 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meacham v. Martin6/7/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants. This case arose when defendant Willard Martin, attorney for defendant City of Marquette, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, released plaintiff's personnel file and other documents relating to allegations of misconduct by plaintiff while he was employed in the Marquette Police Department. Plaintiff sued to prevent disclosure of the documents and, after the trial court dismissed his complaint, filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration, raising the issue whether disclosure of the documents would deprive him of a fair trial in another action in federal court in Illinois. The trial court denied both motions for reconsideration. We affirm.
Although plaintiff claimed an appeal from the trial court's original order granting summary disposition, the "fair-trial" question presented in this appeal was not raised until he filed the supplemental motion for reconsideration. Where a plaintiff does not challenge a summary disposition motion on the grounds raised on appeal, the claim has not been preserved for appeal. Gordin v William Beaumont Hosp, 180 Mich App 488, 494; 447 NW2d 793 (1989). However, plaintiff did raise the "fair-trial" issue in his supplemental brief in support of his motion for reconsideration and in the oral arguments on the supplement. Moreover, this Court may consider the issue because it involves an issue of law and the facts necessary to its resolution have been presented. Poch v Anderson, 229 Mich App 40, 52; 580 NW2d 456 (1998).
Where a party appeals on the basis of a mistake by the trial court that was not objected to on the record below, this Court reviews the record for plain error. Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 335-336; 612 NW2d 838 (2000). To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: (1) the error must have occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights. Kern, supra at 335-336. This Court reviews statutory interpretations de novo as questions of law. Pittsfield Charter Twp v Washtenaw Co, 246 Mich App 356, 360; 633 NW2d 10 (2001).
The disclosure of information in Michigan government records is controlled by its FOIA, MCL 15.231 et seq., which sets forth the public policy of this state as follows:
ll persons, except those persons incarcerated in state or local correctional facilities, are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act. [MCL 15.231.]
Consistent with this broadly declared legislative policy, the FOIA's specific provisions generally require the full disclosure of public records in the possession of a public body. Herald Co v City of Bay City, 463 Mich 111, 119; 614 NW2d 873 (2000). The FOIA provides Michigan citizens with broad rights to obtain public records, limited only by the coverage of the statute and its exemptions. Kent Co Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v Kent Co Sheriff, 463 Mich 353, 362; 616 NW2d 677 (2000).
Plaintiff argues that an exemption found in §13 of the FOIA, MCL 15.243, applies in this case. On its express terms, the FOIA is a pro-disclosure statute and the exemptions stated in §13 are narrowly construed. Herald Co, supra at 119. The relevant portions of that statute read as follows:
(1) A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this act:
(b) Investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|