EN THE CERCUET CGERT Si? ELLENQES EERAREMENE ?iViSi?N Ti?iE CHECAGQ Plaintiff, V. {Ii/Vi?? CHICAGO, \imw? ?ww/ Defendant. UNBER ILLINOIS FREEDQM OF ACT FOR INJUNCTIVE ANE) RELEEF Piaintiff Chicago Tributie (the ?Tribune? brings this complaint under the Freedem (3f infermatieii Act against S?fe?d?ii?ii the City (if Chicago (the ??City?) fer failure tei disciese puhiie records as required by law. NATQRE THE ACTIQN i. This is a complaint under the Freedom of infermatien Act 5 ILCS ?140? et seq. in violation of FOIA, the City has tailed to W?ar?puh?? Wee records; specifically 25 email chains sent er received by a aw E: 23$ ot?ticiai government e-iriaii to the eentraetual reiationsh?f}; beggeen Public Scheeis and (me of its venders? 2. The Tribune seeks: a declaration that the City t0 eempiy with tie injunction commandieg the Ciiy te disc?lose withetit improper the records requested in the Tribune?s FOEA request dated May 12, 2015; and an order awarding the Tribune iis attorneys? fees and costs this iaweeit. PARTIES 3. The Tribune is a majer daily newspaper and media Oiitlet with the. highest hiywlallah a? any {jail}; pahlicailah in the Ml?wmh 233 well as halihhal 21ml l: amelal is {he ?l?z??hua??g that ii :??xaive Ehga?z?lhg {ha Sherailhhg {2f h} hsag lh?s ahh?gad lh alga?le sill The City 0f Chicagh is a ?puhlla hsdy? 33 that term l3 deflasd l3} 5 ELCS On all ralevant mailers: belawg the Ch}; aciad lhmugh lh?? (Elisa hf the Maya 0f {ha City of Chicaga (the ?Mayarls Gf?ce?), which is; hvemeen by and ihe Official al?lh?rs ofihe Cily?g chiefexecut?ve. JSRISDICTIGN AND VENUE 5. is granted {a this Calm under 5 Ml}! Elia.) 0f 5. Venue is pmpar in Cock County under 5 1405 1(a) 6f FOIA hacauge the City is lacatad in Charity, FACTUAL BACKGROUND The: Illinois FOIA 7. lr; FOIA, {he General Assembly d?clared that ?all persans are shtlil?d to full and cemplete the affairs of gm?erhment and the of?cial aQ-{s and pollsias 03? those who represent them.? 5 ?l40/l. speci?cally Creates a presumptlan {hat reserds in tha {insanely or pogsessish of a public hedfy are presumed t0 he (3361?: la 0r Id. ?340/l.2. 8. ?puhlic body? means all legislative, executive, admi?ls?ira?ve, or advisary bodlas 0f the State, state universities and calleges, counties, Gilli-3S, villages, lncerpmated towns, and all ether municipal cameratiensl beards? bureaus; or commisglons of this State, any subsidiary bodies of any 0f the l?oregalng Id. ?0 ?95, ??Peblle means all f?C?fdga repettsy terms, ?lettings? letters? e?lest:tmetelea tweaks? glitterse megs? mlemt?i?msa seeds? dete emeessieg eemmueleatless, let?eemetten sled all ether materials petteleleg te the "transeetlee ef public: busleess? regeedless e5 ehysleel fete: er having been by et let, er having been er being used by, received by, lit the possesslen 0f, er under the centrel at any public bedyt? [at ?l40f2(e). 10. The FOIA statute requires public bedies te eemply with or deny requests within ?ve business days after the request ls Id. When certain ate met, the public bedy may extend its time fer respendleg by ?eet mere {lean ?ve business days teem the erlgleel due date.? id, ?140i3{e), The Requests for Meyerl?s Office E-?mails l. De April 24} 2013, Tribune reporter Bill Ruthhart sent a FOIA request to the City, through the Mayor?s Of?ce; seeking all emails dated September 1, 2011 through August Bl, 2013 sent te er ftem Mayer Rahm Emaneel add/er two of his senior aides, David Spielfegel and Beth Swansea, and (me at more ef a list of teens related to the eentraetual relationship between Chicago Public Seheels and SUPES Academy. That relatienship led te the expenditure efmilliens in taxpayer dellats and prompted an investigation by the United States Attorney for the Netthem District of widespread med?a eeverege and the tesigeatiee oftlte CEO of CPS, Barbara Byrd-Bennett. 22. The City did not respend to, grant? er deny, the April 24, 201:5 request fer the emails relating to SUPES discussed in paragtaph lla abeve. l3. en April 24, 2015; Mr. Rethhert sent a separate FOIA request to the City, Lt) threege {he Meyee?e Q?Eeeg Seeking a: fag efeii e~?ee??e seughi if: :he EQEA requeei @iseugse? in pei?egeeph 1 abeye {em ee? the ewme?is themseiyes) HES requeei fer a, 30g wee ie the ekemeziye deiermiee whet: FOEA were A?er requegt?ng 3e exieneien 0f the ?ve-day Simmer}; time ger?ed {e reepemd {e the {equesi fer the email ieg, disengaged in paragmph 13, abeye, {he City, acting threugh {he Mayer?e Uf?ee? Eeg of emails in the eyenieg 9f May 8, 2015, That leg identified emails by 21133101?, recipient? subject: eed date and time sent, but did eet ineiude the (semen: efihe e-mails. ?55. 