Espn, Inc v. Michigan State University
311 Mich. App. 662
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- ESPN submitted a FOIA request to Michigan State University for incident reports involving a specified list of 301 student‑athletes; MSU produced reports but redacted names/identifiers of suspects, victims, and witnesses under FOIA privacy exemptions.
- ESPN sued to compel disclosure of the redacted names; the trial court ordered disclosure of suspects’ names if they matched ESPN’s list of student‑athletes but upheld redaction for victims and witnesses.
- MSU appealed only the trial court’s order as to suspects’ names.
- The central legal question concerned whether disclosure of suspects’ names in incident reports is exempt as information “of a personal nature” that would be a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy” under MCL 15.243(1)(a).
- The trial court balanced the FOIA public‑interest purpose against privacy interests and found the public interest in police accountability outweighed the student‑athletes’ privacy interests for suspects’ names.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether names of student‑athlete suspects in incident reports are "information of a personal nature" under FOIA prong one | ESPN: Names coupled with incident details reveal government handling of investigations and are needed to assess police practices; thus disclosure serves FOIA interests | MSU: A person’s name and association with an investigation are personal/ private; redaction is permitted by the privacy exemption | Court: A name may be personal when linked to other intimate or confidential details, but here the controlling question is balance under prong two; court need not resolve personal‑nature issue for each report because it ruled on prong two |
| Whether disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy" under FOIA prong two | ESPN: Public interest in accountability (uniformity of policing, special treatment of athletes) is significant; names are necessary to compare and investigate outcomes | MSU: Disclosure would invade privacy of students linked to criminal incidents and is justified under exemption | Court: Balancing favored disclosure — names necessary to serve FOIA core purpose of informing public about government operations; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Herald Co., Inc. v. Eastern Mich. Univ. Bd. of Regents, 475 Mich 463 (discusses de novo review of FOIA legal questions and abuse of discretion standard)
- Michigan Federation of Teachers v. Univ. of Mich., 481 Mich 657 (frames FOIA privacy exemption two‑prong test)
- Rataj v. Romulus, 306 Mich App 735 (held a name alone is not information of a personal nature)
- State News v. Michigan State Univ., 274 Mich App 558 (recognized interest in nondisclosure for persons linked to crime)
- Mager v. Dep’t of State Police, 460 Mich 134 (analyzed whether associating names with gun ownership is information of a personal nature)
- Practical Political Consulting, Inc. v. Secretary of State, 287 Mich App 434 (considered name coupled with political preference and FOIA privacy analysis)