In October of 2020 the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) forced CJP to file suit for a second time in 6 years because the they refuse to honor their obligations under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Our original suit was filed under the final years of former Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez. As Kim Foxx swept in to office with amazing promises of new levels of transparency her office settled our ongoing lawsuit. Unfortunately the office has continued to play the same games with data – although masking it in all kids of new transparency rhetoric – that office has played for decades.
Our lawsuit has been filed to force the SAO to honor its obligations under the law and make their data available to the public. We will not settle for the very small amounts of data the SAO releases online currently. The public simply does not trust, for very good reasons, when justice agencies like the SAO release an analysis of their own data without providing access to the underlying data used in the analysis.
Below we will be providing running updates on what happens inside the courtroom as the SAO does everything they can to hide their data.
Update on April 13th Filing
SAO reply in support of their partial motion to dismiss.
This response relies on the fact that according to the SAO their officials would not have committed to supplying us data in to the future even though the office has agreed that two people in the meeting are still employed by the SAO but they have never discussed what happened in that room with those employees.
Update on March 18 hearing:
On March 18, 2021, CJP attended a court hearing to defend against the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office’s attempt to stonewall fact discovery until a ruling on a motion to dismiss in CJP’s case against the public agency. Judge Anna M. Loftus presided over the hearing. CJP explained that there are two types of claims facing the court: (1) claims for which the CCSAO has filed motions to dismiss; and (2) claims not subject to the motion to dismiss.
The CCSAO claimed that it need not answer discovery on the claims not subject to the motion to dismiss because such requests for unnecessary or otherwise objectionable. Judge Loftus disagreed with the CCSAO and agreed with CJP, ordering discovery to proceed on the claims not subject to the motion to dismiss. Judge Loftus stayed discovery on the claims subject to the pending motion to dismiss, noting that is her normal course of action.
Discovery response is due on 4/18.
Next scheduled court hearing is 5/13.
Update on Feb. 2nd hearing:
- SAO delayed answering our complaint until we moved for default, then effectively admitted they were in default by immediately agreeing to answer.
- Despite that delay, they have now asked for two extensions, just to answer the complaint.
- SAO has revealed that it intends to move to dismiss the whole case. So despite their public and repeated claims of “transparency,” they choose to oppose any FOIA request and any FOIA complaint and avoid any production of their data.
- SAO also said it intends to move to dismiss the breach count, essentially saying that not only do they not have to produce their data, they also don’t have to abide by their agreements.
Next court date is: 5/13 @ 10:30 am