Norton Shores Seeks Emergency Review On Application To The Michigan Supreme Court

RECEIVED by MSC 6/1/2018 4:09:55 PM
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Supreme Court Case No. ____________
Court of Appeals Case No. 343759

v
Muskegon County Circuit Court
CITY OF NORTON SHORES, Case No. 17-004334-CZ
Hon. Timothy G. Hicks
Defendant-Appellant.
______/
NOTICE OF FILING APPLICATION
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
PROOF OF SERVICE
PLUNKETT COONEY
By: MARY MASSARON (P43885)

JOSEPHINE A. DELORENZO (P72170)
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
City of Norton Shores
38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
(313) 983-4801
mmassaron@plunkettcooney.com
jdelorenzo@plunkettcooney.com
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Supreme Court Case No.

v
/
NOTICE OF FILING APPLICATION
TO: Michigan Court of Appeals Clerk AND: Muskegon County Circuit Court
Via TrueFiling Electronic Filing Via U.S. Mail
Defendant-Appellant City of Norton Shores, states that on June 1, 2018,their
application for leave to appeal and accompanying documents were filed with the Michigan
Supreme Court.
Respectfully submitted,
PLUNKETT COONEY
By: /s/ Mary Massaron

MARY MASSARON (P43885)
Dated: June 1, 2018 (31.3) 983-4801
mmassaronPplunkettcooney.com
jdelorenzoPplunkettcooney.com
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,

v
______/
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
PLUNKETT COONEY
By: MARY MASSARON (P43885)

(313) 983-4801
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of contents.................................................................................................................................................... i
Table of authorities ..............................................................................................................................................ii
Statement of appellate jurisdiction...............................................................................................................iv
Statement of the question presented ............................................................................................................ v
Statement of facts.................................................................................................................................................. 1
A. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 1
B. Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Rudd’s FOIA request sought any documents related to complaints
against the City’s police department and was denied by the City of
Norton Shores ....................................................................................................................... 2
2. Rudd filed suit against the City challenging its denial of his FOIA
request..................................................................................................................................... 2
3 The City renews its motion for summary disposition .............................................. 4
4. The trial court orders the City to produce the citizen complaints ...................... 6
Need for interlocutory appellate review...................................................................................................... 8
Argument .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
The Court Of Appeals Erred In Denying The City’s Emergency
Motion To Stay Execution Of The Judgment Pending Appeal
Because The Documents That The City Is Compelled To Disclose
Are Exempt Under The Act And, If It Is Forced To Produce Them
By June 7, 2018, Its Appeal Of Right Will Be Mooted ..................................... 11
A. Michigan’s Legislature accorded special consideration to an exemptible class
of records designating them as subject to disclosure only upon a showing
that the public interest in disclosure predominates.............................................................. 11
C. Citizen complaints fall within this class of documents afforded special
consideration because of the strong public interest in nondisclosure ........................... 15
D. The trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that the citizen
complaints were subject to disclosure on this record because Rudd did not
produce any evidence in this particular instance which established that the
public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in nondisclosure........................ 17
E. The Court of Appeals erred in denying the City’s motion to stay because the
City’s appeal will be mooted if it is compelled to disclose the contested
documents .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Relief ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Booth Newspapers, Inc v University of Michigan Board of Regents,

444 Mich 211, 507 NW2d 422 (1993) .................................................................................................. 11
East Grand Rapids School Dist v Kent Co Tax Allocation Bd,
415 Mich 381, 390, 330 N.W.2d 7 (1982)........................................................................................8, 21
Federated Publications, Inc v City of Lansing,
467 Mich 98, 101; 649 NW2d 383, 385 (2002)......................................................... 8, 9, 12, 18, 22
Herald Co, Inc v E Michigan Univ Bd of Regents,
475 Mich 463; 719 NW2d 19 (2006) ................................................................................................9, 18
Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v Kent County Sheriff,
238 Mich App 310, 605 NW2d 363 (1999), aff’d, 463 Mich 353, 616 NW2d
677 (2000)...................................................................................................................14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21
Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Dep’t of Environmental Quality (No 1),
306 Mich App 336, 364; 856 NW2d 252 (2014)...........................................................................8, 21
Newark Morning Ledger Co v Saginaw County Sheriff,
204 Mich App 215, 514 NW2d 213 (1994)............................................................ 13, 15, 16, 17, 21
State News v Mich State Univ,
481 Mich 692, 704 n 25; 753 NW2d 20 (2008).......................................................................iv, 8, 22
Sutton v City of Oak Park,
251 Mich App 345, 650 NW2d 404 (2002)............................................................ 15, 16, 17, 20, 21
Court Rules
MCR 2.116(C)(10)................................................................................................................................................. 3
MCR 7.303(B)(1) ..................................................................................................................................................iii
MCR 7.305(C)(3) ..................................................................................................................................................iii
Statutes
MCL 15.231........................................................................................................................................................ iv, 1

MCL 15.232........................................................................................................................................................... 11
MCL 15.235(2) ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
MCL 15.243........................................................................................................................................................... 11
MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix) ............................................................................................................... 3, 5, 12, 17, 20
MCL 15.243(1)(t)(ix)........................................................................................................................................ 13
MCL 15.243(s)..................................................................................................................................................... 11
ii
MCL 15.244............................................................................................................................................... 4, 16, 17
MCL 423.501 ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
iii
STATEMENT OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Defendant-Appellant, City of Norton Shores, timely filed a claim of appeal from the
Muskegon County Circuit Court’s May 3, 2018 Order and Opinion Granting Partial
Summary Disposition to Each Party (Exhibit A) on May 11, 2018. On May 21, 2018, after
the Muskegon County Circuit Court denied its motion to stay execution of the judgment,
Defendant-Appellant filed an emergency motion to stay in the Court of Appeals. The Court
of Appeals denied this motion on May 31, 2018. (Exhibit B, 5/31/18 Court of Appeals
Order Denying Stay). Defendant-Appellant now seeks interlocutory leave to appeal the
Court of Appeals order denying stay. This Court has jurisdiction to grant leave under MCR
7.303(B)(1) and MCR 7.305(C)(3) and should do so here.
This matter arises under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq.
If Defendant-Appellant is required to comply with the circuit court’s order compelling it to
turn over documents by June 7, 2018, its appeal of right will be mooted. State News v Mich
State Univ, 481 Mich 692, 704 n 25; 753 NW2d 20 (2008).
iv
STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED
DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DENYING THE CITY’S

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF THE
JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL WHERE THE DOCUMENTS
THAT THE CITY IS COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE ARE EXEMPT
UNDER THE ACT AND, IF IT IS FORCED TO PRODUCE THEM
BY JUNE 7, 2018, ITS APPEAL OF RIGHT WILL BE MOOTED?
Plaintiff-Appellee, Daniel W. Rudd, says, “No.”
Defendant-Appellant, City of Norton Shores, says “Yes.”
The Muskegon County Circuit Court says, “No.”
The Court of Appeals says, “No.”
v
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Introduction
Plaintiff-Appellee, Daniel W. Rudd (“Rudd”), sued Defendant-Appellant, City of
Norton Shores (“the City”), under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et
seq. (“FOIA”), seeking declaratory relief, an order compelling disclosure of certain records,
and damages, costs and fees. Specifically, he sought a copy of all complaints against the
City’s police officers, and any corresponding written report, disposition, or document
describing the results of the internal investigation. Plaintiff challenged the City’s refusal to
disclose citizen complaints and departmental responses to them.
The City moved for summary disposition, but the trial court held that the City was
obligated to provide “the initial complaints filed against the Norton Shores Police during
the applicable time period.” (Exhibit A, 5/3/18, Order and Opinion Granting Partial
Summary Disposition to Each Party, p 6). The trial court ordered the sought-after
documents to be presented to Rudd in a form that separated the exempt material from the
non-exempt material as defined in the court’s opinion and order, which it indicated was a
final order closing the case. (Id. at p 8). The City is required to turn over the requested
documents by June 7, 2018.
The City filed a claim of appeal on May 11, 2018 (Court of Appeals Docket No.
343759) and also sought a stay of execution of the judgment in the trial court. After the
trial court denied the City’s motion to stay, the City moved in the Court of Appeals to stay
execution of the judgment, but that motion was denied as well. (Exhibit B, 5/31/18 Court
of Appeals Order Denying Stay). The City now seeks interlocutory appellate relief in this
Court from the denial of its motion to stay execution of the judgment which requires it to
disclose documents that are exempt under FOIA.
B. Statement of Facts
1. Rudd’s FOIA request sought any documents related to complaints against

the City’s police department and was denied by the City of Norton Shores
On January 27, 2017, Rudd sought the following public records in a written FOIA
request submitted to the City:
Any/all complaints submitted against the Norton Shores Police Department’s

policies or employees from January 1, 2014 until the present. I am also
requesting a copy of any corresponding written report, disposition or
document describing the results of the internal investigation.
(Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 1/12/18, ¶ 6; Exhibit D, Defendant’s
Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ¶ 6). On or about February 16, 2017, the
City of Norton Shores denied this request stating:
Request #4 – This item is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Section 13,
Subsection (1)(s)(ix), because: this request seeks records contained in the
personnel records of a law enforcement agency, which are not subject to
disclosure unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public
interest in nondisclosure in this instance, which has not been shown.
(Id., ¶ 9). Plaintiff appealed this denial in a letter dated February 23, 2017. (Id., ¶ 10).
Plaintiff’s appeal was denied in a letter from Mayor Gary Nelund dated March 3, 2017. (Id.,
¶ 12).
2. Rudd filed suit against the City challenging its denial of his FOIA request
Rudd filed his initial complaint alleging that the City had violated FOIA. (Exhibit E,
Freedom of Information Act Complaint, 8/29/17). He alleged that the City wrongfully
denied his request for any complaints submitted against the City’s police department and
any corresponding written report, disposition, or document describing the results of the
2
internal investigation. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7). Rudd complained that the City violated FOIA when he
filed his request on January 27, 2017 but received a denial based upon MCL
15.243(1)(s)(ix), which exempts personnel records of a law enforcement agency from
disclosure. He alleged that both complaints and correspondence or reports sent to the
complainant regarding the disposition of complaints are public records subject to FOIA
disclosure and that they are not internal investigation records or personnel records. Rudd
alleged that the public’s general interest in governmental accountability prevails over an
individual’s or group’s expectation of privacy. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-25).
The City of Norton Shores moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10)
on the basis that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the records sought
fell within the exemption for personnel records of a law enforcement agency where the
public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure.
(Exhibit F, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition, pp 3-4). The City relied on
precedent upholding the denial of disclosure of initial complaints and all documents related
to the internal investigation process. (Id., pp 3-6). The City also provided affidavits of Chief
of Police Jon Gale and the City of Norton Shores FOIA Coordinator, Anthony Chandler, to
demonstrate that the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the public interest in
nondisclosure. (Id., pp 6-9).
Mr. Rudd opposed summary disposition on the basis that the records are not
defined by their location, and because it was premature to dismiss the case since the trial
court was obligated to conduct the balancing test as to each type of record. (Exhibit G,
Plaintiff’s Brief Opposing Summary Disposition, p 2). Rudd insisted that the trial court
undertake an in camera review of the documents before it ruled. (Id.). Rudd insisted that
3
the citizen complaints and the “non-confidential records which are descriptive of that
investigation, and which are created for dissemination outside of the disciplinary process”
are subject to disclosure under FOIA. (Id., p 3).
The trial court held a lengthy hearing on the City’s motion. (Exhibit H, 12/22/17
Motion Transcript). The City argued that the documents sought by Rudd were personnel
documents and thus within an exemption. (Id., pp 3-22). The City contended that disclosure
of the complaints would have a chilling effect on the citizen complaint process and the
investigations that follow. (Id., pp 10-13).
Notably, the trial court questioned the interest in disclosure on Rudd’s part,
observing that he did not “even live in the county.” (Id., p 23). Rudd fell back on vague
assertions of a “concern” that the City does not maintain consistent standards in addressing
citizen complaints. (Id.). Rudd urged the trial court to undertake an in camera review and
suggested that the affidavits provided were insufficient to warrant summary disposition.
After hearing extensive argument, the trial court advised Rudd that he could seek
leave to amend his complaint if he chose. (Id., pp 43-45). The trial court denied the motion
without prejudice, allowed Rudd 21 days to amend his complaint, and indicated that
additional briefing on the points argued at the hearing would be welcome. (Id., pp 50-57).
3 The City renews its motion for summary disposition
Rudd subsequently amended his complaint on January 12, 2018, adding allegations
that the City violated FOIA when it failed to respond to the January 27, 2017 FOIA request
in accordance with MCL 15.235(2) and failed to separate exempt from nonexempt material
in accordance with MCL 15.244. His amended complaint included three counts: Count I,
Violation of MCL 15.235(2); Count II, Violation of MCL 15.244; and Count III, Arbitrary and
4
Capricious Violations of the FOIA. Rudd sought an order requiring the City to provide
copies of the requested records, an in camera review by the trial court, and damages and
fees for failing to provide the documents earlier. (Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint, 1/12/18).
The City then renewed its motion for summary disposition. (Exhibit I, Renewed
Motion for Summary Disposition, 3/8/18). The City argued that the records Rudd sought
are personnel records of a law enforcement agency, and that they need not be disclosed
because the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the public interest in
nondisclosure. The City again provided two affidavits supporting its denial. Chief Gale
averred that the disclosure of internal affairs records, including the complaints, would have
a serious negative impact on the police department’s ability to conduct meaningful internal
investigations and would have a negative impact on the department’s morale. (Affidavit of
Chief Gale, attached to Exhibit I, Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition).
The City also pointed out that Rudd’s new count claiming that the City’s response to his
FOIA request was untimely ignored Rudd’s own admissions and the record. (Exhibit I,
Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition, p 11).
Rudd did not file an additional brief opposing summary disposition but relied on his
earlier-filed brief. The City also filed a supplemental brief, emphasizing that no fact
question existed regarding whether all the records Rudd sought fell within the exemption
set forth in MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix). The City again relied on precedent showing that internal
investigatory records fell within the exemption, including the initial complaints. (Exhibit J,
Supplemental Brief in Support of Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition).
5
4. The trial court orders the City to produce the citizen complaints
The trial court held a hearing on April 2, 2018. (Exhibit K, Transcript, 4/2/18), after
which it instructed the parties that, to perform a proper analysis, it intended to conduct an
in camera review of a sampling of files to be produced by the City. (Id., pp 59-60). Then, on
May 3, 2018, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting partial summary
disposition to each party. The trial court concluded that the investigative records were
exempt, and also that the “balancing test favors nondisclosure, for many of the reasons
recited in Chief Jon Gale’s affidavit, especially as it relates to complaints filed by one officer
against another.” (Exhibit A, 5/3/18 Order and Opinion Granting Partial Summary
Disposition to Each Party, pp 3-4).
But the trial court further concluded that the public’s interest in disclosure
outweighed the reasons not to disclose the citizen complaints. (Exhibit A, 5/3/18 Order
and Opinion Granting Partial Summary Disposition to Each Party, p 5). The trial court
recognized that the information in the files might be embarrassing to the police force and
that “there might be some chilling effect on the citizenry at large if the names of the
complainants are disclosed.” (Id.). The trial court nonetheless concluded that disclosing
some of them would not equate to a disclosure of confidential police work. (Id.). This was in
part based on the trial court’s belief that “[p]ublic confidence in the force could improve
with knowledge that the City was, and did, monitor its own officers’ behavior.” (Id.).
The City was ordered to produce the requested documents by May 17, 2018.
(Exhibit A, 5/3/18 Order and Opinion Granting Partial Summary Disposition to Each Party,
p 8). In response, the City, which initially intended to move for reconsideration (instead of
filing a claim of appeal, as it subsequently did on May 11, 2018), moved on an emergency ex
6
parte basis for a stay of proceedings pending reconsideration; or, in the alternative,
additional time to produce the required documents. The trial court entered an order
denying the ex parte motion (Exhibit L), instead requiring the City to notice the motion for
hearing on May 15, 2018. As a result of the subsequent May 15, 2018 hearing, the trial
court entered a stipulated order extending the deadline for the City to comply with the May
3, 2018 order to June 7, 2018. (Exhibit M, 5/21/2018 Order Granting Defendant
Additional Time to Comply).
The City then filed a motion to stay execution of the May 3, 2018 judgment in the
trial court pending appeal. The trial court denied the motion. (Exhibit N, 5/21/18 Order
Denying Defendant's Motion to Stay). The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the City’s
emergency motion to stay. (Exhibit B, 5/31/18 Court of Appeals Order Denying Stay). The
City now seeks interlocutory appellate relief from the Court of Appeals order denying its
motion to stay.
7
NEED FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPELLATE REVIEW
The City needs interlocutory appellate review of its motion to stay execution of the
judgment because the issues presented in its claim of appeal are critical to its ability to
properly provide oversight to its police department and because the inability to have its
appeal decided before it must disclose the subject documents will render the appeal moot.
The trial court ordered the City to disclose citizen complaints and other information sought
by Rudd under Michigan’s FOIA, rejecting the City’s argument that these documents fall
within an exemption for personnel records and that the public interest in disclosure does
not outweigh the public’s strong interest in nondisclosure.
As a general rule, an appellate court will not decide moot issues. East Grand Rapids
School Dist v Kent Co Tax Allocation Bd, 415 Mich 381, 390, 330 N.W.2d 7 (1982). “A case is
moot when it presents nothing but abstract questions of law which do not rest upon
existing facts or rights.” (Id.). (citation and quotation marks omitted). Thus, an appellate
court will typically decline to consider issues where “subsequent events have rendered it
impossible . . . to grant any relief in the matter.” Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Dep’t of
Environmental Quality (No 1), 306 Mich App 336, 364; 856 NW2d 252 (2014).
This Court has recognized that, in FOIA cases in particular, “release of the requested
public record by the public body would render the FOIA appeal moot because there would
no longer be a controversy requiring judicial resolution.” State News v Mich State Univ, 481
Mich 692, 704 n 25; 753 NW2d 20 (2008). Notably, this Court was unable to address the
issue of citizen complaints in another matter “[b]ecause the city released the records
regarding citizen-initiated complaints,” and therefore, “that issue has been rendered moot.”
Federated Publications, Inc v City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 101; 649 NW2d 383, 385 (2002),
8
abrogated on other grounds by Herald Co, Inc v E Michigan Univ Bd of Regents, 475 Mich
463; 719 NW2d 19 (2006). The Court observed that “[n]o decision by this Court can
transform disclosed records into non-disclosed records.” (Id. at 113). Federated
Publications expressly instructed a public body which found itself in a similar situation to
appeal to this Court. (Id.).
Given the importance of the issues presented here to the public, the City, and its
police department, appellate review is essential. The City is entitled to a stay so that the
Court of Appeals – and this Court if needed – can consider its claim on the merits.
Accordingly, interlocutory appellate review of the Court of Appeals order and a stay are
both necessary so as to preserve the City’s right to appeal or risk a finding of contempt for
noncompliance pending outcome of the appellate process.1 This is particularly true where
Rudd has pointed to no harm from a delay nor any public interest in disclosure other than a
vague generalized assertion that the public has an interest in transparency and that delay
in vindicating its interest causes harm. If this is accepted, it would essentially mean that a
party’s right of appeal in FOIA cases can easily and routinely be denied on the basis of a
denial of a stay and the consequent mootness if the governmental entity complies with the
order to disclose documents. That is not, and cannot be, the law governing stays in FOIA
cases.
1
Although the trial court initially ordered that the documents be produced within 14 days
of the May 3, 2018 Order and Opinion Granting Partial Summary Disposition to Each Party
(Exhibit A), the trial court subsequently entered a stipulated order giving the City until
June 7, 2018 to comply. (Exhibit M, 5/21/2018 Order Granting Defendant Additional
Time to Comply).
9
Rudd argued below that the City’s position is weak – which it is not – and that its
appeal should be mooted. This is a remarkable position, which the Court of Appeals
apparently accepted. The issue at present ought not to be whether the City will ultimately
prevail (although the City believes it will). The issue at present is whether the Court should
preserve the status quo to permit the City to pursue its appeal as a matter of right without
being faced with either a contempt ruling if it does not release the records or mootness and
the loss of its right of appeal if it releases them.
10
ARGUMENT
The Court Of Appeals Erred In Denying The City’s

