Twin-Cities Broadcasting Corp. v. Reynard

Citations: 277 Ill. App. 3d 777; 661 N.E.2d 401; 214 Ill. Dec. 547; 1996 Ill. App. LEXIS 18Docket: No. 4-95-0688

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; January 19, 1996; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court opinion addresses the application of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Open Meetings Act concerning a meeting of the Illinois State University Athletic Council regarding the potential elimination of athletic programs. The State's Attorney investigated the matter, suggesting the Open Meetings Act applied to the Council and threatening prosecution against ISU officials. During this investigation, ISU provided the State's Attorney with minutes and a transcript of the closed meeting, although it is unclear if this was done under compulsion. The Board of Regents subsequently filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Open Meetings Act did not apply to the Council, while the State's Attorney counterclaimed, asserting the Act's applicability.

When the Peoria Journal Star requested the meeting documents under FOIA, the Board sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their release. The State's Attorney denied a subsequent FOIA request citing pending litigation. The plaintiff filed a verified petition for injunctive relief, which led to a motion for judgment on the pleadings that the State's Attorney did not oppose. The trial court expressed concern that allowing the State's Attorney to disclose the documents could undermine the Board's protections under FOIA. The court indicated a reasonable probability that the Board would succeed in its declaratory judgment claim, leading to the denial of the plaintiff's motion and an injunction against the State's Attorney from releasing the documents. The trial court then severed the cases, and the plaintiff appealed the interlocutory order.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court incorrectly denied its motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the State’s Attorney’s answer acknowledged all elements of the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. Following the notice of appeal, a prehearing conference was held under Supreme Court Rule 310 to expedite proceedings, during which the State’s Attorney indicated agreement with the plaintiff's legal position and intent to confess error. A brief schedule was established, but the Board filed a petition to intervene and to include trial proceedings from a related case. Despite objections, the court permitted the Board to intervene to protect its interests, and the motion to supplement the record was accepted, with judicial notice taken of the related litigation's record.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the burden is on the defendant to prove that the requested materials are exempt from disclosure. The State's Attorney acknowledged possession of the documents without claiming any statutory exemptions, leading the plaintiff to assert that the documents must be released. The State's Attorney concurs but argues that the Board lacks authority to control its actions regarding document release. Conversely, the Board claims an interest in confidentiality and contends that the documents are not subject to FOIA because the Council is not a public body under the Act. The document notes the absence of Illinois law precedent on an agency's authority to disclose third-party documents possibly exempt under FOIA but references similar issues in federal law, particularly in 'reverse-FOIA' cases where entities seek to prevent agencies from disclosing information in response to FOIA requests. The court also sought input on the implications of the Supreme Court case Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, which addressed the agency's discretion in withholding information subject to FOIA exemptions, emphasizing that exemptions do not obligate agencies to withhold requested information.

The Supreme Court determined that the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is solely a disclosure statute and that its exemptions are not mandatory barriers to disclosure. The Court emphasized that while FOIA allows federal district courts to prevent agencies from withholding records, it does not grant authority to prohibit disclosure. Consequently, Chrysler could not prevent agency disclosure under FOIA, but it could seek judicial review under the Federal Administrative Procedures Act for any adverse agency action. 

In contrast, the Illinois FOIA allows the Board, as a government agency, to challenge the State's Attorney's intended disclosure of its documents. The Illinois FOIA mandates that certain categories of information are exempt from disclosure and that the originating agency has the right to assert these exemptions. The court rejected the State's Attorney's claim that mere possession of the documents conferred exclusive rights to assert exemptions. The FOIA recognizes that documents may be held by different agencies, and the originating agency retains an interest in protecting exempt information. Therefore, the court concluded that an agency's mere possession of documents does not determine its ability to release them if another agency has a strong interest in asserting an exemption.

An agency typically would assert an exemption under the Illinois FOIA if applicable, but this case does not address whether an agency has an obligation to withhold information when an exemption exists. Certain exemptions allow for waiver, such as those concerning personal privacy and trade secrets, which can be disclosed with written consent from the individuals or businesses involved. The Board claims two specific exemptions: one for preliminary recommendations and another for closed meeting minutes. The language of these exemptions does not suggest that a third-party agency can choose to disclose the information. It is noted that the Board may have waived its right to refuse disclosure by previously sharing the documents with the State’s Attorney, although the circumstances of this sharing are unclear. Despite the Board's substantial interest in the information, it was not a party at the trial level, although it had previously filed a related case that was consolidated with this one. This unusual procedural history indicates that the Board would likely have pursued similar legal action regarding the FOIA request had it not been for the consolidation. The circuit court's decision to deny the plaintiff's request for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed, with no opinion offered on whether the documents are exempt or if any exemption was waived. The case is affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.