Court Opinion

ID: 9504171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:55:48.647927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:53.848344
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with all parts of the majority opinion except for parts II and VI. While I agree with the result reached by the majority in part VI — that plaintiffs *582should not have to pay defendant the requested fee — I believe the reason is simply that the failure to charge a fee for searching, examining, and reviewing the side agreements would not result in an unreasonably high cost to defendant. MCL 15.234(3) states, in relevant part:
A fee shall not be charged for the cost of search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information as provided in section 14 unless failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body because of the nature of the request in the particular instance, and the public body specifically identifies the nature of these unreasonably high costs.
Defendant charged $150 for the city attorney to search, examine, and review materials for the requested side agreements. But the nature of the request for the side agreements was a routine request under the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq., and complying with the request would not result in an unreasonably high cost to defendant. Therefore, there was nothing about the nature of the request in this particular instance to warrant charging a fee to cover defendant’s costs. Accordingly, I concur with all parts of the majority opinion, except for part II and part VI; with regard to part VI, I concur only with the result.