Redacted information; FOIA exemptions contained in MCL 15.243(1)(a) & (b)(iii); Information of a personal nature that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy if disclosed; ESPN, Inc v Michigan State Univ; Michigan Fed’n of Teachers & Sch Related Pers, AFT, AFL-CIO v University of MI; Swickard v Wayne Cnty Med Exam’r; Information that was part of an investigative record for law enforcement purposes; Rataj v City of Romulus; Location of a crime; Privacy interest in an address; Attorney fees & costs; Effect of a partial victory

Holding that the trial court properly declined to order the disclosure of some of the redacted information at issue under MCL 15.243(1)(b)(iii) and (1)(a) but erred in declining to order disclosure of other redactions, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It also vacated the trial court’s decision as to attorney fees and costs, and remanded. Plaintiff’s FOIA request concerned a police report prepared during the investigation into a man’s (W) 2006 disappearance. “The statements in Redaction Nos. 1, 2, and 3 involve . . . ‘details of the [W’] home life and marital relationship.’” The court noted extensive case law reflects “a longstanding societal belief that the information at issue is considered personal, private, embarrassing, and confidential.” It found that because W’s “then-wife is still alive, and the information in Redaction Nos. 1, 2, and 3 would reveal intimate information about her, there is still a privacy interest in” it. While the issue of whether “disclosure would shed any light on the workings of government is a closer question[,]” the court determined based on the “marginal value of” the information “that its disclosure would be ‘unwarranted’ under MCL 15.243(1)(b)(iii).” As to Redaction Nos. 4 and 7, case law “holds that personal addresses of private citizens are generally the type of information ‘of a personal nature’ that may properly be withheld even under the stringent ‘clearly unwarranted’ invasion of privacy standard.” Plaintiff’s main argument was “that the address could easily be found electronically. However, the mere fact that information can be found elsewhere in the public sphere is irrelevant to whether it may be exempted from disclosure under one of the FOIA’s privacy exemptions.” The court concluded that “because the address belongs to someone who has a privacy interest in” it and there was “no suggestion that disclosure would shed light on the workings of government, Redaction Nos. 4 and 7 were proper under MCL 15.243(1)(a).” But the information “in Redaction Nos. 8 and 9 is subject to disclosure in part for the same reason that the trial court ordered partial disclosure of the information contained in Redaction Nos. 5 and 6: the same information was already provided in unredacted form elsewhere within the same document.” And because “plaintiff has now obtained a greater, albeit still partial, victory[,]” the trial court must reconsider whether this “warrants reasonable attorney fees.”