Background
Robert Davis sent identical Freedom of Information Act requests to the Wayne County Board of Commissioners and the Department of Wayne County Clerk. He sought certified copies of resolutions concerning the Commission’s vice-chair, an appointment to a Commission vacancy, and outside counsel for the Wayne County Ethics Board. The Commission produced the appointment resolution but withheld two others under FOIA’s pending-litigation exemption. The Clerk’s Department denied the duplicate request because it did not possess the Commission’s records.
Davis sued the Commission, the Clerk’s Department, and Commission Clerk Pamela Lane. Among other claims, he alleged that the Clerk’s Department was responsible for the Commission’s records, that the Commission improperly withheld one resolution, and that a produced resolution was not properly signed and certified. He also moved to strike attorneys from Clark Hill, PLC, contending that the firm had not been properly retained. The circuit court granted defendants summary disposition, found the disputed FOIA claims moot after the responsive records were produced, denied the motion to strike for lack of standing, and imposed sanctions over two claims and the motion to strike.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Davis’s FOIA claims concerning the records were moot because the responsive Garza and Longstreet resolutions had been produced. The court rejected his contention that a “certified copy” under MCL 15.233(6) also had to satisfy the separate signature and certification provisions governing county-board records in MCL 46.4 and MCL 46.29. Those statutes concern how county records are kept, while FOIA governs how existing records are furnished. Under FOIA, certification requires the records custodian to authenticate the copy as a true and genuine reproduction; it does not require additional certification by the Commission clerk or chair.
The court also upheld the denial of Davis’s motion to strike Clark Hill’s attorneys. His standing to seek declaratory relief under MCR 2.605 did not automatically give him standing to challenge opposing counsel’s appearance, and he had not identified a supporting cause of action or preserved his asserted special-injury theory in the circuit court.
Finally, the court affirmed the sanctions. It concluded that the claim against the Clerk’s Department served no legitimate purpose after the Commission had acknowledged and answered the request; that the additional-certification theory lacked arguable legal merit and repeated an argument rejected in earlier litigation; and that the motion to strike lacked a factual or legal basis despite documentation showing that the Commission had approved Clark Hill’s retention.
Key Takeaways
- A FOIA dispute ordinarily becomes moot once the requested responsive records have been produced.
- FOIA’s requirement for a “certified copy” calls for authentication by the records custodian, not additional signatures or certifications required by separate county recordkeeping statutes.
- Standing to pursue declaratory relief does not independently establish standing to challenge an opposing party’s choice of counsel.
- Repeatedly asserting legally unsupported claims or motions may support sanctions as frivolous litigation.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes FOIA’s disclosure requirements from statutes governing the creation and maintenance of county records. A requester may obtain an authenticated copy of the public record that exists, but cannot use FOIA to require a public body to create a newly signed or additionally certified version of that record.
The unpublished opinion also underscores the sanctions risk when a litigant duplicates requests or claims without a practical purpose, renews previously rejected legal theories without new support, or challenges opposing counsel without a concrete injury and sound legal basis.