Metcalf v. Grand Ledge Pub. Schs.
| Decision Date | 24 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 358259 |
| Parties | BRIAN METCALF, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. GRAND LEDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DENISE DUFORT, JARROD SMITH, JOHN SHIFLETT, SARA CLARK PIERSON, KIM MULVENNA, PATRICK MCKENNON, and BEN CWAYNA, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Eaton Circuit Court LC No. 20-000777-CZ
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Riordan, JJ.
In this case brought under Michigan's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq. plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee, Brian Metcalf, appeals as of right the trial court's order granting in part summary disposition in favor of defendants-appellees/cross-appellants, Grand Ledge Public Schools (the district), Denise DuFort, Jarrod Smith, John Shiflett, Sara Clark Pierson, Kim Mulvenna, Patrick McKennon and Ben Cwayna (collectively, excluding the district, board members). Defendants cross-appeal as of right the same order. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
The following facts, which are taken from the trial court's opinion and order regarding defendants' motion for summary disposition, are uncontested:
On June 19, 2020, plaintiff submitted seven electronic FOIA requests to the district, requesting the same information for each board member. On June 29, 2020, Dr. Steven Gabriel, the district's FOIA coordinator, stated that the district received the seven requests on June 22, 2020, and requested a 10-day extension under MCL 15.235(2)(d). On July 14, 2020, the district granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's requests. For each request, the district informed plaintiff of the estimated cost of providing the information, that it would "begin compiling records responsive to your request" upon payment of a 50% deposit, and that it estimated the records would be "available within 30 days of receipt of your deposit." The district received the deposits on August 3, 2020. On September 3, 2020, Dr. Gabriel informed plaintiff that he was entitled to a refund for some of the requests because the actual costs to fulfill the requests were lower than previously estimated. For the other requests, Dr. Gabriel stated that the district would release the responsive records upon payment of the balance of the actual costs to fulfill the requests. The district does not claim that plaintiff did not pay the balance.
On August 25, 2020, plaintiff submitted eight electronic FOIA requests to the district. On September 2, 2020, Dr. Gabriel stated that the district received the eight requests on August 26, 2020, and requested a 10-day extension under MCL 15.235(2)(d). On September 17, 2020, the district granted plaintiff's first request. The district granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh requests. The district denied plaintiff's sixth request. With respect to plaintiff's eighth request, which contained four items, Dr. Gabriel stated, "Your remaining requests are granted in part and denied in part." Dr. Gabriel informed plaintiff of the estimated cost of providing the information, that the district would "begin compiling records responsive to your request" upon payment of a 50% deposit, and that it estimated the records would be "available within 35 days of receipt of your deposit." The district received plaintiff's deposit on September 28, 2020. On November 2, 2020, Dr. Gabriel stated, "Your requests are granted in part and denied in part." Dr. Gabriel informed plaintiff that the district would release the responsive records upon payment of the balance of the actual cost to fulfill the request. The district does not claim that plaintiff did not pay the balance.
On October 29, 2020, plaintiff apparently submitted an electronic FOIA request to the district requesting" '[a]ny records, notes, or other documents related to any and all written reprimands of [JP].' "[1] According to DuFort, on November 23, 2020, "following a properly-asserted 10-day extension," the district denied plaintiff's request, that on December 1, 2020, plaintiff appealed the denial, and that the district upheld the denial.
In February 2021, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against defendants, alleging, in relevant part, that defendants violated FOIA by requiring him to pay the remaining balance of the actual costs before producing the records sought in the June 2020 set of FOIA requests and the eighth request of the August 2020 set of FOIA requests. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated FOIA by not timely producing responsive records to the June 2020 and August 2020 requests. Plaintiff alleged that there were outstanding records that defendants had not produced. Plaintiff also argued that he was entitled to attorney fees and costs.
Defendants sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) () and MCR 2.116(C)(10) (). First, defendants argued that the district provided plaintiff with an estimated time frame of when the records for the June 2020 set and the eighth request for the August 2020 set would be available and that even though the time frame was nonbinding, the district met the estimates. Therefore, defendants argued that plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Next, defendants argued that they were permitted to require plaintiff to pay the full amount of costs to fulfill the requests before producing the responsive records. Defendants argued that plaintiff's lawsuit was moot because the district produced the responsive records that were not exempt under FOIA. Defendants argued that the trial court should deny plaintiff's request to compel disclosure of the alleged unproduced records on the basis that they were not required to produce the records. Finally, defendants argued that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees and costs on the basis that defendants did not violate FOIA and plaintiff did not need to file suit to compel disclosure of the responsive documents because they were available upon final payment of the remaining costs.
The trial court granted in part defendants' motion for summary disposition. The trial court stated that plaintiff did not proffer any convincing caselaw regarding the "reasonable length of Defendants' timeframe estimate" and concluded that defendants met their estimates. The trial court denied plaintiff's request to compel disclosure of the alleged unproduced records. The trial court concluded that defendants violated FOIA by requiring plaintiff to pay the full costs of production before disclosing the responsive records to the June 2020 set and the eighth request for the August 2020 set. However, the trial court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees and costs because defendants thought they could legally require full payment, plaintiff's filing of the complaint did not "prompt[] [d]efendants to disclose the public records requested," and upon receiving the balance, defendants provided the requested records. For these reasons, the trial court granted in part defendants' motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and/or rehearing, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.
The parties' arguments can be separated into the following categories: (1) sufficiency of the response to the eighth request of the August 2020 set of FOIA requests, (2) the deposits, (3) allegedly unproduced documents, and (4) attorney fees. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.[2]
"This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition de novo." Pugno v Blue Harvest Farms LLC, 326 Mich.App. 1, 11; 930 N.W.2d 393 (2018). "The proper interpretation of the FOIA is a question of law that is subject to review de novo." Arabo v Mich. Gaming Control Bd, 310 Mich.App. 370, 406; 872 N.W.2d 223 (2015).
Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is appropriate if "[e]xcept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law." In reviewing the motion, this Court considers the "pleadings, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." ...
To continue reading
Request your trial