Documents held by a university library; “Public records”; The law-of-the-case doctrine; Applicability of the personal-privacy FOIA exemption (MCL 15.243(1)(a)); Swickard v Wayne Cnty Med Exam’r; Exemption under MCL 15.243(1)(d) (disclosure exempted by statute); The Michigan Community Foundation Act (MCFA); MCL 123.905(3); Former MCL 397.381(1); The Library Privacy Act (LPA); MCL 397.605; Defendant’s constitutional autonomy; Const 1963, art 8, § 5; Punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7)

Concluding that its prior ruling that the documents at issue (the Tanton papers) are public records was final, the court further held that they were not exempt from disclosure and that their disclosure did not violate defendant’s constitutional autonomy. But it found that the Court of Claims erred in awarding plaintiff punitive damages in this FOIA action. The papers were the personal writings, correspondence, and research of an individual, Dr. Tanton, who donated them to one of defendant’s libraries. Several boxes of the papers were to remain closed until “2035, purportedly in accordance with the terms of the gift.” The Court of Claims initially granted defendant summary disposition on the basis the papers were not public records. In a prior appeal, the court reversed, holding that they were paper records. On remand, the Court of Claims ordered that the papers be produced to plaintiff and awarded him “$1,000 in punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7).” In this appeal, the court first rejected defendant’s argument that it should consider the public records issue anew. As there had “been no material change in facts or law,” it was bound by the law-of-the-case doctrine. As to the exemptions on which defendant relied, the court noted the Michigan Supreme Court held in Swickard “that deceased individuals do not have privacy rights against disclosure under FOIA.” As Dr. Tanton is deceased, his privacy rights have been extinguished. Thus, MCL 15.243(1)(a) did not apply. The court also concluded that the papers were not exempted from disclosure under MCL 15.243(1)(d), by virtue of provisions of the MCFA and the LPA. “Dr. Tanton, not the MCFA or MCL 397.381, was the one who forbade disclosing the Tanton papers. Thus, the MCL 15.243(1)(d) exception” did not apply. And defendant’s argument based on the LPA failed “for the same reason as the MCFA argument.” The court also held that defendant’s “constitutional autonomy is not a shield against the requirements of FOIA simply because of a private decision made by an individual donor.” But given that “the Court of Claims declined to find that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and” it denied civil fines as a result, it erred in awarding punitive damages. The court vacated that award and affirmed in all other respects.