2021 IL App (2d) 190971
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background:
- In Nov. 2014 Williams requested from the Winnebago County State’s Attorney “All ‘No-Bills’ and ‘True Bills’ of Indictment” for May 7 and May 14, 1997; defendant denied the requests citing grand jury secrecy (FOIA § 7(1)(a) and 725 ILCS 5/112-6).
- Williams sued under FOIA, seeking declaratory relief, production, attorney fees, and statutory penalties under FOIA §§ 11(i) and 11(j); the trial court granted judgment for defendant on summary judgment.
- On appeal the court reversed in part (Williams I), ordering production of the true bills with witness names redacted; defendant later produced indictment bills.
- Williams then petitioned for attorney fees and civil penalties under § 11(j); the trial court awarded fees but denied penalties, finding no bad faith; Williams appealed the denial of penalties.
- The appellate court considered statutory construction of § 11(j), evaluated whether defendant acted willfully/ intentionally and in bad faith, and affirmed the trial court: no civil penalty warranted and some arguments were forfeited.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of FOIA § 11(j) penalty language | § 11(j) allows a penalty if a public body either "willfully and intentionally" failed to comply OR acted "in bad faith" | The phrase "or otherwise" is a catchall; the phrase reads together—penalty requires intentional/willful failure that is also in bad faith | Court: read terms together; penalty requires deliberate/intentional conduct coupled with bad faith (dishonest purpose) |
| Whether Bruscato acted willfully/ intentionally or in bad faith in denying records | Williams alleges withholding of true bills was willful/ intentional or in bad faith and that redactions were improperly withheld | Bruscato relied on a statutory grand jury secrecy provision and had no dishonest motive; he complied after court order | Court: Williams offered only conclusory allegations; record shows no design or dishonest purpose; trial court’s no-bad-faith finding affirmed |
| Post-appeal production source and lack of redactions as basis for penalties | Production from court files (not defendant’s files) and failure to redact witness names justify penalties | Argument was not raised below and defendant complied after the appellate order | Court: argument forfeited for appeal; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Bruscato, 2019 IL App (2d) 170779 (appellate decision ordering production of true bills with redactions)
- Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Moore, 2021 IL 125785 (plain-meaning statutory construction principles)
- Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112566 (statutes must be read as a whole)
- Taylor v. Pekin Insurance Co., 231 Ill. 2d 390 (de novo review for statutory construction)
- Rock River Times v. Rockford Pub. Sch. Dist. 205, 2012 IL App (2d) 110879 (finding bad faith where a public body persisted in unfounded exemptions after guidance)
- Garlick v. Bloomingdale Township, 2018 IL App (2d) 171013 (civil-penalty petition struck where bad faith not shown)