When the FOIA Clock Starts: Illinois Court Clarifies When Electronic Requests Are Received

by Hayley Loufek

An Illinois Appellate Court recently clarified when the statutory response period under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) begins for electronically submitted requests. In Balzer v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, 2026 IL App (1st) 232227, the court held that a FOIA request is “received” when it enters a public body’s email system—not when personnel first become aware of it.

Jim Balzer submitted a FOIA request to Metra by email on July 31, 2019. Metra’s third-party email security system, Mimecast, initially quarantined the message before releasing it to Metra’s FOIA inbox the following day, August 1, 2019. Metra denied the request on August 8, 2019, the fifth business day after Metra first saw the email, but the sixth business day after Mimecast received it.

Under FOIA, a public body must respond to a request within five business days after receipt. Because Metra’s response came one business day after that deadline, the Appellate Court deemed the denial untimely.

In reaching this conclusion, the court analogized electronic FOIA requests to traditional mail. If a requester mailed a FOIA request, the response period would begin when the letter was delivered to the public body’s mailbox—even if it did not reach the FOIA officer until the next day. The same principle applies to email. While the court acknowledged that Metra’s choice to implement spam-filtering and security measures was reasonable, it emphasized that a public body may not rely on systems of its own design to extend statutory deadlines.

The court also found support for its interpretation in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), which Illinois adopted in 2019. 815 ILCS 333/1 et seq. Section 15(b) of UETA provides that an electronic record is received when it enters an information processing system designated or used by the recipient for receiving such records.

Section 15(c) further clarifies that receipt occurs regardless of the physical location of that system. Because Metra designated Mimecast to receive incoming electronic communications, Balzer’s FOIA request was “received” when it entered Mimecast—not when it was released from quarantine.

Although Metra’s response was only one business day late, the consequences were significant. As the prevailing party, Balzer was entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Metra also waived its ability to charge fees for responding to the request or to rely on FOIA’s “unduly burdensome” exemption.

The Balzer decision offers important guidance for public bodies responding to FOIA requests. While FOIA permits a single five-business-day extension, the extension must be invoked within the original response period. Likewise, a denial must be in writing and include the specific basis for the denial, the name and title of the individual responsible, and notice of the requester’s right to seek review by the Public Access Counselor or the circuit court.

Critically, a public body may not simply assert that a request is unduly burdensome. FOIA requires the public body to offer the requester an opportunity to narrow the request before relying on that exemption. As Balzer makes clear, strict compliance with FOIA’s timing and procedural requirements is essential—and internal email systems will not excuse a late response.