IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
MEGAN FOX,
KEVIN DUJAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT,
VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK,
ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2014 CH 12568
Hon. Neil H. Cohen

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COME Plaintiffs, MEGAN FOX and KEVIN DUJAN, by their undersigned
attorneys, LOEVY & LOEVY, and bring this suit to overturn willful violations of the Illinois
Freedom of Information Act and Illinois Open Meetings Act by Defendants ORLAND PARK
POLICE DEPARTMENT, VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK, and ORLAND PARK PUBLIC
LIBRARY.
INTRODUCTION
1.

Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of

government, it is the public policy of the State of Illinois that all persons are entitled to full and
complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of
those who represent them as public officials and public employees consistent with the terms of
the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
2.

Restraints on access to information, to the extent permitted by FOIA, are limited

exceptions to the principle that the people of this state have a right to full disclosure of

 information relating to the decisions, policies, procedures, rules, standards, and other aspects of
government activity that affect the conduct of government and the lives of the people.
3.

All public records of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or

copying. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt.
4.

If the court determines that a public body willfully and intentionally failed to

comply with FOIA, or otherwise acted in bad faith, the court shall impose upon the public body a
civil penalty of not less than $2,500 nor more than $5,000 for each occurrence.
5.

The Illinois Open Meetings Act “declares it to be the public policy of this State

that its citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any
business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way” and states that “it is the intent
of this Act to protect the citizen’s right to know.”
6.

Under OMA Section 2.06(g), “Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to

address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.”
PARTIES
7.

Plaintiff MEGAN FOX is an Illinois resident.

8.

Plaintiff KEVIN DUJAN is an Illinois resident.

9.

Defendant ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT is a public body located in

Cook County, Illinois.
10.

Defendant VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK is a public body located in Cook

County, Illinois.
11.

Defendant ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY is a public body located in

Cook County, Illinois.

-­‐ 
  2 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 FOX’S FOIA REQUESTS AND ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT’S AND
VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK’S VIOLATIONS
12.

On July 16, 2014, FOX requested from ORLAND PARK POLICE

DEPARTMENT any calls or reports given to the department by Orland Park Library Board
trustees from July 7, 2014, to present. (Exhibit A.)
13.

Having received no response, FOX sent a follow-up email on July 29, 2014.

(Exhibit B.)
14.

On July 22, 2014, FOX requested from ORLAND PARK POLICE

DEPARTMENT a variety of records related to an incident of that date in which FOX was
detained by ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT while exercising her First Amendment
rights to distribute flyers. (Exhibit C.) The detention occurred in response to a call from John
Weimar, the husband of ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY director Mary Weimar.
15.

Having received no response, FOX sent a follow-up email on July 29, 2014.

(Exhibit D.)
16.

FOX’s

requests

were

sent

by

DEPARTMENT employee Rick Dalzell.

email

to

ORLAND

PARK

POLICE

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT

previously told FOX that Dalzell was the department’s FOIA officer, and Dalzell previously
responded to FOIA requests that FOX sent to his email address and to no other Village
employees.
17.

After the filing of the original Complaint in this matter, ORLAND PARK

POLICE DEPARTMENT indicated that on or around July 29, 2014, VILLAGE OF ORLAND
PARK and ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT had blocked all emails from FOX’s
email account except for those sent to a small number of employees that did not include Dalzell
yet never informed FOX that this had occurred.
-­‐ 
  3 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 18.

VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK and ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT

have claimed that this email blockade is responsible for their failure to respond to the July 16 and
July 22 requests, even though they occurred before the blockade was imposed.
19.

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT’s and VILLAGE OF ORLAND

PARK’s alleged justification for imposing this unannounced block on FOX’s email account—
that she had sent “harassing” emails that were “interfering” with Village business and contained
potential computer viruses—is unsupported by the facts, and upon information and belief, was
motivated by a desire to retaliate against FOX for her criticisms of ORLAND PARK POLICE
DEPARTMENT, VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK, and ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY
officials.
20.

FOX’s requests were “received” under FOIA by ORLAND PARK POLICE

DEPARTMENT at the time FOX’s requests were received by whatever instrumentality or person
conducted the blocking of FOX’s emails. To the extent any emails were not delivered to Dalzell,
this is a problem entirely of ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT’s and VILLAGE OF
ORLAND PARK’s own making.
21.

