City of Champaign v. Madigan
2013 IL App (4th) 120662
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Wade, a News-Gazette reporter, requested all electronic public communications by City Council members and the mayor during meetings, from private and city devices.
- The City partially denied, excluding private-device communications to private parties as outside FOIA scope.
- The Attorney General issued a binding opinion holding such communications about city business are public records under FOIA.
- The circuit court affirmed the AG’s opinion; Wade sought attorney fees under FOIA §11(i) and filed a counterclaim for injunctive relief.
- The City appealed in two consolidated cases; the court eventually dismissed one appeal and affirmed in part, reversed in part.
- Key issues include whether private-device communications are public records, privacy expectations, fee recovery under §11(i), and the propriety of Wade’s injunctive counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are privately stored communications public records under FOIA when about public business? | Wade: yes, during meetings they pertain to public business and should be public records. | City: no, not prepared by/for a public body if on private devices. | Yes, to extent they pertain to public business during meetings and are controlled by the public body. |
| Do public officials have a privacy interest in personal electronic communications? | Wade argues privacy should yield to public access when related to public business. | City asserts reasonable privacy in personal communications absent public purpose. | Court does not allow blanket privacy exemption; focuses on public-business relevance and public-body control. |
| Whether Wade is entitled to attorney fees under FOIA §11(i) after pursuing against FOIA denial? | Wade seeks fees as prevailing party under §11(i). | §11(i) fees do not apply when proceeding under §9.5; fees are not recoverable there. | Fees under §11(i) not proper where relief pursued through §9.5; fees reversed. |
| Whether Wade’s counterclaim for injunctive relief was allowed under FOIA proceedings? | Counterclaim provides enforcement mechanism if records are not released. | Parallel proceedings not contemplated; counterclaim improper under FOIA structure. | Counterclaim for injunctive relief improperly granted; reversed. |
| Does the appellate court have jurisdiction over the challenged portions of the case? | Challenge to entire circuit court decision on its own terms. | Some interlocutory or partial judgments may not be appealable without Rule 304(a) findings. | No jurisdiction over case 4-12-0662; jurisdiction preserved for case 4-12-0751 which disposed all claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191 (1998) (deference standard for agency findings on review)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (2011) (mixed question review; purely legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Quinn v. Stone, 211 Ill. App. 3d 809 (1991) (public body includes head of public body; alderman not a public body)
- Village of Oak Park v. Village of Oak Park Firefighters Pension Board, 362 Ill. App. 3d 357 (2005) (quorum concept in public bodies; decision-making through collective body)
- Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District No. 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396 (2009) (public-records policy and FOIA interpretation guidance)