FOIA requests; Final determination; MCL 15.235; Premature summary disposition before discovery is complete; Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club; Law-enforcement exemption; MCL 15.243(1)(b); Evening News Ass’n v City of Troy; Security exemptions; MCL 15.243(1)(u); MCL 15.243(1)(y); Frivolous defense; MCL 600.2591(1); MCR 1.109(E); Grass Lake Improvement Bd v Department of Envtl Quality

The court held that summary disposition for defendant-prosecutor was proper as to plaintiff’s contract-related FOIA claims, but improper as to the threat-records exemption ruling, and that defendant asserted a frivolous ripeness defense. Plaintiff submitted FOIA requests to defendant, seeking contracts with Fortis Group (a security/threat management firm), the Washington Post, other news media outlets, and PR companies, as well as documented threats against defendant, her family, and her office. After defendant issued 10-day extension letters but did not respond further until plaintiff sued, the trial court granted defendant summary disposition. On appeal, the court first held that plaintiff failed to show a fair chance that further discovery would uncover contracts with Fortis Group, or additional media contracts or PR contracts other than those provided by defendant, because her position rested on speculation rather than “specific facts” creating a genuine issue. But the court held that defendant did not justify withholding threat records because her affidavits were “conclusory and generalized” and lacked “particularized facts or reasons” showing how disclosure would interfere with law-enforcement proceedings or endanger personnel. Relying on Evening News, the court remanded for a bill of particulars, detailed affidavit, or in camera review. The court also held that defendant’s ripeness defense was frivolous because MCL 15.235(3)(b) and (2)(d) plainly made her failure to respond within the extension period a “final determination to deny the request.” Defendant’s contrary view would let a public body “perpetually evade” FOIA by issuing one extension, an interpretation with no “colorable legal basis.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.