FOIA: Local Government "Parking" Public Documents at Their Contracted Lawyers Office

[FOIAfreedom]

FOIA: Local Government "Parking" Public Documents at Their Contracted Lawyers Office

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I am involved with a FOIA request denial that has gone crazy. I requested a document and the government agency admits that it exists but is in the possession of their attorney. They are refusing to disclose it as they claim that they are unable to as the attorney physically has it. As it stands, they are parking documents that contain sketchy information with their attorney to keep them out of public view. Other documents related to the matter were requested under FOIA and were provided without grief. None of this is exempt under "Attorney work product" or "Attorney-client privilege".

I am working without legal assistance (pro per) as I cannot afford any. If you can provide any advice, I would greatly appreciate it. Per the state FOIA law, the State of Michigan awards legal fees and expenses when the plaintiff prevails. When it is determined that the defendant has acted arbitrarily and capriciously, an automatic award of $500 is ordered.

All relevant legal docs have been scanned and are available here: https://sites.google.com/site/foiacoverup/

 

[startedone]

Are you currently involved in litigation with the agency you are requesting the documents from?

What exact exemption are they claiming .. post the text

 

[FOIAfreedom]

Yes, I am now in litigation with them. I filed a complaint, pro per, in 22nd Circuit Court in Ann Arbor, MI. I have a scheduling conference on April 5th per a court notice.

They are not claiming any exemption - they keep repeating the same statement in their brief to the judge about how they don't have possession of the documents.

"3. In response to Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant admits that it is a "public body" under MCL 915.232(2)(d) but denies that it has possession of and control over the records that Plaintiff seeks."

All documents have been scanned and uploaded to the internet (.pdf) here:

https://sites.google.com/site/foiacoverup

They are involved in arbitration again (because the defendant refused to comply with the arbitrators orders) and I want to see the initial brief from the land developers lawyer addressed to the arbitrators AND the township lawyer.

That is where the controversy lies - they don't want to show that brief to the public. They are admitted that it does exist and that their lawyer did get it BUT since they claim they (the government officials) never actually received it, it is not subject to FOIA. My argument is that since it was sent to the TOWNSHIP's contracted lawyer, that it is indeed subject to FOIA.

If I am incorrect, then I supposed this will be a landmark court decision as it will allow governments to essentially "park" controversial documents at their lawyers office to hide them from the public.

Is the contracted township lawyer a representative of the township government in any way shape or form?

 

[startedone]

If the litigation involves more than just a FOIA appeal, then yes, its likely that they can park their documents with their lawyer.

But since they are not claiming this exemption but are going on about how their law firm has them ... they are claiming that they do not possession of the documents.

I would have asked them to revise their answer .. its evasive to the facts.

Plus their answer to question 4 contradicts their answer to question 3...they cannot say the court has subject matter jurisdiction and also say they don't have control of the documents.

I don't think they are claiming the correct exemption. You should another FOIA request for billings between those 2 to see if there is a master-slave relationship.