10 Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA)
Anne Seurynck
Federal and State FOIA Laws
FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Pub. L. 114-185, 5 U.S.C. § 552
Freedom of Information Act (Michigan), 1976 P.A. 442, Eff. April 13, 1977, MCL 15.231 et seq.
National Freedom of Information Coalition, “State Freedom of Information Laws,” nfoic.org/coalitions/state-foi-resources/state-freedom-of-information-laws
Case Law
Ahmad v. University of Michigan, No. 341299, unpublished (Mich. Ct. App. 2019); affirmed Ahmad v. Univ. of Mich., SC: 160012 (Mich. Apr. 9, 2021).
In this action brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq., plaintiff, Hassan M. Ahmad, appeals as of right the November 20, 2017 order of the Court of Claims granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, the University of Michigan (“the University”), pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim). Because plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima facie claim under the FOIA, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Claims and remand.
I. BASIC FACTS
Plaintiff challenges the University’s denial of his FOIA request. Dr. John Tanton—“an ophthalmologist and conservationist,” according to the University, and “a figure widely regarded as the grandfather of the anti-immigration movements,” according to plaintiff—donated his personal writings, correspondence, and research (collectively, “the Tanton papers”) to the Bentley Library’s collection. His donation included 25 boxes of papers, but boxes 15-25 were to remain closed for 25 years from the date of accession, i.e., until April 2035, purportedly in accordance with the terms of the gift. [note: The University indicates that the restriction is memorialized in a charitable gift agreement, but that agreement is not contained in the lower court record. Regardless, plaintiff in his complaint has referenced the existence of the agreement and has acknowledged that the records were “marked ‘closed for 25 years from the date of accession, or until April 6, 2035.’ ” Further, attachments to plaintiff’s complaint show that the records were “closed to research until April 2035.” ]
Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with the University, seeking all of the Tanton papers, including those found in boxes 15-25 and marked as “closed.” The University eventually denied plaintiff’s request, asserting that the Tanton papers were closed to research until April 2035 and were therefore not “public records” subject to FOIA disclosure because they were not “utilized, possessed, or retained in the performance of any official University function.”
Following plaintiff’s unsuccessful administrative appeal, he filed suit in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims granted the University’s motion for summary disposition, concluding that the Tanton papers are not “public records.” This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo on appeal. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 59