Uphoff v. Grosskopf
2 N.E.3d 498
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- In Feb 2010, Matthew Grosskopf requested under FOIA documents relating to a 2001 Livingston County murder trial from the County State’s Attorney; the request was denied and the Public Access Counselor advised disclosure (subject to redactions).
- The then-State’s Attorney, Thomas Brown, sued for declaratory relief asking whether a State’s Attorney’s office is a "public body" under FOIA; the Attorney General moved to dismiss and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- The trial caption was later amended to reflect the current Livingston County State’s Attorney, Seth Uphoff, as plaintiff; Grosskopf counterclaimed to compel disclosure and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Grosskopf, holding FOIA applies to State’s Attorneys and ordering production of the requested documents.
- On appeal the Fourth District reversed, holding State’s Attorney offices fall within FOIA’s judicial exemption because the legislature intended a broad judicial exemption (drawing support from Public Act 96-900, which labeled the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor (SAAP) a "judicial agency of state government").
Issues
| Issue | Uphoff (Plaintiff) Argument | Grosskopf (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a State’s Attorney’s office is a "public body" under FOIA | State’s Attorney offices are part of the judicial branch (or at least fall within FOIA’s judicial exemption) and thus FOIA does not apply | State’s Attorney offices are public bodies subject to FOIA and must disclose requested records | Reversed trial court: State’s Attorney offices are covered by FOIA’s judicial exemption; FOIA does not apply |
| Whether legislative action (Public Act 96-900) shows intent to exempt prosecutorial offices from FOIA | The amendment designating SAAP a "judicial agency" demonstrates legislative intent to broaden the judicial exemption to include prosecutorial entities | The SAAP amendment is not dispositive; State’s Attorneys are prosecutorial/executive and should be FOIA public bodies | Court found the SAAP amendment probative of legislative intent to treat entities like State’s Attorneys as within a broad judicial exemption |
| Proper interpretation of "judicial bodies" in FOIA’s definition of public body | "Judicial bodies" should be read broadly to include entities established in the constitution’s judicial article or designated judicial by statute | "Judicial" should be read narrowly; prosecutorial offices are not courts and exercise executive power | Court agreed legislative usage supports a broad reading of "judicial bodies" for FOIA exemption |
| Standard of review for summary judgment on FOIA scope | No disputed material facts; issue is legal and reviewed de novo | Same | Court applied de novo review and decided as a matter of law in favor of exempting State’s Attorneys |
Key Cases Cited
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Hamer, 2013 IL 114234 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Nelson v. County of Kendall, 2013 IL App (2d) 120635 (held State’s Attorney offices fall within FOIA’s judicial exemption)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Administrative Office of the Courts, 271 Ill. App. 3d 548 (inferred FOIA does not apply to the judiciary)
- Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Comm. Unit School Dist. 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396 (purpose of FOIA to open governmental records to public scrutiny)