Watchdogs Win Unanimous Ruling In Appellate Court FOIA Case –

Paris, Ill. (ECWd) –

In a unanimous 17-page ruling handed down by the Fifth District Appellate Court today, the court Order stated:

“The circuit court erred when it held that the defendant could redact the names of
persons identified in the federal grand jury subpoena along with other information.
The judgment granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying plaintiff’s partial
motion for summary judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with
directions to perform an additional in camera review. Further, the circuit court erred
when it found the defendant was the prevailing party and upon remand, the plaintiff
shall be allowed to submit a petition for attorney fees and costs. “

Our attorneys at Loevy & Loevy provided the following statement: “The Appellate Court’s ruling is a great win for government transparency, public accountability, and for all Illinois FOIA requesters who obtain a court order in their favor in a FOIA lawsuit.”

This Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case stems from our FOIA request for copies of the grand jury subpoena(s) issued to Paris Union School District 95 back in 2023 as part of the investigations into former School Superintendent Larson and the alleged improper use of grant funds.

We had previously written about subpoenas being subject to the FOIA, the original lawsuit, the circuit court’s decision, and the redacted 19-page subpoena.

We disagreed with the circuit court’s decision, because the court ordered D-95 to unredact portions of the subpoena and provide a copy to us. The court further ordered that D-95 prevailed, and based on their prevailing, did not have to pay our attorney fees and costs. We disagreed because we believed our lawsuit prompted the further redactions ordered, that the court wrongly permitted redaction of names and other items, and that based on the ordered production of the subpoena that we should have prevailed and were due our attorney fees and costs. The circuit court judge was Matthew Sullivan.

The Appellate Court agreed with us and reversed the circuit court’s decision:

• “In conclusion, we find the circuit court erred when it held that the defendant could redact the names of persons identified in the federal grand jury subpoena and the information in paragraph 19 of the subpoena to the extent that the redacted information contained the names of public officials and employees and public information relevant to the actions of these public officials or employees. The circuit court further erred when it found that the defendant was the prevailing party. We find that the plaintiff is the prevailing party and therefore is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. We have also determined that the circuit court ordered information previously redacted in the grand jury subpoena to be publicly released, except for the names of certain individuals and other information found in paragraph 19. Therefore, to the extent the defendant claimed exemptions related to the information that has now been released, those issues are moot. The judgment granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying the plaintiff’s partial motion for partial summary judgment is reversed. This cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to enter partial summary judgment for the plaintiff, and to conduct an appropriate in camera examination of the grand jury subpoena and to order the release of the names of any public officials or employees and other public information from the subpoena consistent with this disposition. Additionally, upon remand, the plaintiff should be granted leave to submit a petition for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party. The circuit court shall hold a hearing on the plaintiff’s petition and award the reasonable attorney fees and costs.
• Reversed and remanded with directions.“