2020 IL App (1st) 191131-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Mancini Law Group submitted a FOIA request to Schaumburg Police Department (SPD) for all motor vehicle accident reports during a two‑week period in 2017, requesting certain personal data be redacted.
- SPD produced redacted reports, withholding driver license numbers, license plates, home addresses/phones, dates of birth, and insurance policy numbers under FOIA exemptions (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b), (c)).
- SPD had previously transmitted unredacted reports to LexisNexis, the State of Illinois’ contracted vendor, to satisfy mandatory reporting under the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11‑408); LexisNexis processes requests for reports for a fee.
- Mancini sued, alleging SPD waived FOIA exemptions by furnishing unredacted reports to LexisNexis and sought declaratory relief, penalties, and fees; parties filed cross‑motions for summary judgment.
- At summary judgment the trial court found the redactions were exempt and that providing unredacted reports to LexisNexis to comply with the statutory reporting duty did not constitute waiver; the appellate court affirmed.
- Key record points: SPD witness Jennifer Brack testified uploads to LexisNexis are for State reporting and that unredacted copies are available only to involved parties, insurers, or their attorneys; Mancini’s attorney submitted an affidavit claiming he purchased an unredacted report from LexisNexis but did not establish entitlement or the purchase conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPD waived FOIA exemptions by providing unredacted reports to LexisNexis | SPD voluntarily disclosed unredacted reports to LexisNexis (which sells reports), so SPD cannot withhold the same information from Mancini | SPD’s disclosures to LexisNexis were compelled by statute (state reporting) and therefore are not selective/public waiver | No waiver: providing unredacted reports to LexisNexis to satisfy statutory reporting did not waive SPD’s FOIA exemptions |
| Whether redacted information is exempt under FOIA | (Not contested on appeal) Mancini originally asked for redactions; did not challenge exemptions on appeal | SPD invoked FOIA §§ 7(1)(b)/(c) to justify redactions | Redactions upheld as exempt (court accepted exemptions and affirmed summary judgment for SPD) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 176 Ill. 2d 401 (Ill. 1997) (voluntary disclosure to some can preclude later withholding under FOIA)
- Cooper v. United States Department of the Navy, 594 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1979) (selective disclosure undermines FOIA policy)
- State of North Dakota ex rel. Olson v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 177 (8th Cir. 1978) (preferential treatment inconsistent with FOIA)
- Watkins v. United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 643 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2011) (no‑strings disclosure to third parties can constitute waiver)
- Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390 (Ill. 2006) (FOIA to be liberally construed and exemptions narrowly construed)