Court Opinion

ID: 9714793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:45:42.309905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:28.623915
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STAMOS, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with the majority’s determination that the computer tape which plaintiff requested is within the scope of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (Act). (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 201 et seq.; see Note, AFSCME v. County of Cook: Access to Information Beyond Reach as Computer Tape Lengthens Bureaucratic Red Tape, 3 Software L.J. 775, 785-87 (1989) (Illinois Act defines computer tape as public record and, because it was designed to protect requesters of information who lack computer skills, should not penalize those who are computer-literate).) I also agree that defendants would be required to comply with the Act and provide plaintiff with a copy of the tape if such compliance would not be “unduly burdensome.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 203(f).) The majority is also correct in distinguishing the Federal case law in this area, particularly the Dismukes case (see Note, AFSCME v. County of Cook: Access to Information Beyond Reach as Computer Tape Lengthens Bureaucratic Red Tape, 3 Software L.J. 775, 787-91 (1989) (determining that appellate court in case at bar misconstrued Dismukes)). However, I must dissent with respect to the majority’s reasons for partially affirming the appellate court’s judgment. The proper construction of a statute and its application to undisputed facts are questions of law subject to independent determination by a court of review. (People v. Blair (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 371, 373). The facts in the case at bar are undisputed. Plaintiff first made a general request to defendants for certain public records, using preprinted forms which did not clearly state in what format the requester expected the information to be provided. Defendants complied with this request by sending a typed computer printout of desired information. After receipt of the printout of the information, plaintiff made a second request for the same information, this time in a computer tape format. Because these facts are undisputed and because the language of section 3(f) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 203(f)) is plain and unambiguous, we can determine as a matter of law whether this second request qualifies as a “repeated request” for the same “public record” which would require us to find it “unduly burdensome” under the Act. Section 3(f) specifically states: “Requests calling for all records falling within a category shall be complied with unless compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome for the complying public body and there is no way to narrow the request and the burden on the public body outweighs the public interest in the information. Before invoking this exemption, the public body shall extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions. If any body responds to a categorical request by stating that compliance would unduly burden its operation and the conditions described above are met, it shall do so in writing, specifying the reasons why it would be unduly burdensome and the extent to which compliance will so burden the operations of the public body. Such a response shall be treated as a denial of the request for information. Repeated requests for the same public records by the same person shall be deemed unduly burdensome under this provision.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 203(f). The majority misfocused its analysis by concentrating on the term “recorded information” when it recited the definition of what a “public record” is. (See 136 Ill. 2d at 341-42.) Section 3(f) emphasizes repeated requests for the same public record. After analyzing the Act under the accepted principles of statutory construction in light of the undisputed facts, I conclude that the Act clearly indicates that a computer tape and a typed printout which contain essentially the same information are not the same “public record” for purposes of the statute. “Public records” are defined in section 2(c) of the Act as “all records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, recorded information and all other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics.” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 202(c).) The emphasis in section 2(c) is on the different formats or media a public body may use to preserve information and which qualify as “public records.” The kind of information which may be included in a public record, regardless of the format in which it is preserved, is addressed in the next portion of section 2(c). The key to determining the difference between the Act’s definitions of “public records” and “information” is seen in the verbs which follow the term “public records” in section 2(c). The list of the various formats is tied to what the term “public records” “means.” These formats are then identified as “[including], but *** expressly not limited to” the different types of information. Thus, a “public record” is defined by its format, and can contain a myriad of different kinds of information. We can logically conclude from the plain language of section 2(c) that the General Assembly intended the availability of all the different formats and media to be the predominant concern under the Act. See Maloney v. Bower (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 473, 479 (courts, when interpreting a statute, must give the language of that statute its plain and ordinary meaning); County of Du Page v. Graham, Anderson, Probst & White, Inc. (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 143, 151 (courts should first look to the statutory language as the best indication of the intent of the drafters). The majority appears to recognize the precedence of format over information when it distinguishes Dismukes from the case at bar. According to the majority, the Federal standard allows the public body to provide the information in any format, as long as all the pertinent information is included and the form is not extremely inconvenient. The majority correctly states that under the Illinois Act, the public body must release the information in the format requested, unless it can explain why such a format would be overly burdensome. (136 Ill. 2d at 345-48.) I find it inconsistent for the majority to note the difference between “records” and “information” under the Federal law, but fail to similarly apply this analysis to section 3(f). Therefore, I would