Coblentz v. City of Novi
| Decision Date | 20 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 255359. |
| Citation | 264 Mich. App. 450,691 N.W.2d 22 |
| Parties | Ann COBLENTZ, Lee Coblentz, John Lewandowski and Deborah Lewandowski, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NOVI, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Law Offices of Bailey & Rossi, P.C. (by Gary A. Rossi and Richard D. Wilson), Bloomfield Hills, for the plaintiffs.
Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton, Truex and Morley (by Gerald A. Fisher, Thomas R. Schultz, and David W. Gilliam), Farmington Hills, for the defendant.
Before: WILDER, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and OWENS, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right orders finding certain documents exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.; granting defendant's motion for summary disposition; and denying plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and determination of the appropriateness of costs charged under the FOIA. We affirm.
This case centers on plaintiffs' FOIA requests for information regarding a settlement agreement in which defendant transferred a seventy-five acre parcel of property to Sandstone Associates Limited Partnership-A (Sandstone). Plaintiffs requested all exhibits to this agreement, including those listed as having been intentionally deleted; all side letters (also called "side agreements") between the parties; and any global positioning satellite readings (global readings) and site plans dealing with the property transferred. Although defendant turned over the exhibits and several side letters, it refused to disclose two others and asserted that the deleted exhibits and the site plans and global readings requested by plaintiffs did not exist.
Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiffs' FOIA request for the deleted exhibits, global readings, and site plans. We disagree.
We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Glancy v. City of Roseville, 457 Mich. 580, 583, 577 N.W.2d 897 (1998). A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a claim. A trial court may grant summary disposition if, after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, it determines that no genuine issue concerning a material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. de Sanchez v. Dep't of Mental Health, 467 Mich. 231, 235, 651 N.W.2d 59 (2002).1
"The FOIA protects a citizen's right to examine and to participate in the political process by requiring public disclosure of information regarding the formal acts of public officials and employees." Stone Street Capital, Inc. v. Bureau of State Lottery, 263 Mich.App. 683, 687, 689 N.W.2d 541 (2004), citing Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 444 Mich. 211, 231, 507 N.W.2d 422 (1993). The FOIA, by its express terms, is a prodisclosure statute; a public body must disclose all public records that the act does not specifically exempt. MCL 15.233(1); Herald Co. v. Bay City, 463 Mich. 111, 119, 614 N.W.2d 873 (2000); Thomas v. New Baltimore, 254 Mich.App. 196, 201, 657 N.W.2d 530 (2002); Scharret v. Berkley, 249 Mich.App. 405, 411, 642 N.W.2d 685 (2002). Trial courts must narrowly construe FOIA exemptions, and the party asserting the exemption bears the burden of proving its applicability. Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. Dep't of Consumer & Industry Services, 246 Mich.App. 311, 315, 631 N.W.2d 769 (2001).
In their September 4, 2002, FOIA request, plaintiffs sought to obtain, among other things, "[a]ll exhibits, including but not limited to exhibits G, T, U, V, W, AA, BB, GG, MM, NN, PP, for the Agreement for Entry of Consent Judgment dated June 25, 2002, between Sandstone and the City of Novi." The "Exhibit List" for the June 25, 2002, "Agreement for Entry of Consent Judgment" letters the exhibits and gives a brief description of each exhibit. With respect to the exhibits specifically identified in plaintiffs' FOIA request, the description on the exhibit list states: "INTENTIONAL DELETION." At the October 22, 2003, motion hearing, the trial court stated that defendant did not have to turn over these exhibits because they were "no longer relevant." Because lack of relevance is not included among the exemptions from disclosure listed in MCL 15.243, this constituted error.
Nevertheless, the trial court reached the correct result. We affirm a lower court's ruling when it reaches the right result, albeit for the wrong reason. Morosini v. Citizens Ins. Co. of America, 224 Mich.App. 70, 86, 568 N.W.2d 346 (1997). Plaintiffs have failed to show that defendant did not provide the specific information sought pursuant to their FOIA request. The text of the June 25, 2002, agreement, which exceeds fifty pages, does not refer to any of the exhibits that plaintiffs requested by letter because they were not part of that agreement. While plaintiffs maintain that defendant should have provided the intentionally deleted exhibits, their request, despite specific mention of those exhibits, sought only the exhibits for the June 25, 2002, Agreement for Entry of Consent Judgment, which defendant provided to them. Thus, plaintiffs cannot complain that defendant did not comply with their FOIA request and defendant was entitled to summary disposition.
