The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (MCL 15.231 et seq.); Whether plaintiff-Miller was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees under MCL 15.240(6); Krug v. Ingham Cnty. Sheriff’s Office; Principle that a litigant proceeding in propria persona (including an attorney acting on his own behalf) cannot claim attorneys’ fees under the FOIA; Laracey v. Financial Insts. Bureau; Schinzel v. Wilkerson; Omdahl v. West Iron Cnty. Bd. of Educ.; Whether Miller was “the requesting party”; MCL 15.235(8); MCL 15.240(1); MCL 15.233(1) & (2); Principle that only “the requesting party” has authority to initiate a civil FOIA suit; Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Holding that plaintiff-Miller could not be a prevailing party in this FOIA action because he did not make a FOIA request, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees under MCL 15.240(6). The trial court granted Miller and the co-plaintiff-law firm (Rolfe) summary disposition on the basis of the defendant-Lake Templene Improvement Board’s failure to timely respond to a FOIA request, but denied plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees. Miller argued on appeal that, “because he prevailed in his lawsuit to obtain the release of the requested information under the FOIA, he was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees” under MCL 15.240(6). He disputed “the trial court’s finding that Rolfe, not Miller, prevailed in the FOIA action.” The court concluded that Miller “was not ‘the requesting party’ and, insofar as Rolfe represented himself, he could not claim attorneys’ fees while proceeding in propria persona.” A “civil action under the FOIA may be commenced by ‘the requesting party.’” The court concluded that by “specifically naming ‘the requesting party’ in both MCL 15.235(8) and MCL 15.240(1) as the individual empowered to file suit, the Legislature has made plain that only ‘the requesting party’ has authority to initiate a civil FOIA suit under these provisions.” Further, Rolfe was plainly “the requesting party” here. The facts showed that “Rolfe sent FOIA requests in his own name” on 9/18/14 and that “these FOIA requests included absolutely no mention of Miller or the fact that Rolfe had been retained by Miller. Because Rolfe was ‘the requesting party,’ Rolfe could commence a civil action in his own name under MCL 15.240(1).” Given that Miller did not make a FOIA request, no provision empowered him “to file or maintain an action under the FOIA. Given that Miller could not maintain an action under MCL 15.240,” it followed that he “could not obtain attorneys’ fees under MCL 15.240(6).”