Settlement docs

March 17, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt

requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

This letter is in response to your identical Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the City of Chicago Law Department, which were time stamped at 3:19PM and 3:21PM on March 12, 2017 and received by our offices on March 13, 2017. We are now timely responding. In your requests, you seek:

[A]ll DoL documents, communications, transcripts, or any materials related to settlements, awards, or judgments in the following cases: Simmons v. Chicago (1:08-cv-02769) // Moore et al v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05371) // Edwards v. Chicago et al (12-L-13429) // Arnold v. Chicago (1:09-cv-01617) // Brown v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-06506) // Perry v. Weatherly et al (1:10-cv-0552) // Brown v. Evans et al (1:15-cv-02844) // Richardson v. Chicago et al (1:08-cv-04824) // Byars v. Evans et al (1:13-cv-00923) // Hall v. Chicago (1:00-cv-05490) // Owens v. Chicago (1:15-cv-03651) // Rock v. Chicago et al (02-L-010743) // Waller et al v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-00223) // Ellis v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-02816) // Anderson v. Landrum et al (1:12-cv-01902) // Whitney v. Hamilton et al (1:11-cv-08872) // McDowell v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-07171) // McLin v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05076) // Jennings v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08811) // McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:12-cv-05508) // McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08423) // Booker et al v. Bolling et al (1:10-cv-03522) // Freeman et al v. Kennedy el al (09-L-001068)

The FOIA provides in 5 ILCS 140/3(g) that requests 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.

I am requesting clarification as to what you are seeking. Because of the broadness of the phrasing, the request could potentially include a myriad of documents that would be exempt from disclosure. Also, without further clarification, a massive search of all of the case files, shared file cabinets and electronically stored records would be required to look for documents that would be included under the umbrella of "[A]ll DOL documents, communications, transcripts, or any materials." Gathering records for 23 cases that span almost two decades, would be onerous. Assuming that each case has between 2 and 3 boxes, DOL would have to review between 46 and 69 boxes. Assuming that each box only contains 100 pages, which is highly unlikely, DOL would have to review between 4600 records to 6900 records. Assuming that DOL could review a page per minute, it would take between 4600 minutes and 6900 minutes, or between 76 hours and 115 hours. Therefore, it would take DOL over two weeks to respond to this one FOIA request. This is well over the 5 or day timeframe allotted for under the FOIA statute. Therefore, as currently written, your FOIA request is unduly burdensome.

Your FOIA request is also unduly burdensome because it presumably includes emails (i.e., electronic communications). In order to effectively run an email search, DOL needs the names or email accounts that you wish searched. The present email system's tool set cannot identify the department where an email user works and, therefore, a search cannot be run just based on a department name. Parameters that would assist the Law Department in conducting an email search include: (1) the email address(es) or employee name(s) of the account(s) you wish searched; (2) key words you wish to search for; and (3) the timeframe to be searched.

If you agree to narrow your request, you must submit a revised written request to my attention. The Law Department will take no further action or send you any further correspondence unless and until your current request is narrowed in writing. If we do not receive your narrowed request within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this letter, your current request will be denied.

In the event that we do not receive a narrowed request and your current FOIA request is therefore denied, you have the right to have a denial reviewed by the Public Access Counselor (PAC) at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, 500 S. 2nd Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706, (877) 299-3642. You also have the right to seek judicial review of your denial by filing a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

Freedom of Information Officer

Ms. Hunt - we do not have lists of attachments for the records contained in each box. I can easily provide a spreadsheet that indicates settlement amounts for each case. Please let me know if you'd like me to send that along.
Thanks,
Chloe

Hi Ms. Hunt - I'm just trying to get intel on two line items and then will have this to you. Should be late today or early tomorrow if I'm lucky.

Thanks for your patience as always.
Best,
Chloe

April 12, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt

Via email at requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the City of Chicago Law Department.

