Case: Kalven v. City of Chicago

The plaintiff in this case sued the City of Chicago (“the City”), the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”), and CPD Superintendent Jody Weis in Illinois state court under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The complaint was filed December 22, 2009, in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants refused to produce public records regarding charges of official misconduct against Chicago police officers and the City’s investigation of those charges. The plaintiff accordingly requested that the court order the defendants to produce the requested records and award attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to Judge Neil G. Cohen.

Specifically, the plaintiffs requested two sets of documents: (1) “complaint register” (CR) files, which contain documents generated while investigating an officer for alleged misconduct and (2) lists of information created in the course of other litigation against CPD. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In an opinion filed January 24, 2012, Judge Cohen granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the CR files but granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the two lists from prior litigation. 2012 WL 10901744. He reasoned that the CR files fit within an exception to the Illinois FOIA law and thus were not subject to disclosure. On the other hand, the court found that because the litigation lists did not fit an exception, they were presumptively “public records” under the statute and thus subject to disclosure. Finally, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.

Both parties then moved for partial reconsideration, which the court refused in an order filed May 23, 2012. 2012 WL 10906890. As to the defendant, the court explained that it had already considered and rejected the defendant’s arguments in its first opinion; it refused to modify them as requested in the motion for reconsideration. And as to the plaintiff, the court rejected arguments that an amended version of the Illinois FOIA should apply. Like in its first opinion, the court found that the pre-amendment version of the Illinois FOIA would apply to the parties’ dispute. Accordingly, the court did not modify its first opinion.

The parties appealed to the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court on June 19, 2012 (for the plaintiff) and June 21, 2012 (for the defendants). In an opinion filed on March 10, 2014, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s opinion with regard to the CR files. 7 N.E. 3d 741. The appellate court explained that the defendants’ claimed exemptions did not actually apply to the CR files, meaning that neither the CR files nor the litigation lists were exempt from disclosure under the Illinois FOIA. It then remanded the case, with one relevant note. It acknowledged that the “deliberative-process” exemption to the Illinois FOIA might apply to the case. The defendants did not raise this theory until oral argument before the appellate court. Thus, the appellate court thus instructed the trial court to consider this issue after an in camera inspection.

Parties reached a settlement outside of the courtroom on July 10, 2014, whereby the CPD released the requested information to the plaintiff with agreed-upon narrow exceptions. The parties then stipulated to dismiss the case in trial court on August 12, 2014, and the case is now closed. The litigation resulted in the creation of an online database that displays information about police officers and their misconduct.