Woodman v. Dep't of Corr.

999 N.W.2d 463

511 Mich. 427

Spencer WOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

George Joseph, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 163382, No. 163383

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued on application for leave to appeal April 4, 2023

Decided July 26, 2023

Cynthia D. Stephens, J.

Honigman LLP, Detroit (by Robert M. Riley and Rian C. Dawson) and the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan (by Daniel S. Korobkin) for Spencer Woodman and George Joseph.

Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, and Adam R. de Bear, Assistant Attorney General, for the Department of Corrections.

Nicholas A. Gable, Robert F. Gillett, and Paul D. Reingold for the State Bar of Michigan, the Michigan State Planning Body, the Legal Services Association of Michigan, and Disability Rights Michigan, amici curiae.

Winston & Strawn LLP (by Matthew T. Lammers, Charles B. Klein, and Alison M. King) for the Association of Pro Bono Counsel, amicus curiae.

Linderman Law PLLC (by Marla Linderman Richelew) and Gafkay Law, PLC, Saginaw (by Julie A. Gafkay) for the Michigan Association for Justice, amicus curiae.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

OPINION

Bolden, J.

₄₃₃These cases concern the availability of attorney fees under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq. In particular, we must decide whether plaintiffs prevailed under MCL 15.240(6) and thus are entitled to attorney fees and costs. We must also decide whether a reasonable attorney fee under FOIA may be reduced when a party is represented by pro bono counsel. We reverse the Court of Appeals judgment to the extent it held that plaintiffs ₄₃₄only prevailed in part, and we hold that plaintiffs prevailed and are statutorily entitled to attorney fees and costs under MCL 15.240(6). We further hold that the Court of Claims abused its discretion when it reduced the fee awarded to Honigman because Honigman represented plaintiffs pro bono. We conclude that pro bono representation is not an appropriate consideration in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees. While we agree with the Court of Claims that plaintiffs were entitled to fees, we vacate the Court of Claims’ order and remand these cases to the Court of Claims to reassess the reasonableness of the attorney fees. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs, Spencer Woodman and George Joseph, two freelance journalists, submitted separate FOIA requests to defendant, the Michigan Department of Corrections (the MDOC), seeking video and audio recordings of a prisoner altercation that resulted in one inmate’s death.¹ The MDOC denied their FOIA requests, asserting that the records were exempt from disclosure under MCL 15.243(1)(c).² Plaintiffs then ₄₃₅separately filed lawsuits in the Court of Claims, arguing that the MDOC wrongfully denied their requests under FOIA. In their complaints, plaintiffs both requested "a complete, unredacted copy of the Video and any accompanying audio recordings[.]" Plaintiffs were represented by both the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU) and Honigman LLP (Honigman). The Court of Claims consolidated the cases.

In the Court of Claims, plaintiffs argued that the MDOC wrongfully denied their requests. Plaintiffs moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10), asserting that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the MDOC had violated FOIA by denying their requests for information. The MDOC also moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10), arguing that the records were exempt from disclosure under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (c), and (u).³

₄₃₆The trial court ordered the MDOC to disclose the audio recording to plaintiffs and to produce the videos for an in camera review, holding in abeyance the parties’ motions pending the review. The trial court permitted the MDOC to submit the videos in a format that obscured the faces of the employees and prisoners in the videos to protect those individuals. However, the MDOC provided the unredacted videos for in camera review. The trial court determined that the records did not reveal the placement of security cameras, but nonetheless, "in an abundance of caution," the court appointed a special master to review the videos for "any security concerns, other than the identity of those persons who are seen on camera." The special master reported that the videos did not reveal any security concerns except to the extent the videos made it possible to identify staff members and inmates. Accordingly, on April 22, 2019, the Court of Claims ordered the MDOC to immediately disclose the unredacted videos to plaintiffs within seven days.

