ARCOLA, IL. (ECWd) –
This is an update to this article (click here) and you will be able to read the Letter on file in this case that denied the motion for involuntary dismissal.
Plaintiff – Kraft v. Defendant Arcola Township
This is a summary of my opinion on what the Letter Ruling stated, you can read the actual ruling at the end of this article.
Defendant filed Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, here is the letter ruling on that motion:
1. Defendant argued that Kraft did not have standing because the FOIA requests were on behalf of the Edgar County Watchdogs, Inc. – Letter ruled that Kraft requested FOIA in his own name and set the address of Edgar County Watchdogs as place to receive response.
2. Defendant argued there was only one FOIA request instead of two. Letter ruled this was not a matter barring claim (complaint).
3. Amount of payment for FOIA production questioned. Letter ruled it not an issue or cannot be determined at the pleading stage.
4. Defendant argued there was no genuine issue as to material fact. Letter ruled this should not be raised in this motion, but instead during a Motion for Summary Judgment.
5. Defendant filed several affidavits claiming complete compliance. Letter ruled that, on their face (responsive documents), there were multiple pages in length, but not all pages were furnished and the affidavits do not account for the absence of the additional pages, and that Defendant’s failure to furnish the same is not in compliance with the Freedom Of Information Act.
6. Other items questioned that were not germane to this motion, but could be issues raised under Motion to Dismiss in another paragraph of the civil code.
[gview file=”http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ArcolaMotionDenied.pdf” save=”1″]