Coblentz v. City of Novi
| Citation | 475 Mich. 558,719 N.W.2d 73 |
| Decision Date | 19 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 127715.,COA No. 7. |
| Parties | Ann COBLENTZ, Lee Coblentz, John Lewandowski, and Deborah Lewandowski, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NOVI, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Law Offices of Bailey & Rossi, P.C. (by Richard D. Wilson and Gary A. Rossi), Bloomfield Hills, for the plaintiffs.
Secrest Wardle (by Gerald A. Fisher and Thomas R. Schultz), Farmington Hills, for the defendant.
This case asks us to determine if the trial court appropriately found requested documents exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq. We address also whether it was appropriate for defendant to charge fees to plaintiffs for the work of defendant's attorney in retrieving and separating documents plaintiffs sought under the act.
This case revolves around an underlying settlement agreement between defendant and a third party. Plaintiffs filed a FOIA request for documents associated with the agreement. Requested were "site plans" and "global readings" on real property, all exhibits to the agreement, including certain exhibits listed as intentionally deleted, and side agreements or letters related to the agreement.
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 grant of summary disposition to defendant on plaintiffs' request for "site plans" and "global readings." But the Court of Appeals erred in affirming summary disposition regarding the request for all exhibits to the underlying settlement agreement, including the intentionally deleted exhibits. These exhibits were not exempt from disclosure and were sufficiently identified in the FOIA request.
The Court of Appeals also erred in affirming summary disposition for defendant on the requested "side agreements" to the settlement agreement. These items were not exempt because defendant failed to comply with MCL 15.243(1)(f)(iii). Finally, the Court of Appeals erred in finding appropriate the fees that defendant charged for its attorney's work in separating documents. The attorney in question was not an employee of defendant. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of a judgment compelling disclosure consistent with this opinion.
In a separate civil action against defendant, Sandstone Associates Limited Partnership-A (Sandstone) obtained a judgment that totaled tens of millions of dollars, including costs, interest, and attorney fees. Sandstone and defendant then entered into an agreement in which defendant waived its appellate rights and Sandstone received real property rather than the money judgment. The major component of the agreement called for defendant to turn over 75 "net usable" acres to Sandstone for development.
The property had previously been set aside as parkland. It is adjacent to property owned by plaintiffs. Some of the property carried deed restrictions, including possible reciprocal negative easements.1 Plaintiffs' properties contained the same deed restrictions. The settlement agreement required defendant to arrange for the removal of the deed restrictions on its property and on plaintiffs' property. It was agreed that, if defendant failed, it would convey additional property to Sandstone. In an effort to remove the restrictions, defendant contacted plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs retained counsel who filed a FOIA request with defendant, seeking:
1. All 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;
2. Any and all site plans for Sandstone regarding the 75 dedicated acres; and. . . .
Defendant's attorney responded to these requests by writing:
1. Exhibits G, T, U, V, W, AA, BB, GG, MM, NN, PP: I have advised you by phone and letter that there are no such exhibits. The reference in the index, indicating that they were intentionally deleted, is merely to clarify for the reader that such exhibits have not been lost or detached from the Agreement. These exhibits do not exist, and never existed.
2. Site Plan: I have also advised you by phone and letter that a site plan or concept plan for the 75 acres does not exist. It has never existed. I do not know how [to] provide any further explanation.
Plaintiffs then informally requested all side agreements to the Sandstone settlement agreement and the "global readings." Defendant's attorney responded that he did not know what "global" meant. With regard to the side agreements, he stated that he assumed that this meant the "side letters" to the Sandstone agreement. He indicated that he was attempting to learn from Sandstone's counsel which of the side letters were submitted with an understanding of confidentiality.
Plaintiffs next filed a second FOIA request. Among the items sought were:
1. Any and all side agreements entered into between the City of Novi and Sandstone and/or its attorneys or representatives;
2. Global readings on "extra land"; global positioning satellite (GPS) readings on "extra land";
3. Settlement agreements, releases, copies of drafts in settlement of the insurance cases relating to this property[.]
After plaintiffs' second FOIA request, defendant began to negotiate with Sandstone for release of the side agreements. Sandstone initially stated that none could be released, but later agreed to release five of the seven side letters.
