 The parties’ framing of the issue assumes that the discoverability of the audit trails turned", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "on whether that data was encompassed within the HIPAA right of access. We do not agree.", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "¶ 15 Discovery is governed by the Illinois Supreme Court rules, not by federal regulations. See", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(a) (eff. Mar. 17, 2023) (“Information is obtainable as provided in these rules", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "***.”). Generally, the rules require “full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "matter involved in the pending action.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(b)(1) (eff. Mar. 17, 2023). This is a", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "very broad criterion that reaches not only material that would be relevant at trial but also", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "material that can lead to admissible evidence. Findlay v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 2022 IL", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "App (1st) 210889, ¶ 115; accord Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority, 8 Ill. 2d 37, 41 (1956).", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "This “general duty to disclose” (Dameron v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, 2020 IL", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "125219, ¶ 18) is then tempered by other rules, such as provisions exempting privileged", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "materials and giving the court discretion to regulate discovery to prevent requests that are", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "abusive, unreasonably burdensome, and so forth. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(b)(2), (c) (eff. Mar. 17,", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "2023). The purpose of these rules is to ferret out the truth, help attorneys prepare for trial, and", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "eliminate surprise, thereby “promot[ing] an expeditious and final determination of", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "- 6 -", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "controversies in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties.” D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill. 2d", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "551, 561 (1997).", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "¶ 16 The HIPAA right of access serves purposes having nothing to do with resolving litigation.", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "Its goal is to make sure that patients have “easy access to their health information,” which", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "“empowers them to be more in control of decisions regarding their health and well-being.”", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Serv., Individuals’ Right Under HIPAA to Access Their Health", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "Information 45 C.F.R. § 164.524, (May 30, 2025) https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "professionals/privacy/guidance/access/index.html [https://perma.cc/RRM9-QDK6]. The", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "relevant regulation anticipates that patients will obtain their health information directly from", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "their providers, who will put in place procedures to receive and act on access requests,", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "communicate with requesters, internally review certain kinds of denials, and ultimately decide", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "how to facilitate access. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 (2014). The regulation does not anticipate", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "that the right of access will be enforced through court-mediated discovery procedures. To the", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "contrary, the regulations treat discovery as a distinct process that takes place outside of the", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "right-to-access framework by exempting discovery responses from the general rule of", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "nondisclosure. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1) (2016); see Northwestern Memorial Hospital v.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 925-26 (7th Cir. 2004) (explaining that section 164.512(e) creates “a", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "procedure for obtaining authority” to use protected health records during litigation).", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "¶ 17 In short, the discovery rules are “procedural tools to effectuate the prompt and just", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "disposition of litigation, by educating the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "claims and defenses.” People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher, 12 Ill. 2d 231, 236 (1957). The HIPAA", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "right of access is not animated by the same goals. Whether the right of access encompasses a", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "particular data set has no bearing on whether it is within the general scope of discovery. See", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(b)(1) (eff. Mar. 17, 2023). At most, the existence of a right of access might", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "inform the court’s assessment of the burden a particular discovery request would impose on a", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "party. Otherwise, the right of access generally has no impact on discovery, and discovery", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "disputes involving medical records and audit data should be resolved by reference to the", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "ordinary rules governing pretrial discovery, not the HIPAA right of access.", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "¶ 18 From our review of the record, it appears that the trial court’s ruling on the motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "compel was consistent with this analysis. Although the court referred to the HIPAA right of", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "access at points, it did so only in the context of Burnette’s right to access her medical records—", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "something neither party disputes are subject to disclosure—not the associated audit trails. At", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "no point did it find that the HIPAA right of access encompassed a right to access audit trails.", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "Instead, the court emphasized that the audit trails were subject to discovery because Burnette", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "had shown an adequate basis for believing that Loyola might not have disclosed the entirety of", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "the underlying medical records. In other words, it reasonably determined that the audit trails", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "were a “matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Id. Accordingly,", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "the trial court’s exercise of discretion was not frustrated by an erroneous rule of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "¶ 19 Loyola also advances several other arguments that the trial court erred in granting the", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "motion to compel. We have reviewed those arguments, and we find no abuses of discretion.", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "First, the trial court reasonably relied on the unrebutted affidavits of Burnette’s technical", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "consultant to find that there was a genuine concern that Loyola had not produced an unfiltered", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "audit trail and that an inspection might reveal previously undisclosed records or audit data.", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "Second, because the medical records produced in discovery could have been accessed or", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "modified at any point before the date of the production, to the extent the trial court found that", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "- 7 -", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "audit data generated after January 4, 2022, was relevant and discoverable, it acted reasonably", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "and did not abuse its discretion. Third, based on the limited information before it, which", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "indicated that an inspection would take no more than three hours and require only one Loyola", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "employee with sufficient knowledge of and access to the appropriate systems, the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "reasonably determined that the burden of an inspection would not outweigh its potential utility.", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "Finally, as the trial court has not yet set a protocol for the inspection, Loyola’s argument that", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "the inspection would carry unacceptable security risks and violate HIPAA is premature.", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "¶ 20 In summary, the trial court correctly resolved the motion to compel, based on the applicable", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "discovery rules. It neither premised its ruling on the HIPAA right of access, nor otherwise erred", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "when it granted the motion to compel. We therefore affirm the order allowing the motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "compel. Consistent with our usual practice, we also vacate the order finding Loyola in friendly", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "contempt. See John Doe Corp. 1 v. Huizenga Managers Fund, LLC, 2021 IL App (2d) 200513,", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "¶ 94.", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "¶ 22 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order granting the motion to compel", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "and vacate the order finding Loyola in friendly contempt.", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "¶ 23 Affirmed in part and vacated in part.", "paragraph_id": "para_268" } ], "word_count": 3362, "cites": [ "362 F.3d 923" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "c1240f41a552d092e808f34c77a7d5468f9c414ba579587bffb6fe62d1ff1120", "source_url": "https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/9ac48ee2-cea8-4767-9453-50c5e99471a5/file", "fetched_at": "2026-10-12T02:44:07.98+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "c1240f41a552d092e808f34c77a7d5468f9c414ba579587bffb6fe62d1ff1120", "recomputed_sha256": "c1240f41a552d092e808f34c77a7d5468f9c414ba579587bffb6fe62d1ff1120", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-12T02:44:09.970Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:22996593a4d8d8fe3109d6181c1c9481f1ed4ae8ee5b261e632cc5ed837bc18c", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "expires": "2026-10-13T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T20:37:51", "content_hash": "sha256:22996593a4d8d8fe3109d6181c1c9481f1ed4ae8ee5b261e632cc5ed837bc18c", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-12T03:44:10.488Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-1-24-0485-2025-12-18" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }