Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet - General Chancery Section (Rev.

12/30/15) CCCH 0623

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

Henderson Parks, LLC

____________________________________________________________
Plaintiff
v.
No. ________________________________
City of Chicago
____________________________________________________________
Defendant

CHANCERY DIVISION CIVIL COVER SHEET

GENERAL CHANCERY SECTION
A Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet - General Chancery Section shall be filed with the initial complaint in all
actions filed in the General Chancery Section of Chancery Division. The information contained herein is for administra-
tive purposes only. Please check the box in front of the appropriate category which best characterizes your action being
filed.
0005 Administrative Review
0001 Class Action
0002 Declaratory Judgment
0004 Injunction

0007 General Chancery 0019 Partition

0010 Accounting 0020 Quiet Title
0011 Arbitration 0021 Quo Warranto
0012 Certiorari 0022 Redemption Rights
0013 Dissolution of Corporation 0023 Reformation of a Contract
0014 Dissolution of Partnership 0024 Rescission of a Contract
0015 Equitable Lien 0025 Specific Performance
0016 Interpleader 0026 Trust Construction
0017 Mandamus Other (specify)
0018 Ne Exeat

Henderson Parks, LLC

By: __________________________________________
60047
Atty. No.: __________________ Pro Se 99500 Pro Se Only:  I have read and agree to the terms of the
Victor P. Henderson/Christopher W. Carmichael
Name: ___________________________________________ Clerk’s OfficeElectronicNoticePolicy and choose to opt
Plaintiff
in to electronic notice from the Clerk’s officeforthiscase
Atty. for: ________________________________________ at this email address:
140 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1020
Address: _________________________________________ _________________________________________________
Chicago, IL 60603
City/State/Zip Code: _______________________________
312-262-2900
Telephone: _______________________________________
Primary Email Address:
ccarmichael@henderson-parks.com
_________________________________________________
Secondary Email Address(es):
bkantor@henderson-parks.com
_________________________________________________
srobinson@henderson-parks.com
_________________________________________________

DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Page 1 of 1
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

HENDERSON PARKS, LLC )

)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No.
)
CITY OF CHICAGO )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION

Plaintiff brings this Complaint, pursuant to 5 ILCS 140/11, against the City

of Chicago to obtain an order requiring the production of records improperly

withheld under the Freedom of Information Act, and alleges as follows:

Summary

1. The leadership of the Department of Water Management has actively

discriminated against African-Americans for years and fostered a culture of racism.

2. The Mayor has acknowledged that there is a culture of racism within

the Department of Water Management. See https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-

politics/emanuel-responds-to-ugly-testimony-by-water-management-employees/;

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/15/emanuel-defends-new-water-commissioner-

amid-racist-culture-complaints/.

3. The culture of racism within the Water Department was exposed

when racist email messages exchanged by the top officials at the Water Department

accidentally came to light.

 4. Plaintiff issued Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain the

racist emails and related records, but the City refuses to produce them.

5. The City has no legal, versus political, basis to withhold the

information.

6. Conversely, the City is seeking to conceal the information prior to an

election year.

7. The City is in clear violation of the Freedom of Information Act and

should be ordered to immediately produce all records.

Parties

8. Plaintiff issued FOIA requests to the City of Chicago.

9. The City of Chicago is a municipal corporation within the State of

Illinois and is bound by the laws of the State of Illinois, including the Freedom of

Information Act.

Jurisdiction & Venue

10. The requests for information were issued in Illinois.

11. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209.

12. The requests sought documents from the City of Chicago, Illinois.

13. Venue is proper pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101.

Background

14. The Freedom of Information Act codifies the public policy of the State

of Illinois; a fundamental precept of American democracy is the public's right to full

and complete information regarding the affairs of government. See 5 ILCS 140/1

-2-
("The General Assembly hereby declares that it is the public policy of the State of

Illinois that access by all persons to public records promotes the transparency and

accountability of public bodies at all levels of government).

15. It is a fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and

provide public records as expediently and efficiently as possible in compliance with

this Act.

16. Since the public pays the salaries and elects the officials, the public

has a right to review the records created by public bodies and monitor the

government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public’s interest. 5 ILCS

140/1 ("Such access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties of

discussing public issues fully and freely, making informed political judgments and

monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest.").

17. The Freedom of Information Act establishes that the records in the

custody of City officials actually belong to the citizens themselves.

18. The Freedom of Information Act, therefore, gives the public the

presumptive right to inspect all municipal records: "[a]ll records in the custody or

possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying." 5

ILCS 140/1.2.

19. The Freedom of Information Act requires the City to establish, by clear

and convincing evidence, an exemption to prevent disclosure. 5 ILCS 140/1.2 ("Any

public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of

proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt.").

-3-
 COUNT I

February 12, 2018 FOIA Request

20. Paragraphs 1-19 are incorporated herein.

21. Plaintiff issued a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of:

"1. any and all complaints and e-mail correspondence that were produced to the

City of Chicago Office of the Inspector General, involving, pertaining to, or relating

to any of the following persons, and; 2. any and all documents related to the

employment termination and/or departure involving, pertaining to, or relating to

any of the following persons: LUCI POPE COZZI ANDERSON; WILLIAM

BRESNAHAN; IRENE CAMINER; PAUL HANSEN; JENNIFER IZBAN; JOSEPH

LYNCH; BARRETT MURPHY; JOHN POPE; EDUARDO SALINAS; and ALAN

STARK." (Exhibit 1, 2/12/18 FOIA.)

22. The City of Chicago initially responded asserting that there are no

such records. (Exhibit 2, 2/15/2018 Response.)

23. The assertion that there are no responsive records is false and the City

knew as much when it originally said so.

24. Former Water Department Commissioner Barrett Murphy, former

senior police official William Bresnahan, former Alderman John Pope, Alan Stark,

Paul Hansen, Eduardo Salinas, and Joseph Lynch are among the Water

Department employees who promoted racism within the Department. See

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Water-Department-Takes-Action-

Against-Employees--471702504.html.

-4-
 25. The City subsequently responded that it needed additional time to

consult with another unnamed public body or another component of a public body.

(Exhibit 3, 2/21/2018 Response.)

26. Seven days thereafter, the City responded asserting that the records

responsive to Request No. 1 are exempt from FOIA under the Illinois State Officials

and Employees Ethics Act, because copies of the records were sent to the City

Inspector General. (Exhibit 4, 2/28/2018 Response.)

27. Non-exempt materials that were copied and sent to the City's Inspector

General do not become exempt any more than subsequently sending a business

document to an attorney renders the document privileged. See CNR Invest., Inc. v.

Jefferson Trust & Savings Bank, 115 Ill.App.3d 1071, 1076 (3rd Dist. 1983) ("The

attorney-client privilege of confidentiality does not apply to documents discussing

business advice instead of legal advice.").

28. The documents evidencing racism within the Water Department were

created in the ordinary course of the work of the Water Department.

29. In construing similar statutes with exemptions on disclosure, such as

the Medical Studies Act, Illinois courts have held that a document must specifically

be generated for the investigation to be privileged and that "[d]ocuments created in

the ordinary course of a hospital's business are not privileged, even if they are later

used by a committee in the peer-review process." Zangara v. Advocate Christ

Medical Center, 2011 IL App (1st) 091911, ¶ 38.

-5-
 30. The requested records were not created solely for the Inspector

General's investigation and are not exempt from disclosure merely because copies

were turned over to another department.1

31. Moreover, the assertion that copies in the possession of the Inspector

General are exempt is false.

32. While the City claims that 5 ILCS 140/7.5(h) exempts records from

disclosure, the underlying statute (the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act)

provides that investigative files lose any protection if a report is filed finding

violations. See 5 ILCS 430/20-95(b) ("If the Executive Ethics Commission finds that

a violation has occurred, the entire record of proceedings before the Commission,

the decision and recommendation, and the response from the agency head or

ultimate jurisdictional authority to the Executive Ethics Commission are not

exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.").

33. Here, the Inspector General issued findings that violations occurred

and publicly recommended disciplinary action against certain employees. (Exhibit

5, OIG 3d Q 2017 Report.)

34. After the report was issued, the entire record held by the Inspector

General became subject to FOIA, and any limitations on disclosure were waived

under the terms of the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act.

35. The City's assertion that all the racist documentation was turned over

to the Inspector General is objectively false.

1The Inspector General is part of the City government and the City cannot self-create a new
exemption to FOIA by handing copies of documents subject to FOIA to another department.
-6-
 36. The Inspector General said that the Law Department would not

provide access to all the emails: "Still, Ferguson's report raised questions about

whether he found all the troubling emails. Ferguson said the mayor's Law

Department imposes restrictions that do not allow 'unfettered access to city emails,'

which has hampered the investigation." See

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-water-department-

report-met-0718-20170717-story.html.