In response to this FOIA request, defendant told plaintiffs that global or GPS readings did not exist. It also refused to release the two remaining side agreements, stating:
The request is denied with regard to two documents representing commercial and/or financial information voluntarily submitted to the City of Novi for use in developing governmental policy . . . as contemplated and required under MCL 15.243(g) [sic, (1)(f)].
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking production of all intentionally deleted exhibits. Plaintiffs claimed that they had located one of the exhibits, exhibit AA, despite the fact that defendant contended that it never existed. They also asked the court to order production of global readings, site plans, and all side agreements.
Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition before the close of discovery. Attached was an affidavit from its mayor, Richard Clark. Clark stated that, as of the date of the affidavit, Sandstone had submitted no site plans for the 75 acres. He also affirmed that no "global readings" or GPS readings existed in connection with the Sandstone settlement agreement. Plaintiffs responded, but did not attach any documentary evidence rebutting Clark's affidavit.
The court granted defendant's motion in part. Regarding the site plans and global readings, it found, on the basis of Clark's affidavit, that none existed. It concluded that further depositions of other city officials on the topic would be duplicative. The circuit court denied defendant's request for summary disposition on the fee issue pending further hearings. It also deferred ruling on the side agreements until it could make an in camera review. With respect to the intentionally deleted exhibits, it found them irrelevant and granted summary disposition for defendant.
Following its review of the side agreements that defendant claimed were exempt, the court found that defendant properly complied with the requirements of MCL 15.243(1)(f). The side letters, it found, fell within the governmental policy exemption of FOIA because they helped to facilitate the Sandstone agreement. Thus, it granted summary disposition to defendant.
The trial court then turned to the appropriateness of the fees for its attorney that defendant charged to plaintiffs. Defendant contended that the fees were appropriate because defendant's attorney was the lowest paid employee who could separate the exempt side letters from the nonexempt letters. The court granted summary disposition to defendant on this issue. It found that the attorney was defendant's employee and concluded that the fees were appropriate under MCL 15.234. In the same order, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.
On plaintiffs' appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was not appropriate for the lower court to grant summary disposition concerning the intentionally deleted exhibits on the basis of relevance. But it affirmed the decision on alternative grounds, concluding that the intentionally deleted exhibits were not part of the final settlement agreement. It based its conclusion on the fact that these exhibits were listed in the agreement with the words "INTENTIONAL DELETION" written next to them. Coblentz, 264 Mich.App. at 453-454, 691 N.W.2d 22.
Regarding the global readings and site plans, the Court of Appeals found that summary disposition was appropriate because of Clark's affidavit and plaintiffs' failure to offer factual support for their existence. It also concluded that summary disposition was appropriate despite the fact that discovery had not been concluded. The Court opined that it was unlikely that further discovery would provide the factual support necessary. Id. at 454-457, 691 N.W.2d 22.
It found that the two side agreements were exempt from disclosure. Specifically, it concluded that defendant adequately complied with FOIA's requirement that it place a description of the exempt material in a central location within a reasonable time. This is despite the fact that defendant did not file the description until after plaintiffs had made their FOIA requests and until five months after Sandstone had submitted the documents. The Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boelter v. Hearst Commc'ns, Inc.
...15.361(b). Furthermore, Michigan courts have applied the economic reality test in a variety of other contexts. Coblentz v. City of Novi , 475 Mich. 558, 719 N.W.2d 73, 85 (2006) (Freedom of Information Act); Derigiotis , 460 N.W.2d at 237 (Michigan's Workers' Disability Compensation Act); F......
-
Lease Acceptance Corp. v. Adams
..."Reasonably" denotes the balancing of factors, which in turn requires the exercise of some judicial discretion. Coblentz v. Novi, 475 Mich. 558, 575, 719 N.W.2d 73 (2006). Normally, discretionary issues are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which is an unusually difficult standard to ove......
-
American Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Municipal Emps., Council 25 v. Wayne Cnty.
...475 (2010).II. ANALYSISA. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a ruling on a motion for summary disposition, Coblentz v. City of Novi, 475 Mich. 558, 567, 719 N.W.2d 73 (2006), constitutional issues, Adair v. Michigan, 486 Mich. 468, 477, 785 N.W.2d 119 (2010), the proper interpretation and......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Seils
...this claim with evidence such as affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documents. MCR 2.116(G)(4) ; Coblentz v. City of Novi, 475 Mich. 558, 569, 719 N.W.2d 73 (2006). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party then has the burden of showing with evidentiary ma......