Background
Robert Davis sent a single email requesting certified copies of Wayne County Ordinance No. 83-13 and any amendments. The Wayne County Commission’s FOIA officer responded that the ordinance did not exist within the Commission’s records, but the Department of Wayne County Clerk did not separately respond. Davis sued, alleging that the clerk’s department violated Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act and seeking a declaration that the Wayne County Clerk serves as clerk of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners. The circuit court initially entered summary disposition for Davis on the FOIA-response issue, but on reconsideration dismissed that claim because the Commission had already responded.
In an unrelated request, Davis asked the Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System and Retirement Commission for documents explaining the benefits Alan Helmkamp would receive upon retirement. The retirement defendants directed Davis to online plan documents. Davis contended that they possessed individualized reports concerning Helmkamp, but he submitted no documentary evidence supporting that assertion. The circuit court granted summary disposition to the retirement defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the reconsideration ruling concerning the clerk’s department. It held that the department was a distinct public body under MCL 15.232(h)(iv), received Davis’s request, and therefore had to respond even if it possessed no responsive record. The Commission’s response did not satisfy that obligation because it expressly addressed only records in the Commission’s possession and did not establish that the requested ordinance was absent from the entire county government. The court declined to decide whether Ordinance No. 83-13 actually exists.
The court otherwise affirmed. Davis could not relitigate his request for a declaration that the Wayne County Clerk serves as clerk of the county commission because a prior final action involving the same parties or their privies had resolved his standing to pursue that relief; res judicata and collateral estoppel applied. The court also upheld summary disposition for the retirement defendants because Davis presented no evidence that they possessed or maintained the individualized reports he claimed should have been disclosed. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the clerk department’s failure to respond.
Key Takeaways
- A Michigan public body must answer a FOIA request even when its response is that the requested record does not exist.
- A response limited to one county unit’s records does not excuse another distinct public body that received the same request from responding.
- A FOIA plaintiff opposing summary disposition must produce evidence—not merely allegations—that the public body possesses additional responsive records.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between production that moots a duplicative records dispute and a response merely stating that one government unit lacks the requested record. When a request reaches multiple distinct public bodies, a narrowly worded denial from one unit may leave the others with independent response obligations.
The opinion also underscores the evidentiary burden at summary disposition: suspicion that a public body maintains more specific records is insufficient without documentary support.