Court Opinion

ID: 9672019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:47:22.170538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:13.715110
License: Public Domain

Holbrook, Jr., J.,
(concurring). I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize the clear distinction between discovery in civil litigation and requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.) MSA 4.1801(1) et seq. Federal courts, in reviewing this issue pursuant to the federal foia, on which the Michigan foia was modeled, have indicated that the “foia was not intended as a device to delay ongoing litigation or to enlarge the scope of discovery beyond that already provided” under the court rules. One was never *731intended to replace or supplement the other. NLRB v Robbins Tire & Rubber Co, 437 US 214, 242; 98 S Ct 2311; 57 L Ed 2d 159 (1978); NLRB v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 421 US 132, 143, n 10; 95 S Ct 1504; 44 L Ed 2d 29 (1975). Thus, the discovery rules and the FOIA represent “two independent schemes for obtaining information” and an FOIA request contemplates a “separate action.” United States v Murdock, 548 F2d 599 (CA 5, 1977). Here, plaintiffs request for information pursuant to the foia was denied by defendants solely on the basis of the ongoing civil litigation. This was error. The correct approach would be for plaintiffs foia request to be evaluated in light of the language and purposes of the FOIA, as well as plaintiffs asserted reason and need for the documents. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co, supra.