Beggs v. Burean County et al

Filing 26

HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 8/30/16. (WG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 02:43:16 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
BRIAN BEGGS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 16-cv-4102

SHERIFF OF BUREAU COUNTY,
BUREAU COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL
HEALTHCARE, INC., DR. KAREN
BUTLER, PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT
DAN WILLIAMS, and NURSE
PETERSON,
Defendants.
HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants, ADVANCED
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC., DR. KAREN BUTLER, DAN WILLIAMS, and
MELISSA PETERSON’s, Motion for HIPAA Qualified Protective Order. After being
advised in the premises, this Court finds any objections raised by Plaintiff have been
resolved by the Court and that good cause exists for the entry of a Protective Order to
prevent the unauthorized disclosure and to direct the use of protected health
information during the course of this litigation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) and 45 C.F.R. § 164-512.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. All records produced by the parties to this litigation shall be produced subject to
the conditions of this Protective Order.
2. During the course of this litigation, the parties recognize it may be necessary to
disclose protected health information of the Plaintiff as that term is defined under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Federal
Regulations enacted pursuant to said Act.

3. This Protective Order shall apply to any records produced by a covered entity (as
defined by 45 C.F.R. § 160.103) which receives a request to produce or a subpoena for
protected health information.
4. All protected health information disclosed by any covered entities shall be used
for the sole purpose of preparing for or conducting this litigation, including, but not
limited to, discovery, depositions, trial preparation, or trial and shall not be disclosed or
revealed to anyone not authorized by this Protective Order.
5. Protected health information may be disclosed by any covered entity, health care
provider, insurer, party, party’s expert, or party’s attorney without further notice to the
following:
(a) Counsel for the respective parties to this litigation, their employees, parties to
the litigation, and employees of counsel who are assisting in the prosecution
or defense of this litigation;
(b) Experts and consultants (and their employees and clerical assistants) who are
employed, retained or otherwise consulted by counsel of the parties to assist
in any way in the preparation and trial of this litigation;
(c) Court reporters and videographers (and their employees) who are retained
by counsel for depositions;
(d) Treating physicians;
(e) Other health care providers;
(f) Liability insurers of any of the parties involved in the litigation;
(g) In any proceedings for health oversight activities as permitted under 45
C.F.R. § 164.52; and
(h) Copying services for the purpose of copying records subject to this Protective
Order.

2

6. The parties and each entity governed by this Protective Order shall either (a)
destroy or (b) return to the entity who originally produced it all protected health
information, including all copies made; provided, however, the said protected health
information may be retained in the files of the law firms handling this litigation and
may be destroyed pursuant to their regular file retention policies so long as the
protected health information is maintained in a secure environment.
7. This Protective Order shall survive the final conclusion of this litigation and shall
continue in full force and effect, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this
Protective Order.
8. This Protective Order does not change or affect notice and other procedural
requirements or limitations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nothing herein
shall be construed as a waiver of Plaintiff’s rights as established by the Petrillo doctrine
and its progeny. However, the Defendant(s) may contact a covered entity for the sole
purpose of obtaining copies of records previously subpoenaed or requested by
authorization, or to schedule depositions.

August 30. 2016
ENTERED: _________________

s/ Jonathan E. Hawley
______________________________________
U.S. Magisrate Judge

4831-7804-4471, v. 1

3