The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (MCL 15.231 et seq.); Whether most of the complaint was rendered moot by defendant’s production of the unredacted materials; City of Jackson v. Thompson-McCully Co., LLC; Herald Co., Inc. v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs.; Entitlement to fees & costs under MCL 15.240(6); Amberg v. City of Dearborn; Amount of attorney fees awarded; Prins v. Michigan State Police; Determining reasonable attorney fees; Smith v. Khouri; Wood v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch.; MRPC 1.5(a); Appellate fees & costs; Rataj v. Romulus; Fines & damages; MCL 15.240b; Occurrence defined; Defining an undefined statutory term; Brackett v. Focus Hope, Inc.; Rule of statutory construction that statutes providing penalties are noncumulative unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed; Tew v. Hillsdale Tool & Mfg. Co.; Punitive damages; MCL 15.240(7); 2014 PA 563 amendment; MCL 15.235(4); Local Area Watch v. Grand Rapids

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff’s substantive FOIA claims were moot as defendant produced unredacted copies of the documents he requested after he filed his lawsuit, and that he was entitled to reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements under MCL 15.240(6). It rejected his claim that the trial court erred in awarding him a lower amount of attorney fees than requested, and concluded that the trial court did not err in only requiring defendant to pay one statutorily mandated civil fee and no punitive damages. Plaintiff requested documents related to a proposed condo development. “In response, defendant provided thousands of documents containing hundreds of redactions.” It did not “provide a written notice describing the redacted material required by MCL 15.235(5)(c).” After he sued, defendant provided unredacted copies of the documents. The court noted that a “plaintiff’s substantive claim under FOIA is rendered moot by disclosure of the records after” the filing of a trial court action. Thus, the trial court properly ruled “that plaintiff’s substantive claims were moot and that he was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements under MCL 15.240(6).” The court also held that the amount of attorney fees awarded was reasonable. The trial court “considered the Smith factors, determined a reasonable hourly rate, and multiplied that rate by the number of hours it calculated as reasonable in light of the remedies plaintiff was seeking and the results he obtained.” It did not question whether plaintiff’s counsel worked the claimed hours, but rather, “explained that it was required to factor the labor against the ultimate result obtained.” The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating his attorney fee award. While he appeared to assume he was entitled to the full amount of his requested fees because he prevailed on the first count of his complaint, the trial court was required to award him “reasonable attorney fees” and the court concluded that it did just that. As to the civil fine, the production of the redacted documents without the required “written notice was the result of one event or one occurrence” and thus, defendant was subject to one civil fine under MCL 15.240b. Finally, the court found that “neither prerequisite for an award of punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7) was met” in this case. Affirmed.