Emergency Motion To Stay Execution Of The Judgment
Pending Appeal Because The Documents That The City Is
Compelled To Disclose Are Exempt Under The Act And, If It
Is Forced To Produce Them By June 7, 2018, Its Appeal Of
Right Will Be Mooted
A. Michigan’s Legislature accorded special consideration to an exemptible class

of records designating them as subject to disclosure only upon a showing that
the public interest in disclosure predominates
Michigan’s Legislature enacted the Freedom of Information Act to provide for
disclosure of public records in the possession of a public body. MCL 15.232. In doing so, the
Legislature sought to ensure a policy of full disclosure to protect a citizen’s right to examine
and to participate in the political process. Booth Newspapers, Inc v University of Michigan
Board of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 507 NW2d 422 (1993). At the same time, the Legislature
embraced an approach exempting numerous items from disclosure. MCL 15.243. It did so
to preserve and to protect a variety of important public and private interests that would be
harmed if certain categories of information required disclosure.
In particular, the Michigan Freedom of Information Act exempts personnel records
of law enforcement agencies from automatic disclosure. MCL 15.243(s) provides:
Unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in non-
disclosure in the particular instance, public records of a law enforcement
agency, the release of which would do any of the following:
(i) Identify or provide a means of identifying an informer.
(ii) Identify or provide a means of identifying a law enforcement

undercover officer or agent or a plain-clothes officer as a law
enforcement officer or agent.
(iii) Disclose the personal address or telephone number of law

enforcement officers or agents or any special skills that they may
have.
11
(iv) Disclose the name, address, or telephone numbers of family members,
relative, children, or parents of law enforcement officers or agents.
(v) Disclose operational instructions for law enforcement officers or

agents.
(vi) Reveal the contents of staff manuals provided for law enforcement
officers or agents.
(vii) Endanger the life or safety of law enforcement officers or agents or

their families, relatives, children, parents, or those who furnish
information to law enforcement departments or agencies.
(viii) Identify or provide a means of identifying a person as a law

enforcement officer, agent, or informer.
(ix) Disclose personnel records of law enforcement agencies.
(x) Identify or provide a means of identifying residences that law

enforcement agencies are requested to check in the absence of their
owners or tenants.
These ten categories are exempt unless the court specifically finds that the public interest
in disclosure outweighs the interest in nondisclosure. See generally, Federated Publications,
467 Mich at 109-110. Personnel records of law enforcement agencies fall squarely within
the categories that the Legislature has identified as ones in which there is a special public
interest in nondisclosure that the courts are obligated to consider. (Id.).
The structure of MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix) is critical to its meaning. The statutory
provision starts with the word “unless.” In statutory construction, use of the word “unless”
suggests that in the ordinary course, this category of records is exempt. Only if and when
the court finds “in the particular instance” that the public interest in disclosure outweighs
the public interest in nondisclosure will the records fall in the nonexempt category. The
sensitive nature of the records listed in (i) through (x) further confirms the Legislature’s
intent to provide special protection for these law enforcement records. The Legislature
12
recognized the needs of law enforcement agencies to maintain the confidentiality of the
many sensitive records (and information) that they encounter in their efforts to ensure
proper and appropriate law enforcement activities for the public.
The Michigan Court of Appeals addressed a very similar FOIA issue in Newark
Morning Ledger Co v Saginaw County Sheriff, 204 Mich App 215, 514 NW2d 213 (1994).
There, the plaintiff sought access to all records regarding the defendant's completed
internal affairs investigations, including all factual findings and determinations made by
the internal affairs investigators and relevant command personnel. (Id. at 216). The request
was denied, citing the law enforcement personnel records exemption, which was then MCL
15.243(1)(t)(ix). The trial court ruled the records fell within the exemption. On appeal the
plaintiff argued the trial court erred in adopting defendant's assertion that all the
requested documents constituted “personnel records” within the meaning of the
exemption. The plaintiff argued that investigation records were not necessarily “personnel
records” merely because the records were placed in personnel files. The Court of Appeals
rejected this argument: “Although we agree with plaintiff that location is not determinative,
we conclude that the records requested by plaintiff were ‘personnel records of law
enforcement agencies.’” (Id. at 217).2
2
Rudd’s repeated assertion that the location is not controlling was essentially a red herring
since the kind records at issue have been held to be “personnel records of law enforcement
agencies” in a published and controlling decision of the Court of Appeals. See Newark,
supra. Nothing in this record suggests documents that are not personnel records of law
enforcement agencies were placed into a location in order to take advantage of that
category – and yet much of Rudd’s argument to the trial court and on appeal has focused on
this irrelevant point.
13
The Court then analyzed the FOIA exemption and concluded the records sought
were exempt from disclosure. In reaching this conclusion the Court noted that the
Legislature, in enacting the Employee Right to Know Act (MCL 423.501, et seq.), determined
that the employee should not be allowed access to the records of the employer’s internal
investigations. Since that Act was designed to extend an employee’s ability to gain access to
the employer’s files beyond the rights afforded to the public by the FOIA, the “Legislature’s
clearly expressed intent in the ERKA to prohibit access by an employee to any internal
investigations relating to that employee demonstrates that the Legislature intended that
access to those records be severely restricted.” (Id. at 217–218). “We can reasonably infer
that in drafting the FOIA, the Legislature had the same intent relative to records of closed
internal affairs investigations such as those requested by plaintiff. The Legislature would
not have denied an employee access to documents that were readily available to the public
pursuant to the FOIA. Therefore, we conclude that the Legislature intended that the
internal affairs investigatory records requested by plaintiff fall within the meaning of the
term ‘personnel record of law enforcement agencies’ as used in the FOIA.” (Id. at 218).
In Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v Kent County Sheriff, 238 Mich App 310, 605
NW2d 363 (1999), aff’d, 463 Mich 353, 616 NW2d 677 (2000), the plaintiff, the Kent
County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, sought the release of the defendant's internal affairs
files, and specifically, the records and witness statements the defendant kept relating to its
investigation of two deputy sheriffs disciplined for violating agency rules. (Id. at 312). The
trial court ordered the records be disclosed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that
the records of internal investigations fell within the exemption for personnel records of a
law enforcement agency. (Id. at 330).
14
Sutton v City of Oak Park, 251 Mich App 345, 650 NW2d 404 (2002), also holds that
internal affairs investigation records are subject to the law enforcement personnel records
exemption. In Sutton, the plaintiff requested under FOIA a copy of all documents regarding
an internal investigation. The request was denied, stating that the records were exempt
from disclosure as being investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes. The
plaintiff appealed the denial. The Oak Park city council voted unanimously to deny the
plaintiff's request for the records relating to the internal investigation. The city council
stated the records were exempt from disclosure because they were records compiled for
law enforcement purposes and could interfere with an ongoing investigation and result in
an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The city council also asserted the records
were exempt from disclosure because they were personnel records of a law enforcement
agency. (Id. at 347). The trial court ruled the records were exempt from disclosure and the
Court of Appeals agreed, citing the Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n, and Newark Morning
Ledger cases as authority for holding the internal investigation records constituted
personnel records of a law enforcement agency.
C. Citizen complaints fall within this class of documents afforded special

consideration because of the strong public interest in nondisclosure
Rudd alleged in his First Amended Complaint that, the City “was fully apprised of the
law at the time the FOIA request was denied, but still required plaintiff to commence this
civil action to compel the disclosure of citizen complaints and corresponding documents
which are not privileged.” (Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 1/12/18, ¶ 35).
Essentially, Rudd successfully urged the trial court to differentiate between the original
complaint that caused the internal investigation and the final disposition of the
investigation and the actual investigation records. But, the case law does not support the
15
Rudd’s position. In Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n, Newark Morning Ledger, and Sutton,
the plaintiffs sought all documents associated with the internal investigations. This Court
did not require the initial complaints to be disclosed, nor did the Court require the
disposition of the complaints to be disclosed. The entire internal investigation process was
considered as a whole, and all of the records associated with the process were held to fall
within the exemption. Consequently, there can be no violation of MCL 15.244 as Rudd
alleged in Count II of his Amended Complaint. MCL 15.244 requires a public body to
separate the exempt and nonexempt material from a public record only when the public
record contains material which is not exempt. Here, as provided for by the applicable
statute and case law, the entire internal investigation falls within the exemption.
Moreover, there is no question that “all documents associated with the internal
investigations” included both the citizen complaints and the final disposition of the
investigations. As set forth above, in Newark, the plaintiff sought access to all records
regarding defendant's completed internal affairs investigations, including all factual
findings and determinations made by the internal affairs investigators and relevant
command personnel. There was no order that the factual findings and determinations be
released, nor was there any order that the underlying citizen complaint be released. In fact,
the Court of Appeals in Newark specifically noted the trial court’s analysis relating to
citizen complaints and the public’s interest in nondisclosure of these documents, quoting:
It is the opinion of the Court that the public's interest in nondisclosure of

these documents pertains to the working conditions of the sheriff
department employees. These employees are subject to complaints from
disgruntled persons who have been arrested and placed in jail; they are
subject to complaints from prisoners who are incarcerated; they are subject
to complaints from every citizen who feels an officer has taken some
improper action. To disclose the nature of these complaints to the general
public subjects the officers to much scandalous and untrue material. Some of
16
these complaints are intentionally generated by persons knowing the
complaint is false in order to subject the deputy to disciplinary action.
Newark, at 224.
The same result must follow here. As Chief Jon Gale avers in his Affidavit, when a citizen
complaint is received, an internal investigation file is opened and all records related to the
complaint are kept together in a single file. (Affidavit of Chief Jon Gale, ¶ 6(a), attached to
Exhibit I, Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition). Even more important,
Chief Gale maintained that “disclosing the information requested would, in my opinion,
severely hamper, if not destroy, the ability of the Department to conduct meaningful
internal affairs investigations.” (Id. at ¶ 6(h)). He explained that cooperation by the
complainant is necessary, and that disclosure of the information would have a chilling
effect.
Based on the Court of Appeals’ decisions in Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n,
Newark Morning Ledger, and Sutton, it is beyond argument that the records Rudd sought
fall within the law enforcement personnel records exemption of MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix). And
because all records Rudd sought fall within the law enforcement personnel records
exemption, there is no violation of MCL 15.244.3
D. The trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that the citizen
complaints were subject to disclosure on this record because Rudd did not
produce any evidence in this particular instance which established that the
public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in nondisclosure
The balancing test requires consideration of the competing interests in the
particular instance. And here, the trial court gave insufficient weight to the record evidence
3
The trial court correctly upheld the City’s decision not to disclose internal investigation
records and to exempt complaints brought by one officer against another.
17
regarding the public interest in nondisclosure, instead, placing too much weight on its own
personal review of the documents. Rudd otherwise offered no evidence at all to show a
public interest in disclosure in the particular instance. This Court has instructed that the
Legislature’s inclusion of various exemptions “signal particular instances where the policy
of offering the public full and complete information about government operations is
overcome by a determination that full disclosure of certain public records could prove
harmful to the proper functioning of the public body.” Herald Co, 475 Mich at 470-471, 719.
The Court reiterated its instruction that circuit courts “should remain cognizant of the
special consideration that the Legislature has accorded an exemptible class of records.” Id.
at 473, quoting Federated Publications, 467 Mich at 101.
Here, the sole record evidence presented by either party was affidavits and the
deposition testimony of Chief Gale. All of that record evidence supported a factual finding
that there is a strong public interest in nondisclosure of internal investigation records,
including the initial complaint. Rudd offered no factual evidence to support a public
interest in disclosure. He merely relied on the public’s general interest in disclosure of
public records. This is not enough. When asked what his interest was since he is not even a
resident of Norton Shores, he offered only a vague assertion that he wanted to see the
records because he was concerned that “the Norton Shores Police Department does not
maintain consistent standards in dealing with citizen initiated complaints.” (Exhibit H,
12/22/17 Motion Transcript).
Federated Publications and Herald made clear that the Legislature’s inclusion of
these exemptions meant that special consideration is required and that strong public
interest in nondisclosure exists regarding these kinds of records. In addition, the inclusion
18
of the phrase “in the particular instance” means that the court must examine the public
interest in disclosure in the particular instance. And no such interest was identified in the
particular instance of any of these documents; rather, Rudd relied on vague general
assertions of a policy of disclosure. (Exhibit K, 4/2/18 Motion Transcript, pp 15-16).
The affidavits of Chief Gale, Anthony Chandler, and the City of Norton Shores FOIA
Coordinator, demonstrate the public interest in disclosure of the records does not
outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. Chief Gale averred that disclosure of internal
affairs records would have a serious negative impact on the Department’s ability to
conduct meaningful internal investigations and would have a negative impact on the
morale of the Department. Chief Gale provided a sworn affidavit that states in pertinent
part:
• In order to obtain all pertinent information necessary to complete an

internal investigation, the cooperation of the person making the
complaint is necessary.
• Based on Chief Gale’s experience as a law enforcement officer and as a