By failing to produce the records when required, ORLAND PARK POLICE

DEPARTMENT and VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK have willfully and intentionally violated
FOIA.
22.

In response to FOX’s filing of the original Complaint, ORLAND PARK POLICE

DEPARTMENT has produced responsive records, but upon information and belief, one of those
records, an audio recording involving the July 22 instance, is incomplete. On August 24 and
August 27, 2014, counsel for FOX asked counsel for ORLAND PARK POLICE
DEPARTMENT and VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK to provide a detailed factual explanation

-­‐ 
  4 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 of ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT’s and VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK’s search
for responsive audio and why only audio of a portion of events was produced, but counsel for
ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT and VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK provided only
speculation and no supporting evidence.
23.

On July 29, 2014, FOX requested various records related to, among other things,

another instance in which she and DUJAN were stopped by Orland Park police while exercising
their First Amendment rights to distribute flyers. (Exhibit E.)
24.

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT did not respond to the request by the

five-day deadline, apparently as a result of its decision to block FOX’s emails.
25.

In response to the filing of the original Complaint and correspondence from

FOX’s counsel, ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT produced some responsive records
but has not completed that production.
26.

On August 4, 2014, FOX requested by email to Dalzell various records related to

police reports made by a specific individual. (Exhibit F.)
27.

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT did not respond to the request by the

five-day deadline, apparently as a result of their decision to block FOX’s emails.
28.

FOX’s attorney sent a copy of the outstanding request on August 20, 2014, to

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT’s attorney, but ORLAND PARK POLICE
DEPARTMENT has still not provided a response.
29.

On August 9, 2014, FOX requested by email to Dalzell, copying ORLAND

PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT’s attorney at Klein Thorpe & Jenkins because she had since
learned of the block imposed against her email account, various records related to reports of a
man possibly exposing his genitals at the Orland Park public library. (Exhibit G.)

-­‐ 
  5 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 30.

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT has not provided a response to the

August 9, 2014 request.
VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK’S AND ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT’S
ILLEGAL FOIA PROCEDURES
31.

The ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT website provides a

“Records

Inquiry” button on its main page, http://www.orland-park.il.us/?nid=104.
32.

Selecting that “Records Inquiry” button redirects the user to the FOIA page for

the Village of Orland Park, http://www.orland-park.il.us/index.aspx?NID=1000.
33.

Selecting the “Submitting a FOIA Request” link on the Village’s FOIA page

redirects the user to the page http://www.orland-park.il.us/index.aspx?NID=1001.
34.

The “Submitting a FOIA Request” page states: “All requests for information must

be made in written form. Download the FOIA Request Form or visit the Village Clerk's Office.
Completed forms must be submitted as follows[.]”
35.

Orland Park Ordinance 1-11-1-2 states: “The request for information shall be in

writing on a form provided by the Village.”
36.

FOIA Section 3(c) expressly states: “A public body may not require that a request

be submitted on a standard form.”
37.

VILLAGE

OF

ORLAND

PARK’s

and

ORLAND

PARK

POLICE

DEPARTMENT’s FOIA form purports to require that a requester sign the form and state: “This
request is being made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, and
the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of that Act[.]”
38.

FOIA does not require requests to be signed or for a requester to agree to

anything.

-­‐ 
  6 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 39.

Upon information and belief, based on the clear requirements of FOIA and the

lack of any legitimate reasons for these illegal procedures, VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK and
ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT require the use of a FOIA form, a signature, and this
attestation in an effort to intimidate the public from making FOIA requests for fear of legal
liability if they are found not to have “abide[d] by the requirements” of FOIA.
ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’S VIOLATIONS OF FOIA
40.

By way of background demonstrating ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s

bad faith in responding to requests from FOX and DUJAN, in October 2013, in response to a
FOIA request from FOX and an email from FOX complaining about how library staff treated
her, the library’s internet policies, and people viewing pornography on library computers,
ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY director Mary Weimar investigated FOX’s background
online and asked the ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT to review FOX’s First
Amended protected speech and conduct, which the department did.
41.

