e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 70790
Opinion Date : 06/20/2019
e-Journal Date : 07/11/2019
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Ahmad v. University of MI
Practice Area(s) : Freedom of Information Act
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Cameron, Ronayne Krause, and Tukel
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (MCL 15.231 et seq.); MCL 15.233(1); Amberg v. Dearborn; “Public record”; MCL 15.232(i); “Official function”; The Michigan Community Foundation Act (MCFA) (MCL 123.901 et seq.); MCL 123.905(3); “And” & “or”; People v. Comella; OfficeMax, Inc. v. United States; Heckathorn v. Heckathorn

Summary

Holding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima facie claim under the FOIA, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Claims and remanded. Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with defendant-university seeking scholarly research and writings that were donated to its library, including those marked as “closed” until 2035 by the donor. Defendant denied the request, asserting the papers were closed to research until 2035 and were therefore not “public records” subject to FOIA disclosure. Plaintiff eventually filed suit in the Court of Claims, which granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. On appeal, the court found that “plaintiff sufficiently pled that defendant was storing and maintaining the . . . papers, which is consistent with the stated purposes of the” library’s official functions. “The fact that those materials were not subject to disclosure to students or research does not detract from the fact that the act of keeping those materials is part of” its purpose. “Importantly, plaintiff’s complaint can be read to allege that the . . . papers were ‘closed’ to research” until 2035. “The clear implication is that [defendant] was holding the papers with the intent to open them to research (and students) at that later time.” Thus, its “acts of collecting and preserving the papers were in furtherance of its official purpose.” As such, the complaint alleged that “defendant ‘maintained the records’ in the performance of an official function, which, under FOIA’s definitions, renders them ‘public records.’” Therefore, the complaint stated “a valid claim that the papers are public records.” Further, “a public library receiving a gift is authorized by statute to ‘hold, use, and apply’ the gift for the purposes set forth in the donor’s agreement, subject to any conditions or limitations expressly made.” Thus, the library “carries out an ‘official function’ as it relates to its gifts and donations when it holds onto such gifts and donations in accordance with the donation agreement.”

Full PDF Opinion