In your original request, dated March 12, 2017 and received by our office on March 13, 2017 you sought the following:

[A]ll DoL documents, communications, transcripts, or any materials related to settlements, awards, or judgments in the following cases: Simmons v. Chicago (1:08-cv-02769) // Moore et al v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05371) // Edwards v. Chicago et al (12-L-13429) // Arnold v. Chicago (1:09-cv-01617) // Brown v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-06506) // Perry v. Weatherly et al (1:10-cv-0552) // Brown v. Evans et al (1:15-cv-02844) // Richardson v. Chicago et al (1:08-cv-04824) // Byars v. Evans et al (1:13-cv-00923) // Hall v. Chicago (1:00-cv-05490) // Owens v. Chicago (1:15-cv-03651) // Rock v. Chicago et al (02-L-010743) // Waller et al v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-00223) // Ellis v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-02816) // Anderson v. Landrum et al (1:12-cv-01902) // Whitney v. Hamilton et al (1:11-cv-08872) // McDowell v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-07171) // McLin v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05076) // Jennings v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08811) // McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:12-cv-05508) // McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08423) // Booker et al v. Bolling et al (1:10-cv-03522) // Freeman et al v. Kennedy el al (09-L-001068)

On March 17, 2017 the Law Department timely cited 5 ILCS 140/3(g) in regard to your request for documents and emails, that requests 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.

On March 17, 2017 you responded:

I would like to revise my request by removing the language regarding communications.

Furthermore, in order to specify which documents may be of most use, would you be able to send the attachment/document lists for each case/box so I may be able to further narrow my request?

On March 27, 2017 we responded:

Ms. Hunt - we do not have lists of attachments for the records contained in each box. I can easily provide a spreadsheet that indicates settlement amounts for each case. Please let me know if you'd like me to send that along.

On March 27, 2017 you responded:

I would appreciate the spreadsheet so I may use it to further narrow my request.

Produced herewith is the requested spreadsheet. I sincerely thank you for your patience as we worked to process your request.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

April 21, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt
Via email at requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

On behalf of the City of Chicago Department of Law, I am responding to your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) which was in our offices on April 14, 2017. At this time, I am seeking an extension of five additional working days to respond to the request for one or more of the following reasons identified in 5 ILCS 140/3(e) of FOIA:

( ) the requested records are stored in whole or in part at other locations than the office having charge of the requested records;

( ) the request requires the collection of a substantial number of specified records;

( ) the request is couched in categorical terms and requires an extensive search for the records responsive to it;

( ) the requested records have not been located in the course of routine search and additional efforts are being made to locate them;

( ) the requested records require examination and evaluation by personnel having the necessary competence and discretion to determine if they are exempt from disclosure under Section 7 of the FOIA or should be revealed only with appropriate deletions;

( ) the request for records cannot be complied with by the public body within the time limits prescribed by 5 ILCS 140/3(d) without unduly burdening or interfering with the operations of the public body;

(xx) there is need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another public body or among two or more components of a public body having a substantial interest in the determination or in the subject matter of the request.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

Freedom of Information Officer

Records will be sent over several emails.

May 9, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt
Via email at requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the City of Chicago Law Department, which was dated received in our offices on April 14, 2017. The Law Department sent the statutory request for a five-day extension on April 21, 2-17. We are now responding. We thank you for your patience as we worked for locate records responsive to your request in which you seek from a spreadsheet of cases provided by the Law Department on April 12, 2017:

For all the named cases in which a settlement was reached: The settlement agreement

For all the named cases in which a judgment was reached by a judge or jury: The verdict, judgment, and any related opinions or orders issued by the judge

Please see attached.

Please note home addresses were redacted pursuant to Section 7(1)(b) of FOIA. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b) exempts from disclosure, “private information.” Private information is defined in Section 2(c-5) as, “…unique identifiers, including a person’s social security number, driver’s license number, employee identification number, biometric identifiers, personal financial information, passwords or other access codes, medical records, home or personal telephone numbers, and personal emails addresses. Private information also includes home address and personal license plates, except as otherwise provided by law or when compiled without possibility of attribution to any person.” 5 ILCS 140/2(c-5). Therefore home addresses are exempt pursuant to Section 7(1)(b) and were properly redacted.

The Law Department has also redacted birthdays when they appeared in certain records. Dates of birth are personal information that is exempt under 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c). Disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” because a date of birth “is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person” and the individual’s “right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information,” as defined by FOIA. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c). Based on this reasoning, the Public Access Bureau has determined that disclosure of a person’s date of birth constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and that a person’s “right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in disclosure of his or her date of birth.” 2012 PAC 19290 (Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr., issued November 2, 2012, at 3), citing 2011 PAC 15360 (Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Pre-Auth. Ltr., issued July 15, 2011).