By way of further background, on May 19, 2014, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC

LIBRARY employee Bridget Bittman, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY attorney James
Fessler of Klein Thorpe & Jenkins (which firm also represents VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK
and

ORLAND

PARK

POLICE

DEPARTMENT),

and

ORLAND

PARK

POLICE

DEPARTMENT officers discussed arresting FOX and DUJAN during a break in a public
meeting of the ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY Board for “interrupting” the meeting.
42.

During that discussion, in response to a statement from Mr. Fessler that there was

one remaining item on the Board agenda, an ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT officer
stated, “Then it’s done for the night? Well then they can just go.” Ms. Bittman then asked, “Is
that what you guys want or do you want to do it while the meeting’s still in process?” The
officer stated that the “ultimate goal” was for FOX and DUJAN to leave after the meeting “and
-­‐ 
  7 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 then we’ll do a police report on it,” and Mr. Fessler then referenced a prior discussion he had
with ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT Chief McCarthy about FOX and DUJAN.
After further discussions about the remaining meeting agenda item, an officer stated, “If they’re
not going to be disruptive this time, so we’ll tell them the next meeting if there are any problems
we’ll throw them in the tank.”
43.

In the 911 call prior to this discussion that led to the officers being sent to the

library, Ms. Bittman alleged a “disruption” at the meeting and said that the ORLAND PARK
POLICE DEPARTMENT Chief McCarthy had “arranged to have someone come” to the library.
The 911 operator was apparently aware that this call would be coming because she asked “where
is she at” without being told whether the person in question was a man or woman.
Browser Histories
44.

On June 12, 2014, FOX requested from ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY a

printout of the browser history as of that date for computers assigned to library employees
Bridget Bittman and Mary Weimar. (Exhibit H.)
45.

On June 26, 2014, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY denied the June 12

request claiming that “no public records exist responsive to this request.” (Exhibit I.)
46.

On June 19, 2014, FOX requested from ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY a

printout of the browser history as of that date for computers assigned to library employees
Bridget Bittman and Mary Weimar and for Ms. Bittman’s iPad and other mobile devices.
(Exhibit J.)
47.

On June 26, 2014, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY denied the June 12

request claiming that “no public records exist responsive to this request.” (Exhibit K.)
48.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY later conceded that browser histories do

exist, but claims they are not “public records.”
-­‐ 
  8 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 49.

Under FOIA Section 2(c), public records includes “electronic data processing

records” and also includes all records “regardless of physical form or characteristic.” Browser
histories fall within these clauses.
50.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’S “Social Media Use Policy” governs

employees’ use of social media “whether such use is for the Orland Park Public Library on
library time, for personal use during non-work time, outside the workplace or during working
time while using Employer owned equipment” and ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY
“reserves the right to monitor employees' use of social media including but not limited to
statements/comments posted on the Internet, in blogs and other types of openly accessible
forums, diaries, and personal and business discussion forums.” Employees are told that “should
have no expectation of privacy while using library equipment and facilities for any purpose,
including the use of social media. Orland Park Public Library reserves the right to monitor,
review, and block content that violates the Orland Park Public Library's rules and guidelines.”
(Exhibit L.)
51.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s “Communications Systems/Email

Policy” allows for personal use of publicly funded computers while working on taxpayer time,
but also states that “[e]mployees may not use the technology resources provided by the Orland
Park Public Library in such a way as to interfere with the duties of their employment or to
expose the Orland Park Public Library to cost or risk of legal liability.” It further states that
“Orland Park Public Library has the right to collect logs of Internet usage which may reveal
information such as websites that have been accessed from staff workstations. All staff members
should keep this in mind when using the Orland Park Public Library equipment to access the
Internet or send emails. . . . . The Orland Park Public Library has the right to monitor employee

-­‐ 
  9 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 use of library-owned equipment and network access, and shall conduct audits of such use at any
time.” Personal use of publicly funded computers, “except in the course of an employee’s duties
or with the express permission of administration,” may not be used for “personal commercial
purposes,” “any illegal purpose,” or other prohibited uses. (Exhibit M.)
52.

As these policies make clear, employee browser histories on publicly funded

computers pertain to the transaction of public business and are within the possession and/or
control of ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY. Employees have no expectation of privacy in
these records.
Attorney Billing Records
53.

On August 7, 2014, and at other times, FOX requested copies of legal bills from

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY. (Exhibit N.)
54.

