Truel v. City of Dearborn
291 Mich. App. 125
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- WCPO appeals a trial-court order requiring disclosure of its entire file to defendants’ counsel, including factual and deliberative materials.
- Plaintiff, a Dearborn police officer, alleges WPA retaliation after participating in investigations into Fall’s Lounge incident and related matters.
- Investigations by WCPO and Michigan State Police reportedly found no credible evidence of illegal activity by Dearborn officers.
- Defendants requested the entire investigative file under FOIA; WCPO withheld statements from four officers and the final investigation report, citing privilege and confidentiality.
- A subpoena request for the withheld materials was denied; the trial court granted defendants’ discovery motion.
- The court must reconcile separate discovery regimes: FOIA and WPA, with the latter governed by MCR 2.302 and related statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are transcripts of testimony under investigative subpoenas discoverable under MCL 767A.8? | WCPO argues transcripts are confidential under §8. | Defendants contend transcripts should be produced as part of discovery. | Transcripts are not subject to disclosure; trial court abused. |
| Does the deliberative-process privilege apply to the final investigation report in this WPA case? | Final report may contain deliberative material; disclosure requires show of need. | Final report should be disclosed to establish credibility and conduct relevance. | Deliberative-process privilege applies; defendants failed to prove sufficient need; trial court abused. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ostoin v Waterford Twp Police Dep’t, 189 Mich App 334 (1991) (deliberative-process privilege; balancing test for confidentiality)
- In re Sealed Case, 326 US App DC 276 (1997) (deliberative/predecisional materials; pre/postdecisional distinction)
- NLRB v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 421 US 132 (1975) (no bright line; some documents may be both predecisional and postdecisional)
- Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (2010) (limits of FOIA/privilege interplay)
- Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich 156 (2009) (statutory construction to discern legislative intent)
- Central Mich Univ Supervisory-Technical Ass’n MEA/NEA v Central Mich Univ Bd of Trustees, 223 Mich App 727 (1997) (discovery and statutory interpretation guidance)
- Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377 (2008) (persuasive federal-state authority not binding)