A judge has ruled a husband and wife cannot continue their lawsuit against the city of Chicago, for mistakenly furnishing their bank records to a man imprisoned for murder, through a Freedom of Information request, saying the couple failed to show the error was part of a pattern and not just a one-off glitch.
The March 23 decision was made by Judge Steven Seeger, of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The ruling went against Christopher and Lori Petropoulos, of west suburban Batavia.
A man imprisoned for murder, who has been associated with the Maniac Latin Disciples street gang, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Chicago police for records pertaining to his case, according to court papers. The city accidentally sent the felon banking data for the Petropoulos couple, which included their names, address, phone numbers and signatures. Court documents do not explain how the city had come to have the Petropoulos information, which had nothing to do with the felon's criminal case. The felon is not named in court papers.
The couple said they only learned of the error when the imprisoned man forwarded the records to them in May 2018. They sued the city in May 2019, claiming the mistake put them in a "state of compromised safety and fear." They accused the city of violating their privacy, negligence and violating the Illinois FOIA.
Judge Seeger dismissed the suit the first time in March 2020, saying plaintiffs failed to show the mishandling of the felon's FOIA request was an example of a wider defective "policy, practice or custom."
Seeger told the Petropoulos couple the suit was based “entirely on their own personal experiences” and “alleged no other examples of the City releasing the wrong information to the wrong recipients." Further, Seeger said, “Raw conclusions about inadequate policies and practices don’t cut it, but that’s all the complaint has to offer.”
To try to correct this flaw in their suit, plaintiffs filed two FOIA requests of their own with the city, asking for records pertaining to material mistakenly furnished other FOIA requestors. The city denied both requests, saying they were broad and unduly burdensome because there was no way to track any botched requests.
Plaintiffs then amended their suit, adding their failed FOIA requests to the mix, arguing they could not gather information to show a pattern, because their requests were denied.
However, Seeger found nothing had changed.
"The new complaint suffers from the same defects as the old one. It is not sufficient to allege that a pattern might exist, or that information showing a pattern might be out there. It is not enough to allege that Plaintiffs lack the necessary information," Seeger wrote.
Seeger continued, quoting from a 2005 Chicago federal court ruling: "If anything, the complaint itself confirms that Plaintiffs do not have facts supporting the existence of a pattern. Plaintiffs must allege more than their own experience. A plaintiff must allege that 'there is a true municipal policy at issue, not a random event.'"
Seeger found plaintiffs' unsuccessful FOIA requests to be off the mark, because their claimed injury came from a bungled response to a FOIA request, not a lack of response.
Another strike against the suit, in Seeger's eyes, was the failed FOIA requests, if successful, needed to show private data, such as banking information, was wrongly provided, not public information.
"If the City sent public information to the wrong recipients several times, it wouldn’t be enough to state a claim. Sending public information to the wrong person pursuant to a FOIA request surely would not violate the right to privacy," Seeger said.
Regarding the city's denials of plaintiffs' requests, Seeger wrote: "Maybe the City doesn’t track FOIA mistakes because it does not make mistakes often enough to justify tracking mistakes. Maybe the juice isn’t worth the squeeze."
Seeger also said plaintiffs didn't spell out what training the city could undertake to head off the harm plaintiffs allegedly suffered.
Despite his second dismissal, Seeger told plaintiffs they may again amend their complaint by April 15.
The Petropoulos couple have been represented by attorney Jessica Ann Harrell, of the firm of Foster, Buick, Conklin & Lundgren, of Sycamore.
The city has been defended by attorneys Thomas P. McNulty and Bradley G. Wilson, of the city's Department of Law.