37. The City cannot rely on the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act

to exempt everything from disclosure when it provided only limited information to

the Inspector General.

38. The City’s attempt to shield the documents from disclosure is part of

an effort to avoid scrutiny of the decision to allow top officials who engaged in racist

acts to retire or resign rather than be fired.

39. Not only has the City failed to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that any exemption applies to withholding records about the institutional

racism within the Water Department, the City has also waived any such exemption

by disclosing the same or similar documents to the media: "Not long after the suit

was filed, emails turned over to the Tribune as part of an open records request cast

light on the scope and offensiveness of racist, sexist and anti-gay slurs by politically

connected supervisors at the top levels of the department." See

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-chicago-water-

department-racist-emails-20180416-story.html.

-7-
 40. The City cannot selectively provide The Chicago Tribune with

documentation to blunt unfavorable media, while simultaneously preventing the

public from gaining access to that same information.

41. Finally, the City waived any claim of exemption to disclosure when the

Mayor repeatedly cited and identified the employees and racist emails. See

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/emanuel-responds-to-ugly-testimony-

by-water-management-employees/; http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/15/emanuel-

defends-new-water-commissioner-amid-racist-culture-complaints/;

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/emanuel-commitment-to-changing-water-

management-hate-filled-culture-questioned/.

42. In response to Request No. 2 in the February 12, 2018 FOIA, the City

claimed an inability to discern the records that were requested and produced only

the resignation letters for the listed employees. (Exhibit 4, 2/28/2018 Response.)

43. The City's assertion that the public must specifically identify

individual records, when the public does not have access to these very same records,

is without merit.

44. Request No. 2 identified the records sought as pertaining to

"employment termination and/or departure of" ten listed employees.

45. The City purported to force these employees to leave its employment

and was able, from this request, to identify the resignation letters.

46. The City, however, wants to avoid disclosing documents which should

address why those employees were given golden parachutes.

-8-
 47. The City cannot demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it

cannot understand the request or that the production of the records constitutes an

undue burden.

48. There is no basis to preclude access to the requested records.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for: (1) an order compelling the immediate

production of the records requested in the February 13, 2018 FOIA; (2) imposition of

a civil penalty against the City of Chicago of not less than $2,500 nor more than

$5,000 for each occurrence; (3) an award attorneys' fees and costs; and, (4) such

further relief as deemed just and proper.

COUNT II

April 9, 2018 FOIA Request

49. Paragraphs 1-19 are incorporated herein.

50. Plaintiff issued a Freedom of Information Act request to the City of

Chicago on April 9, 2018 seeking: (1) the personnel file for Michael Dwyer, (2) racist

emails to and from Michael Dwyer, (3) documents about the employment departure

of Michael Dwyer, and, (4) complaints and disciplinary actions about Michael

Dwyer. (Exhibit 6, 4/9/2018 FOIA.)

51. On April 23, 2018, the City responded that it would only provide

redacted copies of the personnel and disciplinary records. (Exhibit 7, 4/23/2018

FOIA.)

52. The City redacted the personnel and disciplinary records, citing the

Freedom of Information Act exclusion of private information.

-9-
 53. The Freedom of Information Act limits "private information" to things

like social security numbers, personal financial information, and home and personal

telephone numbers. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b); 5 ILCS 140/2(c-5).

54. The City, however, redacted far more than private information, and

failed to redact information like social security numbers.

55. The City redacted the personnel and disciplinary records, removing

any information about what Michael Dwyer did, why he was disciplined, and why

he was terminated. (See Exhibit 8, Example of FOIA Response Documents.)

56. The City's redactions willfully violate the limitations in FOIA and are

improper. The City wants to avoid disclosing information that might be politically

embarrassing, but there is no basis for the redactions under Illinois law.

57. The City also asserted that providing Dwyer's racist emails would be

unduly burdensome without a list of keywords.

58. The City, however, already located racist emails sent or received by

Michael Dwyer. See https://herald-review.com/news/local/state-and-regional/obama-

was-butt-of-some-racist-city-emails-in-chicago/article_31db53c6-0d00-5f74-9f81-

d281015256f0.html.

59. The City cannot avoid producing the documents it has readily available

or place an additional burden on the requestor to guess about Dwyer's use of racist

language.

60. Given that the City already possesses racist emails, its assertion that

it would require an unreasonable effort to locate such emails rings hollow.

