Rataj v. City of Romulus
| Decision Date | 23 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 315669. |
| Citation | 306 Mich.App. 735,858 N.W.2d 116 |
| Parties | RATAJ, v. CITY OF ROMULUS. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Joel B. Sklar, Detroit, for plaintiff.
Plunkett Cooney (by Mary Massaron Ross, Bloomfield Hills, Hilary A. Ballentine, and Audrey J. Forbush, Detroit) for defendants.
Before: OWENS, P.J., and JANSEN and O'CONNELL, JJ.
In this action brought pursuant to Michigan's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq., plaintiff appeals by right the circuit court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff Michael A. Rataj (plaintiff), a Detroit-area attorney, learned that Romulus Police Officer Warren Jones (Jones) had assaulted an unnamed citizen at the Romulus Police Department (RPD) in the early morning hours of August 1, 2012. Although it is unclear how plaintiff initially discovered this information, RPD employee Kevin Ladach (Ladach) has confirmed that the assault took place and was captured on video.1 According to plaintiff, Jones physically assaulted the citizen while the citizen's hands were handcuffed behind his back. Although the record does not disclose the specific reasons for the citizen's arrest, it appears that the citizen later provoked Jones while in custody by spitting on Jones and using an unidentified racial epithet.
On September 21, 2012, plaintiff sent a FOIA request to the RPD. Plaintiff sought the disclosure of all records pertaining to the assault, including an unredacted copy of the official incident report, any other internal reports, and any videorecordings. RPD Captain Derran E. Shelby (Shelby) responded on October 4, 2012, stating that plaintiff's FOIA request had been “granted in part and denied in part.” Shelby provided a copy of the incident report pertaining to the events of August 1, 2012, with the names, addresses, dates of birth, and telephone numbers of all persons redacted. Shelby informed plaintiff that Lieutenant James Cox was the shift commander on duty at that time and that Sergeant Damian Hull was also on duty. Shelby confirmed that the RPD possessed video of the lobby area, booking area, and lock-up area recorded in the early morning hours of August 1, 2012. However, he stated that “at the request of the prisoner for his/her safety concerns, the video is not being released.” In addition, Shelby wrote that “[t]he name of the arrestee has been redacted from the incident report at his/her request.” Shelby notified plaintiff that he could appeal the decision in writing to Barry Seifman (Seifman), an attorney designated by the city of Romulus to handle FOIA appeals.
Plaintiff sent a written appeal to Seifman on November 14, 2012. Seifman responded on November 19, 2012, suggesting that the records sought by plaintiff were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they (1) “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's [ 2 ] privacy,” (2) were related to “departmental discipline,” and (3) consisted of “police personnel records.” Seifman did send plaintiff a copy of a typewritten letter, allegedly signed by the citizen who was assaulted, which provided:
Seifman informed plaintiff that although the citizen's name had been redacted, the letter “may help you understand the concerns of the person involved in the incident.” Seifman did not explain why the letter was dated September 28, 2012, nearly two months after the incident had taken place.
On January 11, 2013, plaintiff commenced the instant FOIA action against defendants in the Wayne Circuit Court, seeking disclosure of the records identified in his earlier FOIA request, including an unredacted copy of the incident report and the videorecording of the assault. Plaintiff also requested costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to MCL 15.240(6).
In lieu of filing an answer, defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing that the records sought by plaintiff were exempt from disclosure as a matter of law because they (1) contained information of a personal nature and disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy under MCL 15.243(1)(a) ; (2) were law enforcement investigation records and disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under MCL 15.243(1)(b)(iii ) ; and (3) related to law enforcement departmental discipline and personnel matters under MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix ). Alternatively, defendants argued that the circuit court should hold an evidentiary hearing or review the requested records in camera before ordering any disclosure.