interpret the statutory phrase “same public records” in section 3(f) to refer to the form of the public record as opposed to the information included in the public record. A request for a computer tape containing specific information does not seek the same public record that a request for a typed printout of the same information does. With the explosion of electronic information in business and government today, I can easily imagine how one could legitimately require two records, in different formats, which contain partly or wholly duplicative information. This analysis leads me to conclude that the “repeated request” language of section 3(f) is inapplicable to the case at bar. The majority’s focus on the term “recorded information” in section 3(f) further magnifies its failure to recognize the Act’s clear distinction between what a “public record” is and the “information” such a record may contain. Specifically, the majority states that “the term ‘public record’ means, among other things, ‘recorded information.’ Therefore, if one generally requests recorded information, as may have happened here, that person may not request the same recorded information soon thereafter, even if the requester asks for the recorded information in a different physical format.” (136 Ill. 2d at 342.) Thus, the majority apparently defines both the typed printout plaintiff received and the computer tape plaintiff requested as being examples of “recorded information” under the Act, and expressly states that a duplicative request for “recorded information” “soon thereafter” is prohibited under the Act. This analysis violates several basic principles of statutory interpretation. “Recorded information” is only one of several enumerated formats that the General Assembly recognizes as public records. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch, 116, par. 202(c).) When construing a legislative act, a court must determine the legislative intent from the entire statute, not just an isolated passage. (Castaneda v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n (1989), 132 Ill. 2d 304, 318.) By concentrating on only one of several enumerated examples of public records, the majority uses the term “recorded information” out of context, and misconstrues the legislative intent underlying the Act. The maxim “noscitur a sociis,” a canon of statutory construction which means “[i]t is known from its associates” (Black’s Law Dictionary 956 (5th ed. 1979)), is applicable here. Noscitur a sociis allows a court to ascertain the meaning of terms in a statute by reference to words associated with them in the statute. (Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), 148 U.S. 503, 519, 37 L. Ed. 537, 543, 13 S. Ct. 728, 734.) Thus, when two or more words are grouped together, and generally have a similar meaning but are not equally inclusive, the general term is limited and qualified by the special term. (2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction §47.16 (Sands 4th ed. 1984).) This maxim is often applied where a word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid giving the statute a meaning that the legislature did not intend. Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co. (1961), 367 U.S. 303, 307, 6 L. Ed. 2d 859, 863, 81 S. Ct. 1579, 1582. As I have already stated, section 2 defines public records in terms of formats. Specifically, section 2 lists “all records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, recorded information and all other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics” as qualifying as “public records.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 202(c).) The legislature, by specifically naming most of the common formats which public bodies use to store information, has indicated its intent to have all formats accessible to the public. Most of the terms in the list which describe modern technological methods of storing information are very specific and concrete (e.g., “microfilms” and “electronic data processing records”). The other terms, which are slightly more general in scope, define more traditional formats (e.g., “writings” and “records”). Thus, the plain language of section 2(c) manifests an intent to provide for access to specific electronic formats. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 202(c). Further, the last two items in the list, “recorded information and all other documentary materials,” are general and all-inclusive, unlike the previous terms. Under noscitur a sociis, the context in which these last two terms appear compels the court to interpret them in light of the others. This leads to one of two conclusions. The court could view these last two terms as a single clause which the legislature intended as a “catch all,” covering any possible format not already in the list. In the alternative, we could view the words “all other documentary materials” as the “catch all,” and view “recorded information” as a format which the legislature intended to be a separate and distinct category. In either case, the result in the case at bar should be the same. The undisputed facts show that plaintiff filled out a form requesting a public record containing certain information. The form provided no means for the plaintiff to specify a particular format. Plaintiff, however, did sign the portion of the form which indicated it would pay $0.10 per page for the copying of the record. Defendants responded to this request by sending the typed printout of the record. (136 Ill. 2d at 338.) Plaintiff then made a second request for the same information, this time specifying a computer tape format. (136 Ill. 2d at 338.) After plaintiff filed suit, it requested the information in computer tape format four more times. On each occasion, defendant provided a copy of the typed printout. (182 Ill. App. 3d 941, 943.) The majority believes this scenario creates a question of fact which the trial court failed to address. (See 136 Ill. 2d at 347.) Nevertheless, the majority further intimates that if the trial court determines on remand that plaintiff’s initial request was for “recorded information,” the subsequent requests for the same information in a different format qualified as a “repeated request” under section 3(f) of the Act. See 136 Ill. 2d at 342. I cannot agree. Whether this court interprets plaintiff’s initial request as ambiguous, or as a specific request for a typed printout, the undisputed facts show that plaintiff’s initial request was for a public record containing specific information. Defendants responded by sending a typed printout of that information, a public record which clearly fits "within at least one of the specific formats