Chief of Police, public disclosure of the name of the person making a
complaint against police officers would have a chilling effect on the
willingness of other citizens to make a complaint.
• Even if the name of the individual making the complaint were not
disclosed, a disclosure of the nature of the events complained of
would have the same chilling effect, as the identity of those involved
can often be ascertained by a description of the event itself.
• Disclosing the information requested would severely hamper, if not

destroy, the ability of the Department to conduct meaningful internal
affairs investigations.
• Disclosing the results of the internal investigations would, based on

Chief Gale’s experience, have a serious negative impact on officer
morale and would impair the ability of the Department to properly
function, as many people would assume the truth of the allegations
19
made against an officer even if the allegations were deemed to be
unfounded.
(Affidavit of Chief Jon Gale, attached to Exhibit I, Defendant’s Renewed Motion for
Summary Disposition). Mr. Chandler, who responded to the FOIA request, has averred in
his affidavit that he discussed the request with Chief Gale and the denial based on the
exemption in MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix), was invoked for the reasons identified by Chief Gale.
The Court of Appeals decisions fully support the City’s determination that the public
interest in disclosure does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. In Sutton, the
Court cited an affidavit from the deputy director of public safety as providing provides
sufficient reasons for nondisclosure, including that:
3. It is my experience that the process involved in conducting internal

investigations is extremely difficult since employees are reluctant to
give statements about the conduct and actions of fellow employees.
4. If such statements made during the course of internal investigations

were made public, employees would likely refuse to give such
statements, or would not be completely candid and forthcoming
during such investigations.
5. Further, if such statements are made public, the ability of the City's
Public Safety Department to conduct such investigations would be
destroyed or severely curtailed since information could not be
obtained.
Sutton, 251 Mich App at 350–351. Similarly, in Kent County Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n, the Court
determined that affidavit of the undersheriff justified confidentiality because, among other
reasons, “[p]ublic disclosure of records relating to internal investigations into possible
employee misconduct would destroy or severely diminish the Sheriff Department's ability
to effectively conduct such investigations.” (463 Mich at 366 n 22).
Here, Chief Gale’s affidavit establishes that the public interest in disclosure in this
case does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. The concerns cited by Chief
20
Gale go to the very ability of the Department to conduct meaningful investigations – and to
the willingness of citizens to file complaints in the first instance. Given Rudd’s abject failure
to provide support for any public interest in disclosure in the particular instance, the trial
court reversibly erred in reviewing the documents and ordering citizen complaints to be
disclosed. Controlling precedent governs and should have compelled the trial court to
exercise its discretion to uphold the City’s determination that the records at issue are
exempt. Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n, 238 Mich App at 330; Newark Morning Ledger,
204 Mich App at 217-218, and Sutton, 251 Mich App at 347.
This Court has instructed that trial courts should remain cognizant of the
Legislature’s intention to afford special consideration to nondisclosure of these records.
When a blanket request is made that directly impacts the ability of the police to perform a
vital function as evidenced through undisputed record evidence, that general interest must
give way to the identified concerns of the police.
E. The Court of Appeals erred in denying the City’s motion to stay because the
City’s appeal will be mooted if it is compelled to disclose the contested
documents
As a general rule, an appellate court will not decide moot issues. East Grand Rapids
School, 415 Mich at 390. “A case is moot when it presents nothing but abstract questions of
law which do not rest upon existing facts or rights.” (Id.). (citation and quotation marks
omitted). Thus, an appellate court will typically decline to consider issues where
“subsequent events have rendered it impossible . . . to grant any relief in the matter.” Nat’l
Wildlife Federation, 306 Mich App at 364.
Indeed, this Court has recognized that, in FOIA cases in particular, “release of the
requested public record by the public body would render the FOIA appeal moot because
21
there would no longer be a controversy requiring judicial resolution.” State News, 481 Mich
at 704 n 25. Notably, the specific issue of disclosure of citizen complaints arose in
Federated Publications. The Court of Appeals determined that, in that particular instance,
the plaintiff had presented evidence that established that the interest in disclosure
outweighed the interest in nondisclosure. Again in this case, Rudd has produced no
evidence at all whatsoever to counter the evidence produced by the city. Regardless, the
point is that in Federated Publications, this Court was unable to review the Court of
Appeals’ decision with respect to the citizen complaints in that particular instance – or on
any level – “[b]ecause the city released the records regarding citizen-initiated complaints,”
and therefore, “that issue has been rendered moot.” Federated Publications, 467 Mich at
101.
In this case, the City has properly moved for a stay in both the trial court and Court
of Appeals so that its right to appeal is preserved and its claim can be addressed on the
merits. Denial of a stay deprives the City of this right and it is unjustified in any event.
Plaintiff, who is not even a citizen of the City, would not be harmed in any way by having
the appellate process play out, nor is there any other emergency situation compelling the
immediate disclosure of documents. Indeed, neither Plaintiff nor the lower courts has even
suggested that such circumstances require denying a stay. See Exhibit O, 5/21/18 Motion
Transcript, pp 1-16; Exhibit B, Court of Appeals Order Denying Stay. But this Court has
plainly instructed that the City’s disclosure of the contested records will render its appeal
moot. Accordingly, this Court must grant leave to appeal the Court of Appeals order
denying the City’s emergency motion to stay execution of the judgment.
22
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant-Appellant, City of Norton Shores, respectfully requests that
this Court grant its application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals May 31, 2018 Order
denying the City’s emergency motion to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal,
and enter a stay pending the City’s pursuit of its appellate remedies or remand to the Court
of Appeals directing it to enter a stay, and further grant all other relief in law and equity to
which it is entitled.
PLUNKETT COONEY
BY: /s/Mary Massaron __________

MARY MASSARON (P43885)
38505 Woodward Ave., Ste. 100
(313) 983-4801
Dated: June 1, 2018
Open.00560.81640.20414566-1
23
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Supreme Court Case No.

v
/
PROOF OF SERVICE
DEBRA L. VOGT,states that she is an employee of the law firm of Plunkett Cooney,
and that on June 1, 2018,she caused to be served a copy of a Notice of Filing Application,
Emergency Application for Leave to Appeal,and Proof of Service as follows:
DANIEL W. RUDD(PRO SE) SERVED VIA TRUEFILING

201 S. Lake Avenue FILE AND SERVE SYSTEM
Spring Lake, MI 49456
daniel@stock20.com
The undersigned further states that the Notice of Filing Application was served
upon the following courts:
Michigan Court of Appeals SERVED VIA TRUEFILING

FILE AND SERVE SYSTEM
Clerk of the Court SERVED VIA U.S. MAIL

Muskegon County Circuit Court WITH POSTAGE PREPAID
/s/Debra L. Vogt
DEBRA L. VOGT
Open.00560.81640.20415181-1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,

v
______/
INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
LETTER
A 5/3/18 Order and Opinion Granting Partial Summary Disposition to

Each Party
B 5/31/18 Court of Appeals Order Denying Stay
C Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 1/12/18
D Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
E Freedom of Information Act Complaint, 8/29/17
F Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition
G Plaintiff’s Brief Opposing Summary Disposition
H 12/22/17 Motion Transcript
I Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition, 3/8/18
1
J Supplemental Brief in Support of Defendant’s Renewed Motion for
Summary Disposition
K 4/2/18 Motion Transcript,
L 5/8/18 Order Denying Ex Parte Motion
M 5/21/2018 Order Granting Defendant Additional Time to Comply
N 5/21/18 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay
O 5/21/18 Motion Transcript
Open.00560.81640.20419453-1
2
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 14th CIRCUIT COURT
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plaintiff, HON. TIMOTHY G. HICKS
v
File No. 17-004334-CZ
CITY OF NORTON SHORES,
Defendant.
/
Daniel Rudd Michael S. Bogren (P34835)

In Pro Persona Lisa A. Hall (P70200)
201 S. Lake Ave Attorneys for Defendant
Spring Lake, MI 49456 PLUNKETT COONEY
231-557-2532 950 Trade Centre Way, Ste. 310
Kalamazoo, MI 49002
269-226-8822
/
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PARTIAL

SUMMARY DISPOSITION TO EACH PARTY
INTRODUCTION
The parties have vigorously litigated' this case. The court has considered
defendant's (variously identified by its name or simply "the City") repeated attempts for
summary disposition incrementally. Defendant's motion also allows the court to consider
granting plaintiff summary disposition pursuant to MCR. 2.116 (I)(2).
Norton Shores has delivered the documents2 ordered by the court at the last
hearing. The court has examined them in camera. The court sees no genuine issues of
Defendant's pending lawsuit against the city in the United States District Court,(file 1:18-cv-124)
undeniably complicates this litigation.
2There appear to be a few missing. For example, the year 2014 starts with complaint 2014-03. However,
the sample supplied was sufficient for the court to conduct its work.
material fact which require a trial. The court, following the April
30 hearing, grants
partial, but dispositive as to that part, relief to each side. The court
denies plaintiff's
motion to compel the city to file an index of any records withheld.
The court cancels the trial, currently scheduled for May 7. The
court's reasoning
follows.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's original Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") reque
st sought several
things. The city delivered many of those. The primary issue remai
ning for litigation was
plaintiff's request for (1)"any/all complaints submitted against the
Norton Shores Police
Department's policies or employees from January 1, 2014 until the
present, and (2) "a
copy of any corresponding written report, disposition or document descr
ibing the results
of the internal investigation."
The court has explored the parties' positions in lively discussion

during oral
arguments. In the end, the court grants plaintiff relief on one
item: the citizen
complaints. In all other respects, the court grants summary disposition
to the city.
The Freedom of Information Act, Generally
The FOIA reflects a careful balancing of various interests.

Pursuant to MCL
15.243(1) (s)(ix), a public body may exempt from disclosure any
public record that
reveal personnel records of law enforcement agencies, unles
s the public interest in
disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.
When analyzing a claim of exemption from disclosure under the

FOIA, case law
and statutes set forth a series of principles to guide trial courts:
2
(1) The burden of proof is on the party claiming exemption from disclosure;
(2) Exemptions must be interpreted narrowly;
(3) The public body shall separate the exempt and nonexempt material and make
the nonexempt material available for examination and copying;
(4) [Detailed) affidavits describing the matters withheld must be supplied by the agency;
(5) Justification of exemption must be more than tonclusory', i.e. simple repetition of the
statutory language. A bill of particulars is in order. Justification must indicate factually
how a particular document, or category of documents, interferes with law
enforcement proceedings; and
(6) The mere showing of a direct relationship between records sought and an
investigation is inadequate. Evening News Asso v Troy, 417 Mich 481, 503; 339
NW2d 421 (1983).
The court applies these rules, primarily numbers two and three (bolded here for effect),
to the two discrete types of information Rudd seeks.
But whether exempt or not, MCL 15.243(1)(s) requires one additional step. The
court must balance the public's interest in disclosure versus non-disclosure when
determining whether an agency must disclose personnel records of law enforcement
agencies.
In making both analyses, the court looks beyond the labels, or the way in which
documents were filed, in making its decisions. Their substantive nature is most
important.
Personnel Records/ Internal Affairs Investigations
The court agrees with the city that internal investigation records are exempt from
disclosure under the FOIA. While there is no specific statutory exemption for internal
affairs investigation, case law has included them within the "personnel records"
exemption. Newark Morning Ledger Co v Saginaw County Sheriff, 204 Mich App 215,
223; 514 NW2d 213(1994).
The balancing test also favors non-disclosure, for many of the reasons recited in
Chief Jon Gale's affidavit, especially as it relates to complaints filed by one officer
3
against another. He says there is a strong "chilling effect" because officers are often
reluctant to give such statements. This reluctance even extends to statements made
during the subsequent investigations after the original complaints are filed. The court
sees at least one additional problem- the challenges of working together as a team if
one officer knows that his partner filed the complaint.
For all these reasons, the investigative records are exempt.
Complaints Against the City
There is no specific statutory exemption for the complaints themselves. The
second Evening News principle requires any exemption to be narrowly construed. The
third requires the public body to separate the exempt and non-exempt materials. Norton
Shores's position is adverse to both of these concepts.
Principle 3, cited above, requires the City to separate the exempt and non-
exempt materials to the extent that it can.
The City's latest brief argues the opposite-something like this: "Every complaint
triggers an investigation. The entire investigation process was considered as a whole,
so all of the records associated with the process fall within the exemption." This does
not construe the exemption "narrowly." Under this interpretation, no complaint would
ever be disclosed, despite the absence of any statutory exemption.
Further, the City cannot put the complaint out of FOIA's reach by inserting it into
any personnel/internal affairs file. Newark at 204 Mich App 220. Interpreting MCL
15.243(1)(s)(ix) to allow a law enforcement to refuse disclosure of records by placing it
in a personnel file would, "undercut the policy of full and complete disclosure mandated
by FOIA." Id.
4
Many of the complaints disclosed stand on their own and can be severed from
the exemptible information. One complaint involves an officer's allegedly insensitive
treatment of a mother's remains. Several involve motor vehicle accidents involving
department personnel. One involves officers' failure to appear in court. Most of these
do not implicate the concerns listed in the Gale and Chandler affidavits.
The court must perform the balancing test as to this type of material as well.
Yes, the information in the complaints might be embarrassing to the police force to
some extent. Yes, there might be some chilling effect on the citizenry at large if the
names of the complainants are disclosed.
The public's interest in disclosure outweighs the reasons not to disclose.
Revelation of most of the complaints discloses very little to no confidential police work.
There is a public interest in knowing if an officer or department is involved in some
untoward behavior, or worse, a pattern of inappropriate conduct, such as a series of
motor vehicle accidents. Moreover, disclosure of the complainant could encourage
others to "go public" with their complaints.
Expansive use of the exemptions can also diminish the public's confidence in its
force, or create the appearance that there is a double standard for police officers'
mistakes or, in the worst scenario, unethical or criminal conduct. Public confidence in
the force could improve with knowledge that the City was, and did, monitor its own
officers' behavior. Suppressing this information generates its own issues.
Few of the cases cited by the City concern this particular requestfor complaints
made. In most of the cases, plaintiffs specifically sought internal investigation files. In
Kent County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v Kent County Sheriff, 463 Mich 353; 616 NW2d
5
677 (1999), plaintiff sought "internal affair files, i.e. records and witness statements
defendant kept relating to defendant's investigation of two deputy sheriffs disciplined for
violating agency rules." In Sutton v City of Oak Park, 251 Mich App 345, 347; 650
NW2d 404 (2002), plaintiff requested all documents relating to a specific internal
investigation. In Newark, supra at 216, plaintiff sought access to all records regarding
defendant's completed internal affairs investigations conducted since 1978, including all
factual findings and determinations."
The City's presentation, on this singular item, does not meet its statutory
burdens. Rather, it argues for an expansive, not limited, definition of the exemptions,
and merges non-exempt documents with those which are exempt, rather that insolating
them.
For all these reasons, the court grants relief to the plaintiff pursuant to MCR
2.116 (I)(2) and orders the City to provide Rudd with the initial complaints filed against
Norton Shores Police during the applicable time period.
The court will "carve out" one class of complaints which need not be disclosed.
Focusing on "the big picture," a complaint made by one Norton Shores officer against
another officer can be considered a personnel matter that need not be disclosed. The
court will consider the West Michigan Enforcement Team ("WEMET") as part of the
NSPD for this purpose, since (1) officers are "loaned" to WEMET and (2) there is some
concern that it might reveal some confidential police work. However, this exception
would not apply when the complainant is an officer in another jurisdiction like the
Muskegon County Sheriff or the City of Muskegon. There are some additional
procedural details outlined below.
6
Plaintiff's Motion for an Index of Records Withheld
Citing Vaughn v Rosen, 484 F2d 820; 157 US App DC 340 (1973), Rudd argues
that the City is required under case-law to provide an accounting of the both the
classification and amount of every record which the City has denied disclosure.
Rudd's position is unpersuasive for two reasons. First Vaughn was decided by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and is therefore
not binding upon this court. Second, even if the holding of Vaughn did bind this court, it
differs factually from the instant case.
While Rudd is correct that the court in Vaughn found that agencies should
provide an "itemized indexing" (i.e. "Vaughn Index") which cross-references the
agency's justification for refusal with the actual portions of the document, Vaughn
involved records so extensive that in camera review would be unreasonable and
impractical. Id. at 825. The Vaughn court reasoned that in cases where the documents
in issue could exceed hundreds or even thousands of pages, both trial and appellate
courts would benefit from a condensed index in order to narrow the courts inquiry. Id. at
825-827.
Here, the court was able to conduct in camera review of the records at issue. As
a result, the court is able to determine whether the city has properly characterized the
information claimed as exempt. Therefore, a Vaughn index would not serve its intended
purpose and is not necessary nor appropriate in this case.
CONCLUSION
The court has determined that the City properly characterized certain records as
personnel records of law enforcement agencies, and are therefore exempt under MCL
7
15.243(1)(s)(ix). However, the court is not persuaded by the City's argument that the
initial complaints are inseparable from personnel records simply based on the fact they
are filed alongside one another.
The court orders the City to deliver the requested documents to the court within
14 days. They must be organized and separated into non-exempt (as defined in this
opinion and order) and exempt categories. The City must prepare an index (for the court
only) with a description of the documents for which it claims exemptions. The
documents already received should be included in one final comprehensive package.
To provide some guidance, the court does not question the exemptions claimed
in the documents received so far. However, the new package of documents cannot
contain any missing numbers, such as those identified earlier in this opinion.
In all other respects, the court grants summary disposition to Norton Shores.
IT IS SO ORDERED. This is a final order and closes the case.
Dated: May , 2018 (

HON. TIMOTHY G. HICKS
Circuit Judge (P35198)
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
vd
I hereby certify that on this — day of May, 2018, i personally mailed copies of this opinion and order to
the parties above named at their respective addresses, by ordinary ail.
I //
Autumn Ward, Circuit Court
Legal & Scheduling Secretary
3 Additional judicial review is necessary because(1) of the history of the case and (2)some of the
nuance contained in this decision.
8
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
STATE OF MICHIGAN
14TH CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
DANIEL W.RUDD,
Case No. 2017-004334-CZ
Plaintiff, Hon. Timothy G. Hicks
vs.
CITY OF NORTON SHORES;
Defendant.
Daniel W. Rudd Michael S. Bogren(P34835)

Plaintiff IN PROPRIA PERSONA Attorney for Defendant
201 S Lake Ave Plunkett Cooney, P.C.
Spring Lake, MI 49456 950 Trade Centre Way, Suite 310
(231)557-2532 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
daniel@stock20.com (269)382-5935
mbogren@plunkettcooney.com
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED FOIA COMPLAINT
Parties & Jurisdiction

1. This matter arises under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL § 15.231,et
seq.("FOIA"), MCL § 15.240 and other applicable law.
2. Plaintiff Daniel W.Rudd is a private citizen who resides in Ottawa County, Michigan.
3. The City of Norton Shores is a municipality and a public body located within Muskegon
County, Michigan.
4. Under MCL § 15.240(4) venue is proper in the Muskegon County Circuit Court.
5. Plaintiff states that the communication and correspondence between the parties,
referenced in this complaint is already in defendant's possession.
Rudd v. Norton Shores 17-004334-CZ 14th Circuit Court, Michigan

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS:
6. On 1/27/2017 Plaintiff submitted identified and requested the following public records in
a written FOIA request under "Request 4":
"any/all complaints submitted against the Norton Shores Police Department's

document describing the results of the internal investigation."
7. Plaintiff's request also included the following instructions regarding partial disclosure:
"If clarifying information is required on any single item please contact me
immediately regarding that clarification instead of waiting until the other
items have been granted or denied. If some portion of this request can be
fulfilled immediately or at a minimal cost, please proceed with those portions
instead of waiting until all of the items can be fulfilled in their entirety."
8. On 2/16/2017, Anthony Chandler wrote (e-mail), on behalf of defendant:

"Dear Mr. Rudd, We have completed our search for the items you have
requested through FOIA and a response is ready for you to pick up. An
invoice is also attached that includes the fees associated with your FOIA
request from January 27. Collection of the fees are necessary considering the
nature of your request and large amount of information requested."
9. On 2/16/2017, after paying $128.16 for the documents disclosed under FOIA Requests 1-
3, plaintiff then received notice that the city of Norton Shores had denied FOIA Request 4:
Request #4 - This item is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Section 13,
10. Plaintiff appealed this denial in a letter dated 2/23/2017,primarily asserting:
The Norton Shores Police Department solicits citizen complaints and provides a
form for this purpose. The form itself states that it is an official police complaint(which
is a public record). In soliciting complaints from citizens regarding police services, the
City of Norton Shores website describes a process whereby additional public records are
created for review purposes and to advise the complainant of the findings. The nature of
the record is not changed when it is placed into a personnel file. The public interest for
disclosure of these records is plainly evident in the communications issued by the
department regarding accountability and transparency.

2
11. Plaintiff's appeal included an offer to provide more information regarding the public's
interest in disclosure of these records as expressed publically by Norton Shores.
12. Plaintiff's 2/23/2017 appeal was denied in a letter dated 3/3/2017:
Law enforcement personnel records are not subject to disclosure under FOIA,"unless
the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the
particular instance" MCL 15.243(s)(ix). It is my opinion that you have not described a
situation where the public interest in disclosure would outweigh the public interest in
nondisclosure. Therefore, your appeal to the information you requested is denied
based on the exemption from FOIA for the personnel records of law enforcement
referenced above.
Since
Gary Nelup , Mayor

13. The 2/23/2017 denial of Plaintiff's appeal (Exhibit B)did not include any explanation
establishing the public's interest in non-disclosure of the requested records. The denial did not
describe the type of records which defendant had separated from the non-exempt materials and
withheld from disclosure.
14. The denial was also non-responsive to the central claim in plaintiff's appeal, asserting:
"Just because a copy of a citizen's complaint may be placed into an officer's personnel file, that
does not change the nature of the complaint itself. The complaint itself is a public record."
15. Plaintiff sent the following e-mail message to Mr. Chandler, on 3/6/2017:
Thanks Anthony, This letter doesn't seem to address the issues raised in my
appeal at all. Is the mayor's decision on this considered to be the final
decision of the "head" of the public body, or is there further appeal available
short of the circuit court?

3
16. Mr. Chandler responded on 3/6/2017:
You have a right to commence an action in circuit court to compel disclosure
of a public record(s)...
...The Mayor's response letter dated 3/3/2017 shall serve as the final
determination from the public body
17. Plaintiff filed this complaint within 180 days of the final determination of the public
body, and seeks relief under MCL 15.240Sec. 10(1)(b)
COUNT 1: Violation of MCL 15.235(2)

(untimely and incomplete notice of denial)
18. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all preceding paragraphs.
19. MCL 15.235(2) requires a public body to issue some kind of response within 5 business
days. In this case, defendant should have issued a notice of extension in response to plaintiff's
FOIA Requests 1-3, AND issued a written notice of denial in response to FOIA Request 4.
20. Defendant's blanket denial of plaintiff's 1/27/2017 FOIA Request #4 did not require any
research, separation of records or efforts to locate records.
21. However,defendant did not issue a written notice of this partial denial until 2/16/2017
and did not provide notice that request #4 had been denied until after plaintiff had paid $128.16
for the disclosure of documents responsive to request #1-3.
COUNT 2: Violation of MCL 15.244

(failure to separate exempt from nonexempt material)
23. MCL 15.244 Sec. 14 states in pertinent part(emphasis added):

(1) If a public record contains material which is not exempt under section 13,
as well as material which is exempt from disclosure under section 13, the
public body shall separate the exempt and nonexempt material and make the
nonexempt material availablefor examination and copying.
(2) When designing a public record, a public body shall, to the extent
practicable, facilitate a separation of exempt from nonexempt information. If
the separation is readily apparent to a person requesting to inspect or receive
copies of the form, the public body shall generally describe the material
exempted unless that description 32 would reveal the contents of the exempt
information and thus defeat the purpose of the exemption.
Rudd v. Norton Shores 17-004334-CZ 14Ih Circuit Court, Michigan

4
24. Citizen complaints, are submitted on a form which is provided by (and presumably
designed by) the city of Norton Shores.
25. The City of Norton Shores also creates other documents for dissemination to recipients
who are not part of the internal affairs investigation.
26. The City of Norton Shores creates documents to advise the complainant of the outcome
of the investigation.
27. These records, or at least portions of these records, are public documents which are
subject to FOIA disclosure.
28. Defendant, a public body is required to separate exempt materials from non-exempt
material.
29. If any portion of these records are to be designated exempt under Sec. 13,the public body
must make an individualized determination on what would serve the public's interest as it
pertains to each record.
30. Internal investigation reports, or portions thereof, which include privileged statements
made during the course of an internal investigation, may qualify for non-disclosure.
31. Defendant failed to separate exempt from non-exempt material and failed to consider less
restrictive measures such as redactions or production of a "Vaughn index." Defendant did not
provide a "Vaughn Index" or otherwise describe the general nature of the records which were not
disclosed as required by Sec. 14.(2).
32. By asserting a blanket exemption over several categories of records, without giving each
individual category and record particularized consideration, defendant has violated the FOIA.

5
ALL COUNTS: Arbitrary & Capricious Violations of the FOIA
(defendant has not acted in good-faith)
34. It has been well established for more than a decade that the location of the records is not
determinative. On information and belief, the City of Norton Shores knew that no valid legal
basis existed to claim that a citizen complaint is transformed into a personnel record when placed
into a "personnel file."
35. Defendant was fully apprised of the law at the time the FOIA request was denied, but still
required plaintiff to commence this civil action to compel the disclosure of citizen complaints
and corresponding documents which are not privileged.
36. Defendant expressed a broad and general claim that the public interest in non-disclosure
outweighs the public's interest in disclosure when it comes to citizen complaints and any
corresponding documents. However,defendant has promptly disclosed citizen complaints and
corresponding documents when it serves defendant's own interests.
37. Accordingly, the denial of plaintiff's request demonstrates an arbitrary and unprincipled
violation of the FOIA.
38. Defendant has alleged concern that disclosure may cause citizens to refrain from coming
forward with future complaints. In the context of defendant's previous actions, the justifications
asserted for non-disclosure appear to be capricious.
39. Defendant's cursory "blanket denial" demonstrates a disregard for the well-established
legal standards and minimizes the duty of public officials to conduct government affairs with
impartiality and integrity.

6
1/27/2017 FOIA Request City Norton Shores & Norton Shores Police Dept. pg 1 of2
Under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act § 15.231 et seq. I am making the following
requests for public records from the Norton Shores Police Department and the City of Norton
Shores.
FOIA REQUEST 1: I am requesting a copy of any and all subpoenas or orders to appear in
court which were received by the employees or officers of the Norton Shores Police
Department or the City of Norton Shores related to a civil court proceeding such as a
personal protection orders (domestic or non-domestic), child abuse and neglect, child
custody, stalking, harassing or similar disputes from May 1, 2013 until the present.
FOIA REQUEST 2: I am requesting a copy of any FOIA requests which include or reference
the name "Daniel Rudd"(or some similar vaiation), AND which were submitted to the City of
Norton Shores on or after May 1, 2013 until the present. Please provide only a copy of the
request itself and a copy of the response from Norton Shores. I am not at this time
requesting a copy of the documents which were provided.
FOIA REQUEST 3: I am requesting a copy of any/all billing statements for legal services
provided to the City of Norton Shores or the Norton Shores Police Department from June 1,
2015 until the present.
FOIA REQUEST 4: I am requesting a copy any/all complaints submitted against the Norton
Shores Police Department's policies or employees from January 1, 2014 until the present. I
am also requesting a copy of any corresponding written report, disposition or document
describing the results of the intemal investigation.
Delivery of FOIA Requested Documents: The preferred method of delivery would be ".pdf
documents attached to an e-mail at the address noted below. If electronic delivery is not
available, I would prefer to pick up the documents in hard copy from the city offices.
Clarifications In Part: If clarifying information Is required on any single Item please contact
me immediately regarding that clarification Instead of waiting until the other items have been
granted or denied.
Fees and Fulfillment In Part: If there are any fees for searching or copying these records,
please inform me by e-mail and I will arrange for payment. Ifsome portion of this request can
be fulfilled immediately or at a minimal cost, please proceed with those portions Instead of
waiting until all of the items can be fulfilled in their entirety.
The Michigan Freedom of Information Act requires a response to this request within
five days. If access to the records I am requesting will take longer than this amount of time,
please contact me with information about when l might expect copies or the ability to inspect
the requested records.
If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel
justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures
available to me under the law.
1/27/2017 FOIA Request City Norton Shores & Norton Shores Police Dept. pg 2 of 2
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at: daniel@stock20.com
or by phone: 231-557-2532.
Sincerely,
Daniel W. Rudd
daniel@stock20.com
201 S LAKE AVE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 14TH CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2017-004334-CZ
v. HON. TIMOTHY G. HICKS
Defendant.
Daniel W. Rudd (Pro Se) Michael S. Bogren (P34835)

201 S. Lake Ave Lisa A. Hall (P70200)
Spring Lake, Michigan 49456 Attorneys for Defendant
(231-557-2532) PLUNKETT COONEY
daniel@stock20.com 950 Trade Centre Way,Suite 310
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
mbogren@)plunkettcooney.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
Diane Austin, Secretary in the Law Firm of PLUNKETT COONEY, being first duly
sworn, deposes and says that on the 8th day of March, 2018, she caused a true copy of
Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition, Brief in Support of Renewed
Motion for Summary Disposition, Notice of Hearing, and Proof ofService, to be served
upon Daniel W. Rudd, in pro per, and that such service was made by enclosing same in a
sealed envelope with first class postage fully prepaid, addressed to the above, and
depositing said envelope and its contents in a receptacle for the United States mail at
Portage, Michigan, and said envelope was addressed to his last known business address, as
follows:
Daniel W. Rudd
201 S. Lake Ave
Spring Lake, Michigan 49456
Diane Austin
Open.00560.72801.20009806-1
EXHIBIT D
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 14TH CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF.MUSKEGON
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Defendant.

