Case Closed
It's not a win for transparency, though.
IT SEEMS FITTING TO PUBLISH a final update about Miller v. MDHHS on the first day of this year’s Sunshine Week.
As I wrote almost two months ago, the new judge overseeing the case finally issued an order on January 21, 2025 — after almost a year of silence — granting an evidentiary hearing to consider our request for reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, and permitting oral arguments for our request for reconsideration of the original judge’s opinion.
On March 10, 2025, that hearing took place at the Michigan Court of Claims in Lansing, Michigan. Unfortunately, it did not result in the legal victory for transparency that I, and most readers of this newsletter, had hoped for.
Instead, two days after the hearing, Hon. Christopher P. Yates issued an Order on Reconsideration and Attorney Fees and Costs, which was entered into the Court Register of Actions on March 12, 2025, as follows:
For reasons stated on the record at a hearing on Monday, March 10, 2025, IT IS ORDERED that (1) Plaintiffs request for punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7) is denied (2) plaintiffs request for imposition of a civil fine under MCL 15.240(7) is denied, and (3) plaintifrs request for imposition of a civil fine under MCL 15.240b is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for reasonable attorney fees and costs under MCL 15.240(6) is reserved for resolution after the entry of judgment. Defendant is invited to submit a proposed judgment under the 7-day rule. See MCR 2.602(B)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED.
The new decision means a couple of things. First, despite the government’s sudden and unexplained removal of redactions from over 1,000 pages of the requested records mid-lawsuit, the Court did not find that the State violated the FOIA and the government won’t be penalized. Second, it means my attorney will receive legal fees and I should, hopefully, be reimbursed for the money I spent out-of-pocket on the lawsuit (nearly $300 in combined court fees, service of process fees and registered and certified mail costs).
As far as the “reasons stated on the record” that are referenced in the judgment, I will probably never know what those were, because I wasn’t there. Although my presence wasn’t required at the hearing (only my lawyer’s was), I still planned on attending and marked the originally scheduled date of March 11, 2025, on my calendar. As luck would have it, though, the hearing was later rescheduled to March 10, without my knowledge. I didn’t notice the change until two days before, when I checked the court register to verify the start time. By then, it was too late to rearrange things, so I wasn’t present at the hearing.
According to the company that provided court reporting services at the hearing, obtaining a transcript would cost an estimated $560.00 — money I don’t have available to spend right now (I realize this fee might seem negligible to some of my readers; for me, it’s a little over half a month’s rent).
Although my attorney offered to appeal the judge’s decision, I’ve asked him not to. I realize this choice might disappoint readers who were hopeful about seeing justice eventually play out in this case, but there is a certain logic to my decision: I am tired of beating a dead horse.
At this point, two judges at one of the highest courts in the State of Michigan have each had the opportunity to hold the government accountable to the FOIA for what I still believe were improperly redacted public records that should have been the property of the people all along, without having to fight for them in court. Over 1,000 redacted pages were suddenly unredacted, almost in their entirety and without explanation, by the government nearly half a year after my lawsuit was filed. Regardless, both judges avoided addressing that detail and, in my opinion, failed to hold the government accountable for its unjustified secrecy as a result.
While I believe an appeal is warranted and would be appropriate, it doesn’t feel worth it to invest more time waiting to see if yet another set of high-level judges at a similarly positioned state court might care about government transparency and accountability after all of this. After all, compared to every other state in the U.S., Michigan has a long-established reputation for its lack of government transparency and ethics that still continues today.
Although it’s good that I obtained the requested documents (in a roundabout way), and that my lawyer will get his fees, the outcome of this case wasn’t a win for the people. In my opinion, the Court failed to act as a check on the State’s power when it had the opportunity and obligation to do so. The result will likely be a continued lack of government transparency in Michigan.
While I’m relieved to finally be free of the mess this case turned out to be, I also feel depressingly certain at the start of this year’s Sunshine Week that Michigan’s long-entrenched transparency problems will persist until the state’s laws — and the values of those in power — change. Unfortunately, today is not that day.
Are they not required to give notice of rescheduling to both you and your attorney?