January 3, 2024

On January 3, 2024, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, issued its Opinion in International Ass’n of Fire Fighters Local 4646 v. Village of Oak Brook, 2024 IL App (3d) 220466 which resolved certain issues related to both the attorney-client privilege and FOIA, and the Open Meetings Act. The full Opinion can be found via the link below:
International Ass’n of Fire Fighters Local 4646 v. Village of Oak Brook, 2024 IL App (3d) 220466

The International Association of Fire Fighters Local 4646 (Union) filed a lawsuit against the Village of Oak Brook (Village), alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Union claimed that the Village held a closed meeting in violation of these acts and denied its request for records related to that meeting.

The Village justified the closed meeting under two exceptions of the Open Meetings Act: the collective-negotiating-matters exception and the probable-or-imminent-litigation exception. They argued that the meeting was necessary to discuss budget proposals with potential implications for collective bargaining and litigation.

The court ruled that the Village did not meet the exceptions under the Open Meetings Act. It found no active or imminent collective bargaining negotiations at the time of the meeting and determined that the discussion about budget proposals did not constitute ‘probable or imminent’ litigation.

Attorney-client privilege emerged as a pivotal issue when the Village sought to redact parts of the closed session records, claiming they contained privileged communications. The court’s initial order to disclose all records, without considering the privilege, was contested.

The court initially ordered the disclosure of all records, including those claimed to be privileged. However, this decision was later challenged, emphasizing the need to respect attorney-client privilege even within the scope of FOIA and the Open Meetings Act.

Specifically, the Appellate Court found that the Trial Court’s interpretation of the Act and FOIA was in error, noting as follows:

The trial court concluded that, because the Act contains no attorney-client-privilege exception, the court had “no other alternative but to deny any attorney-client privilege and order that the entire transcript and proceeding be tendered.” It therefore declined to conduct an attorney-client privilege analysis. We hold the court erred when it failed to recognize it had discretion not to order that the Village disclose privileged communications.

The court had discretion not to order disclosure of the entire closed session recording and transcript under section 3(c) of the Act, and its authority to order disclosure of the same under FOIA extended only to records “improperly withheld”—those not exempt from disclosure. The court erred in construing the Act and FOIA as requiring disclosure of all closed session communications without respect to the attorney-client privilege.
***
Since the Village asserted that the records of its closed session contained exempt privileged communications, the trial court was obligated to determine whether the privilege applied to the records. Section 11(f) of FOIA provides the relevant procedure for evaluating an assertion that parts of records may be withheld

The Village was directed to disclose the requested records, including unredacted minutes and a PowerPoint presentation from the closed session. Additionally, they were ordered to pay reasonable attorney fees to the Union, highlighting the cost implications of non-compliance with FOIA and open meeting laws.

Understanding attorney-client privilege is crucial in FOIA disputes because it protects sensitive communications between a client and their attorney. This privilege ensures that legal advice remains confidential, a key consideration when public bodies deal with legal complexities during FOIA requests and compliance.

The case underscores the complexities involved in FOIA disputes, especially when they intersect with other legal provisions like the Open Meetings Act and attorney-client privilege. It demonstrates the need for public bodies to carefully consider the legal grounds for closed meetings and record disclosure.

The Oak Brook case demonstrates the intricate legal challenges involved in FOIA disputes, particularly the application of attorney-client privilege. It underscores the importance of legal expertise in ensuring compliance, interpreting laws accurately, and managing the risks associated with public sector litigation. The case serves as a reminder of the value of professional legal counsel in navigating the complex terrain of FOIA requests and open meeting laws.