Failure to respond to a request; Densmore v Department of Corr; Crooker v U.S. State Dep’t (DC Cir); “Public body”; MCL 15.232(h)(iii) & (iv); Request for declaratory judgment; Applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel; Davis v Garrett (Unpub); Lack of documentary evidence that a defendant possessed alleged reports; Department of Wayne County Clerk (WCC); Wayne County Board of Commissioners (WCBC); Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System & Wayne County Retirement Commission (the retirement defendants)

The court held that defendant-WCC is a distinct public body under the FOIA and because it received plaintiff’s request, it had to respond “even if it did not possess the requested documents.” But as to plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment ruling that the WCC is the clerk of defendant-WCBC, res judicata or collateral estoppel barred him from relitigating this issue. Lastly, absent any “evidence that the retirement defendants possessed or maintained” the reports he sought, they were entitled to summary disposition. Thus, the court found that the trial court erred in granting the WCC’s and the WCBC’s motions for reconsideration, but properly declined to enter a declaratory judgment as “to the WCC being the clerk of the WCBC and properly dismissed the claim against the retirement defendants.” In one FOIA request, emailed to multiple recipients, plaintiff sought certified copies of a county ordinance and any amendments. In a request to the retirement defendants, he sought documents explaining the retirement benefits a specific employee will receive. As to the ordinance request, “the trial court relied on Densmore for the proposition that the WCC did not have to provide a separate response to plaintiff’s FOIA request because he already had received a response from the WCBC.” But the court found that Densmore and the federal case on which it relied were distinguishable and did not control here. It also rejected the WCBC’s apparent argument “that the WCC is not a distinct ‘public body’ from Wayne County under the FOIA[,]” concluding that even if “MCL 15.232(h)(iii) is inapplicable, MCL 15.232(h)(iv) is.” As to plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment, the same issue was decided in a final judgment in a prior action involving the same parties or their privies. Finally, his “mere allegation that the retirement defendants possessed ‘regular reports’ that they should have disclosed is insufficient.” He needed to present “documentary evidence to support his assertion, and” he did not do so.