Social Security Numbers have also been redacted pursuant to section 7(1)(a) of FOIA. Section 7(1)(a) exempts from disclosure “[i]nformation specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations implementing federal or State law.” The Identity Protection Act prohibits disclosure of social security numbers, except in specific circumstances. 5 ILCS 149/1 et seq.

You have the right to have a denial reviewed by the Public Access Counselor (PAC) at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, 500 S. 2nd Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706, (877) 299-3642. You also have the right to seek judicial review of your denial by filing a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

Freedom of Information Officer

From: LAWFOIA
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 5:02 PM
To: 'requests@muckrock.com'; LAWFOIA
Subject: RE: Illinois Freedom of Information Act Request: Settlement docs

Records will be sent over several emails.

May 9, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt
Via email at requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the City of Chicago Law Department, which was dated received in our offices on April 14, 2017. The Law Department sent the statutory request for a five-day extension on April 21, 2-17. We are now responding. We thank you for your patience as we worked for locate records responsive to your request in which you seek from a spreadsheet of cases provided by the Law Department on April 12, 2017:

For all the named cases in which a settlement was reached: The settlement agreement

For all the named cases in which a judgment was reached by a judge or jury: The verdict, judgment, and any related opinions or orders issued by the judge

Please see attached.

Please note home addresses were redacted pursuant to Section 7(1)(b) of FOIA. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b) exempts from disclosure, “private information.” Private information is defined in Section 2(c-5) as, “…unique identifiers, including a person’s social security number, driver’s license number, employee identification number, biometric identifiers, personal financial information, passwords or other access codes, medical records, home or personal telephone numbers, and personal emails addresses. Private information also includes home address and personal license plates, except as otherwise provided by law or when compiled without possibility of attribution to any person.” 5 ILCS 140/2(c-5). Therefore home addresses are exempt pursuant to Section 7(1)(b) and were properly redacted.

The Law Department has also redacted birthdays when they appeared in certain records. Dates of birth are personal information that is exempt under 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c). Disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” because a date of birth “is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person” and the individual’s “right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information,” as defined by FOIA. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c). Based on this reasoning, the Public Access Bureau has determined that disclosure of a person’s date of birth constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and that a person’s “right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in disclosure of his or her date of birth.” 2012 PAC 19290 (Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr., issued November 2, 2012, at 3), citing 2011 PAC 15360 (Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Pre-Auth. Ltr., issued July 15, 2011).

Social Security Numbers have also been redacted pursuant to section 7(1)(a) of FOIA. Section 7(1)(a) exempts from disclosure “[i]nformation specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations implementing federal or State law.” The Identity Protection Act prohibits disclosure of social security numbers, except in specific circumstances. 5 ILCS 149/1 et seq.

You have the right to have a denial reviewed by the Public Access Counselor (PAC) at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, 500 S. 2nd Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706, (877) 299-3642. You also have the right to seek judicial review of your denial by filing a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

Freedom of Information Officer

From: requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com> [mailto:requests@muckrock.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:40 AM
To: LAWFOIA
Subject: RE: Illinois Freedom of Information Act Request: Settlement docs

May 2, 2017
Chicago Law Department

This is a follow up to a previous request:

Hello Ms. Rasmas, I am following up on this request.

Thank you
---

On April 21, 2017:
April 21, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt
Via email at requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com%3cmailto:requests@muckrock.com>>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

On behalf of the City of Chicago Department of Law, I am responding to your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) which was in our offices on April 14, 2017. At this time, I am seeking an extension of five additional working days to respond to the request for one or more of the following reasons identified in 5 ILCS 140/3(e) of FOIA:

( ) the requested records are stored in whole or in part at other locations than the office having charge of the requested records;

( ) the request requires the collection of a substantial number of specified records;

( ) the request is couched in categorical terms and requires an extensive search for the records responsive to it;

( ) the requested records have not been located in the course of routine search and additional efforts are being made to locate them;

( ) the requested records require examination and evaluation by personnel having the necessary competence and discretion to determine if they are exempt from disclosure under Section 7 of the FOIA or should be revealed only with appropriate deletions;

( ) the request for records cannot be complied with by the public body within the time limits prescribed by 5 ILCS 140/3(d) without unduly burdening or interfering with the operations of the public body;

(xx) there is need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another public body or among two or more components of a public body having a substantial interest in the determination or in the subject matter of the request.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

Freedom of Information Officer

---

On April 14, 2017:
Hello Ms. Rasmas

Thank you for providing the spreadsheet. I would like to revise my request to the following:

For all the named cases in which a settlement was reached:
• The settlement agreement

For all the named cases in which a judgment was reached by a judge or jury:
• The verdict, judgment, and any related opinions or orders issued by the judge

Please let me know if this is a workable revision to my request.