611 May 12, 20153 Mr, Rethha? submi?ited a felgew-up FOIA request seeking 25 speci?c e~maii Chaim identi?ed en the Eeg by {he City (the ?May 12 FOIA Request?). This was an initial reqeest e~maiis relating is the re?atiemhipg inteeded as a precursor t0 pessible requests fer additienal enmaii chains 0n the same Subject identified en the email leg. A cepy of My. Ruihhar?t?s May 32 FOIA Request is aftaehed herem as Exhibit A. The Reseense t0 the May 12 FQIA Reevest 16. Deep?te the finite naiure 0f {he May 12 FOIA Request, which seeks enly 25 email chains, {he City on May 19, 2015; again seught an exiensien of the statutory response peeled. E7. May 28, 2515, {he Ciiy, aeiing threegh the Mayef?s Of?ee, predeced a wriitee respense {e the May 12 FOIA Request as weli es {edacted versione 0f 19 Ofthe 25 e~ma?is chains eeqeesied. The Six remaining email chains were Withheid in their emireiy. A cepy 0f the May 28: 2015 writien response ef??he City (?May 28 Respense?) is attached as Exhibi: B. A cepy of {he 19 redacted email chains produced by the City is attached as Exhibit C. .ihk l8. lit the May 28 Respehse, the City .trtehtiehed fear distit?iet thA eaemptiees allegedly applieahle to the requested. eeihail ehaihs. ilawever, the City tailed te identity Whieh exeriiptiaes applied ta whieh withheld er redaeted deetitt?iehts, See Ex. 18:. ii}. Fartherrttere. heeause the City made its redaetiehs tisirig a white redaetieh element, it is te identify where text has been redaeted, haw miteh text has beer: redacted, and, with respect te eertaih emails chains, whether any text has beet: redacted at allResponse states that same efthe unspecified redacted text eeataiaed persenal e-mail addresses at? private citizens and persenal telephehe numbers and week eell pheae numbers {if hath private Citizens and getterrtmeht empleyees, ail asserted ta be exempt": under Seetieh and EX. B. At this time, the Tribune dees net dispute any redactioas se limited to numeric telephene humhers and email addresses 0f private citizens. However, the May 28 Response also cites t0 three ether FOIA exemptions, which the City has asserted to redaet ahd ceneeal substantive pertiehs 0f 19 of the email chains at issue and to withhold six ef the email ehaihs in their entirety. By this Complaint, the Tribune Challenges these asserted exemptiens as inapplicable. El. First, the City invoked the ?personal privaey? exemption of Section stating that certain unspecified e-mail chains contained ?iht?ormatidh related it) personal plahs, family life, and the persenal health (if eerrespaadehts.? Ea?, p. 2. Eat that exemptien applies only :0 disclosares that ?wattld eehstitute a clearly unwarranted ihvasidh (if persenal privacy.? 5 Given the parties te the emails, the subject lines of these e?mails, and the context, it is highly unlikely that the hi gh standard at Seetieh 7( was met here. 22. For example, the redacted ewmail chain that terminated on May 2, 20l2 with the Subject line ?latest? ineladee e?n?ieile between Me Swat/teen} et? the Meg/ens Gt?t?ieet and Penny and ether nietnhets til? the heated (it diteetets at the {?hieege Publie Edtteetien titted ??ee if at {:v3l, lit/fie. wee tin eff/ten} inen?teet et? the tinned the Chieage Pnhlie Fiend, getting as the et?tieiel liaison between the Fund and the Meyer?s Gt?iiee.) The unredeeted email text ineineiee dieettesiens ehntit the tinting til? the ennenneetnent of a ntegi?am titled ?Surely Skills,? with Ms. Swansen stating that ?the annettneement is new getting tn have t0 be after May City Conneii Meeting.? See id at ($30 (April 283 email from Swensen to Marie and Penny Pritzker). The very next sentenee item MS. Swansen appeais te have been redacted me thie context, it is extremely unlikely that the redacted teenage eenteins persenel that tennid trigger a clearly unwarranted invasion ef peteennl grivney if diselesedt 23. Second, the City else inveked the ?preliminary draft exemption? Set t?erth in Section Id. Howevet, the majority 0f the email chains are between the Mayor?s Office and individuals nutside of City government. The email chain described in the preceding patagmph? between heard members of the erivate Chieage Public Education Fund and Ms. Swanson as the Mayor?s representative en that heard, is illustrative. The ?preliminary draft exemptinn? dees not apply te such external communications. 