Background
Tom Rotta, a journalist, submitted three separate Freedom of Information Act requests to the Ludington Police Department (LPD) for body-camera and in-car footage. The city charged deposits for the estimated costs to fulfill these requests, calculating fees based on review time by Captain Haveman, the only LPD employee trained to review material for exemptions. Rotta challenged all three fee calculations as unlawful, first appealing to the Ludington City Council, which affirmed that the fees complied with Michigan’s FOIA statute, MCL 15.234.
Rotta then filed suit in Mason Circuit Court, arguing the city violated FOIA by charging impermissible fees and acted in bad faith—even accusing the city attorney of extortion. He also moved to disqualify Judge Sniegowski, claiming “subliminal bias” against him because she was formerly the city’s FOIA administrator and her husband worked for the city’s Department of Public Works. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the city and denied Rotta’s motion to disqualify.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the city lawfully charged fees for responding to Rotta’s FOIA requests. Under MCL 15.234, a public body may charge a “good-faith deposit” based on estimated costs when the fee would exceed $50, limited to the actual incremental cost of duplication, search, examination, review, and deletion of exempt information. The court found that Rotta’s requests were broad and response required substantial review time, justifying the imposition of fees.
The court examined each request in camera and confirmed that all identified videos were reasonably responsive to Rotta’s FOIA requests. The city’s fee estimates were calculated using Captain Haveman’s wage (the lowest-paid employee capable of reviewing material for exemptions) and applied standard time estimates—three hours of review per hour of body-camera footage and review time equal to in-car video length, consistent with Michigan State Police standards. The first request’s final fee was less than the actual time spent, ensuring compliance with the statute. The estimates for the second and third requests constituted proper good-faith calculations.
The court rejected Rotta’s claims for civil fines and punitive damages, finding no evidence of bad faith or arbitrary conduct. Although the city initially used an outdated $25-per-video fee in its first response, it corrected the error in a supplemental response before Rotta’s administrative appeal. The court also upheld Judge Sniegowski’s denial of Rotta’s disqualification motion, concluding his blog criticism of her rulings did not constitute personal abuse requiring recusal and her prior city employment presented no disqualifying conflict of interest.
Key Takeaways
- Public bodies may lawfully charge FOIA fees based on good-faith estimates of actual costs when response would require unreasonably high expenditures without cost-shifting.
- Fee calculations using the lowest-paid employee capable of performing required tasks (here, exemption review) comply with MCL 15.234(1)(b), even when that employee is highly trained.
- Standard time estimates aligned with industry practice (e.g., three-hour review per hour of body-camera footage) support good-faith fee calculations and withstand judicial scrutiny.
- Administrative errors corrected before formal appeal do not constitute bad faith warranting civil fines or punitive damages under MCL 15.240b and MCL 15.240a(7).
- Judicial criticism in a party’s blog does not require judge disqualification absent evidence the judge took it personally or exhibited actual bias.
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical guidance on Michigan FOIA fee practices. Public agencies can rely on good-faith fee estimates based on reasonable time projections and the lowest-paid capable employee’s wage, even when that employee is specialized. Requesters challenging fees face a high bar: they must show actual bad faith or arbitrary conduct, not merely disagreement with cost calculations. The court’s in camera review and affirmation that all identified videos were responsive signals deference to agency determinations of FOIA responsiveness when requests are broad.
For litigants challenging government action, the decision reinforces that judicial rulings alone rarely support bias claims without evidence of deep-seated antagonism, and that administrative corrections made promptly negate bad-faith accusations. Attorneys advising public bodies on FOIA compliance can point to this decision for support that documented, standard-practice fee methodologies will survive challenge.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.