On August 20, 2014, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY produced invoices

from Klein Thorpe & Jenkins, but redacted information pertaining to the use of public funds on
the basis that it was “personal or exempt,” failing to cite any particular exemption or any detailed
factual basis in violation of FOIA Section 9(a) and 9(b). (Exhibit O.)
55.

Based on the context of the redactions, no exemptions appear to apply to the

redacted information.
Email Blind-Copy Records
56.

On June 15, 2014, FOX requested certain emails from ORLAND PARK PUBLIC

LIBRARY under FOIA. FOX specifically asked that BCC fields (the identity of people blindcopied on the emails) be produced. (Exhibit P.)
57.

On July 10, 2014, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY produced records that

did not include the BCC fields.

-­‐ 
  10 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 58.

In response to the filing of FOX’s motion for leave to file this Amended

Complaint, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY has produced BCC fields for these records.
Recurrent Requester
59.

On September 12, 2014, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY informed FOX

and DUJAN that it now contends that both are “recurrent requesters” under FOIA section
2(g),which would allow ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY to take an unspecified and openended period of time to respond to FOX’s and DUJAN’s FOIA requests. (Exhibits ___)
60.

Under Section 2(g) of FOIA, requests made by news media and non-profit,

scientific, or academic organizations shall not be considered determining whether a requester is a
“recurrent requester” when the principal purpose of the requests is (i) to access and disseminate
information concerning news and current or passing events, (ii) for articles of opinion or features
of interest to the public, or (iii) for the purpose of academic, scientific, or public research or
education.
61.

FOX and DUJAN are news media as that term is defined in FOIA Section 2(f) at

least for the reasons that they publish electronic articles online at regular intervals, provide an
electronic news service, and create You Tube motion picture news for public showing.
62.

The purpose of FOX’s and DUJAN’s requests has been to access and disseminate

information concerning news and current or passing events at ORLAND PARK PUBLIC
LIBRARY, to publish articles of opinion or features of interest to the public, and to conduct
research into waste and misconduct by ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY officials.
63.

Therefore, FOX and DUJAN are not subject to the “recurrent requester” provision

of FOIA and ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY has violated FOIA by failing to respond to
requests within the standard deadlines.

-­‐ 
  11 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’S VIOLATIONS OF OMA
64.

By way of background, the Illinois Attorney General’s office has found that

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY has repeatedly violated the Open Meetings Act with
regard to its meetings.
65.

Even though the Attorney General opinions provide probable cause that the

ORLAND PARK PULIC LIBRARY board has violated OMA, and even though OMA clearly
states that “any person violating any of the provisions of this Act, except [subsections not at
issue], shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor,” ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
refused to pursue misdemeanor charges against the board when FOX notified the department of
one of the Attorney General opinions and asked that the board be charged.
Public Attendance and Address By Electronic Means
66.

Under the Illinois Open Meetings Act Section 2.06(g): “Any person shall be

permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by
the public body.”
67.

The OMA preamble states that “it is the intent of this Act to protect the citizen's

right to know” and that “exceptions to the public's right to attend exist only in those limited
circumstances where the General Assembly has specifically determined that the public interest
would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be
clearly in danger of unwarranted invasion.”
68.

Section 7 of OMA requires members to be “physically present” and allows

attendance by a member using “other means” only in specified circumstances. There is no
comparable prohibition on non-physical attendance by the general public or in the public
“address” provision under Section 2.06(g).

-­‐ 
  12 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 69.

In violation of OMA, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY does not permit the

public to attend meetings or address the board using widely available technology such as
FaceTime or Skype, even when conducted using privately owned devices, stating in its “Public
Comment Policy”: “All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video
conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated.” (Exhibit Q.)
Illegal Sign-In Procedure
70.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s “Public Comment Policy” states that

people wishing to speak must sign-in and provide their full name and the topic on which they
wish to speak. It also states: “If applicable, the individual will provide the organization or
association with which they are affiliated.” (Id.)
71.

