Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Court Upholds City’s Response to FOIA that No Records Exist

By Julie Tappendorf on December 5, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In 2023, a requester
submitted several FOIA requests to a city police department seeking law
enforcement records regarding himself. The city’s response letter denying the request stated that (1) the records were exempt under 7(1)(a) and (2) “NO RECORDS FOUND.” The requester then sued the city claiming it improperly withheld responsive records to his requests in violation of FOIA. The city filed a motion to dismiss which acknowledged that the city’s response should have 
only noted that the city had no responsive records rather than citing a FOIA exemption. The circuit court granted the city’s motion and dismissed the case finding that the city’s
search did not identify any responsive records to the requests, and, therefore,
the city cannot withhold records that do not exist. The requester appealed the
circuit court’s decision, alleging that (1) the circuit court improperly
dismissed his complaint, and (2) that the circuit court should have awarded
attorney’s fees to the requester.

In Turner
v. Vedra
, the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the case. First, the Appellate Court determined that the non-existence of
responsive records is an affirmative defense to a FOIA complaint. In this case,
the Appellate Court determined that the city performed a reasonably diligent
search that did not identify any records responsive to the requests, and the
adequacy of the city’s search was supported by affidavits from the city’s FOIA
officer and records department supervisor. Because the requester failed to
allege any facts to indicate that records existed, or provide a
counter-affidavit to rebut the city’s good faith affidavits, the Appellate Court determined that the circuit court properly dismissed the requester’s
complaint.

Second, the Appellate Court
rejected the requester’s claim for attorneys fees because (1) the requester was
not a prevailing party in his FOIA litigation, and (2) the requester, as a pro
se litigant, is not entitled to an award of attorneys fees under FOIA.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Municipal Minute is authored by Julie Tappendorf, a partner at the Ancel Glink law firm in Chicago, to provide timely legal updates on topics of interest to local governments.

     

Related Stories

  • Governor Signs Bill Amending OMA and FOIA
  • Appellate Court Interprets 50 Pages “Free of Charge” FOIA Provision
  • City Violated FOIA When it Charged a Fee for an Electronic Copy of an Incident Report

 

Photo of Julie Tappendorf Julie Tappendorf

Julie Tappendorf is an equity partner at the Ancel Glink law firm in Chicago. She represents clients in local government, land use, social media, and litigation matters.

EmailJulie's Linkedin ProfileJulie's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory
  • Blog:
    Municipal Minute
  • Organization:
    Ancel Glink, P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo