Better Government Association v. The Village of Rosemont
2017 IL App (1st) 161957
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Better Government Association (BGA) requested 2014 contracts for events at Rosemont-owned Allstate Arena and Donald E. Stephens Convention Center; Rosemont produced contracts but redacted rent and financial incentives.
- Earlier, Chicago Tribune reporter Stacy St. Clair sought the Garth Brooks contracts; Rosemont initially redacted terms, then adopted Ordinance No. 2014-11-12 purporting to bar disclosure of “confidential financial or proprietary information” for entertainment venues.
- Illinois Attorney General issued a binding opinion that Rosemont’s ordinance could not circumvent FOIA, and that negotiated financial terms in public-body contracts are subject to disclosure; Rosemont provided St. Clair the Brooks contract and did not appeal that opinion.
- BGA sued under FOIA after Rosemont redacted similar terms from multiple 2014 contracts; Rosemont asserted FOIA exemptions (sections 7(1)(g) and 7(1)(a)) and relied on its ordinance.
- The trial court granted BGA summary judgment, finding the FOIA required disclosure of rents and incentives, that section 7(1)(g) did not apply, and that Rosemont could not use its ordinance to create FOIA exemptions; Rosemont appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel from AG's Brooks opinion | AG decision binds Rosemont; same legal issue supports disclosure for other contracts | AG decision addressed only Brooks; BGA cannot preclude Rosemont from relitigating other contracts | Not estopped; prior adjudication not identical in circumstances, Rosemont may raise FOIA defenses anew |
| Section 7(1)(g) (trade secrets/commercial info) | Redacted financial terms are not exempt; public body’s negotiated terms are not "obtained from a person" | Terms are proprietary/commercial and disclosure would cause competitive harm; thus exempt under 7(1)(g) | 7(1)(g) does not apply to financial/price terms supplied by the public body or negotiated with it; rents/incentives must be disclosed |
| Section 7(1)(a) (information specifically prohibited by law) | No statute or regulation specifically prohibits disclosure of these contract terms | Illinois Trade Secrets Act or other law forbids disclosure of trade secrets, so 7(1)(a) applies | 7(1)(a) inapplicable: Trade Secrets Act does not specifically prohibit disclosure (it provides injunctive relief), so no statutory bar to disclosure under FOIA |
| Rosemont Ordinance / Home rule power | Ordinance legitimately protects confidential venue financial info | FOIA is the exclusive State statute on freedom of information; home rule ordinance cannot create FOIA exemptions | Ordinance cannot exempt records from FOIA; home rule units may expand disclosure duties but cannot create additional exemptions; FOIA preempts the ordinance |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. StubHub, 2011 IL 111127 (Illinois Supreme Court opinion referenced re: state interest in access to governmental information)
- Lardner v. Department of Justice, 638 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2009) (discussion on collateral estoppel and reconsideration of legal issues in subsequent FOIA requests)
- Bloomberg, L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 601 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.) (loan amounts and rates not "information obtained" from borrowers for FOIA trade-secrets analysis)
- Providence Journal Co. v. Convention Center Authority, 774 A.2d 40 (R.I. 2001) (distinguishes negotiation-stage documents from final contracts; contracts generally disclosable)
- Providence Journal Co. v. Convention Center Authority, 824 A.2d 1246 (R.I. 2003) (final negotiated contract prices are public; reversed lower court redactions)