There is no basis in OMA to require speakers to identify the topic on which they

wish to speak or any organization with which they are affiliated. At most, ORLAND PARK
PUBLIC LIBRARY may require people to sign in for the purpose of establishing an order of
speakers—a purpose not at all served by these additional and intimidating requirements.
72.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY applies its sign-in requirement

inconsistently, and has allowed comment favorable to the library even without prior sign-in by
the speaker.
Illegal Restrictions on the Content of Public Comment
73.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s “Public Comment Policy” does not

permit the public to address the board regarding “individual personnel issues.” (Id.)
74.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY “Public Comment Policy” also states:

“Abusive, profane, harassing and/or repetitive comments and language and/or personal attacks

-­‐ 
  13 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 will not be permitted and shall promptly be ruled out of order by the President or other presiding
officer.” Id.
75.

The OMA requires public bodies to allow the public to address the public

officials. While it allows, but generally does not require, public bodies to discuss certain matters
in closed session, no provision of OMA permits a public body to restrict the content of
comments made by the public in the manner set forth in the ORLAND PARK PUBLIC
LIBRARY policy.
76.

The vague and illegal nature of these restrictions is further demonstrated by

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s inconsistent application of these purported rules,
permitting “abusive” comments, use of profanity, harassment, and “personal attacks” when
directed to those who have been critical of the library.
77.

For example, at a board meeting on August 18, 2014, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC

LIBRARY permitted a speaker to shout directly at audience members for over two minutes,
whom she called “you people,” to attack “you people” for speaking about the library instead of
“trash” allegedly being taught at Orland Park schools, to aggressively accuse “you people” of
“bothering” the library board, to refer to audience members as “probably one of these that don’t
[sic] even live here” and “not even residents” and people who “don’t belong in this town” and to
encourage that they “get out of here,” to ask “what in the world” people from Elmhurst were
doing at the meeting, to ask “why can’t they go back to their own towns and destroy their own
towns,” to speak about a flyer found on her doorstep that “was probably [put there] by someone
that didn’t even live in the village,” to threaten to call the police on such people, and to refer to
the flyer as “trash.”

-­‐ 
  14 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 78.

Also at the August 18, 2014 board meeting, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC

LIBRARY trustee and registered attorney Diane Jennings engaged in a lengthy speech
personally attacking FOX and DUJAN and others critical of the library’s policies and the actions
of its officials, often shouting while aggressively stabbing her finger in the air, calling people
liars, repeating her prior statements that one such person was an “asshole,” accusing FOX and
DUJAN of “doctoring” a video and “fabricating” things, and twice loudly saying “shame on
you” while looking directly at DUJAN. Ms. Jennings also encouraged a library employee to sue
FOX and DUJAN while repeatedly banging her fist on a table.

Ms. Jennings also spoke at

length about “personnel issues,” devoting several minutes to giving her approval to conduct
undertaken by library staff members and referring to staff members by name. ORLAND PARK
PUBLIC LIBRARY did nothing to stop Ms. Jennings’s behavior.
79.

On November 18, 2013, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY permitted

someone to continuously yell, well in excess of his five minute allotment of time, about
“personnel issues” in which he praised library staff, including by name, to attack FOX and
DUJAN at length, to ask why Orland Park residents “let” FOX and DUJAN “come here” and
speak about pornography, and to accuse FOX and DUJAN of “lies.” When FOX objected to the
speech as a personal attack and to the extended time allotment, the ORLAND PARK PUBLIC
LIBRARY allowed him to continue.
80.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s “Public Comment Policy” also states:

“No public comments shall be heard on behalf of or opposed to a candidate for public office or
on any matter that may be subject to discussion by the Board of Library Trustees in
closed/executive session in accordance with the Open Meetings Act.” There is no justification in
OMA for these restrictions.

-­‐ 
  15 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 81.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s “Public Comment Policy” further states:

“All public comment shall be addressed to the Board as a whole and no comments shall be
addressed to individual members of the Board, Library staff or other members of the public.”
There is no basis in OMA to prohibit comments directed at individual officials, and the statute
specifically requires that any person be permitted an opportunity “to address public officials,”
not merely “the public body.”
82.

As discussed above, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY has called the police

when it alleged that meeting attendees critical of the library “disturbed the peace,” but not those
who personally attacked FOX or DUJAN, and Ms. Jennings (inaccurately) recounted one such
act by the library board in her August 18 personal attacks during a public meeting packed full of
members of the public and attended by the press.
83.

