foia claim in Illinois

2025See Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013 IL App (4th) 120825, ¶ 42 (declining to find the plaintiffs’ FOIA claim moot because, although the plaintiffs eventually received the requested records, the plaintiffs’ claims for attorney fees and a civil penalty would survive). ¶ 17 We turn to the merits.

2025See Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013 IL App (4th) 120825, ¶ 42 (declining to find the plaintiffs’ FOIA claim moot because, although the plaintiffs eventually received the requested records, the plaintiffs’ claims for attorney fees and a civil penalty would survive). ¶ 17 We turn to the merits.

2024App. 3d 778, 782 , 709 N.E.2d 1281, 1285 (1999); see also Turner v. Joliet Police Department, 2019 IL App (3d) 170819, ¶¶ 12-13 , 123 N.E.3d 1147 (affirming dismissal of FOIA claim as moot under section 2-619(a)(9) where plaintiff had received the information he had requested from the Joliet Police Department).

2024App. 3d 778, 782 , 709 N.E.2d 1281, 1285 (1999); see also Turner v. Joliet Police Department, 2019 IL App (3d) 170819, ¶¶ 12-13 , 123 N.E.3d 1147 (affirming dismissal of FOIA claim as moot under section 2-619(a)(9) where plaintiff had received the information he had requested from the Joliet Police Department).

2024(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barner v. Fairburn, 2019 IL App (3d) 180742, ¶ 12 , 134 N.E.3d 987 . -6- ¶ 20 “When a public body receives a proper request for information, it must comply with that request unless one of the narrow statutory exemptions applies.” Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 176 Ill. 2d 401, 407 , 680 N.E.2d 374, 377 (1997).

2024(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barner v. Fairburn, 2019 IL App (3d) 180742, ¶ 12 , 134 N.E.3d 987 . -6- ¶ 20 “When a public body receives a proper request for information, it must comply with that request unless one of the narrow statutory exemptions applies.” Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 176 Ill. 2d 401, 407 , 680 N.E.2d 374, 377 (1997).

2017“Thus, when a public body receives a proper request for information, it must comply with that request unless one of the narrow statutory exemptions set forth in section 7 of the Act 6 1-15-0870 applies.” Illinois Education Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456, 463 (2003). ¶ 16 Our analysis of whether Janssen’s remaining documents fall within a FOIA exception is guided by several well-established principles of statutory construction.

2017“Thus, when a public body receives a proper request for information, it must comply with that request unless one of the narrow statutory exemptions set forth in section 7 of the Act 6 1-15-0870 applies.” Illinois Education Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456, 463 (2003). ¶ 16 Our analysis of whether Janssen’s remaining documents fall within a FOIA exception is guided by several well-established principles of statutory construction.

2005Goodrich argues that an order requiring an FOIA defendant to produce an index provided for under section 11(e) of the FOIA (5 ILCS 140/11(e) (West 2002)) is purely "ministerial" and "administrative." Goodrich claims the indexing order was a "procedural ruling, much like an order compelling the production of a privilege log, or any other routine discovery order; it does not adjudicate any rights, or alter or affect the legal relationship between the parties." Goodrich cites Hinton v. Department of Justice , 844 F.2d 126, 129-30 (3d Cir. 1988), for the proposition that an FOIA index is only "a s

2005Goodrich argues that an order requiring an FOIA defendant to produce an index provided for under section 11(e) of the FOIA (5 ILCS 140/11(e) (West 2002)) is purely “ministerial” and “administrative.” Goodrich claims the indexing order was a “procedural ruling, much like an order compelling the production of a privilege log, or any other routine discovery order; it does not adjudicate any rights, or alter or affect the legal relationship between the parties.” Goodrich cites Hinton v. Department of Justice, 844 F.2d 126, 129-30 (3d Cir. 1988), for the proposition that an FOIA index is only “a si

2025See id.; Barner v. Fairburn, 2019 IL App (3d) 180742, ¶ 13 (the circuit court properly granted the public body’s motion to dismiss when it demonstrated that the records plaintiff requested did not exist because no FOIA violation can occur without the existence of records).

