Redacted information; Mootness; Attorney fees & punitive damages; In camera review; Receipt of requested records without a court order compelling disclosure; Attorney General (AG)

In the main appeal, the court affirmed “the Court of Claims’ decision not to award attorney fees, costs, and punitive damages, as well as [its] decisions not to permit plaintiff to depose” an assistant AG “and not to conduct an in camera review of the records designated as exempt from production.” In the cross-appeal, it reversed “the portion of the Court of Claims’ order holding that defendant was required to disclose unredacted (apart from Social Security information) versions of the trial exhibits to plaintiff.” In defendant’s cross-appeal, the court found that “the Court of Claims erred by ordering the exhibits disclosed in unredacted form solely because they had been used at a trial. The Court of Claims faulted defendant for failing to seek a protective order or to redact information during the criminal trial, and it reasoned that defendant’s failure to do so ‘prevents an argument that disclosure of these same public records, in response to a FOIA request, constitutes an unwarranted invasion of any individual’s privacy.’ But ‘[t]he disclosure of information of a personal nature into the public sphere in certain instances does not automatically remove the protection of the privacy exemption and subject the information to disclosure in every other circumstance.’” The court held that the “fact that plaintiff arguably could obtain the unredacted information by reviewing the public records of the criminal proceeding does not relieve defendant of its obligation to redact personal information under MCL 15.243(1)(a).” In the main appeal, plaintiff argued “that the Court of Claims erred by holding that he did not prevail in full regarding either of his FOIA requests, and that he accordingly was entitled to attorney fees and costs.” He also argued that it “erred by holding that defendant did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it withheld information from disclosure, and” as a result, he was entitled to punitive damages. Lastly, he argued “that the Court of Claims erred by not allowing him to depose [an assistant AG] and by declining to review the records responsive to his second FOIA request in camera.” The court disagreed in all respects. As to attorney fees and costs, “plaintiff should not have prevailed to the extent that he did regarding his first FOIA request.” Thus, he was “not entitled to attorney fees and costs for having fully prevailed on either of his FOIA claims[.]” The court also found “that the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion by not awarding proportionate attorney fees and costs.” In addition, “defendant articulated sufficient reasons for any delay or denial of disclosure, and the Court of Claims accordingly did not err (much less clearly err) by declining to find that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and by declining to award punitive damages.” Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the Court of Claims’ decision not to conduct an in camera review.