2022 IL App (2d) 210107-U
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Mary Robinson sent a FOIA request for all records (since Sept 1, 2015) about communications between the District and any child sex offender (or person acting for one) concerning access to District property/events.
- The District located 37 email strings between a convicted sex-offender parent and school officials that referenced students, student activities, and medical information, and withheld them.
- The District asserted exemptions: records are school student records under the Illinois School Student Records Act (therefore exempt under FOIA §§7(1)(a) and 7.5(r)), protected education records under FERPA (invoking FOIA §7(1)(a)), and personal-privacy exemption FOIA §7(1)(c).
- Robinson proposed redactions to remove identifying student information and argued redacted emails would not be student records or a clearly unwarranted privacy invasion.
- The trial court reviewed the emails in camera, granted the District’s summary-judgment motion, and denied Robinson’s; the appellate record, however, omitted the in-camera emails and proceedings.
- The appellate court held the record incomplete, applied Foutch’s presumption that the trial court’s order conformed to law and had a factual basis, and affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether emails are exempt as "school student records" under the Illinois School Student Records Act (and thus FOIA §7.5(r)/§7(1)(a) apply) | Redacting identifying student info would remove any "student record" character; emails would not concern a student | Emails identify/concern students; cannot be disclosed because they are school student records | Record insufficient to review; court presumed trial court’s ruling correct and affirmed |
| Whether FERPA makes the emails nondisclosable (invoked to support FOIA §7(1)(a)) | With redactions, emails would not be FERPA-protected education records | Emails are education records directly related to students and maintained by school actors; FERPA bars disclosure | Record insufficient to review; appellate court affirmed under Foutch presumption |
| Whether FOIA §7(1)(c) personal-privacy exemption precludes disclosure even with redaction | After proposed redactions, disclosure would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy | Disclosure (even redacted) could still invade privacy; identities may be known in the community so masking may be impossible | Court could not balance privacy vs public interest without seeing emails; record inadequate, judgment affirmed |
| Whether appellate record is sufficient without the in-camera emails for meaningful review | Robinson argued contents were undisputed and redactions manageable, so appellate review unnecessary | District argued the emails reviewed in camera are necessary for meaningful appellate review | Appellate record insufficient; under Foutch appellant bears burden to provide complete record, so presumption favors trial court; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill.2d 389 (1984) (appellant must supply a sufficiently complete record; otherwise appellate court presumes trial court order conforms to law)
- Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School Dist. 200, 233 Ill.2d 396 (2009) (privacy balancing under FOIA §7(1)(c) is case-specific)
- Bowie v. Evanston Community Consolidated Sch. Dist. No. 65, 128 Ill.2d 373 (1989) (masked records that delete identifying student information are not "school student records")