Thank you
---

On April 12, 2017:
April 12, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt

Via email at requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com%3cmailto:requests@muckrock.com>>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the City of Chicago Law Department.

In your original request, dated March 12, 2017 and received by our office on March 13, 2017 you sought the following:

[A]ll DoL documents, communications, transcripts, or any materials related to settlements, awards, or judgments in the following cases: Simmons v. Chicago (1:08-cv-02769) // Moore et al v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05371) // Edwards v. Chicago et al (12-L-13429) // Arnold v. Chicago (1:09-cv-01617) // Brown v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-06506) // Perry v. Weatherly et al (1:10-cv-0552) // Brown v. Evans et al (1:15-cv-02844) // Richardson v. Chicago et al (1:08-cv-04824) // Byars v. Evans et al (1:13-cv-00923) // Hall v. Chicago (1:00-cv-05490) // Owens v. Chicago (1:15-cv-03651) // Rock v. Chicago et al (02-L-010743) // Waller et al v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-00223) // Ellis v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-02816) // Anderson v. Landrum et al (1:12-cv-01902) // Whitney v. Hamilton et al (1:11-cv-08872) // McDowell v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-07171) // McLin v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05076) // Jennings v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08811) // McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:12-cv-05508) // McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08423) // Booker et al v. Bolling et al (1:10-cv-03522) // Freeman et al v. Kennedy el al (09-L-001068)

On March 17, 2017 the Law Department timely cited 5 ILCS 140/3(g) in regard to your request for documents and emails, that requests 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.

On March 17, 2017 you responded:

I would like to revise my request by removing the language regarding communications.

Furthermore, in order to specify which documents may be of most use, would you be able to send the attachment/document lists for each case/box so I may be able to further narrow my request?

On March 27, 2017 we responded:

Ms. Hunt - we do not have lists of attachments for the records contained in each box. I can easily provide a spreadsheet that indicates settlement amounts for each case. Please let me know if you'd like me to send that along.

On March 27, 2017 you responded:

I would appreciate the spreadsheet so I may use it to further narrow my request.

Produced herewith is the requested spreadsheet. I sincerely thank you for your patience as we worked to process your request.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

---

On April 10, 2017:
Hi Ms. Hunt - I'm just trying to get intel on two line items and then will have this to you. Should be late today or early tomorrow if I'm lucky.

Thanks for your patience as always.
Best,
Chloe
---

On April 7, 2017:
Hello Ms. Rasmas, I am checking in on the status of that spreadsheet.

Thank you
---

On March 27, 2017:
Hello Ms. Rasmas

I would appreciate the spreadsheet so I may use it to further narrow my request.

Thank you
---

On March 27, 2017:
Ms. Hunt - we do not have lists of attachments for the records contained in each box. I can easily provide a spreadsheet that indicates settlement amounts for each case. Please let me know if you'd like me to send that along.
Thanks,
Chloe
---

On March 24, 2017:
Hello Ms. Rasmas, I am following up on this email. Would DoL be able to provide attachment lists so I may further narrow my request?

Thank you
---

On March 17, 2017:
Hello Ms. Rasmas

I would like to revise my request by removing the language regarding communications.

Furthermore, in order to specify which documents may be of most use, would you be able to send the attachment/document lists for each case/box so I may be able to further narrow my request?

Thank you
---

On March 17, 2017:
March 17, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt

requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com%3cmailto:requests@muckrock.com>>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

This letter is in response to your identical Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the City of Chicago Law Department, which were time stamped at 3:19PM and 3:21PM on March 12, 2017 and received by our offices on March 13, 2017. We are now timely responding. In your requests, you seek:

