Hites v. Waubonsee Community College
56 N.E.3d 1049
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Daniel Hites submitted FOIA requests to Waubonsee Community College (WCC) seeking zip codes, certain field “raw inputs” from student registration databases, and various student-count totals for specified periods/locations; WCC said no responsive documents existed.
- WCC maintained two relational databases (Banner and Driver Safety) containing the requested data; WCC IT staff testified data could be extracted by querying the databases, though some totals were not stored as preexisting reports.
- Plaintiff sued after administrative correspondence failed; WCC moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619, arguing FOIA does not require creation of new records and asserted exemptions and undue burden defenses.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaint, treating several requests for totals as demands to create new records and concluding FOIA did not compel database queries to produce new compilations; it also found producing/redacting physical forms unduly burdensome.
- On appeal the court considered whether (1) database-stored data qualify as "public records" under FOIA and (2) the FOIA requests unlawfully required WCC to create new records.
Issues
| Issue | Hites' Argument | Waubonsee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual data fields or databases are "public records" under FOIA | Data stored in WCC’s databases are public records because FOIA covers electronic data and form is immaterial; requiring otherwise would let agencies evade FOIA by storing data electronically | Database fields are not equivalent to compiled public records; FOIA does not force disclosure of raw data points absent an existing record | Data in WCC’s Banner and Driver Safety databases constitute public records when they pertain to public business and are prepared/used/controlled by the public body; court so held |
| Whether the FOIA requests improperly required WCC to create new records (e.g., totals, listings) | Searching/extracting database fields is not creating new records; FOIA permits automated searches and even creating programs to produce responsive output | FOIA does not require a public body to compile new reports or answer general inquiries (Chicago Tribune); requests for totals/listings would force creation of new records | Requests for raw data fields and zip codes (specific queries) are permissible; requests for aggregate totals/listings that WCC did not already maintain (six requests) improperly sought creation of new records and may be denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamer v. Lentz, 132 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill.) (agency may be required to produce computer-generated output of electronic records)
- Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390 (Ill.) (electronic registry records are subject to FOIA)
- Long v. United States Department of Justice, 450 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C.) (nonexempt database fields may be ordered disclosed)
- National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency, 898 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D.D.C.) (searching stored database information does not necessarily create a new record; tension between searches and compiling new indices)
- Multi Ag Media LLC v. Department of Agriculture, 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir.) (agency database subject to FOIA disclosure)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 332 Ill. App. 3d 60 (Ill. App.) (requests that seek compilations/tallies not otherwise maintained can be treated as creation-of-new-records and be exempt from disclosure under FOIA)
- Reppert v. Southern Illinois University, 375 Ill. App. 3d 502 (Ill. App.) (form or storage location does not shield a record from FOIA)
- DesPain v. City of Collinsville, 382 Ill. App. 3d 572 (Ill. App.) (audio recordings and other nonpaper formats can be FOIA public records)