2024(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barner v. Fairburn, 2019 IL App (3d) 180742, ¶ 12 , 134 N.E.3d 987 . -6- ¶ 20 “When a public body receives a proper request for information, it must comply with that request unless one of the narrow statutory exemptions applies.” Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 176 Ill. 2d 401, 407 , 680 N.E.2d 374, 377 (1997).

2023Id. ¶ 14 Consistent with these principles, “[w]hen a novel FOIA issue arises regarding the Illinois FOIA statute, Illinois courts often look to cases citing the federal FOIA statute [citation] for interpretation, due to the similarity of the statutes.” State Journal-Register v. University of Illinois Springfield, 2013 IL App (4th) 120881, ¶ 21 (citing Harwood v. McDonough, 344 Ill.

2013Harwood v. McDonough, 344 Ill.

2026Although plaintiff argues that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his state law claims of negligence and a -8- No. 1-24-2516 FOIA violation, “[f]ederal courts are entitled to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are part of the ‘same case or controversy’ as a claim over which they have original jurisdiction.” River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290, 317 (1998). ¶ 29 Here, at most, the second federal court noted that the allegation of a FOIA violation did not implicate the Constitution or federal law.

2026Although plaintiff argues that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his state law claims of negligence and a -8- No. 1-24-2516 FOIA violation, “[f]ederal courts are entitled to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are part of the ‘same case or controversy’ as a claim over which they have original jurisdiction.” River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290, 317 (1998). ¶ 29 Here, at most, the second federal court noted that the allegation of a FOIA violation did not implicate the Constitution or federal law.

2026See Village of Arlington Heights v. Anderson, 2011 IL App (1st) 110748, ¶14 (“county treasurer reports are public records.”).

2026See Village of Arlington Heights v. Anderson, 2011 IL App (1st) 110748, ¶14 (“county treasurer reports are public records.”).

2024App. 3d 778, 782 , 709 N.E.2d 1281, 1285 (1999); see also Turner v. Joliet Police Department, 2019 IL App (3d) 170819, ¶¶ 12-13 , 123 N.E.3d 1147 (affirming dismissal of FOIA claim as moot under section 2-619(a)(9) where plaintiff had received the information he had requested from the Joliet Police Department).

2023Id. ¶ 14 Consistent with these principles, “[w]hen a novel FOIA issue arises regarding the Illinois FOIA statute, Illinois courts often look to cases citing the federal FOIA statute [citation] for interpretation, due to the similarity of the statutes.” State Journal-Register v. University of Illinois Springfield, 2013 IL App (4th) 120881, ¶ 21 (citing Harwood v. McDonough, 344 Ill.

2022See Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 26 (“these counts merely advanced different analytical approaches for determining how the home or its proceeds should be allocated between the parties.

2020See Nelson v. Kendall County, 2014 IL 116303, ¶ 29 (noting that, “because the FOIA does not include the judicial branch in its listing of public bodies, the judiciary is exempt from the statute's provisions,” and this exemption extends to “nonjudicial components of the judicial branch” such as the clerks of the circuit courts); see also Newman, Raiz & Shelmadine, LLC v. Brown, 394 Ill.

2020See Nelson, 2014 IL 116303, ¶ 29 ; Newman, Raiz & Shelmadine, 394 Ill.

2020See Nelson v. Kendall County, 2014 IL 116303, ¶ 29 (noting that, “because the FOIA does not include the judicial branch in its listing of public bodies, the judiciary is exempt from the statute's provisions,” and this exemption extends to “nonjudicial components of the judicial branch” such as the clerks of the circuit courts); see also Newman, Raiz & Shelmadine, LLC v. Brown, 394 Ill.

2020See Nelson, 2014 IL 116303, ¶ 29 ; Newman, Raiz & Shelmadine, 394 Ill.