Especially in light of ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s conduct in calling

the police against purported violators of its illegal OMA policies and in encouraging employees
to sue people critical of the library’s employees, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s
content-based restrictions prohibiting these vague categories of comment have and are likely to
continue to have the practical effect of causing the public to be afraid of arrest, a lawsuit, or other
retaliation if they make comments critical of the board or violate these vague and inconsistently
enforced policies.
COUNT I – ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT’S AND VILLAGE OF ORLAND
PARK’S WILLFUL VIOLATION OF FOIA
84.

The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

85.

This count is brought by Plaintiff FOX.

86.

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT is a public body under FOIA.

87.

VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK is a public body under FOIA.
-­‐ 
  16 -­‐ 
  

 
  

 88.

The records sought in FOX’s FOIA requests are non-exempt public records of

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT and VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK.
89.

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT and VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK

have willfully and intentionally violated FOIA by failing to produce the requested records.
90.

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT and VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK

have acted in bad faith against FOX in denying the requests because she has been critical of their
policies and officials.
91.

ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT and VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK

have acted in bad faith against FOX by blocking emails from her email account from reaching
the person the ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT identified as its FOIA officer.
COUNT II – VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK’S AND ORLAND PARK POLICE
DEPARTMENT’S WILLFUL VIOLATION OF FOIA BY ILLEGALLY REQUIRING
USE OF A FOIA REQUEST FORM
92.

The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

93.

This count is brought by Plaintiff FOX.

94.

VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK and ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT

have willfully and intentionally violated FOIA by purporting to require requesters to use a form
and requiring a signature and agreement to abide by FOIA.
COUNT III – ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’S VIOLATIONS OF FOIA
95.

The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

96.

This count is brought by Plaintiff FOX, except as to the assertion of “recurrent

requester,” which is brought by both FOX and DUJAN.
97.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY has willfully and intentionally violated

FOIA and acted in bad faith by withholding non-exempt public records.

-­‐ 
  17 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 98.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY has willfully and intentionally violated

FOIA and acted in bad faith by asserting the “recurrent requester” provision of FOIA against
FOX and DUJAN while knowing full well that FOX and DUJAN regularly publish online the
results of their FOIA requests.
99.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY has acted in bad faith in denying FOX’s

request because she has been critical of its policies and officials.
COUNT IV – ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’S VIOLATIONS OF OMA
100.

The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

101.

This count is brought by Plaintiff DUJAN.

102.

ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY has violated OMA through its restrictions

on public comment.
103.

Upon information and belief, ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY will apply its

illegal policies at each of its future monthly board meetings.
WHEREFORE, FOX and DUJAN ask, each separately with regard to the counts they
have brought, that the Court:
i.

in accordance with FOIA Section 11(f), afford this case precedence on the Court’s
docket except as to causes the Court considers to be of greater importance, assign
this case for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date, and expedite this
case in every way;

ii.

declare that Defendants have violated FOIA;

iii.

declare that FOX and DUJAN are not “recurrent requesters”;

iv.

order Defendants to produce the requested records;

v.

enjoin Defendants from withholding non-exempt public records under FOIA;

-­‐ 
  18 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 vi.

order ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT and VILLAGE OF ORLAND
PARK to amend their illegal FOIA processes;

vii.

find that Defendants have willfully and intentionally violated FOIA and
responded to FOX in bad faith;

viii.

order Defendants to pay between $2500 and $5000 for each willful and
intentional FOIA violation and each act of bad faith;

ix.

declare that ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY, VILLAGE OF ORLAND
PARK, and ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT have violated OMA;

x.

declare ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY’s illegal procedures null and void;

xi.

enjoin ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY, VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK,
and ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT from future OMA violations;

xii.

award FOX and DUJAN reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;

xiii.

retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the Court’s orders and address future
FOIA and OMA violations by ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY, VILLAGE
OF ORLAND PARK, and ORLAND PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; and

xiv.

award such other relief the court considers appropriate.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

____________________________
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MEGAN FOX
KEVIN DUJAN
Matthew Topic
LOEVY & LOEVY
312 North May St., Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60607
-­‐ 
  19 -­‐ 
  
 
  

 (312)2435900
matt@loevy.com
Atty. No. 41295

-20-