listed in section 2(c). The facts also show that, regardless of what this court interprets the plaintiff’s initial request to mean, the printout objectively fulfills the request as contained on the form. Plaintiff’s subsequent requests were not for printouts, but for computer tapes — a format category distinct and separate from the terms which would include a typed printout in section 2(c). No matter how the majority defines the general terms contained in section 2(c) under which the printout might be included (“records, reports, *** writings, *** papers”), there is no way to define “tapes” or “electronic data processing records” in a way that includes typed printouts. The legislature clearly intended public records such as the computer tape in the case at bar to be a distinct category under the Act, and therefore a separate and different public record from the printout — despite the fact that both public records contain substantially the same information. To accept the majority’s view that both the typed printout and the computer tape qualify as “recorded information” under section 2(c) would not only violate the maxim of noseitur a sociis, but would make the listing of other formats prior to “recorded information” meaningless (Niven v. Siqueira (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 357, 365 (statutes should be construed so that no term is rendered superfluous or meaningless)) and would frustrate the manifest legislative intent to specifically require the disclosure of electronic data processing formats. Further, such a limiting construction of the statute violates the express purpose of the Act, which is to limit restraints on the public’s access to information. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 201. I have further misgivings about the majority’s statement that a person who requests recorded information “may not request the same recorded information soon thereafter, even if the requester asks for the recorded information in a different physical format.” (136 Ill. 2d at 342.) Not only do I find fault with the majority’s interpretation of the term “recorded information” and its failure to recognize the legislative distinction of format from information, I find insertion of the word “soon” into the analysis to be erroneous. Section 3(f) merely states that repeated requests are to be deemed unduly burdensome under the Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 203(f).) There is nothing in the statutory language to indicate that the passage of time has any bearing on what is a “repeated request.” In fact, the majority’s determination that a second request for the same information in a different format “soon” after the original request is a “repeated request” under the Act serves only to add confusion to the analysis. For example, after how long a time period is “soon”? Had plaintiff waited six months instead of a few weeks to make the second request, would that have eliminated the perceived “repeated request” problem? If the information were to change slightly on a day-to-day basis, would a second request on the following day be too “soon” — or a repeated request for the “same” record at all? I submit that the plain language of section 3(f) focuses on whether compliance with a request actually is unduly burdensome for the public body involved, and not on how long it has been since a requester last asked for a particular collection of information. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 203(f). Having determined that the request for the computer tape was not a “repeated request” under section 3(f), this court could then apply the rest of section 3(f)’s language to the undisputed facts in the case at bar to determine, as a matter of law, whether the request for the computer tape was “unduly burdensome” for defendants. The record reveals, and the parties stated at oral argument, that defendant regularly stores the information in the public record in question on computer tape. Plaintiff had agreed to pay all copying expenses. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 206.) Plaintiff made no demand for the record to be produced in a specific computer program; plaintiff’s request only required defendants to copy a computer tape, which was already a part of their record-keeping system, and give the copy to plaintiff. Also, the record reveals that defendants sent a new copy of the typed printout every time plaintiff submitted a new request for the computer tape. The undisputed facts show that the cost in time, materials, and labor to repeatedly send out a typed printout of the same record far outweighs the cost of sending a single copy of the record on computer tape. In light of this, I determine that plaintiff’s request is anything but “unduly burdensome.” I would hold as a matter of law that defendants are required to provide plaintiff with a copy of the computer tape under section 3(f). But even if this court did determine that plaintiffs request somehow was an undue burden to defendants and that the request was “categorical” (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 203(f)) rather than (as here) for a discrete, existing compilation of records — or even if the request were actually a “repeated request” and hence presumed to be “unduly burdensome” — section 3(f) then requires us to determine if plaintiff’s request was as narrowly drawn as possible and to balance the burdens placed on the public body in producing the record against the public’s interest in the information in the record. The burden on defendants here is so minimal as to be inconsequential. The effort required to reproduce the computer tape is minimal, and is far less than that required to produce a typed printout of the same information. Neither party disputes the fact that the information in computer tape format is infinitely easier and cheaper for plaintiff to process and use than the typed printout is. (See 182 Ill. App. 3d at 943.) Use of this information is essential to the operation of plaintiff’s organization. Thus, in light of the undisputed facts, I would hold that as a matter of law plaintiff’s request is as narrowly drawn as possible, and that plaintiff’s interest in the public record requested far outweighs any burden that plaintiff’s request places upon defendants. Accordingly, any hypothetical “undue burden” would still not suffice to justify noncompliance with plaintiff’s request. I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the case must be remanded to determine if defendants properly invoked any exception to their general duty to make public records available for inspection and copying. (136 Ill. 2d at 348.) My prior analysis