On the basis of a hand-written reference to "global" on a draft of the consent judgment agreement, plaintiffs requested global readings on "extra land." Defendant asserted that no such documents existed. In light of the affidavit of defendant's mayor, Richard J. Clark, the trial court agreed with defendant and found that no such documents existed. Under a MCR 2.116(C)(10) motion, the party moving for summary disposition has the initial burden of supporting its position with documentation such as affidavits or depositions. Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 460 Mich. 446, 455, 597 N.W.2d 28 (1999). But once the party has met this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. The opposing party may no longer rely on mere allegations, but must go beyond the pleadings and provide specific facts supporting a finding of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.
Here, plaintiffs failed to provide any factual support for their allegations that some sort of global readings existed. Although plaintiffs relied on the fact that a draft of the final consent judgment agreement had a note written in the margin stating "global," plaintiffs' interpretation of this word is mere speculation. Plaintiffs offer no factual support for their interpretation of the word and no factual support for the belief that such global readings existed. Therefore, the trial court was required to grant summary disposition in favor of defendant on this issue. Id.
Additionally, plaintiffs argue, in essence, that summary disposition was premature because discovery was not concluded and they did not have an opportunity to depose Clark. Ordinarily, summary disposition is premature if granted before completion of discovery on an issue, but it is not premature if discovery does not stand a fair chance of uncovering factual support for opposing the motion for summary disposition. State Treasurer v. Sheko, 218 Mich.App. 185, 190, 553 N.W.2d 654 (1996). Here, plaintiffs cite no evidence supporting their argument that uncovering factual support would possibly result from further discovery. Clark's affidavit is a sworn statement and there is no indication that he was not telling the truth. There is simply no evidence or indication that plaintiffs would be able to get Clark to change his testimony if allowed to depose him. Thus, no fair chance of uncovering factual support for plaintiffs' position exists, and summary disposition was not premature. Id.; see also Crawford v. Michigan, 208 Mich.App. 117, 122-123, 527 N.W.2d 30 (1994).
Plaintiffs' FOIA request included a request for all site plans for the dedicated seventy-five acres. Defendant stated that no site plan existed at the time of the request and supplied Clark's affidavit, which clearly states that Sandstone had not provided site plans at the time of plaintiffs' request. Again, on the basis of Clark's affidavit, the trial court agreed with defendant and found that no site plan existed. While plaintiffs attempted to support their position by supplying pictures showing that the seventy-five acres had been cleared of trees and grading had begun, these do not support a conclusion that Sandstone filed a site plan with defendant. Plaintiffs cite no authority that a site plan must be filed before beginning deconstruction or grading on a property. Nor do plaintiffs offer an affidavit from a person in the construction field or working for defendant stating that filing a site plan is customary before such activity is done. Simply put, the photographs are insufficient documentation that Sandstone had filed site plans at the time of the FOIA request. Without factual support to contradict Clark's affidavit clearly stating that site plans were not filed with defendant, the trial court properly granted summary disposition to defendant on this issue. Smith, supra.
Plaintiffs next argue that the trial court erred in finding the side letters exempt from disclosure and in failing to make particularized findings in denying disclosure. We disagree.
Our Supreme Court has held that "the application of exemptions requiring legal determinations are reviewed under a de novo standard, while application of exemptions requiring determinations of a discretionary nature ... are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard." Federated Publications, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich. 98, 101, 649 N.W.2d 383 (2002). Unlike the exemption...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coblentz v. City of Novi
...The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the requested documents were exempt from disclosure. Coblentz v. Novi, 264 Mich.App. 450, 691 N.W.2d 22 (2004). We affirm in part and reverse in part that decision. We conclude that the Court of Appeals appropriately affirmed the......