City of Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
2017 IL App (1st) 150870
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- The City of Chicago subpoenaed Janssen for documents in a municipal false-claims investigation; Janssen initially resisted and litigation followed.
- The parties entered a court-approved Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order; Janssen produced 114,230 pages, many marked confidential.
- The City later sued Janssen; USA Today submitted a FOIA request for materials the City possessed; the City notified Janssen under the protective order.
- Janssen moved to enforce the protective order and obtain a declaratory judgment that the produced documents were exempt from FOIA disclosure under 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a) (information “specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law”) and 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(g) (trade secrets/commercial information).
- The trial court denied Janssen’s motion, concluding (1) the municipal ordinance did not qualify as “State law” under section 7(1)(a) and its text did not bar disclosure, and (2) Janssen had not shown disclosure would cause competitive harm under section 7(1)(g). Janssen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Janssen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 7(1)(a) FOIA exemption applies because Chicago’s ordinance qualifies as “State law” that forbids disclosure | Ordinance is a municipal enactment distinct from State law and does not bar disclosure; it even authorizes disclosure in certain circumstances | Chicago’s home-rule ordinance operates as effectively as state law and its §1‑22‑050(k) manifests intent to shield subpoenaed materials from disclosure | Reversed in Janssen’s favor? No. Court held “State law” in FOIA means laws of the State (not municipal ordinances); ordinance does not trigger §7(1)(a), and its text does not independently forbid disclosure |
| Whether section 7(1)(g) FOIA exemption applies (trade secrets/chilling effect) | The City argued the exemption’s policy (avoid chilling) doesn’t apply because Janssen failed to show disclosure would cause competitive harm or that materials are trade secrets | Janssen argued disclosure would have a chilling effect on submissions to the City and relied on pre-amendment precedents recognizing a “chilling” variant of trade-secret protection | Held against Janssen: statute was amended to require (1) trade-secret/commercial information; (2) furnished under claim of proprietary/privileged/confidential; and (3) disclosure would cause competitive harm. Janssen failed to show competitive harm, so §7(1)(g) does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Roman, 184 Ill. 2d 504 (cited for home-rule powers)
- Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 2013 IL 110505 (cited re: home-rule authority)
- Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill. 2d 1 (interpretation of “statutory” and municipal ordinances)
- Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Dept. of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390 (FOIA liberal construction; exemptions read narrowly)
- Bowie v. Evanston Community Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 65, 128 Ill. 2d 373 (FOIA purpose to open government records)
- Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396 (narrow reading of FOIA exemptions)
- BlueStar Energy Services, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 374 Ill. App. 3d 990 (pre-amendment “chilling effect” application of trade-secret exemption)