Attorney fees & fines under FOIA; Intentional & willful noncompliance; MCL 15.240b; “Shall”; Arbitrary & capricious noncompliance; MCL 15.240(7); Moot cross-appeal

The court affirmed the trial court’s orders denying plaintiffs' claim for attorney fees and civil fines under the FOIA. These appeals arose “from plaintiffs’ multiple requests for defendant to produce records about defendant’s communications and decisions in the performance of its duties.” The trial court concluded “that plaintiff’s lawsuit was not reasonably necessary to compel production, and that [it] did not have the requisite ‘substantial causative effect on production of the requested information.’” The court found that despite “the delays caused by defendant’s inexperience, and the illness of an administrative worker, defendant was responsive to plaintiffs’ communications between” 11/1/23 and 12/14/23, the date the first lawsuit was filed. “Defendant made the documents available for plaintiffs’ inspection by [1/3/24], but plaintiffs’ counsel did not go to the office to inspect the production. Plaintiffs blame defense counsel for not answering their follow-up questions on” 1/3/24. Plaintiffs were correct “that defendant’s actions after the lawsuit was filed do not negate the necessity of filing the lawsuit to obtain the records.” But defendant’s actions on 1/3/24 “can be interpreted as evidence that defendant was continuing the efforts it made before, and that the production was in progress and would have been completed without plaintiffs’ lawsuit. On the other hand, defendant’s failure to (1) respond to plaintiffs’ inquiries about the production in their [1/3/24] e-mail, (2) accurately cite statutory authority for the claimed exemption, and (3) produce all requested documents even after the [3/22/24] orders, could be interpreted as evidence that defendant would not have voluntarily complied without plaintiffs’ lawsuit.” Although the trial “court might have decided the factual issue differently, the finding it made was supported by evidence.” The court also held that the “trial court did not clearly err in finding that defendant did not engage in conduct warranting imposition of a fine under MCL 15.240b.” Finally, the trial “court did not err in denying assessment of a fine under MCL 15.240(7).”