On April 29, 2019, the MDOC moved for reconsideration of the court’s order, arguing that it need not disclose the videos or, alternatively, that it should be allowed to redact the videos by blurring the faces of the individuals in the videos. The court denied the MDOC’s motion because it was "not convinced that an error of fact or law was made as to the Court’s conclusion that the videos should be released" and did "not believe that there is any law precluding the display of the faces of public employee correctional ₄₃₇officers …." Nevertheless, it permitted the MDOC to blur the faces but also permitted plaintiffs’ counsel to view both the redacted and unredacted videos and "make further prayer for relief after the review."

Thereafter, plaintiffs moved for attorney fees and costs under MCL 15.240(6) and for punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7). The MDOC opposed the motion, arguing first that because the court allowed the MDOC to redact the identities of the individuals in the videos, plaintiffs only prevailed in part under MCL 15.240(6) and the court should decline to award fees in its discretion. The MDOC also argued that because Honigman represented plaintiffs pro bono, plaintiffs should not receive fees. In the alternative, the MDOC argued that should the court award a fee, the court should reduce the fee because plaintiffs provided an unreasonable number of hours worked and an unreasonable hourly rate.

The Court of Claims determined that the MDOC was not a prevailing party and that plaintiffs prevailed "in full"; therefore, the Court of Claims held that plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under MCL 15.240(6). The court further held that the attorneys’ hourly rate and the number of hours billed on the cases were reasonable. The court awarded the ACLU 100% of its requested attorney fees. However, it awarded Honigman only 10% of its requested attorney fees, explaining as follows:

The reason that the Court is awarding the fees is, in part, certainly it’s normal to compensate parties for dollars they’ve spent. But in this case, dollars have not been necessarily spent except for those dollars that are attributable to counsel for the ACLU. Instead[,] those were pro bono dollars [as to Honigman].

₄₃₈The Court of Claims also denied plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7).

Plaintiffs and the MDOC appealed in the Court of Appeals, raising only the attorney-fee and punitive-damages issues. Plaintiffs challenged both the trial court’s decision to reduce Honigman’s attorney-fee award and the denial of punitive damages. The MDOC cross-appealed, challenging only the trial court’s determination that plaintiffs prevailed in full and thus were entitled to attorney fees and costs under FOIA.⁴

In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part. Woodman v Dep’t of Corrections, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued June 24, 2021, 2021 WL 2619705 (Docket Nos. 353164 and 353165), p. 1. The panel reversed the trial court’s finding that plaintiffs prevailed, concluding that plaintiffs prevailed only in part. Id. at 5. The panel explained that plaintiffs’ complaints demanded the production of "‘a complete, unredacted copy of the Video ….’" Id. The panel opined that plaintiffs had only partially prevailed because the MDOC was permitted to redact certain information from the videos. Id. Therefore, the Court of Appeals remanded the cases to the Court of Claims to determine, within its discretion, whether plaintiffs should be awarded any, all, or a portion of reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements under MCL 15.240(6). Id. Because the panel vacated the attorney fees awarded, it did not address the Court of Claims’ decision to reduce Honigman’s fee by 90% on the basis of Honigman’s pro bono representation of plaintiffs. The panel did, however, note that on remand the Court of Claims "should … determine whether the pro bono nature of ₄₃₉the representation is a legitimate consideration in the determination of the reasonableness of the fees." Id. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Id. at 8.

Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal in this Court. We ordered oral argument on the application and asked the parties to address whether "(1) [plaintiffs] prevailed in full, and are thus statutorily entitled to attorney fees under MCL 15.240(6); (2) the Court of Claims abused its discretion when it reduced by 90% the attorneys’ fees awarded to [plaintiffs] based solely on the pro bono nature of Honigman LLP’s representation, notwithstanding the Court of Claims’ factual findings that Honigman’s hourly rates and the number of hours worked were reasonable; and (3) the Court of Claims clearly erred in denying [plaintiffs] punitive damages under MCL 15.240(7)." Woodman v Dep’t of Corrections, 509 Mich. 954, 954, 972 N.W.2d 246 (2022).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1–5] Under FOIA, "legal determinations are reviewed under a de novo standard." Herald Co., Inc. v Eastern Mich. Univ. Bd. of Regents,...