[A]ll DoL documents, communications, transcripts, or any materials related to settlements, awards, or judgments in the following cases: Simmons v. Chicago (1:08-cv-02769) // Moore et al v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05371) // Edwards v. Chicago et al (12-L-13429) // Arnold v. Chicago (1:09-cv-01617) // Brown v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-06506) // Perry v. Weatherly et al (1:10-cv-0552) // Brown v. Evans et al (1:15-cv-02844) // Richardson v. Chicago et al (1:08-cv-04824) // Byars v. Evans et al (1:13-cv-00923) // Hall v. Chicago (1:00-cv-05490) // Owens v. Chicago (1:15-cv-03651) // Rock v. Chicago et al (02-L-010743) // Waller et al v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-00223) // Ellis v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-02816) // Anderson v. Landrum et al (1:12-cv-01902) // Whitney v. Hamilton et al (1:11-cv-08872) // McDowell v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-07171) // McLin v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05076) // Jennings v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08811) // McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:12-cv-05508) // McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08423) // Booker et al v. Bolling et al (1:10-cv-03522) // Freeman et al v. Kennedy el al (09-L-001068)

The FOIA provides in 5 ILCS 140/3(g) that requests 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.

I am requesting clarification as to what you are seeking. Because of the broadness of the phrasing, the request could potentially include a myriad of documents that would be exempt from disclosure. Also, without further clarification, a massive search of all of the case files, shared file cabinets and electronically stored records would be required to look for documents that would be included under the umbrella of "[A]ll DOL documents, communications, transcripts, or any materials." Gathering records for 23 cases that span almost two decades, would be onerous. Assuming that each case has between 2 and 3 boxes, DOL would have to review between 46 and 69 boxes. Assuming that each box only contains 100 pages, which is highly unlikely, DOL would have to review between 4600 records to 6900 records. Assuming that DOL could review a page per minute, it would take between 4600 minutes and 6900 minutes, or between 76 hours and 115 hours. Therefore, it would take DOL over two weeks to respond to this one FOIA request. This is well over the 5 or day timeframe allotted for under the FOIA statute. Therefore, as currently written, your FOIA request is unduly burdensome.

Your FOIA request is also unduly burdensome because it presumably includes emails (i.e., electronic communications). In order to effectively run an email search, DOL needs the names or email accounts that you wish searched. The present email system's tool set cannot identify the department where an email user works and, therefore, a search cannot be run just based on a department name. Parameters that would assist the Law Department in conducting an email search include: (1) the email address(es) or employee name(s) of the account(s) you wish searched; (2) key words you wish to search for; and (3) the timeframe to be searched.

If you agree to narrow your request, you must submit a revised written request to my attention. The Law Department will take no further action or send you any further correspondence unless and until your current request is narrowed in writing. If we do not receive your narrowed request within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this letter, your current request will be denied.

In the event that we do not receive a narrowed request and your current FOIA request is therefore denied, you have the right to have a denial reviewed by the Public Access Counselor (PAC) at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, 500 S. 2nd Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706, (877) 299-3642. You also have the right to seek judicial review of your denial by filing a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

Freedom of Information Officer

---

On March 17, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 12, 2017. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On March 12, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 to 11), I hereby request the following records:

All DoL documents, communications, transcripts, or any materials related to settlements, awards, or judgments in the following cases:

Simmons v. Chicago (1:08-cv-02769)
Moore et al v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05371)
Edwards v. Chicago et al (12-L-13429)
Arnold v. Chicago (1:09-cv-01617)
Brown v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-06506)
Perry v. Weatherly et al (1:10-cv-0552)
Brown v. Evans et al (1:15-cv-02844)
Richardson v. Chicago et al (1:08-cv-04824)
Byars v. Evans et al (1:13-cv-00923)
Hall v. Chicago (1:00-cv-05490)
Owens v. Chicago (1:15-cv-03651)
Rock v. Chicago et al (02-L-010743)
Waller et al v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-00223)
Ellis v. Chicago et al (1:14-cv-02816)
Anderson v. Landrum et al (1:12-cv-01902)
Whitney v. Hamilton et al (1:11-cv-08872)
McDowell v. Chicago et al (1:09-cv-07171)
McLin v. Chicago et al (1:10-cv-05076)
Jennings v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08811)
McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:12-cv-05508)
McWilliams et al v. Chicago et al (1:13-cv-08423)
Booker et al v. Bolling et al (1:10-cv-03522)
Freeman et al v. Kennedy el al (09-L-001068)

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Chaclyn Hunt

------
Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock
DEPT MR 34770
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
------
[Image removed by sender.]

________________________________
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail (or the person responsible for delivering this document to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this e-mail, and any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please respond to the individual sending the message, and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and printout thereof.

Final email.
Thanks,
Chloe