201 S. Lake Ave Attorney for Defendant
Spring Lake, Michigan 49456 PLUNK.ETT COONEY
(231-557-2532) 950 Trade Centre Way, Suite 3.10
daniekastock20.com K.alamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED FOIA COMPLAINT

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES the defendant, City of Norton Shores, by and through its attorneys ,
PLUNKETT COONEY,and for its Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended FOIA Complaint, states
as follows:
Parties & Jurisdictinin
A.LLEGATION 1. This matter arises under the Michigan Freedom of Information

Act, MCL § 15.231, et seq.("FOIA"), MCL § 15.240 and other applicable law.
ANSWER 1. The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1. The defendant
acknowledges plaintiff is seeking to assert a cause of action under MIA.
ALLEGATION 2. Plaintiff Daniel W. Rudd is a private citizen who resides in Ottawa

County,.Michigan.
a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 2.
ALLEGATION 3. The City of Norton Shores is a municipality and a public body

located within Muskegon County, Michigan.
ANSWER 3. No contest.
ALLEGATION 4. Under MCL § 15.240(4) venue is proper in the Muskegon County

Circuit Court.
ALLEGATION 5. Plaintiff states that the communication and correspondence

between the parties, referenced in this complaint is already in defendant's possession.
a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 5.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
ALLEGATION 6. On 1/27/2017 Plaintiff submitted identified and requested the

following public records in a written FOIA request under "Request 4":
"Any/all complaints submitted against the Norton Shores Police

Department's policies or employees from January 1, 2014 until the
present. I am also requesting a copy of any corresponding written
report, disposition or document describing the results of the
internal investigation."
ALLEGATION 7. Plaintiffs request also included the following instructions

regarding partial disclosure:
"If clarifying information is required on any single item please

contact me immediately regarding that clarification instead of
waiting until the other items have been granted or denied. If some
portion of this request can be fulfilled immediately or at a minimal
cost, please proceed with those portions instead of waiting until all
of the items can be fulfilled in their entirety."
2
ANSWER 7. The Request speaks for itself and no response is required to
paragraph 7.
ALLEGATION 8. On 2/16/2017, Anthony Chandler wrote -mail on behalf of

defendant: .
"Dear Mr. Rudd, We have completed our search for the items you
have requested through FOIA and a response is ready for you to
pick up. An invoice is also attached that includes the fees
associated with your FOIA request from January 27. Collection of
the fees are necessary considering the nature of your request and
large amount of information requested."
ANSWER 8. The e-mail speaks for itself and no response is required to paragraph
8.
ALLEGATION 9. On 2/16/2017, after paying $128.16 for the documents disclosed

under FOIA Requests 1 — 3, plaintiff then received notice that the city of Norton Shores had
denied FOR Request 4:
Request #4 — This item is exempt from disclosure under FOIA -

Section 13, Subsection (1)(s)(ix), because: this request seeks
records contained in the personnel records of a law enforcement
agency, which are not subject to disclosure unless the public
interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure
in this instance, which has not been shown.
ALI.,EGATION 10. Plaintiff appealed this denial in a letter dated 2/23/2017, primarily
asserting:
The Norton Shores Police Department solicits citizen complaints

and provides a form for this purpose. The form itself states that it is an
official. police complaint (which is a public record). In soliciting
complaints from citizens regarding police services, the City of Norton
Shores website describes a process whereby additional public records are
created for review purposes and to advise the complainant of the .findings,
The nature of the record is not changed when it is placed into a personnel
file. The public interest for disclosure of these records is plainly evident
in the communications issued by the department regarding accountability
and transparency.
3
ANSWER 10.The defendants plead no contest to the allegations that plaintiff
appealed the denial. The denial speaks for itself and no further response is required to
paragraph 10.
ALLEGATION 11. Plaintiffs appeal included an offer to provide more information

regarding the public's interest in disclosure of these records as expressed publically by Norton
Shores.
ANSWER 11. The defendant does not understand the allegations contained in
paragraph 11 and is therefore without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of those allegations.
ALLEGATION 12. Plaintiffs 2/23/2017 appeal was denied in a letter dated 3/3/2017;
Law enforcement personnel records are not subject to disclosure

under FOIA,"unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the
public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance MCL
15.243(s)(ix). It is my opinion that you have not described a
situation where the public interest in disclosure would outweigh
the public interest in nondisclosure. Therefore, your appeal to the
information you requested is denied based on the exemption from
FOIA for the personnel records of law enforcement referenced
above.
Sincerely,
Gary Nelund, Mayor

ALLEGATION 13. The 2/23/2017 denial of Plaintiffs' appeal (Exhibit B) did not
include any explanation establishing the public's interest in non-disclosure of the requested
records. The denial did not describe the type of records which defendant had separated from the
non-exempt materials and withheld for disclosure.
ANSWER 13. The allegations contained in paragraph 13 are denied as untrue.
ALLEGATION 14. The denial was also non-responsive to the central claim in
plaintiff's appeal, asserting: "just because a copy of a citizen's complaint may be placed into an
4
officer's personnel file, that does not change the nature of the complaint itself The complaint
itself is a public record."
ANSWER 14. The defendant does not understand the allegations contained in
ALLEGATION 15. Plaintiff sent the following e-mail message to Mr. Chandler, on
3/6/2017:
Thanks Anthony, This letter doesn't seem to address the issues

raised in my appeal at all. Is the mayor's decision on this
considered to be the final decision of the "hear of the public
body, or is there further appeal available short ofthe circuit court?
ALLEGATION 16, Mr. Chandler responded on 3/6/2017:
You have a right to commence an action in circuit court to compel

disclosure of a public record(s)...
The Mayor's response letter dated 3/3/2017 shall. serve as the final
determination from the public body
ALLEGATION 17. Plaintiff filed this complaint within 180 days later of the final
determination of the public body, and seeks relief under MCL § 15.240 Sec. 10(1)(b)
ANSWER.17. Paragraph 17 does not contain properly pled allegations of fact to
which a response is required. To the extent a response is required, the defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in paragraph 17.
COUNT 1: Violation of MCL 15.235(2)

(untimely and incomplete notice of denial)
ALLEGATION 18. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all preceding paragraphs.

ANSWER 18. The defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 18 of
its Answer.
ALLEGATION 19. MCI., 15.235(2) requires a public body to issue some kind of
response within 5 business days. In this case, defendant should have issued a notice of extension
in response to plaintiff's FOIA Requests 1-3, AND issued a written notice of denial in response
to FOIA Request 4.
ANSWER 19.Paragraph 19 does not contain properly pled allegations of fact but
contains improper legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent that a
response is required, the defendant denies the legal contentions contained in paragraph 19
as untrue.
ALLEGATION 20. Defendant's blanket denial of plaintiff's 1/25/2017 FOIA Request

#4 (lid not require any research, separation of records or efforts to locate records.
ANSWER 20.The allegations contained in paragraph 20 are denied as untrue.
ALLEGATION 21. However, defendant did not issue a written notice of this partial
denial until 2/16/2017 and did not provide notice that request #4 had been denied until after
plaintiff had paid $128.16 for the disclosure of documents responsive to request 1- 11-3.
ANSWER 21.Defendant pleads no contest that it issued a notice of denial in part on
February 16, 2017. The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 21.
COUNT 2: Violation of MCI, 15.244

(failure to separate exempt from nonexempt material)
its Answer.
ALLEGATION 23. MCI., 15.244 Sec. 14 states in pertinent part (emphasis added):
6
(1) If a public record contains material which is not exempt under section
13, as well as material which is exempt f. rom disclosure under section 1 3,
the -public body shall separate the exempt and nonexempt material crud
make the nonexempt material availablefor examination and copying.
practicable, facilitate a separation of exempt from nonexempt information.
If the separation is readily apparent to a person requesting to inspect or
receive copies of the form, the public body shall generally describe the
material exempted unless that description 32 would reveal the contents of
the exempt information and thus defeat the purpose of the exemption.
ANSWER 23. Paragraph 19 does not contain properly pled allegations of fact but
response is required, the defendant acknowledges that the plaintiff has recited a portion of
MCL1.5.244.
ALLEGATION 24. Citizen complaints, are submitted on a form which is provided by

(and presumably designed by)the city of Norton Shores.
ANSWER 24.To the extent paragraph 24 refers to citizen complaints regarding the
police, the defendant pleads no contest that some citizen complaints are submitted in that
fashion.
ALLEGATION 25. The City of Norton Shores also creates other documents for
dissemination to recipients who are not part ofthe internal affairs investigation.
ANSWER 25.The defendant does not understand the allegations contained in
ALLEGATION 26. The City of Norton Shores creates documents to advise the
complainant of the outcome of the investigation.
ANSWER 26.The defendant pleads no contest that such documents are created at
times.
7
ALLEGATION 27. These records, or at least portions of these records, are public
documents which are subject to FOIA disclosure.
response is required, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the legal contentions contained in paragraph 27.
ALLEGATION 28. Defendant, a public body is required to separate exempt materials

from non-exempt material.
ALLEGATION 29. If any portion of these records are to be designated exempt under
Sec. 13, the public body must make an individualized determination on what would serve the
public's interest as it pertains to each record.
ALLEGATION 30. Internal investigation reports, or portions thereof, which include

privileged statements made during the course of an internal investigation, may qualify for non-
disclosure.
8
as untrue. In further answer, the defendant states that internal investigation materials in
their entirety are exemptible under FOIA.
ALLEGATION 31. Defendant failed to separate exempt from non-exempt material and
failed to consider less restrictive measures such as redactions or production of a "Vaughn index."
Defendant did not provide a "Vaughn Index" or otherwise describe the general nature of the
records which were not disclosed as required by Sec. 14.(2).
ALLEGATION 32. By asserting a blanket exemption over several categories of

records, without giving each individual category and record particularized consideration,
defendant has violated the MIA.
as untrue.
ALL COUNTS: Arbitrary and Capricious Violations of the FOIA

(defendant has not acted in good-faith)
its Answer.
ALLEGATION 34. It has been well established for more than a decade that the
location of the records is not determinative. On information and belief, the City of Norton
Shores knew that no valid legal basis existed to claim that a citizen complaint is transformed into
a personnel record when placed into a "personnel file."
9
as untrue.
ALLEGATION 35. Defendant was fully apprised of the law at the time the FOIA
request was denied, but still required plaintiff to commence this civil action to compel the
disclosure of citizen complaints and corresponding documents which are not privileged.
contains improper subjective beliefs and contentions to which no response is required. To
the extent that a response is required, the defendant denies the subjective beliefs and
contentions contained in paragraph 35 as untrue.
ALLEGATION 36. Defendant expressed a broad and general claim that the public
interest in non-disclosure outweighs the public's interest in disclosure when it comes to citizen
complaints and any corresponding documents. However, defendant has promptly disclosed
citizen complaints and corresponding documents when it serves defendant's own interests.
ALLEGATION 37. Accordingly, the denial of plaintiffs request demonstrates an

arbitrary and unprincipled violation of the FOIA.
ANSWER 37.The allegations contained in paragraph 37 are denied as untrue.
ALLEGATION 38. Defendant has alleged concern that disclosure may cause citizens
to refrain from coming forward with future complaints. In the context of defendant's previous
actions, the justifications asserted for non-disclosure appear to be capricious.
10
ALLEGATION 39. Defendant's cursory "blanket denial" demonstrates a disregard for

the well-established legal standards and minimizes the duty of public officials to conduct
government affairs with impartiality and integrity.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the defendant respectfully requests this
Honorable Court enter judgment of no cause of action in its favor and costs as allowed by
law.
DATED: January 25, 2018 PLUNKETT COONEY
BY: 1
Michael S. Bogren (P 4835)
Attorney for Defendant
11
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES the defendant, City of Norton Shores, by and through its attorneys,
PLUNKETT COONEY and raises the following Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiffs First
Amended FOIA Complaint:
1. The denial at issue was proper under the legislatively created exemptions
contained in the Freedom of Information Act.
DATED: January 25, 2018 PLUNKETT COONEY
BY:
Michael S. Bogren (P34835)
Open.00560.72801.19614834-1
12
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Defendant.

Spring Lake, Michigan 49456 PLUNKETT COONEY
(231-557-2532) 950 Trade Centre Way,Suite 310
danielPstock20.com Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
PROOF OF SERVICE
sworn, deposes and says that on the 25th day of January, 2018, she caused a true copy of
Answer to First Amended FOIA Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, and Proof of
Service, to be served upon all attorneys of record, and that such service was rnade by
enclosing same in a sealed envelope with first class postage fully prepaid, addressed to the
above, and depositing said envelope and its contents in a receptacle for the United States
mail at Portage, Michigan, and said envelope was addressed to the above at their last
known business address, as follows:
Daniel W. Rudd
201 S. Lake Ave
Diane Austin
Open.00560.72801A9073593-1
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 14111 CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plaintiff. Case No. 2017-004334-CZ
Defendant.

(231-557-2532) 950 Trade Centre Way. Suite 310
danieViPstoe1:20.com Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
mbogreraplunkettcoonev.com
MOTION FOR SUMMARY Disposal-0N
The defendant, City of Norton Shores, moves for an Order granting summary disposition
pursuant to IVICR. 2.116(C)(10), as there are no genuine issues of material Ilict and the defendant
is entitled to judtunent as matter of law. This motion is based on the facts, legal authorities and
arguments contained in the Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition tiled with this
motion.
DATED: November 30, 2017 PLUNKETT COONEY
BY:
Michael S. Rogren (P34835)
Open.00560.72801.19425644-1
STATE: OF MICHIGAN
IN THE lei CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plainti Case No. 2017-004334-CZ
CITY OF NORTON SHORES.
Defendant.
Daniel W. Rudd (Pro Se) Michael S. Bogen (P34835)

(231-557-2532) 95() Trade Centre Way, Suite 310
danieFastock20.com Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
mbouren@dunkettcooney,com
BR!EF I 'SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARYDISPOSITION
STANDARD
A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MGR 2.116(C)(10) should be granted
when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine
issue of material fact. Makkiz v /?ozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120, 597 NW2d 817(1999). A genuine
issue of material fact exists when reasonable minds could ditThr alter drawing reasonable
iniereaces from the record. Wesi v Gen. Minors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183, 665 NW2d 468
(2003). In reviewing this issue. the Court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions,
admissions, and other documentary evidence and construe them in a light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Corley v Detroit I3d of 470 Mich 274. 278. 681 NW2d 342(2004). When
the burden of proof at trial would rest on the nonmoving party, that party may not rest upon mere
allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must, by documentary evidence, set forth specific
1
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The Healing Place at North Oakland it-led CI •
v Allstate has Co, 277 Mich App 51, >. 744 N W2d 174 (2007).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 27, 2017 Plaintiff requested the Collowint.1_ public records in a written 101A
request submitted to the City of Norton Shores:
An all complaints submitted against the Norton Shores Police Department's
requesting a copy of any corresponding written report, disposition or document
describing the results of the internal investigation.
(Complaint and Answer, 11 6). (.)n or about February 16, 2017, the city of Norton Shores denied
this request stating:
Request #4 — This item is exempt from disclosure under MIA Section 1
disclosure unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in
nondisclosure in this instance, which has not been shown.
(Complaint and Answer, 7). Plaintiff appealed this denial in a letter dated February 23, 2017.
(Complaint and Answer, 8). Plaintiff's appeal was denied in a letter• from Mayor Gary Nelund
dated March 3, 2017.(Complaint and Answer, 4: 10). Plaintiff then filed this action.
Additional facts will be discussed in the Argument portion of this Brief.

ARGumENT
THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR VIOLATION OF FOIA MUST BE

