|
No. 127715
| Ann Coblentz, Lee Coblentz, |
|
Richard D. Wilson |
| John Lewandowski, and |
|
|
| Deborah Lewandowski, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellants, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Oakland - Mester, F.) |
|
|
| City of Novi, |
|
Gerald A. Fisher |
| Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Thomas R. Schultz |
| ______________________________________ |
|
|
| |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involves a request for documents associated with a 2002 settlement agreement between a developer and the city of Novi. That agreement transferred 75 acres of “undeveloped woodland and parkland” from the city to the developer. The city also executed a release and discharge of certain deed restrictions on the property. In addition, the city sought to have the plaintiffs, both adjoining property owners, forgo their right to enforce the deed restrictions. The plaintiffs made a FOIA request for copies of certain exhibits to the settlement, “global readings” and site plans, and certain side letters or side agreements. The city asserted that some of the requested materials did not exist and that others were exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The trial court upheld the city’s nondisclosure of the documents. In addition, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the city an attorney fee for some of the costs the city incurred in responding to the FOIA request. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion. The plaintiffs did not request the alleged missing exhibits to the settlement, the Court of Appeals held. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not support their claim that global readings or site plans existed, the appellate court added; the court noted that the city’s mayor provided an affidavit stating that no such documents existed at the time of the plaintiffs’ request. The Court of Appeals also held that the requested side letters were exempt from disclosure pursuant to MCL 15.243(1)(f), which protects certain “trade secrets or commercial or financial information” that is voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy. Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award to the city of an attorney fee. The plaintiffs challenge all of these rulings on appeal.
Top of Page
|
