Denial of request for a subscription to certain public documents under MCL 15.233(1); Civil fines & damages; MCL 15.240(7); Whether a public body’s director may delegate review of FOIA denial appeals; MCL 15.240; The Board of Mechanical Rules (BMR)

The court concluded that since plaintiff did not request anything other than a subscription to the BMR’s meeting packets under MCL 15.233(1), “defendant did not violate the FOIA by failing to produce documents not requested.” Further, because there was no court-ordered disclosure, he was not entitled to civil fines and damages under MCL 15.240(7). The record also supported the finding that defendant’s denial of his subscription request was not arbitrary and capricious. Finally, the trial court did not err in ruling that defendant did not violate the FOIA by allowing a designated Appeals Officer (S) to respond to his appeal instead of its director. The trial court held “that plaintiff requested a subscription to future issuances of board packets for” BMR meetings, and that defendant improperly denied his request on the ground that they were not regularly created. But he argued that it erred in concluding that “defendant did not also violate the FOIA by failing to disclose e-mails and board packets relevant to” a scheduled BMR meeting. However, as the trial court noted, plaintiff failed to request these items. As to civil fines and damages, while the trial court determined that his “subscription request was valid, and that defendant violated FOIA when it denied” his request for future packets, it did not order “the disclosure of any documents.” In addition, while defendant’s reason for denying his subscription request did not justify denying it, the court agreed “with the trial court’s observation that ‘the mere violation of FOIA does not amount to an arbitrary and capricious act, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant’s decision to deny the request rose to the level of being “whimsical” or void of principles as would be required to support a finding of an arbitrary and capricious denial.’ Thus, the trial court did not err in summarily disposing of plaintiff’s claim for a civil fine and damages.” Lastly, as nothing in MCL 15.240 bars “‘the head of a public body from employing personnel to act on behalf and under the authority of the head of the public body[,]’” the director of a public body may “delegate the review of FOIA denial appeals to an agent within the public body,” and the trial court was correct “that defendant’s director did not violate the FOIA by delegating her appellate review authority to” S. Affirmed.