24. Finally: the City tank the position that certein entails {presumably the six Withheld in theii entirety) were net publie records because they ?did net bear 0n the teens-action of husinees ef the publie hedy.? 1d. But meet or all of the emails at issue involve the Mayor?s Chief of Staff for Education, communicating in her ef?cial capacity via her government e?mail account with outside venders or piivette fenders 0f CPS, with subject lines indieating that the tnails related to CPS epetatienst CPS vendors, or CPS fending. See Ex. Ct The City ?es Refereed @?Errlsiele Requesrs re Cure 25; Gr: silage 29, Eli Mr. Rurhhar?? and speke with Shannen ?reymaier er? else Meyer?s @l??ee sheer gee: issues Mr. Reseller: heel: she Mey ?23 Elmer Mr. Rurhhert sra'ied the: the Ciiy appeared te have erased center}: frem same er? {he email strings. Ms, Breymeier seared? is. the: :20 een??em had been removal frem {he emails, but that {hey had been redacted with a while redeei?en reel. Mr. Rulhharr stated that it was ihe Ciliy?s respensibillty {e where Geniem heel been redacted and Ms. Breymaier said she weulcl leek inn) {he matter? 26. Ir: that same eenversa?iien elf May 293 Mr. Ruthhert reqaested that {he Cliy re? predrree {he redacted e?mell eheies with a shaded redaction element? E0 ideerify where {ext heel redactee. He further requested {hat the City identify which erred exemptions applied. :9 which earrieular emmall chains. 27. Later en May 295 EOli Ms. Breymaier responded arid refused Mr. Ruthhari?s requests, staring that the FOIA statute did not require the City te Cite the speci?c exemption or exemptions applicable K) a particular Withheld deeument, or to ?make redactiens using a particular celer.? A copy ef the May 29, 205 responsive e-mail fer Ms. Breymaier is attached as Exhibit D. 28. June 4, 2015, eutside ceunsel for the Tribune sent a letier t0 the Ci?y?s Carperarien Counsel and City identifying {he de?ciencies in the City?s response {0 Mr. Ruthharr?s May l2 Request. The letter requested an amended response, in compliance with FOlArey June 9, 2e: 5, A eepy efrhe June 49 20l5 letter is arreehed as Exhib??r E. 29. The City did not prev?de a eerreeteel respense by June 9. On that date, an arremey fer the City placed a call to the Tribune?s Outside eeunSelr On June 105 2915, the City a?ereey N.) 3:an that this City W?t?d at?: tegpattse agidmsgittg ng?, but att. gt? tits but ?iti when waui? Gt} 3mm 32., 293$. $32? Cit}: attamgy ammd?s? twtt?d titt: pmum?ia. .Etme 36. BGES. Ga has 38. tht: Qty attomey ptatiistad that ?ts? ammde wanid bi graduced 0n. June i9. 39. Ta data, the City hag mt ptoducad at: amand?d tesponga tt) the May ?32 FGEA Requegt. RELEEF REQUESTED the Tt?bane se?ks disclogure of at} 25 e-mail Chains requested in the: May 12 FGIA Requagt, with mi}? telephone numberg and e-maii addregses redacted. 32. The it} the. preceding paragraph are pttb?c ?acumentg withit?t the meaning of ILCS ?i40/2(c) and Subject to disctasure by the City under POM. The Cited by the City to redact and canceal these public records do mt apply. 33. This court has jurisdict?en ?to Emma [the City] from public aad to enter the productioa of any public teeords impreperly withhaid from the perscm seeking access.? ?5 ILCS $403 34. The Tribun? i3 ent?tled t0 recover its reasanable attemeys? t?esg garsugnt t0 5 mm WHEREFORE, The requests that this Ceurt: issue a dsciatatory judgment in the Ttibune?s favor that the City 0f Chicage?s response to the May 12 Request faiied ta campty with ante; an Graterng the City 0f Chtgage t9 produce the 25 e?ma?l chains (21) with Only pct?smal telephone numbers and e~mai1 addresses redacted mad mm @136 Marian {:zf Bligh {edaaieng dwriy idmii?ed the dgcamemg; awafd ?he Tribng its aimm?ys? {gas and if} pmsawi??g ibis agiian? 3211:? award T?bmne any mm ammgr?gia 245 ZGES By? Edward WI Feldman Daniel M. Feeney Alexan?za Black MILLER SHAKMAN BEEM (#830236) 180 N?fth LaSaiia Street; Su?ie 3690 Chicaga, 1L 606m (3 i2) 263?3760 Natalie Spears US LLP (#56309) 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicagc}, IL 63606?6404 (312) 876-2556 OfCeunsel: Karen Flax D?pgty Genefa} Ceunsei TRIBUNE PUBLISHING 43:3 N. Michigan Ave. Chicage, 6061} Respec?hily submi?ed? THE CHICAGQ TRIBUNE its a?omeys 5' 3