Plaintiff responded to defendants' motion for summary disposition and requested that the circuit court enter judgment in his favor pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(2). Plaintiff maintained that the requested records, including the videorecording, were all subject to disclosure under FOIA. Plaintiff argued that the privacy exemption of MCL 15.243(1)(a), the law enforcement investigation exemption of MCL 15.243(1)(b)(iii ), the law enforcement personnel records exemption of MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix ), and the public safety exemption of MCL 15.243(1)(y) were all inapplicable on the facts of this case. Attached to his response, plaintiff submitted documentary evidence related to an ongoing investigation of the RPD by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Michigan State Police, and Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Plaintiff pointed out that several RPD officers had been charged with corruption and criminal misconduct in office. He suggested that the RPD had a history of covering up police misconduct and that disclosure of the requested videorecording would serve the public interest by shedding light on the internal operations of the RPD.
Plaintiff also attached a copy of the complaint filed in Ladach v. City of Romulus,3 a Whistleblowers' Protection Act lawsuit filed by Ladach in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In the complaint, Ladach explained that he had been a detective sergeant at the RPD, in charge of supervising the property and evidence room. This position had required him to gather and compile materials for certain FOIA requests. Ladach alleged that he had learned of an assault against a citizen during the midnight shift of August 1, 2012, which was captured on video. Upon learning of the assault, Ladach located the videorecording and made a copy of it on his departmental computer.
When Ladach later received a FOIA request on September 24, 2012 (presumably the same request submitted by plaintiff on September 21, 2012), he compiled the requested information, including the videorecording, and presented the materials to RPD Chief Robert Dickerson (Dickerson) for his review and approval. According to Ladach, Dickerson and Shelby questioned him regarding the video, stating that they thought it had been destroyed. Dickerson instructed Ladach to destroy the video and delete it from his computer. Ladach subsequently contacted the Attorney General's office concerning the incident and the videorecording. He was later relieved of his duties in the detective bureau and evidence room and demoted to road patrol.
The circuit court held oral argument on March 22, 2013. The court repeatedly questioned counsel concerning plaintiff's motivations for seeking disclosure of the citizen's identity and videorecording. The court remarked that plaintiff's attorney was also involved in the Ladach case and suggested that the instant FOIA action was “really about you getting discovery to support your Ladach lawsuit.” In response, plaintiff's attorney noted that the Ladach lawsuit had not been filed until after plaintiff's FOIA request was sent to the RPD. The circuit court then asked whether plaintiff was seeking disclosure of the citizen's identity and videorecording in order “to go out and solicit this citizen to file a 1983 [ 4 ] action or an assault and battery claim.” Plaintiff's attorney responded that this was not plaintiff's intention; he argued that the requested information was not exempt from disclosure under FOIA and that disclosure would be in the public interest.
The circuit court observed that the citizen involved in the incident did not want the incident report or videorecording disclosed. According to the court, “[I]t would not be surprising that a citizen would not want to disclose that [he] had been ... arrested, charged, or convicted.” The court further admonished plaintiff's counsel, Defense counsel argued that the videorecording and any police reports concerning the incident of August 1, 2012, were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because disclosure would invade the citizen's right to privacy.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Nash v. City of Grand Haven, 336907
...that prevails only partially in a FOIA action is not entitled to any attorney fees. Plaintiff’s reliance on Rataj v. Romulus , 306 Mich.App. 735, 756, 858 N.W.2d 116 (2014), is unavailing because the Rataj Court merely held on the facts of that case that the partially prevailing plaintiff w......
-
Cove Creek Condo. Ass'n v. Vistal Land & Home Dev., LLC
...of the opposing party." This Court reviews de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Rataj v. Romulus , 306 Mich. App. 735, 746, 858 N.W.2d 116 (2014). "A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determ......
-
Univ. Pediatricians v. Wilson
... ... absolute proof, but must offer more than mere ... allegations." Ontiveros v City of Rosenberg, ... 564 F.3d 379, 382 (CA 5, 2009) ... Under ... the ... law that this Court reviews de novo. Rataj v ... Romulus , 306 Mich.App. 735, 747; 858 N.W.2d 116 (2014) ... Mootness is also ... ...
-
W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. Marcum
...and their treatment of those who are incarcerated. "These are matters of legitimate public concern." Rataj v. City of Romulus , 306 Mich.App. 735, 858 N.W.2d 116, 125 (2014). In Rataj , an attorney filed suit against city, seeking to compel release of a videorecording showing a police offic......