regarding “repeated requests” proves that section 3(f) does not provide an exemption on that account from providing records under the Act (despite the majority’s characterization of it as doing so), and that, for the case at bar, the question of undue burden is a matter of law, which allows this court to decide the issue. A list of what is exempt from inspection and copying is found in section 7 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 207). However, section 7 is essentially a list of information which is exempt from disclosure — not formats. Because defendants have already disclosed the information in the public record to plaintiff, it seems pointless to remand the cause for a determination whether the information, already disclosed once, is in fact exempt from inspection. Also, the defendants, at oral argument before this court, suggested that verifying computer tape for accuracy is more difficult than verifying the printout. Specifically, the defendants argued that, because the content of computer tapes cannot be determined without a computer, the wrong computer tape could be released by mistake, while anyone preparing a public record for distribution can check a typed printout to determine if the proper record is being sent. The majority states that this is another factual question which needs to be settled on remand. (136 Ill. 2d at 347-48.) Again, I cannot agree. The computer tape’s accuracy can be checked by anyone with a compatible computer equipped with the proper program. It is clear in the record that both parties regularly use computers to store and verify information. It is no more difficult than in the case of the printout for the staff of either party to verify the information on the tape through use of their own computer terminals. Indeed, because of automation, it is undoubtedly easier. As for the argument that a typed printout can be checked more readily before being sent out, I submit that both the tapes and the containers used to ship them can be properly labeled by the person copying and verifying contents of the tape without creating an undue burden on a public body such as Cook County. Also, the claim that defendants must'allow plaintiff access to only a typed printout because it is easier to verify is tied to the “general accessibility” argument in the Dismukes case (see 136 Ill. 2d at 340-41), which the majority properly distinguished from the Act. Besides, the Illinois Act’s focus on format rather than information makes this a hollow argument. Further, defendants’ failure to follow the Act’s procedures in denying plaintiff’s request for the computer tape also supports the trial court’s determination that defendants did not comply with the Act and therefore are required to supply plaintiff with a copy of the computer tape. The undisputed facts show that defendants failed to comply with several express requirements of the Act, refuting defendants’ claim that they complied with the Act when they provided plaintiff the typed printout. I have already explained that, even if plaintiff’s subsequent requests were “repeated requests,” the “repeated request” language of section 3(f) of the Act is not itself an exemption for public bodies from complying with a request for a public record. This language can form the basis for an exemption only if other specified conditions and procedural requirements are met, and the record shows that defendants did not comply with the Act’s express instructions, whether or not plaintiff’s request is deemed “repeated.” First, before a public body can invoke the “unduly burdensome” exemption under section 3(f), that body “shall extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 203(f).) Defendant never extended such an invitation, and I submit that the record reveals that such a conference would have proven that compliance with the request for the computer tape would not be unduly burdensome. Second, section 3(f) requires: “[i]f any body responds to a categorical request by stating that compliance would unduly burden its operation and the conditions described above are met, it shall do so in writing, specifying the reasons why it would be unduly burdensome and the extent to which compliance will so burden the operations of the public body.” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 203(f).) The record shows that, while defendants responded in writing (see 136 Ill. 2d at 339 (defendants’ letter stated that the printout served as compliance)), they failed to comply with the rest of section 3(f)’s requirements. We could interpret defendants’ statement in the letter that the printout fulfilled plaintiff’s request for a computer tape as invoking the “repeated request” language of section 3(f), but this is not entirely clear. However, if so, defendants failed to explain the extent to which sending a copy of the computer tape would burden their operations. I suggest that this is because the undisputed facts show that compliance with the request could not have burdened defendants’ operation. Third, section 9 of the Act describes specific procedures a public body must follow when it denies a request for a public record. These procedures include notice by letter, an explanation of the reasons for denial, the names and positions of persons responsible for the denial, and an explanation of the requester’s right to appeal the decision. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 116, par. 209(a).) It appears from the record that defendants also failed to follow several of these procedures. Thus, the undisputed facts show that, even if we do not consider the issues already discussed involving whether plaintiff’s request was a “repeated request” under section 3(f) or whether the computer printout fulfilled defendants’ obligations to disclose public records under the Act, defendants failed to follow the basic procedures of the Act. When I combine this analysis with what I have already explained regarding the clear language and intent of the Act, I see no reason to remand this case to determine if the evidence shows that defendants’ response complied with the Act. Clearly, it did not, and defendants, as a matter of law, are required to comply with plaintiff’s request for a computer tape. For these reasons, I would reverse, the judgment of the appellate court insofar as it reversed the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment for plaintiff, and I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Thus, on that issue and on the issue of remanding the cause at bar for further factual determinations, I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE CALVO joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.