DISMISSED WHERE THE REcoRDs souGHT FALL WITHIN THE
EXEMPTION FOR PERSONNEL RECORDS OF A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND WHERE `I'111 PUBLIC INTEREST IN
DISCLOSURE DOES NOT ouTwEIGH THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
NONDISCLOSURE.
A. The Records Plaintiff Seeks Are Personnel Records of a Law Enforcement
Agency.
MCI, 15.243(1)(s)(ix), provides that a public body may exempt from disclosure
personnel records of a law enforcement aiency: "Unless the public interest in disclosure
outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular inshmce, public records of a law
enforcement agency, the release of which would do any of the following: Disclose personnel
records of law enforcement agencies.'
The Michigan Court of Appeals addressed a very similar .FOIA issue in Newark Morning
Ledger co. v Saginaw County Sheriff 204 Mich App 215, 514 NW2d 213 (1994). There,
plaintiff sought access to all records regarding defendant's completed internal affairs
investigations, including all factual findings and determinations made by the internal affairs
investigators and relevant command personnel. Id. at 216. The request was denied, citing the law
enforcement personnel records exemption, which was then MCI, 15.243(1)(0(ix). The trial court
ruled the records fell within the exemption. On appeal plaintiff ari_ted the trial court erred in
adopting defendant's assertion that all the requested documents constituted "personnel records"
within the ineaninu of the exemption. Plaintiff argued that investigation records were not
necessarily "personnel records" merely because the records were placed in personnel tiles. The
Court of Appeals rejected this argument: "Although. we agree with plaintiff that location is not
3
determinative. we conclude that the records requested by plaintiff were 'personnel records of law
enforcetnent agencies.'" Id. at 217.
The Court then analyzed the FOR exemption and concluded the records sought were
exempt from disclosure. In reaching this conclusion the Court noted that the .egistature, in
enacting the Funployee Right to Know Act (MCI., 423.501, et. seq.), determined that the
employee should not be allowed access to the records of the employer's internal investigations.
Since that Act was designed to extend an employee's ability to gain access to the employer's
tiles beyond the rights afforded to the public by the FOIA, the "LeQislature's clearly expressed
intent in the FRKA to prohibit access by an employee to any internal investigations relating to
that employee demonstrates that the Legislature intended that access to those records be severely
restricted." I.I. at 217 — 218."We can reasonably infer that in drafting the FO1A, the I..,egislature
had the same intent relative to records of closed internal affairs investigations such as those
requested by plaintiff. The Legislature would not have denied an employee access to documents
that were readily available to the public pursuant to the FOIA. Therefore, we conclude that the
..,eaislature intended that the internal affairs investigatory records requested by plaintiff fall
within the meaning of the term 'personnel record of law enforcement agencies' as used in the
FOIA." Id. at 218.
In Kent Couno' Deputy SherifA' Assn r Kent County Sheriff 238 Mich App 310, 605
NW2d 363 (l999). plaintiff, the Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Association, sought the release or
defendant's internal affairs tiles. and specifically, the records and witness statements defendant
kept relating to defendant's investigation of two deputy sheriff's disciplined for violating agency
rules. /d. at 312. The trial court ordered the records be disclosed. The Court of Appeals reversed.
4
holding that the records of internal investigations la within the exemption for personnel records
of a law enforcement agency. kJ. at 330.
Sutton i'. City of Oak Park, 25I Mich App :45, 650 NW2d 404 (2002), also holds that
exemption. In Sutton plaintiff requested under 1:01A a copy of all documents regarding an
internal investigation. The request was denied, stating that the records were exempt from
disclosure as being investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes. Plaintiff
appealed the denial. The Oa1 Park city council voted unanimously to deny plaintiffs request for
the records relating to the internal investigation. The city council stated the records were exempt
from disclosure because they were records compiled for law enforcement purposes and could
interfere \vith an ongoing investigation and result in an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy. The city council also asserted the records were exempt from disclosure because they
were personnel records of a law enforcement agency. Id. at 347. The trial court ruled the records
were exempt from disclosure and the Court of Appeals agreed, citing the Kent County Depth,
,cherilf? Assin, and Newark Morning Ledger, cases as authority for holding the internal
investigation records constituted personnel records of a law enlorcement agency.
Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that "Complaints submitted to the City of Norton
Shores by citizens or other entities . . . are not internal investigation records or personnel
records" (Complaint 1 S) and "Correspondence or reports sent to the complainant regarding
disposition of the complaint are . . not internal investigation records or personnel records."
(Complaint, 1I 19). Essentially, plaintiff would parse the original complaint -that caused the
internal investigation and the final disposition of the investigation from the actual investigation
itself. However, the case law does not support the plaintiffs position. In Kent Count;- Deputy
5
Sheri Ass'n, Newark Morning Ledger, and Siuton„ plaintiffs sought all documents ;Associated
with the internal investigations. The Court of Appezds did not require the initial complaints to be
disclosed, nor did the Court require the disposition of the complaints to be disclosed. The entire
internal investigation process vas considered as a whole, and all of the records associated with
the process were held to fall within the exemption. The same result must follow here. As Chief
Jon Gale avers in his Affidavit, when a citizen complaint is received, an internal investigation
tile is opened and all records related to the complaint are kept together in a single file. (Affidavit
Chiefion Gale, 6(a); Exhibit A).
Based on the Court of Appeals' decisions in Kent County Depuiy Sheriffs.'Ass'n, Newark
Morning Ledger, and Sutton, it is beyond argument that the records plaintiff sought Fall within
the law enforcement personnel records exemption or NICL 15.243(1)(s)(ix).
B. The Public Interest in Disclosure of the Records Does Not Outweigh the
Public Interest in Nondisclosure.
The Affidavits of Chief Gale (Exhibit A) and Anthony Chandler, the City of Norton
Shores FOIA Coordinator (Exhibit 13), demonstrates the public interest in disclosure of the
records does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. Chief Gale avers that disclosure
of' internal affairs records would have a serious negative impact on the Department's ability to
conduct meaningful internal investigations and would have a negative impact on the morals of
the Department. Specifically, Chief Gale has provided a sworn affidavit that states:
o In order to obtain all pertinent information necessary to complete an internal
investigation, the cooperation of the person making the complaint is necessary.
• Based on Chief Gale's experience as a law enforcement officer and as a Chief of
Police, public disclosure of the name of the person making a complaint against
police officers would have a chillinu effect on the willingness 0.1' other citizens to
make a complaint.
• Even it- the name of the individual malting the complaint were not disclosed,
disclosure or the nature of the events complained of would have the same chilling
effect, as the identity of those involved can often he ascertained by a description
of the event itself.
• This chilling effect is especially pronounced if an internal complaint is made by
one officer against another because in my experience officers are reluctant to give
statements about the conduct and actions of-other officers.
• If statements made during the course of internal investigations were made public,
in the future officers would be unwilling to provide statements, or if* they did
provide statements would be euarded and not as candid as they otherwise would
be.
• Disclosing the information requested would, in my opinion, severely hamper, if
not destroy, the ability of the Department to conduct meaningful internal affairs
investigations.
Disclosing the results of the internal investigations would, based on my
experience, have a serious negative impact on officer morale and would impair
the ability of the Department to properly function, as immy people would assume
the truth of the allegations made against an officer even if' the allegations were
deemed to be unfounded.
(Exhibit A. 6). Mr. Chandler, who responded to the MI\ request, has averred in his affidavit
that he discussed the request with Chief Gale and the denial based on the exemption. in
15.243(1)(s)(ix), was invoked for the reasons identified by Chief'Gale.
The Court of Appeals decisions fully support the City's determination that the public
interest in disclosure does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. In Sullonn the Court
held:
Further, we believe that the affidavit of Deputy Director :Robert Bauer provides
sufficient reasons for nondisclosure. In his affidavit. he avers:
3. ft is my experience that the process involved in conducting internal

investigations is extremely difficult since employees are reluctant to give
statements about the conduct and actions of.fellow employees.
.4. If such statements made during the course of internal investigations were made
public, employees would likely refiise to give such statements, or would not be
completely candid and forthcoming during such investigations.
5. Further, if such statements are made public, the ability of. the City's Public
Safety Department to conduct such investigations would be destroyed or severely
curtailed since information could not be obtained.
We find that these reasons establish that the public interest favors nondisclosure
or the records requested by plaintiff. See, e.g., Kent Co. Deputy SheriJA Ass'17,
at 365-366, 616 N.W.2d 677. Plaintiff has not shown that the public interest in
disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure, as required by the
statute to warrant disclosure.
Suitor!, 251 Mich App at 350-351. Similarly, in Kern County Deinay Sheriff's Ass the Court
held:
Defendant sufficiently established that public interest favored nondisclosure. The

affidavit of the undersherilljustified confidentiality on these grounds:
1. Internal investigations are inherently difficult because employees are reluctant

to give statements about the actions offellow employees.
. If their statements would be a matter of public knowledge they might refuse to

give any statements at all or be less than totally forthcoming and candid.
8
. Also, disclosure could be detrimental to some employees.
4. Public disclosure of records relating to internal investigations into possible

employee misconduct would destroy or severely diminish the Sheri IT
Department's ability to effectively conduct such investigations.
We agree that these reasons soundly establish that the public interest favors
nondisclosure of these records. The association fails to persuade us that the public
interest in meaningful arbitration of grievances favors disclosure.
Chief Gale's Affidavit establishes that the public interest in disclosure in this case does
not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. The concerns cited by Chief Gale go the very
ability of the Department to conduct meaningful investigations — and to the willingness of
citizens to file complaints in the first instance.
On the other hand, the plaintiff provided no explanation for the disclosure. While the
defendant understands there is no requirement that a FOIA request be supported by a reason in
the first instance, and it is not the plaintiffs burden to prove the records should be disclosed,
where the plaintiff offers no reason fig the disclosure, there is little for the City to balance
against. Even in his Complaint the plaintiff only alleges:"The requested information would shed
light on the governmental agency's conduct AND further the core purposes or FOIA."
(Complaint, 411 23). The defendant is not minimizing the overall public interest in the ability to
participate in, and be aware of, the affairs of government. However, when a blanket request is
made that directly impacts the ability of' the police to perform a vital function, that general
interest must give way to the identified concerns of the police.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The defendant respectfully requests the Court grant its motion for summary disposition
pursuant to MCR 2.1 16(C)(10) and dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint xvith prejudice.
Respeetffilly submitted,
DATED: November 30, 2017 Err COONEY
13Y:
Michael S. Bogen (P34835)
Attorney lbr Defendant
Open.00560.72£301.19425764-1
10
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
CI'T'Y 01: NORTON SHORES,

Defendant.

(231-557-2532) 950 Trade Centre Way, Suite 310
danielrastoek20.com Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
mbogren(ii!)lunkettcoonev.com
AFFIDAVIT OF JON GALE
Jon Gale, first having been duly sworn, states that if called as a witness in this matter
could testify to the following facts:
1. My name is Jon Gale and I have personal' knowledge of the facts stated in this
Affidavit.
2. I am the Chief of Police for the City of Norton Shores Police Department and
have held that position since '20/
3. I was contacted by Anthony Chandler, Director of Administrative Services
and the City of Norton Shores' Freedom of Information Act Coordinator regarding a FOIA
Request sent to the City by Daniel Rudd.
4. Mr. Rudd's FOIA Request sought, among other things, a copy of any/all
complaints submitted against the Norton Shores Police Department's policies or employees
from January 1, 2014 until the present. The Request also sought a copy of any
corresponding written report, disposition or document describing the results of the
internal investigation.
5. Based On my consultation with Mr. Chandler, the FOlA Request was denied
based on the exemption for personnel records of a law enforcement agency.
6. In my opinion the public interest in disclosure of these records did not
outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure for the following reasons:
a. When citizen complaints are received by the Norton Shores Police
Department an internal investigation file is opened and all records related to the
complaint are kept together in a single file.
b. The complaint is investigated by a command officer at the Norton
Shores Police Department.
c. In order to obtain all pertinent information necessary to complete the
investigation the cooperation of the person making the complaint is necessary.
d. Based on my experience as a law enforcement officer and as a Chief of
police officers would have a chilling effect on the willingness of other citizens to
make a complaint.
e. Even if the name of the individual making the complaint were not
disclosed, a disclosure of the nature of the events complained of would have the
same chilling effect, as the identity of those involved can often be ascertained by a
description of the event itself.
2
f This chilling effect is especially pronounced if an internal complaint is
made by one officer against another because in my experience officers are reluctant
to give statements about the conduct and actions of other officers.
g. If statements made during the course of internal investigations were
made public, in the future officers would be unwilling to provide statements, or if
they did provide statements would be guarded and not as candid as they otherwise
would be.
h. Disclosing the information requested would, in my opinion, severely
hamper, if not destroy, the ability of the Department to conduct meaningful internal
i. Disclosing the results of the internal investigations would, based on
my experience, have a serious negative impact on officer morale and would impair
the ability of the Department to properly function, as many people would assume
the truth of the allegations made against an officer even if the allegations were
7 When Mr. Rudd appealed the denial of his FOIA Request to the Mayor, the
Mayor consulted with me and l expressed the same concerns about disclosure of the
records.
8. It is my understanding the appeal was denied for those reasons.
3
Jon G
STATE OF MICHIGAN
)SS.
COUNTY OF ri
J
On this a `i" -day of I ki,;e0,,L,._,20 l 7, before me, a Notary Public, in and for said
county and state, personally appeared J017 Gale, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that he
has read the foreuoint! Affidavit and knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true of his
knowledge. except as to those matters therein stated to be upon his inform knowledge and belief
and as to those matters he believes them to be true.
1.
COLLETTE J. DEBLOCK
NOTARY PUBLIC, Notary Public? County,
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN Michigan. My commission expires:
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
ACTING IN THE COUNTY OF 09/03/2021
MUSKEGON
Open.00560.72801.19411803-1
EXHIBIT B
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL VV. RUDD,
Defendant.

Spring Lake, Michigan 49456 PLUNKETI' COONEY
daniel@stoek20.com Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
mbouren(ii:Vunkettcoonev.rom
AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY CHANDLER
Anthony Chandler, first having been duly sworn, states that if called as a witness in
this matter could testify to the following facts:
1. My name is Anthony Chandler and I have personal knowledge of the facts
stated in this Affidavit.
2. I am the Director of Administrative Services and the City of Norton Shores'
Freedom of Information Act Coordinator and held that position in January and February
2017.
3. The City of Norton Shores received a FOIA Request from Daniel Rudd in
January 2017..
5. I consulted with Jon Gale, Chief of Police for the City of Norton Shores
regarding the request.
6. Based on Chief Gale's input I denied Mr. Rudd's MIA request based on the
exemption for personnel records of a law enforcement agency.
7. Based on the negative effects identified by Chief Gale that disclosure of the
records would have it was my opinion that the public interest in disclosure of the records
did not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure.
The primary negative effects identified by Chief Gale were the chilling effect
disclosure would have on future complaints and the negative impact on the Police
Department's ability to conduct effective internal investigations.
7-4-
77
, 7
Anthony Chandler
STATE or: MICHIGAN

)SS.
COUNTY OFRces
s(,50t )
On this of/74/
iday .... / A17, before me, a Notary Public, in and for said
county and state, personally appeared Anthony Chandler, who being duly sworn, deposes and
says that Ile has read the foregoing Affidavit and knows the contents thereof, and that the same
are true of his knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be upon his inform
knowledge and belief anci-as to those matters he believes them to be true.
( / )
Notary Public, ,, 7‘.44,,ey/t.--CotOn.
n. My co nmi<sion ex )ires:
Open.00560.72001.19411895-1
2
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Defendant.

daniel@stock20.com Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
PROOF OF SERVICE
sworn, deposes and says that on the 30th day of November, 2017,she caused a true copy of
Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition, Brief in Support of Motion for Summary
Disposition, Notice of Hearing, and Proof ofService, to be served upon Daniel W. Rudd,
in pro per, and that such service was made by enclosing same in a sealed envelope with
first class postage fully prepaid, addressed to the above, and depositing said envelope and
its contents in a receptacle for the United States mail at Portage, Michigan, and said
envelope was addressed to his last known business address, as follows:
Daniel W. Rudd
201 S. Lake Ave
Diane Austin
Open.00560.72801.19415956-1
EXHIBIT G
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plaintiff,
V File No. 2017-004334-CZ
HON. Timothy G. Hicks
Defendant.
Daniel W. Rudd Michael S. Bogren (P34835)

Plaintiff IN PROPRIA PERSONA Attorney for Defendant
201 S Lake Ave 950 Trade Centre Way, Suite 310
Spring Lake, MI 49456 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(231)557-2532, daniel@stock20.com (269)226-8822 mbogren@plunkettcooney.com
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF OPPOSING SUMMARY DISPOSITION
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Defendant has not established the necessary elements for dismissal of plaintiffs
claim under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The present submissions must be construed in a light
most favorable to plaintiff. Under the MCR 2.116(C)(10) standard, genuine issues of
material fact certainly exists. There is a material dispute regarding whether or not these
records fit within the parameters of MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix). If they do, further judicial
analysis is required at the second stage of the inquiry. This balancing test must weigh
the public's interest in non-disclosure against the public's interest in disclosure, as it
pertains to the particular records in question. Defendant now asks this court to conduct
that inquiry from a distance and without any differentiating between records based on
their true character. Reasonable minds could certainly differ.
Page 1 of 14
The public policy concerns articulated by Chief Gale have been affirmed by our
courts and our legislature as it pertains to certain types of internal affairs investigation
records (in the nature of Garrity statements). These are not the type of records which
plaintiff seeks. Defendant's affidavits do not establish that the requested documents are
exemptible under MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix) and they do not offer enough information for the
court to make findings with particularity.
If any of the requested records are deemed exemptible under MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix),
further judicial analysis is required before they are deemed exempt. Defendant has not
provided the necessary documentary evidence for the court to conduct the required
balancing test. According to the case law offered by defendant, this balancing test
typically calls for an in-camera review of the documents themselves.
The case law presented by defendant does not actually support defendant's
position on any of the primary issues. Contrary to defendant's claim, these authorities
support plaintiffs contention that records are not defined by the location in which they
are stored. These rulings further indicate that summary dismissal at this stage of the
proceedings would be reversible error, because it would not be possible for the court to
conduct the required balancing test--specific to each type of record which has been
withheld. For the reasons not limited to those stated herein, defendant's motion for
summary disposition is premature and should be denied.
Page 2 of 14
II. UNCONTESTED ISSUES
Based on the pleadings thus far, there is much that the parties do agree upon. The
dispute primarily concerns plaintiffs requests for three categories of documents: (1)
citizen complaints submitted to the police department; (2) summary of findings for
review by the police chief upon completion of any internal affairs investigations. (3)
Correspondence to the complainant regarding the complaint and its resolution.
On 2/23/2017 plaintiff further advised defendant that: (1) the department publically
solicits citizen complaints; (2) the citizen complaint form is deemed to be an "official
police complaint" by the department; (2) Complainants are advised that once the
investigation is completed a report is produced for department review. (3) The police
chief then provides a statement to the complainant.
It is undisputed that plaintiff is not seeking disclosure of internal affairs witness
statements, performance reviews, or any other information deemed confidential or
privileged for personnel related or investigatory purposes. Plaintiff was careful to
articulate this differentiation in his 2/23/2017 appeal to the department head.
"Such a written reprimand, created for a personnel file, may be accurately described
as a personnel record. However, the citizen complaints, the report reviewed by the
police chief and the dispositional report itself are public records which are subject to
disclosure."(Exhibit A from Plaintiff's Complaint)
There appears to be no disagreement that: (1) The citizen complaints are created
prior to the existence of any internal investigations. (Chief Gale Affidavit, 6a) (2) Upon
completing investigation, the department does create non-confidential records which are
descriptive of the investigation, AND which are created for dissemination outside of the
disciplinary process.
Page 3 of 14
III. A MATERIAL DISPUTE EXISTS AS TO THE NATURE OF RECORDS
Plaintiff contends that records which are not created for personnel management
purposes cannot be exemptible under MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix) unless they actually contain
confidential information from internal affairs investigation records. Defendant contends
that all of the documents are exemptible personnel records because they are placed in
the same file as other records which are privileged. Defendant offers a generalized
argument for the public's interest in non-disclosure, and asserts that the same should
be broadly applied to all documents which may somehow pertain to a matter that is
investigated investigated by internal affairs.
IV. A DETERMINATION ON THE NATURE OF THE RECORDS REQUESTED

