2018 IL App (2d) 170617
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Daniel Hites filed FOIA requests seeking electronic data (ZIP codes and raw registration-field inputs) from Waubonsee Community College (WCC) databases relating to 2011 students/classes; earlier appeal narrowed issues to seven remaining electronic-data requests from Banner and Driver Safety databases.
- WCC moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619, claiming compliance would be unduly burdensome under FOIA § 3(g). The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing in March 2015 and dismissed; this court previously affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- At the evidentiary hearing WCC’s CIO, Terrence Felton, testified Banner (250 GB, ~3500 tables) and Driver Safety store the requested data but that staff would need to write queries/programs; he estimated one day of focused work per request but also said competing duties could make each request take a week in practice.
- Plaintiff’s database expert, Alexander Deligtisch, testified relational databases are searchable and that writing a query would take under a minute and full extraction 2–5 minutes; plaintiff testified the information served public interests tied to oversight of WCC’s downtown Aurora campus.
- On remand the circuit court found WCC proved undue burden (relying on Felton’s credibility), concluded compliance would exceed 150 hours and could require overtime or outside databases, and held the public interest did not outweigh that burden. The appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Hites’ Argument | Waubonsee’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCC proved compliance would be "unduly burdensome" under FOIA § 3(g) | WCC’s burden estimates were inflated; the data are in relational databases and extractable in minutes; exceptions read narrowly | Compliance requires custom programs, staff diversion, overtime; Banner is complex and multi-functional | Reversed: trial court’s factual findings on burden were against manifest weight; actual testimony showed about one day of work per request (or minutes per query) and not 150+ hours |
| Whether WCC satisfied the procedural duty to offer narrowing before invoking § 3(g) | Hites: public body must meaningfully confer and narrowing was possible | WCC argued it had offered narrowing in responses and had attempted to rebut expert testimony | Court: WCC did offer to narrow, but trial court made no finding whether requests could be narrowed; absence of this finding was error |
| Whether the public interest in disclosure was outweighed by the burden | Hites: strong public interest in oversight of public spending and campus impact on Aurora; minimal extraction burden | WCC: public interest is limited here and does not outweigh large operational burden | Court: public interest (oversight of public funds, local impacts) is substantial; burden did not outweigh interest |
| Whether responsive data lay outside WCC control (e.g., DAISI) such that burden increased | Hites: data for the seven requests resided in Banner/Driver Safety and did not require DAISI | WCC: some data may reside in third-party systems (DAISI) and Driver Safety contains third-party data requiring confidentiality/redaction | Reversed: record showed Felton testified the seven requests could be answered from Banner/Driver Safety; trial court’s finding that DAISI search was required was against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- National Ass’n of Criminal Defense Lawyers v. Chicago Police Dep’t, 399 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct.) (several weeks of work did not necessarily establish undue burden where public interest was significant)
- Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency, 881 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C.) (database search for numerous names was not unduly burdensome)
- Family Life League v. Department of Public Aid, 112 Ill. 2d 449 (Ill.) (public has a legitimate interest in oversight of public spending)