Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Board
310 Mich. App. 370
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- This case arises from Peter Arabo’s FOIA request to the Michigan Gaming Control Board (Board) seeking records about countermeasures to card counters and rules excluding skilled blackjack players since 1996.
- The Board responded within five business days and sought a deposit to cover processing costs, estimating a $4,303.34 fee and a $2,151.67 deposit under FOIA §4(2).
- Plaintiff requested a fee waiver; the Board denied the waiver, citing §4(3) and that fees must be uniform for all requestors.
- Plaintiff did not pay the required deposit, and filed a two-count complaint alleging (I) wrongful denial and (II) excessive fees under FOIA §4.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for the Board on both counts, concluding the request was effectively granted (Count I) and that FOIA’s fee provisions do not apply to a fee dispute (Count II).
- The Michigan Court of Appeals partially reverses and remands, holding (1) final determination to compel disclosure is premised on payment of the deposit, (2) the Board’s response did not definitively grant the request, (3) a claim for declaratory/injunctive relief regarding fees is viable, and (4) discovery and deposition issues require remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s response granted the FOIA request in full | Arabo argues the Board granted the request; King controls a partial denial scenario. | Board contends its response was a grant of existing records only, not a final full grant. | Partial denial/conclusion; not a final grant, but deposit payment gating final relief. |
| Whether final relief under FOIA §10 requires payment of the deposit | Arabo should be allowed to pursue §10 remedies regardless of deposit. | Deposit payment triggers Board’s obligation to respond; lack of payment bars final determination. | Final determination prerequisite depends on deposit payment; lack of deposit bars §10 action. |
| Whether §4 fee challenge lies under §4 or §10 and can support injunctive relief | Plaintiff can challenge the fee under §4 and seek injunctive relief. | Remedies under §10 only; §4 lacks monetary damages but can support injunctive/declaratory relief. | Plaintiff can pursue declaratory/injunctive relief under §4; damages under §4 not provided. |
| Whether the trial court abused regarding discovery and deposition | Discovery necessary to challenge fee and identify records. | Protective order appropriate to avoid circumventing FOIA deposit process. | Partially reversed: deposition of FOIA coordinator allowed; index/inspection limited; in camera review not warranted. |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded on remand | Remand could yield §10 fees on appeal if prevailing. | No §10 recovery since deposit issue barred §10 relief. | Court declines to award appellate fees at this stage; remand for consistent proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v Mich State Police Dep’t, 303 Mich App 162 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (public body’s grant language can imply partial denial; five-day response duty under FOIA)
- Detroit Free Press, Inc v Dep’t of Attorney Gen, 271 Mich App 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (implicit recognition of a §4 challenge to fees; remedies under §10 for disclosure actions)
- Grebner v Village of Oakley, 216 Mich App 736 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (recognition of a §4 private action to challenge fee calculation; limited scope)
- Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180 (Mich. 2007) (allows declaratory or injunctive relief for FOIA fee disputes; actual controversy standard)
- Prins v Mich State Police, 291 Mich App 586 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (harmonize FOIA provisions; deposit timing interacts with final determinations)
- Rataj v Romulus, 306 Mich App 735 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (awards of appellate fees where remand and successful FOIA action occur; partial recovery principle)