REQUIRES ADDITIONAL INQUIRY AND INFORMATION.
Defendant has offered very little factual information regarding the nature of the
records withheld. Even the cases cited by defendant indicates that an in camera review
of the records being withheld is usually necessary for the court to make a finding
regarding the true nature of the record. Chief Gale's affidavit discusses generalized
policy considerations which would primarily apply to witness statements made by
department personnel during the course of an internal affairs investigation (ie. Garrity
statements). Michigan law affords special privileges and immunities to these
statements. Non-disclosure of records containing these type of statements serves an
important purpose pertinent to the unique challenges of investigating misconduct by law
enforcement officers. The legislature has precluded disclosure of these type of records
through a number of statutory provisions including the FOIA. However, very few
categories of personnel records compel this level of public interest in non-disclosure. In
Page 4 of 14
many instances, once an investigation has been completed, a majority of the
investigation records are made public. This is why a singular conclusory justification for
non-disclosure is not sufficient when applied to diverse categories of public records.
Defendant's affidavits do not address the primary questions and offer relies upon
unsupported and non-specific value judgements. The expertise of Chief Gale is called
into question by the department's claim that the "City has little to balance against"
unless a requestor helps them understand the importance of transparency. (Def. Brief
pg. 9) Defendant's reasoning as expressed in Chief Gale's affidavits could easily be
used to justify non-disclosure of ANY law enforcement record which somehow pertains
to an investigation.
V. Defendant has not presented sufficient documentary evidence to

eliminate this controversy.
Notably, the department could have produced documentary evidence of a more
probative nature; for example: (1) written policies regarding the record keeping process
as it pertains to citizen complaint, disciplinary actions and internal affairs. (2)
Documentation of department procedures for separation of confidential and
non-confidential department records; (3) Case studies or objective research which
articulates the public's interest in non-disclosure. (4) Publications setting forth industry
best practices for maintaining public trust while preserving the integrity of internal
investigations.'
'Because defendant has not produced these type of documents, plaintiff must seek them in
discovery prior to the 12/29/2017 discovery deadline. "As a general rule, summary disposition is
premature if granted before discovery on a disputed issue is complete." Village ofDimondale v.
Grable,618 N.W.2d 23, 240 Mich. App. 553 (Ct. App. 2000).
Page 5 of 14
An in camera review of the requested records themselves is often necessary under
these circumstances. Such a review, along with complete discovery allows a trial court
to conduct the proper inquiry regarding the nature of the records AND the subsequent
analysis of the public's interest as it pertains to each type of record.
VI. A RECORD IS DEFINED BY ITS CHARACTER

Before deciding if the contested records are exempt, this court must determine
whether or not they are exemptible under MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix). Defendant claims this
issue is settled by Chief Gale's assertion regarding the location of the records:
"When citizen complaints are received by the Norton Shores Police Department an
internal investigation file is opened and all records related to the complaint are kept
together in a single file." (Gale Affidavit, 6a).
Exemption by association appears to be the sole justification for designating citizen
complaints exempt as "personnel records." Defendant's brief relies upon three opinions
from the court of appeals2 with a heavy emphasis upon NEWARK MORNING LEDGER.
The plaintiff in NEWARK was seeking actual records from internal affairs
investigations (as opposed to citizen generated complaints and post-investigation
reports to the complainant). Also, NEWARK indicates that, before granting summary
disposition, the trial court reviewed the contested documents in camera.
Because defendant's affidavit failed to describe the matters being withheld, the
trial court assumed the task of examining,the documents in camera. See Evening
News Ass'n v Troy,417 Mich 481, 516; 339 NW2d 421 (1983). NEWARK at 217
2 Defendant primarily relies upon the following cases: NEWARK MORNING LEDGER CO. V.
SAGINAW CTY SHERIFF,514 N.W.2d 213, 204 Mich. App. 215 (Ct. App. 1994).
("NEWARK"); KENT CTY. DEPUTYSHERIFFS'ASS'N v. KENT CTY. SHERIFF,605 N.W.2d
363,238 Mich. App. 310(Ct. App. 1999).("KENT CTY."); & Sutton v. City ofOak Park,650
N.W.2d 404, 251 Mich. App. 345 (Ct. App. 2002).("SUTTON").
Page 6 of 14
These are two very substantial distinctions, especially on a motion for summary
disposition. However, in many other respects, the Newark opinion is instructive. Like
plaintiff in the present case, the Newark plaintiff also argued that records did not
become exempt under MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix) simply because they had been "placed in
personnel files." This argument is certainly at the center of the controversy now before
the court. HOWEVER, defendant misleads the court by falsely claiming that "The
Court of Appeals rejected this argument" (emphasis added)
"Plaintiff argued that investigation records were not necessarily "personnel

records" merely because the records were placed in personnel files. The Court of
Appeals rejected this argument::'(Def. Brief, pg 3-4)
The Court of Appeals certainly did NOT reject this argument. The NEWARK
opinion unequivocally supports plaintiffs position in this regard, plainly stating that it
was improper to treat all the requested documents as "personnel records" because they
had been placed in a personnel file. This misunderstanding of the law is
indistinguishable from the position which defendant now urges this court to adopt. Here
is what the NEWARK panel actually concluded (citations omitted, emphasis added):
The trial court focused on the location of the documents rather than their character
in reaching its conclusion that they were "personnel records" within the meaning of
the FOIA. The court's opinion does not indicate that access to the requested
documents would "disclose personnel records."
Rather, the opinion repeatedly refers to the location of the reports, noting that the
results of all internal departmental investigations of complaints are placed in the
personnel records of the various employees investigated.
Apparently on the basis of their location, the court treated all of the requested
documents as though they were 'personnel records" under the FOIA. The location
of the documents is not determinative ofthe applicability ofthe personnel records
Page 7 of 14
exemption. In construing [ MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix) ], the United States Supreme
Court stated:
Congressional concern for the protection of the kind of confidential

personal data usually included in a personnel file is abundantly clear.
But Congress also made clear that non-confidential matter was not to
be insulated from disclosure merely because it was stored by an
agency in its "personnel"files. [Rose, supra at 372.]
This reasoning applies to the Michigan personnel records exemption as well.

An interpretation ofthe exemption that would allow a law enforcement agency
to shield any recordfrom disclosure by merely placing it in afolder labeled
'Personnel file" would undercut the policy offull and complete disclosure
mandated by the FOIA. Therefore, we conclude that the Legislature did not
intend that personnel records be solely defined by their location. Id. 220-221
(emphasis added)
Unlike the present case, the NEWARK plaintiff was directly requesting internal
affairs investigation records (ie. "the kind of confidential personal data usually included
in a personnel file"). The Court of Appeals found that these type of records, which were
confidential and privileged already, did fit within the intended meaning of MCL
15.243(1)(s)(ix). However, the Court of Appeals unequivocally and repeatedly affirmed
that this designation was a product of the records character, NOT its location. In this
respect and others, defendant is relying upon NEWARK to persuade this court to adopt
the very errors which were emphatically rejected by the NEWARK opinion.
VII. THE BALANCING TEST REQUIRES PARTICULARIZED FINDINGS

After falsely claiming that the Court of Appeals rejected the argument which plaintiff
relies upon in the present case, defendant's next paragraph states: "The Court then
analyzed the FOIA exemption and concluded the records sought were exempt from
disclosure." This also is completely false.
Page 8 of 14
As noted above, the Court of Appeals only found that the records were exemptible
as law enforcement personnel records. The Court of Appeals did proceed to the
second phase of the inquiry (balancing test). Contrary to defendant's claim, the Court of
Appeals did NOT conclude that "the records sought were exempt from disclosure."
Instead, the NEWARK panel found that the trial court had improperly deemed the
records exempt and the case was remanded for a proper analysis.
The scope of inquiry conducted by the trial court in NEWARK vastly exceeds the
standard which defendant urges this court to adopt now. In contrast to the sparse
documentary evidence presented by defendant, The trial court in NEWARK had actually
reviewed the documents themselves.
The trial court also expressed a more developed rational for non-disclosure than
defendant proposes here. Even still, these findings were deemed insufficient in
numerous respects. The errors described categorically undermine each of defendant's
claims for non-disclosure. Here is how the NEWARK panel described a proper
balancing analysis: (internal citations omitted, emphasis added).
The personnel records exemption requires that the balance be considered "in the
particular instance." The difficulty with the court's treatment ofthe internal affairs
investigatory records as a single category is that public interest in disclosure and
nondisclosure may vary depending on the circumstances ofan investigation, and
the nature ofthe documents produced.
For example, the court's analysis of the public interest in nondisclosure is focused
on the potential harm that may result from disclosing information about
unfounded allegations of misconduct. That analysis is clearly not applicable to
those investigations in which it was determined that the employee had engaged in
wrongdoing. Yet, in determining the applicability ofthe exemption, the court did
not distinguish between investigations in which the allegations were determined
to be clearly unfounded, and those that even the department found warranted
disciplinary action.
Page 9 of 14
The Michigan Supreme Court recognized that the trial court may justibi the
exemption with respect to a category ofdocuments. However, any category must
be clearly described and "drawn with sufficient precision so that all documents
within a particular category are similar in nature."
In addition, the trial court's opinion does not indicate that the court properly
considered the balancing of interests in regard to the redacted form of records
requested by plaintiff as an alternative remedy. Plaintiffs complaint included a
request for access to redacted records with references to the individual officers,
witnesses, and relevant investigatory and command personnel deleted. The court's
opinion does not indicate that the court considered how the proposed redaction
would affect the balancing ofinterests.
This interest in knowing the identity of disciplined employees is distinguishable

from other public interests that may arise in requests for disclosure of government
investigatory records. For example, the public may have an interest in knowing
that a government investigation itself is comprehensive, that a report of an
investigation released publicly is accurate, that any disciplinary measures
imposed are adequate, and that those who are accountable are dealt with in an
appropriate manner. NEWARK 226-227.
Again, defendant seeks a ruling now which plainly contradicts the approach
proscribed in NEWARK. Defendant's analysis of the next two cases incorporates and
compounds this error in similar ways. Nearly all of these arguments are inapplicable
because the plaintiffs were seeking confidential and privileged records which actually
were "internal affairs investigation records."
VIII. THE FOIA DOES CALL FOR A PARSING OF RECORDS
Defendant's brief suggests that the citizen complaints cannot be separated from
personnel records which actually are confidential in nature. These claims are also
disingenuous.(Def. Brief, pg 5).
Page 10 of 14
Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that "Complaints submitted to the City of
Norton Shores by citizens or other entities . . . are not internal investigation
records or personnel records" (Complaint ¶ 18) and "Correspondence or reports
sent to the complainant regarding disposition of the complaint are . .. not internal
investigation records or personnel records." (Complaint, ¶ 19). Essentially,
plaintiff would parse the original complaint that caused the internal investigation
and the final disposition of the investigation from the actual investigation itself.
However, the case law does not support the plaintiffs position. In Kent County
Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n, NEWARK Morning Ledger, and Sutton, plaintiffs sought
all documents associated with the internal investigations. The Court of Appeals
did not require the initial complaints to be disclosed, nor did the Court require the
disposition of the complaints to be disclosed. The entire internal investigation
process was considered as a whole, and all of the records associated with the
process were held to fall within the exemption. The same result must follow here.
As Chief Jon Gale avers in his Affidavit, when a citizen complaint is received, an
internal investigation file is opened and all records related to the complaint are
kept together in a single file.(Affidavit of Chief Jon Gale, ¶ 6(a); Exhibit A).
The cited case law, along with many other published opinions does support
Plaintiffs position. The NEWARK opinion clearly and repeatedly states the importance
of individual determinations for individual records (and for considering partial redaction
to allow disclosure). The KENT CTY plaintiffs were already in possession of the details
of the complaints and the dispositions. They were attempting to obtain the confidential
internal affairs records which included Garrity statements. The SUTTON plaintiff also
was already in possession of the citizen complaint related to the internal affairs files
which he sought and had presumably received the department's response to that
complaint(because he was the complainant). This is a very misleading argument.
Regardless, defendant's duty to parse records is plainly established in the
language of the FOIA itself.
Page 11 of 14
15.244 Separation of exempt and nonexempt material; design of
public record; description of material exempted. Sec. 14.
(1) If a public record contains material which is not exempt under section
13, as well as material which is exempt from disclosure under section 13,
the public body shall separate the exempt and nonexempt material and
make the nonexempt material available for examination and copying.
practicable, facilitate a separation of exempt from nonexempt information.
If the separation is readily apparent to a person requesting to inspect or
receive copies of the form, the public body shall generally describe the
material exempted unless that description would reveal the contents of the
exempt information and thus defeat the purpose of the exemption.
IX. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE IS WELL ESTABLISHED
Any sworn police officer should be able to articulate a thorough explanation of
the public's interest in confirming that citizen complaints are handled promptly,
efficiently, effectively, fairly and without bias. Nonetheless, plaintiff described this
concept adequately and also offered to provide more information if necessary (Plaintiffs
2/23/2017 appeal letter). It is therefore disingenuous for defendant to now claim that
plaintiff offered "no reason for the disclosure."
"While the defendant understands there is no requirement that a FOIA request be

supported by a reason in the first instance, and it is not the plaintiffs burden to
prove the records should be disclosed, where the plaintiff offers no reason for the
disclosure, there is little for the City to balance against."(Def. Brief pg. 9)
Defendant demonstrates an alarming tone-deafness by asserting that the
department has "little for the City to balance against" unless each requesting citizen
educates the department on this central tenet of governance "for the people, by the
people."
Page 12 of 14
The suggestion that Norton Shores does not have its own independent
understanding of the correlation between trust and transparency is especially dubious in
the context of defendant's CALEA accreditation.
The mandatory standards and policies which would certainly provide important
context are not yet a part of this inquiry because defendant has not introduced these
documents. Summary disposition is therefore premature because discovery is still open
on a disputed issue.
X. OPPOSITION TO A BLANKET REQUEST IS MISPLACED
Defendant is also mistaken that a "blanket request" diminishes the public interest
in disclosure. This assertion was also squarely contradicted in the portions of NEWARK
which defendant failed to mention.
The court's opinion suggests that the public was "always informed" when the
investigation led to termination of employment or criminal charges. Even if this
statement were supported by the record before the court, that fact does not indicate
that the records of the investigation are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.
The trial court's opinion also suggests that the public interest in disclosure of
multiple records of internal affairs investigations is always less than the interest in
disclosure of a particular instance. We disagree. When multiple records are
requested, conclusions can be drawn concerning the efficacy and fairness of the
disciplinary procedures. See Hunt, supra at 289.
Because the trial court did not address these various concerns, we are unable to
determine whether the conclusion reached by the trial court regarding the
balancing of the public interests was correct. Therefore, we remand this case to the
trial court for additional findings and for a determination whether the public
interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure ofsome, all, or
none of the documents in their original or redacted versions. NEWARK at 227.
Page 13 of 14
Xl. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS UNDER MCR 2.114(E)
Defendant's motion and brief includes numerous material misrepresentations
regarding the case law which defendant relies upon. These are material issues at the
heart of the controversy.
Immediately after reviewing defendant's brief and comparing it to the cited opinions
from the Court of Appeals, plaintiff provided defendant's counsel with notice of these
errors as a courtesy. Plaintiff specifically suggested that defendant review NEWARK
more carefully and noted that it would make more sense to correct the errors and
present arguments at the bench trial which has already been scheduled. Defendant
declined to cure the errors and plaintiff was required to spend approximately 9 hours
writing this brief. MCR 2.114(E) provides:
If a document is signed in violation of this rule, the court, on the motion of a

party or on its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a
represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an
order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable
expenses incurred because of the filing of the document, including
reasonable attorney fees. The court may not assess punitive damages.
RELIEF REQUESTED:
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully asks this court to deny defendant's motion for
summary disposition and assess sanctions under MCR 2.114(E) for signing a filing in
bad faith.
Respectfully Submitted on DI l sI 17 , W
P4k
Daniel W. Rudd, Plaintiff(Pro Se)
The undersigned swears and affirms that on 12/15/2017, he placed a copy of this brief in the United States mail,
prepaid, for first class delivery to Attorney Bogren at the address noted in the caption.
kg-it 31."-/
Daniel W. Rudd ate
Page 14 of 14
EXHIBIT H
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Plaintiff, File No. 17-004334-CZ

vs.
MOTION
Defendant.
RECORD
of the proceedings had in the above-entitled
cause on the 22nd day of December, 2017, before
HONORABLE TIMOTHY HICKS, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
APPEARANCES:
The Plaintiff appeared in person,

but was not represented by counsel.
LISA A. HALL, J.D. (P70200)

