Court Rules that 7(1)(a) FOIA Exemption Does Not Apply to Municipal Ordinances
A recent Illinois Appellate Court case found that municipal
ordinances are not considered “state law” under Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA.
In
City of Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st)
150870 (March 31, 2017), the City of Chicago sent a subpoena to Janssen to
obtain documents relating to a false claims investigation regarding Janssen’s marking of opioids. Janssen did not comply with the
subpoena, and the City filed a lawsuit. The
parties entered into a protective order, which provided that the information
produced by Janssen could only be used in accordance with Section 1-22-050 of
the False Claims Chapter of the Chicago Municipal Code (“ordinance”), or by
court order. The protective order further provided that information
produced by Janssen could be confidential and that Janssen considered it to be
exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
The City then withdrew its Petition to Enforce the subpoena
and Janssen produced over 100,000 pages of documents to the City, many of which
were marked “confidential.” The City filed another suit against
Janssen alleging violations of the ordinance. USA Today then issued a
FOIA to the City to obtain copies of documents in support of the claims
against Janssen. The City notified Janssen of USA Today’s FOIA request
and stated that it believed three documents were responsive.
Janssen then filed a motion to enforce the protective order,
arguing: 1) that the order required the City to deny third party request
brought under FOIA, 2) that the documents were exempt from disclosure under
Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA as the ordinance qualified as “state law,” which was
prohibited from disclosure, and 3) that the documents were exempt under 7(1)(g)
of FOIA as production of confidential information would make it more difficult
for a public body to obtain similar information in the future, creating a “chilling
effect.” The circuit court denied Janssen’s Motion, and Janssen appealed
to the Illinois appellate court.
On appeal, the court affirmed. The court first
evaluated Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA, which exempts information specifically
prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. Janssen argued that
the ordinance qualified as state law, and was expressly prohibited from
disclosure under 7(1)(a). Janssen argued that as a home rule unit,
the City has the same power as the state to legislate FOIA exemptions. The court found that the phrase “state law” must be given its plain and
ordinary meaning, which excludes municipal ordinances. Since “state law” does not include municipal ordinances, the court held that the
documents were not exempt under 7(1)(a).
The court next analyzed Janssen’s 7(1)(g) argument, that the
disclosure of its documents would have a “chilling effect” on other organizations
complying with a subpoena issued by the City. The court similarly
rejected this argument, finding that Janssen failed to assert why the
disclosure of information would cause it competitive harm.
Post Authored by Erin Baker, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment