999 N.W.2d 463
Mich.2023Background
- Two freelance journalists (Woodman and Joseph) filed FOIA requests for video and audio of a deadly inmate altercation; MDOC denied the requests citing penal/security exemptions and a blanket-denial practice.
- Plaintiffs sued in the Court of Claims seeking “a complete, unredacted copy” of the videos and accompanying audio; cases were consolidated.
- The Court of Claims ordered disclosure after in camera review, allowed MDOC to provide redacted (faces blurred) versions for public release but permitted counsel to view unredacted video; plaintiffs ultimately received video and audio.
- The Court of Claims awarded attorneys’ fees: full recovery for ACLU counsel but reduced Honigman LLP’s award by 90 because its work was pro bono; punitive damages were denied.
- The Court of Appeals held plaintiffs prevailed only in part (because of redaction), vacated the fee award, and remanded; it left unresolved whether pro bono status may justify fee reductions.
- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on prevailing-party status (holding plaintiffs prevailed in full), ruled that pro bono status is never a permissible basis to reduce a reasonable fee under FOIA, and remanded for the trial court to apply the Smith/Pirgu reasonableness analysis (excluding pro bono as a factor).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs “prevailed” under MCL 15.240(6) (mandatory fee entitlement) | Litigation was necessary, caused disclosure, and plaintiffs obtained what they sought (video/audio) — thus they prevailed in full | Because the Court allowed redactions (blurred faces) and plaintiffs had sought “complete, unredacted” footage in their complaints, plaintiffs only prevailed in part | Plaintiffs prevailed in full: litigation was necessary and causally produced disclosure, and plaintiffs obtained the records they initially sought; mandatory fee award required |
| Whether a court may reduce a reasonable fee because counsel represented the client pro bono | Pro bono status should not reduce a reasonable fee; fee-shifting promotes FOIA enforcement and access to justice | Pro bono status is relevant and may justify reducing fees (trial court relied on this to cut Honigman’s award) | Pro bono representation is not a permissible consideration in determining reasonableness under FOIA; reducing fees solely for pro bono work was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the Court of Claims abused discretion by cutting Honigman’s fee by 90% | The fee rates and hours were reasonable and should be awarded in full | The pro bono nature of Honigman’s work justified a substantial reduction | Court of Claims abused its discretion in reducing Honigman’s award on that basis; remand required to apply Smith/Pirgu factors (without considering pro bono) |
| Denial of punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7) | Plaintiffs sought punitive damages for MDOC’s blanket-denial policy | MDOC opposed punitive damages; trial court denied them | Denial of punitive damages was affirmed (Supreme Court denied further review on that issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (articulates framework for assessing reasonable attorney fees)
- Pirgu v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 499 Mich 269 (refines Smith; lists nonexhaustive factors for up/down adjustments)
- Amberg v. Dearborn, 497 Mich 28 (defines prevailing-party test under FOIA: necessity and causation)
- Int'l Union, United Plant Guard Workers of Am. v. Dep't of State Police, 422 Mich 432 (holding that obtaining everything initially sought is relevant to prevailing status)
- Wood v. Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573 (reasonableness is the touchstone for fee awards)
- Fradco, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 495 Mich 104 (statutory “shall” is mandatory)