Hassan Aoun v. City of Dearborn, 369102

Plaintiff Hassan Aoun filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking extensive emails, text messages, contracts, payments, and financial records from the City of Dearborn for a period from January 2022 to June 2023.
The City of Dearborn provided an itemized fee estimate totaling $13,604.86 to fulfill the request, applying a $20 indigency waiver and a $678.99 reduction for late response, leaving a final cost of $12,905.87.
Plaintiff, claiming indigency, sought a larger fee waiver and challenged both the amount charged and the process for calculating the hourly wage used.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging violations of FOIA, specifically improper calculation of the fee waiver and hourly wage rate.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the City of Dearborn, finding the fee assessment and waiver were proper under FOIA.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing entitlement to a greater fee reduction or total waiver under FOIA.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether FOIA entitles plaintiff to a greater fee waiver than $20 for indigent requesters	Aoun argued the $20 waiver was insufficient and a larger discount or complete fee waiver was required.	Dearborn argued MCL 15.234(2) specifies a $20 waiver is the maximum for indigent persons, which was properly applied.	Court held that the statute only mandates a $20 fee waiver for indigent persons and no greater discount is required.
Whether the hourly rate for labor to fulfill the FOIA request was properly calculated	Aoun argued the hourly rate should match a lower rate charged for a previous request ($12/hr).	Dearborn argued it calculated the rate based on the lowest-paid employee capable of fulfilling the request, as required by law.	Court held the statutory standard was met—no violation in using the lowest-paid qualified employee’s rate.
Whether plaintiff’s claims were adequately briefed on appeal	Plaintiff presented only cursory arguments lacking legal authority or detailed statutory analysis.	Defendant argued plaintiff’s arguments were abandoned for lack of proper development and support.	Court held inadequately briefed arguments are abandoned and would not be considered.
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Plaintiff contested summary judgment, alleging material fact issues.	Defendant argued there was no genuine issue of material fact and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.	Court affirmed summary judgment for defendant.

Coblentz v. City of Novi, 475 Mich 558 (Mich. 2006) (addresses calculation of FOIA labor fees and the exclusion of independent contractor fees)
King v. Michigan State Police Dep’t, 303 Mich App 162 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (interprets FOIA fee standards)
Blackwell v. City of Livonia, 339 Mich App 495 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021) (sets standards for reviewing FOIA determinations de novo)
Wilson v. Taylor, 457 Mich 232 (Mich. 1998) (failure to properly present arguments on appeal constitutes abandonment)
McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (further supports abandonment for insufficient briefing)