Bitterman v. Village of Oakley
309 Mich. App. 53
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Shannon Bitterman submitted FOIA requests to the Village of Oakley for (1) records and identifying information about Village police reservists (three-year period) and (2) donor information for the Village Police Donation Fund (five-year period), plus an audio recording later found to have been destroyed.
- The Village initially denied the requests invoking FOIA exemptions (civil litigation exemption, privacy exemption) and later asserted additional defenses, including that the requests were not sufficiently specific.
- The circuit court ordered disclosure of names of inactive reservists but found active reservists’ names exempt under the law-enforcement exemption and held donor names exempt under the privacy exemption.
- After the appeal was filed, the Village’s police operations were halted and the Village Council voted to release reservist names; the Court declined to consider post-denial events when evaluating exemptions per State News.
- On appeal the Court (1) reversed the withholding of donor names, (2) affirmed most rulings, and (3) remanded to develop factual record on whether reservists qualify as "law enforcement officers/agents" under the FOIA law-enforcement identification exemption (MCL 15.243(1)(s)(viii)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a public body raise new defenses in circuit court after issuing its final FOIA denial? | Stone Street allows public bodies to assert new defenses in court; Village may not be estopped. | Village: may assert defenses in court. | Court: Public body may assert defenses not raised administratively; no estoppel. |
| Are the donor names to the Police Donation Fund exempt under the privacy exemption (MCL 15.243(1)(a))? | Names are not "personal" here and disclosure serves public interest (possible pay-to-play; funds used for public operations). | Names should be protected by privacy (risk of solicitors and personal intrusion). | Court: Reversed—donor names are not exempt; public interest in transparency outweighs claimed privacy harm. |
| Must the Village produce records of reservists or would that require creating new documents? | Existing records (e.g., reservist cards) contain names; Village must produce nonexempt material and may charge statutory fees. | Complying would require compiling/creating a new record from disparate materials. | Court: Village admitted it has documents with the information; it cannot refuse on creation grounds and must produce or separate exempt material; fees permitted. |
| Do police reservists qualify as "law enforcement officer[s] or agent[s]" so their names are exempt under MCL 15.243(1)(s)(viii)? | Bitterman: names should be disclosed; reservists may not perform law-enforcement functions. | Village: reservists are law-enforcement officers/agents and identification would be exempt. | Court: Issue unresolved on record; remanded for factual development whether reservists perform law-enforcement duties and thus fit the exemption. |
| Is plaintiff entitled to FOIA attorney fees for the appeal? | Bitterman prevailed in part and seeks fees under MCL 15.240(6). | Village did not contest entitlement here. | Court: Bitterman is entitled in part, but fee determination is premature pending remand on reservist issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State News v. Michigan State Univ., 481 Mich 692 (Michigan Supreme Court) (post-denial events are generally irrelevant; exemption assessed at time of denial)
- Michigan Federation of Teachers v. University of Michigan, 481 Mich 657 (Michigan Supreme Court) (public body bears burden to prove FOIA exemption applicability)
- Coblentz v. City of Novi, 475 Mich 558 (Michigan Supreme Court) (FOIA request must describe a public record sufficiently; exemptions narrowly construed)
- King v. Michigan State Police, 303 Mich App 162 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (standard of review in FOIA cases)
- Detroit Free Press v. City of Southfield, 269 Mich App 275 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (names combined with public financial data not necessarily "personal"); disclosure favors accountability
- Stone Street Capital, Inc. v. Bureau of State Lottery, 263 Mich App 683 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (public body may assert new defenses in circuit court)
- Mager v. Department of State Police, 460 Mich 134 (Michigan Supreme Court) (privacy exemption requires balancing public interest against privacy interest)
- People v. Bissonnette, 327 Mich 349 (Michigan Supreme Court) (definition/scope of "peace officer"/law-enforcement terminology)
- Clerical-Technical Union v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State Univ., 190 Mich App 300 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (context matters for donor anonymity)