- 10 -
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for: (1) an order compelling the immediate

production of the emails requested in the April 23, 2018 FOIA; (2) an order

compelling the immediate production of unredacted personnel and termination

records requested in the April 23, 2018 FOIA; (3) imposition of a civil penalty

against the City of Chicago of not less than $2,500 nor more than $5,000 for each

occurrence; (4) an award attorneys' fees and costs; and (5) such further relief as

deemed just and proper.

COUNT III

May 31, 2018 FOIA Request

61. Paragraphs 1-19 are incorporated herein.

62. Plaintiff issued a Freedom of Information Act request to the City of

Chicago on May 31, 2018 seeking: (1) Records reflecting the post-termination

payments made to Michael Dwyer, Barrett Murphy, William Bresnahan, Jennifer

Izban, Paul Hansen, Irene Caminer, and Lucy Pope Anderson, (2) the personnel

files for William Bresnahan, Jennifer Izban, Paul Hansen, Irene Caminer, and Lucy

Pope Anderson, and, (3) complaints and disciplinary actions involving Anthony

Nguyen, Barrett Murphy, William Bresnahan, Jennifer Izban, Paul Hansen, Irene

Caminer, and Lucy Pope Anderson. (Exhibit 9, 5/31/2018 FOIA.)

63. On June 14, 2018, the City responded that it did not maintain the

records sought in request number 1, that request numbers 2 and 3 were unduly

burdensome. (Exhibit 10, 6/14/2018 FOIA.) The City stated that it would not

provide any records unless the request was narrowed. (Id.)

- 11 -
 64. While it is difficult to fathom how request number 3 could possibly be

unduly burdensome unless the employees of the City were the subject of repeated

complaints and discipline, the request was narrowed to alleviate the City's

purported concern.

65. On June 22, 2018, a narrowed FOIA request was submitted to the

City, requesting (1) information from the personnel files of William Bresnahan,

Jennifer Izban, Paul Hansen, Irene Caminer, and Lucy Pope Anderson within the

last 7 years, and, (2) complaints and disciplinary actions involving Anthony

Nguyen, Barrett Murphy, William Bresnahan, Jennifer Izban, Paul Hansen, Irene

Caminer, and Lucy Pope Anderson from the last 7 years. (Exhibit 11, 6/22/2018

Narrowed FOIA.)

66. The City claimed that this narrowing was sufficient to alleviate its

burdensomeness concerns, but has not produced any documents.

67. The Freedom of Information Act requires the City to respond in 5

business days. 5 ILCS 140/3(d). The request may be extended for an additional 5

business days based on certain criteria. 5 ILCS 140/3(e).

68. The City, however, has still not produced the records, nor has the City

provided written notice as to why and how long the production will take. This

amounts to a denial of the request under FOIA. 5 ILCS 140/3(f).

69. Instead of following the requirements of FOIA, when contacted, the

City indicted that its efforts to redact information would take an indeterminate

amount of time.

- 12 -
 70. The only way the City's redactions could take months is if the City is

again redacting more than allowed by the Freedom of Information Act.

71. The Freedom of Information Act limits "private information" to things

like social security numbers, personal financial information, and home and personal

telephone numbers. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b); 5 ILCS 140/2(c-5).

72. Upon information and belief, at the direction of the Corporation

Counsel's office, the Department of Water Management FOIA offices have been

redacting information that would show the employees committed reprehensible acts

and that the City was aware of complaints about this conduct, but did nothing.

73. The City's actions are a willfull violation of the limitations in FOIA

and are improper.

74. The City wants to avoid disclosing information that might be

politically embarrassing, but there is no basis for the redactions under Illinois law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for: (1) an order compelling the immediate

production of all of the documents, without redaction, sought in the narrowed June

22, 2018 FOIA; (2) an order prohibiting the City from redacting anything other than

the information specifically listed 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b) and 5 ILCS 140/2(c-5); (3)

imposition of a civil penalty against the City of Chicago of not less than $2,500 nor

more than $5,000 for each occurrence; (4) an award attorneys' fees and costs; and (5)

such further relief as deemed just and proper.

- 13 -
 PLAINTIFF HENDERSON
PARKS, LLC

By: __s/Victor P. Henderson__

One of its Attorneys
Victor P. Henderson
Christopher W. Carmichael
Breanna N. Kantor
HENDERSON PARKS, LLC
140 South Dearborn St., Suite 1020
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel: (312) 262-2900
vphenderson@henderson-parks.com
ccarmichael@henderson-parks.com
bnkantor@henderson-parks.com
Firm No. 60047

- 14 -