Action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); MCL 15.231(2); Amberg v Dearborn; Timeliness of response; MCL 15.235(2); Fees; MCL 15.234(1); Buckmaster v Department of State; Notice of denial; MCL 15.235(5); Exemptions under MCL 15.235(5)(a) (the record was exempt from disclosure), MCL 15.235(5)(b) (the record did not exist), & MCL 15.235(5)(c) (certain information from the public record was separated or deleted); Costs; Good-faith deposit; MCL 15.234(8); Requirement of a deposit of up to 100% of the estimated fee before a full public record search; MCL 15.234(11); Disclosure of internal union communications; Howell Educ Ass’n, MEA/NEA v Howell Bd of Educ; Attorney fees; Prevailing party; MCL 15.240(6); Local Area Watch v Grand Rapids

Holding that defendants-school district and board members violated FOIA as to some of plaintiff-former superintendent’s FOIA requests, and that plaintiff prevailed in part, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. In the underlying case, plaintiff was terminated from his position as superintendent of the district for a post he made on Facebook regarding the circumstances surrounding George Floyd’s death. In this case, he sued defendants for their handling of multiple FOIA requests he made in preparation for his disciplinary hearing. The trial court granted, in part, defendants’ motion for summary disposition. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the district’s response to “request 8” was insufficient, noting its FOIA coordinator “did not state that ‘the public record, or portion of that public record, [was] exempt from disclosure,’ that the public record did not exist, or that certain information from the public record was separated or deleted.” It also agreed with plaintiff that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants’ estimates of 30 days and 35 days to fulfill some of his requests complied with MCL 15.234(8), and disagreed with defendants that the trial court erred by finding they violated MCL 15.234(11) by requiring plaintiff to pay the full costs of fulfilling the requests before releasing the responsive records. “[G]iven that the district estimated a total of 98 labor hours for the seven June 2020 requests, reasonable minds could differ as to whether 30 days was a ‘best efforts estimate’ for fulfilling the requests.” And defendants violated FOIA “by requiring plaintiff to pay the full amount of estimated fees rather than only a 50% deposit before releasing responsive records.” The court next agreed with plaintiff that the trial court should have ordered defendants to produce texts and e-mails sent between board members along with communications between local elected officials and the board or staff at the district concerning plaintiff, but disagreed with his remaining arguments regarding other, unproduced documents, including that the trial court should have ordered defendants to produce records pertaining to the vote of no confidence. Finally, it agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by concluding he was not a prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees. “Because the trial court should have concluded that plaintiff was entitled to receive some, but not all, of the remaining unproduced documents, plaintiff has prevailed in part.”