Application of the privacy exemption to Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); Public interest; Office of Institutional Equity (OIE)

In this dispute over the application of the privacy exemption to FOIA, the court held that defendant “bore the burden of showing that the privacy exemption applies” but had not satisfied that burden. “Plaintiff sought unredacted notifications so it could further its investigation and ‘request the investigative records relating to only those employees who are the subject of the notifications.’” Defendant argued “the Court of Claims erred in determining that the employee names were not exempt from disclosure under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and concluding that defendant violated FOIA by redacting the names in its response to plaintiff’s FOIA requests.” The court noted that defendant “redacted the names of the employees in the OIE notifications under MCL 15.243(1)(a) (‘the privacy exemption’), which provides that a public body may exempt from disclosure ‘[i]nformation of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.’ This exemption has two prongs: (1) the information must be ‘of a personal nature[,]’ (2) which, if disclosed publicly, ‘would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy[.]’” The parties did “not dispute whether the information was of a personal nature; they challenge only the second prong on appeal—whether public disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of the employees’ privacy. In determining whether public disclosure is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, ‘courts must balance the public interest in disclosure against the interest the Legislature intended the exemption to protect.’” The only “relevant public interest in disclosure to be weighed in this balance is the extent to which disclosure would serve the core purpose of the FOIA, which is contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.” The court held that “defendant’s arguments do not squarely address plaintiff’s purpose for seeking the notifications.” The court found the “fact that defendant did not make findings of misconduct against its employees does not necessarily diminish the public’s interest in understanding defendant’s internal operations. In fact, it furthers the purpose of plaintiff’s request: to determine whether defendant was properly investigating employees who were reported multiple times for sexual misconduct.” The court rejected “defendant’s straw man argument that, because the notifications themselves, regardless of their contents, demonstrate that defendant was complying with the State School Aid Act, the redactions did not hinder plaintiff’s purpose.” It was also persuaded by plaintiff’s claim “that it will be able to differentiate any cases that were ultimately dismissed on unrelated grounds by further investigation into the names provided.” Defendant contended “that the notifications ‘do not offer any substantive insight into the manner in which [it] handles RVSM [Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct] and Title IX proceedings[,]’ noting that ‘[p]laintiff is free to request information about [defendant’s] policies for RVSM and Title IX proceedings, or even reports rendered in actual cases.’” As plaintiff explained “on appeal, however, that is precisely what it was trying to do. Defendant provides no argument on appeal as to why the names sought, in the context of the actual purpose underlying plaintiff’s request, did not serve the public interest.” Affirmed.