2021 IL App (1st) 192073
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Lucy Parsons Labs (LPL) requested the City of Chicago Mayor’s Office’s "action plan" for responding to public reaction to the Jason Van Dyke verdict under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- The City denied the request under FOIA exemption 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(v), asserting the Plan contained tactical security details (deployments, call numbers, staff positions, assembly areas, command posts, "hot spots") that could jeopardize public safety.
- LPL sued to compel disclosure; the City submitted affidavits from Chicago Police officials describing the Plan’s tactical content and reuse for future events.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City, holding the entire Plan exempt and concluding the City had no duty to redact and produce nonexempt portions.
- On appeal the Appellate Court reviewed statutory construction de novo and held the City met its burden to show some exempt material but failed to justify withholding the Plan in full; remanded for redaction or in camera review as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOIA §7(1)(v) permits withholding the entire action plan or only redaction of exempt parts | LPL: Plan not wholly exempt; City must redact exempt portions and produce nonexempt material (e.g., summaries, TOC, definitions) | City: presence of sensitive tactical details makes the whole Plan exempt; the statute should be read to allow wholesale withholding where disclosure would jeopardize safety | Court: Some portions are exempt but the statute says "but only to the extent" — City must redact exempt information and produce the remainder; summary judgment for City reversed and remanded. |
| Proper interpretation of phrase "but only to the extent that" in §7(1)(v) | LPL: Phrase means exemption is limited to information whose disclosure would jeopardize safety or plan effectiveness | City: Phrase should be read like "where" or "if," allowing total exemption when a plan contains sensitive details | Court: Rejected City’s proposed rewrite; plain language requires a narrower exemption and courts must construe FOIA liberally in favor of disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396 (2009) (public body bears burden to prove exemption by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor, 2019 IL 122949 (2019) (FOIA construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
- Bowie v. Evanston Community Consolidated School District No. 65, 128 Ill. 2d 373 (1989) (purpose of FOIA is governmental transparency)
- Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth, 2019 IL App (1st) 170780 (2019) (public body cannot claim generic wholesale exemption; must redact or show undue burden)
- Heinrich v. White, 2012 IL App (2d) 110564 (2012) (duty to redact persists even if redactions leave little useful content)
- Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390 (2006) (FOIA exemptions construed narrowly)
- Illinois Education Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456 (2003) (in camera review is appropriate method for courts to assess claimed exemptions)
- Policemen’s Benevolent Labor Committee v. City of Sparta, 2020 IL 125508 (2020) (statutory interpretation should not render clauses meaningless)