Marcus Aaron Whittaker v. Oakland County Sheriff, 329545

On July 27, 2014, Whittaker was stopped on suspicion of operating while intoxicated; a warrant/complaint issued August 20, 2014.
On August 20, 2014 Whittaker submitted a FOIA request to the Oakland County Sheriff for reports, audio/video, lab info, and related records from the July 27 incident.
On August 22, 2014 the Sheriff denied the request, citing FOIA exemption for records subject to pending investigation or court action.
Whittaker pled guilty and was sentenced on December 4, 2014. He filed suit under FOIA in February 2015 challenging the denial.
While the suit was pending the Sheriff informed Whittaker the exemption had expired and, after a resubmitted request, disclosed the requested records by July 2015.
The trial court granted the Sheriff summary disposition, finding the disclosure mooted the substantive claim, denying fees/costs because the suit was not reasonably necessary to obtain disclosure, and rejecting punitive damages because no court-ordered disclosure was entered. Whittaker appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of initial denial under FOIA exemption	Denial was wrongful; the Sheriff should not have withheld records	Denial was lawful because criminal matter was pending, triggering statutory exemption	Moot: Court declined to decide lawfulness because records were disclosed before decision; appellate review not required
Mootness of FOIA claim	Disclosure during litigation still leaves remedies (e.g., fees) available	Disclosure rendered substantive FOIA claim moot	Substantive disclosure remedy moot; court will not decide the underlying denial issue
Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under MCL 15.240(6)	Suit was reasonably necessary to compel disclosure; fees and costs justified	Suit was unnecessary because Whittaker could and should have resubmitted a FOIA request after exemption expired	No fees/costs: trial court did not abuse discretion—action was not reasonably necessary because Whittaker could have resubmitted once the exemption lapsed
Entitlement to punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7)	Punitive damages appropriate for wrongful denial	Punitive damages improper absent court-ordered disclosure	Denied: punitive damages unavailable because there was no court order compelling disclosure

BP 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich. App. 356 (discusses mootness and appellate restraint)
State News v Michigan State Univ., 481 Mich. 692 (FOIA disclosure after changed circumstances; public body need not monitor denied requests)
Thomas v New Baltimore, 254 Mich. App. 196 (mootness of substantive FOIA claim does not necessarily resolve fee entitlement)
Amberg v Dearborn, 497 Mich. 28 (defines "prevail" for FOIA fee recovery—action must be reasonably necessary and causative of disclosure)
Herald Co., Inc. v Eastern Mich. Univ. Bd. of Regents, 475 Mich. 463 (standard of review for discretionary FOIA determinations: abuse of discretion)
Scharret v City of Berkley, 249 Mich. App. 405 (FOIA prevailing-party analysis cited in Amberg)
Local Area Watch v Grand Rapids, 262 Mich. App. 136 (punitive damages under FOIA require court-ordered disclosure)