Customer Name:
Yvonne Mayer
| Please produce in electronic PDF form copies of the legal invoices and associated remittance pages DATED from March 1| 2020 through May 11| 2020 for any and all legal fees and legal costs charged to D86 in connection with the following matters: 1. Federal lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois titled: Dr. Meeta Jain Patel| Kara Kuo and Kim Notaro v. Board of Education Hinsdale Township High School District 86 and Nancy Pollack| No. 1:20-cv-00893. 2. D86 FOIA Request R000743-111519 AND related Request for Review 2020 PAC 61497 filed with the Public Access Counselor| Office of the Illinois Attorney General. 3. D86 FOIA Request R000757-121819 AND related Request for Review 2020 PAC 61589 filed with the Public Access Counselor| Office of the Illinois Attorney General. 4. Request for Review 2020 PAC-61373 filed with the Public Access Counselor| Office of the Illinois Attorney General. |
Response:
| Your request is granted in part and denied in part. The responsive records for the month of March 2020 are available in the Public Records Center. For your convenience| we have removed (in white) legal bill entries that do not relate to your request. Per your request| the enclosed pages contain detailed fee descriptions| but we have redacted the specific details concerning these services that are protected by the attorney-client privilege. FOIA Section 7(1)(m) exempts communications between a public body and an attorney representing the public body that would not be subject to discovery in litigation. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(m). Illinois courts and the Illinois Attorney General’s office have recognized that attorney billing records contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege. People ex rel. Ulrich v. Stukel| 294 Ill. App. 3d 193| 201 (1st Dist. 1997); Public Access Opinion Nos. 14-002 (April 15| 2014) and 12-005 (March 12| 2012). In PAC Opinion 14-002| the PAC stated: “Some entries identify subjects of research or details of other tasks performed| the identities of specific individuals with whom attorneys met| and topics of discussion during those meetings. In contrast| other billing entries contain only general descriptions of services performed| such as holding a telephone conference| exchanging emails| or drafting and revising a memo. To the extent that individual billing entries include detailed descriptions of legal services that reveal privileged information| those descriptions may be redacted from the invoices.” PAC Opinion No. 14-002| at 5. Here| the blacked-out portions within the detailed attorney time entries reflect attorney-client privileged communications and/or work product that would not be subject to discovery in litigation| and these portions are exempt within the letter and spirit of the PAC’s published guidance on this subject. In addition| many of the redactions are also supported by other exemptions| including (but not limited to) FOIA Sections 7(1)(c)| 7(1)(f)| 7(1)(s) and 7.5(r). Please note that no responsive documents exist at this time for your request for legal invoices and associated pages dated April 1| 2020| through May 11| 2020. |