Attorney at Law
on behalf of the Defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WITNESS: PAGE
None
EXHIBITS: PAGE
None
1 Friday, December 22, 2017
2 At 10:00:12 A.M..
3 Muskegon, Michigan
4 RECORD
5 THE COURT: File Number 17-4334-CZ, Rudd
6 versus Norton Shores. Mr. Rudd represents himself
7 here today and Ms. Hall represents Norton Shores.
8 We're entertaining a -- Defendant's Motion for
9 Summary Disposition. Ms. Hall, go ahead.
10 MS. HALL: Good morning, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Good morning.
12 MS. HALL: This is the Motion for Summary
13 Disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). I will
14 rely primarily on the motion and brief filed with the
15 Court. And if the Court has any questions for me,
16 I'm happy to answer.
17 Briefly, though, Your Honor, the city is
18 seeking dismissal of the claims made by the Plaintiff
19 for violation of FOIA pursuant to MCL 15.243, Section
20 (1)(s)(ix), which is the exemption for personnel
21 records of a law enforcement agency. Based on the
22 case law cited in our brief and the document -- the
23 documents requested by the Plaintiff are personnel
24 records that are subject to the exemption --
25 THE COURT: Do you want some water?

1 MS. HALL: I -- I -- I apologize, Your
2 Honor. I have --
3 THE COURT: I can hear you okay.
4 MS. HALL: -- vocal cord nodules. I had
5 them checked on Monday with the ENT, actually,
6 because I've been suffering -- I've fought with a
7 cold for three weeks.
8 THE COURT: That's fine.
9 MS. HALL: I apologize, but thank you so
10 much --
11 THE COURT: You don't --
12 MS. HALL: -- for asking.
13 THE COURT: You don't have to apologize,
14 but we've got some water.
15 MS. HALL: I will definitely take some. I
16 just drank a bunch out in the parking lot and --
17 THE COURT: All right. Why don't you --
18 MS. HALL: I was just actually -- So you
19 can still hear the hoarseness. I don't know.
20 THE COURT: All right.
21 MS. HALL: I'm sorry about that.
22 THE COURT: Let's just pause for a minute.
23 MS. HALL: Yes. I went to the ENT
24 actually on Monday because I have three kids so I
25 thought, oh, I'm just having a cold, but turns out I

1 have maybe acid reflux is what they think. I don't
2 know.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 MS. HALL: But --
5 THE COURT: Just -- just wait a minute,
6 we'll get you some water.
7 MS. HALL: Oh, I appreciate that. Thank
8 you.
9 THE CLERK-BAILIFF: You're welcome.
10 MS. HALL: I'm not sure it's going to get
11 any better, but I'll try my hardest.
12 THE COURT: Well, brevity is always a
13 virtue in court so --
14 MS. HALL: Yes.
15 THE COURT: -- you can always hide behind
16 that.
17 MS. HALL: Yes.
18 THE COURT: But I -- I fear that
19 Mr. Bogren has left you with some work to do.
20 MS. HALL: Okay.
21 THE COURT: So go ahead and finish your
22 comments if you want, then I have a few questions for
23 you.
24 MS. HALL: Sure. Based on the case law
25 cited in the brief, the documents we believe

1 requested by the Plaintiff are personnel records
2 pre-empted by the exemption. And based upon the
3 affidavit of Chief Jon Gale, we believe that the
4 public interest in disclosing the documents does not
5 outweigh the public interest in not disclosing them,
6 so we're seeking summary disposition in our favor
7 today.
8 THE COURT: The statute itself talks about
9 balance. Right?
10 MS. HALL: Uh-huh.
11 THE COURT: Unless -- unless the public
12 interest of disclosure outweighs the public interest
13 of non-disclosure.
14 MS. HALL: Yes.
15 THE COURT: In this case, the Court hasn't
16 even done any weighing yet.
17 MS. HALL: No, it hasn't done any
18 weighing. But based on the evidence we've provided
19 in the -- and any reason -- and the Plaintiff hasn't
20 provided any reason why -- what we could weigh
21 against, I mean that's the issue here.
22 THE COURT: Mr. Rudd is seeking citizen
23 complaints. Correct?
24 MS. HALL: Yes.
25 THE COURT: Is that separate from a

1 personnel record?
2 MS. HALL: I do not believe so based on
3 the cases and based on our affidavit, the Chief --
4 THE COURT: But he's not seeking internal
5 investigation reports.
6 MS. HALL: Well, he's -- two different --
7 there's two different requests in there. He was
8 seeking the complaints, I think, number one. Your
9 Honor, let me look here.
10 THE COURT: The first thing was
11 interesting.
12 MS. HALL: Yeah. Any and all complaints
13 submitted against the Norton Shores Police
14 Department's policies or employees from January 1 to
15 present and also -- also requesting a copy of any
16 corresponding written reports, disposition or
17 documents describing the results of internal
18 investigations. So he is seeking both and he's
19 trying to split them. This is all one file,
20 according to the chief of the police department at
21 Norton Shores.
22 And in the cases I've cited or cited in
23 the brief, Your Honor, those cases ask for all
24 documents relating to the internal investigation
25 which would include the complaint. And the courts in

1 those cases, all three of them cited, did not require
2 the entity to turn over the complaints.
3 THE COURT: True. But most of those cases
4 the plaintiff sought directly the internal
5 investigation reports.
6 MS. HALL: They -- they specifically
-7 reference internal investigation reports.
8 THE COURT: Let's focus on the citizen
9 complaints for a minute.
10 MS. HALL: I'm sorry?
11 THE COURT: Let's focus on -- on the
12 citizen complaints for a minute.
13 MS. HALL: Yes.
14 THE COURT: Okay. Because that's sort of
15 I'm trying to look at these two discreetly.
16 First thing I need to say is this. Mr. Bogren may
17 have left you in a bad spot. He -- he cites this
18 Kent County case -- Kent County deputy case --
19 MS. HALL: Uh-huh.
20 THE COURT: -- and he gives me a Michigan
21 court of appeals citation to it. See where I'm
22 talking about?
23 MS. HALL: I don't.
24 THE COURT: Well, he didn't give us the
25 supreme court citation. So when you go back, you

1 might point that out to him. He -- he stopped a
2 couple yards short of the goal line.
3 Now the good news for you guys is that the
4 supreme court decision on that issue pretty much
5 affirmed what the court of appeals did, so you're not
6 having to defend an adverse result, but you may point
-7 that out to him when you -
8 MS. HALL: I absolutely will.
9 THE COURT: -- when you go back to the
10 office. And -- and Mr. Rudd, he likes the Newark
11 case, too, almost as much as you guys do. And of
12 course you read -- you're picking the eggs from that
13 omelet that you guys like and ignoring the eggs that
14 favor the other -- that favor the other people.
15 But if a citizen complaint comes in the
16 court door, comes in the mail, the city could keep
1-7 that in a separate file, couldn't it?
18 MS. HALL: They could, I suppose, but it
19 wasn't -- they're not, according to --
20 THE COURT: Right. But there was some
21 verbiage in the Newark case that says that the city
22 can't shield disclosable materials by putting them
23 into a -- a file like that. Right?
24 MS. HALL: Understand -- Yes, I
25 understand that. There is some language in that case

1 that says that. But in this case, the Complaint is
2 paramount to what the underlying investigation would
3 be. It's going to --
4 THE COURT: How do you know?
5 MS. HALL: Well, because it's going to
6 indicate -- and that's -- it's going to indicate who
7 is making the Complaint, what the Complaint is about,
8 and I think that's going to have, as Mr. Bogren
9 states in his brief, a chilling effect on any sort of
10 investigation that's done that would --
11 THE COURT: But --
12 MS. HALL: -- make the interest not be
13 outweighed by disclosing them.
14 THE COURT: But the merit of the complaint•
15 quite often has nothing to do with substantiative
16 charges or the merit of any changes against the
17 officer.
18 MS. HALL: It discloses --
19 THE COURT: I'm sure that the city gets
20 probably totally frivolous complaints that says
21 Officer Rudd drives past my house 39 times a day and
22 he's harassing me and has no basis in reality at all.
23 Correct?
24 MS. HALL: It could.
25 THE COURT: So disclosing that type of a
10
1 meritless complaint would not implicate any of the --
2 any of the concerns noted in your affidavits.
3 MS. HALL: I don't I wouldn't agree
4 with that, because --
5 THE COURT: Let me try it one more way.
6 MS. HALL: Well, because I think --
7 THE COURT: Let's -- let's suppose that --
8 that the PD sends somebody out for takeout food and
9 there was a list of the charges from the restaurant
10 and maybe somebody went in uniform and so there was a
11 concern that we didn't want the public to know about
12 that. Okay? So Officer Hall, here you go, you're
13 the short -- you drew the short straw. You get to go
14 to Jimmy John's and pick up all of our subs.
15 MS. HALL: Sure.
16 THE COURT: Okay? Can I put that in
17 somebody's personnel file and then shield it from
18 disclosure? I mean, I can take the takeout slip and
19 throw it in Officer Hall's personnel file and shield
20 that from disclosure because the exemptions are
21 narrowly construed. Right?
22 MS. HALL: Right. But they're not asking
23 for -- I mean, that's not what's being asked for
24 here. He's asking for --
25 THE COURT: He wants --
11
1 MS. HALL: -- all complaint --
2 THE COURT: -- citizen complaints and
3 internal stuff.
4 MS. HALL: And internal stuff.
5 THE COURT: And I want you to consider
6 those -- Forget about the internal stuff for a
minute.
8 MS. HALL: Okay.
9 THE COURT: Talking about citizen
10 complaints. The piece of paper or e-mail or
11 whatever. You're -- you're claiming that those are
12 officer personnel records --
13 MS. HALL: Yes, they --
14 THE COURT: -- because they are
15 intertwined with internal investigations?
16 MS. HALL: Yes.
17 THE COURT: And I'm suggesting that a lot
18 of those complaints probably don't result in any
19 internal investigation. They get read and thrown
20 into this frivolous complaint file pretty quickly.
21 MS. HALL: They may.
22 THE COURT: Okay. So those would be
23 disclosable. Come on.
24 MS. HALL: No. I -- I guess my -- my --
25 THE COURT: How about -- how about my
12
1 Jimmy John's takeout slip? You're saying that that's
2 non-disclosable under FOIA if we put it in the Lisa
3 Hall personnel file?
4 MS. HALL: If that went to the Lisa Hall
5 personnel file for that individual, I would say -- I
6 would say that that's not -
7 THE COURT: And you're calling that a
8 personnel -- a personnel record --
9 MS. HALL: Yes.
10 THE COURT: -- that's not disclosable?
11 MS. HALL: Yes, I would --
12 THE COURT: The Jimmy John's takeout slip?
13 MS. HALL: I would. If that was a part of
14 the file and there would have had to be some sort of
15 investigation or some sort of determination that they
16 didn't make a -- you know, they didn't make an
17 investigation on that. They wouldn't just place it
18 in there and do nothing. And I think that disclosing
19 full files like that prohibits people from making
20 complaints and that could have a chilling effect from
21 an overall policy perspective.
22 THE COURT: Now there's verbiage in some
23 of the case law in question, especially in Newark,
24 that the location of the record doesn't necessarily
25 determine its disclosability.
13
1 MS. HALL: Right.
2 THE COURT: So by your definition, then,
3 anything the city gets could be shielded from
4 disclosure by putting it into Lisa Hall or Tim Hicks'
5 personnel file?
6 MS. HALL: If it was a part -- Yes, I do
7 believe so.
8 THE COURT: And then the city's making
9 that determination. So if it was a Christmas card
10 and if I put it in Lisa Hall's personnel file, that
11 would make it non-disclosable?
12 MS. HALL: If it was a -- I apologize?
13 THE COURT: Let's suppose it was a
14 Christmas card from some business person who was
15 hinting at a bribe.
16 MS. HALL: But they're not -- They're not
17 asking for a --
18 THE COURT: But you say -- but you
19 haven't --
20 MS. HALL: You're saying everything.
21 THE COURT: You're saying everything.
22 You're giving --
23 MS. HALL: Right.
24 THE COURT: You're giving me the Lisa Hall
25 rule that everything --
14
1 MS. HALL: No. And I --
2 THE COURT: -- can be rendered not
3 disclosable by throwing it into somebody's file.
4 MS. HALL: Well, and I -- I would clarify
5 that. The files here being requested are files
6 including complaints and the investigation reports
7 were not -- not turning -- I mean, there's not a
8 request for any sort of Christmas card or -- It's
9 more specific stuff that wouldn't relate to an
10 investigation that occurred.
11 THE COURT: Well, I'm giving you some
12 outlandish examples.
13 MS. HALL: Yeah, I mean --
14 THE COURT: But you seem to be saying that
15 anything that goes into the Tim Hicks' personnel file
16 is non-disclosable.
17 MS. HALL: If it was -- I -- I would
18 clarify that. I would say if it -- if at any point
19 it was investigated or -- you know, at any point it
20 really has to be and to determine whether they're not
21 going to take the next step, those documents -- I
22 mean, I'm not sure a Christmas card that someone
23 would send to the county or the police department
24 would get put into a personnel file. It's going to
25 be --
15
1 THE COURT: You're -- By your definition,
2 the city could do that.
3 MS. HALL: But -- but complaints --
4 THE COURT: They say, you know, we don't
5 want the public to know that Tim Hicks got a
6 Christmas card from this influential businessman, so
7 we're going to put it in the personnel file.
8 MS. HALL: Yeah. I don't think that -- I
9 don't think that that's -- I mean, what I'm saying
10 here today is based on my understanding from speaking
11 with -- or this case is the underlying files contain
12 complaints and investigation reports and that is what
13 Mr. Rudd is here today asking for and we're saying
14 that they're exempt under the -- the exemption under
15 15.
16 THE COURT: Both of them?
17 MS. HALL: Both of them. Yes.
18 THE COURT: A11 right.
19 MS. HALL: Yes.
20 THE COURT: Got it.
21 MS. HALL: And if I'm correct -- I need
22 to go back and look at the Newark case, but I'm not
23 sure that they were referring to the complaints being
24 placed in another file. I think -- Weren't they
25 talking about -- I -- Let me just double check
16
1 that. I've got --
2 THE COURT: Sure.
3 MS. HALL: -- a copy of it here, Your
4 Honor. I --
5 THE COURT: Well, it says that the -- The
6 overview of the case says the newspaper -- says,
7 quote: The newspaper sought access to all records
8 regarding the sheriff's completed internal
9 investigate -- internal affairs investigations,
10 including all factual findings and determination made
11 by the internal affairs investigator.
12 MS. HALL: Yeah. And that was referring
13 to the investigative reports which would include
14 inherently --
15 THE COURT: I know.
16 MS. HALL: -- complaint.
17 THE COURT: But that's not what I'm asking
18 you about. I'm asking about the citizen complaints
19
20 MS. HALL: Yes.
21 THE COURT: That dog-eared piece of paper
22
23 MS. HALL: Yep.
24 THE COURT: -- that comes in the mail.
25 MS. HALL: Yep.
17
1 THE COURT: That's what I'm asking you
2 about. Citizen complaints.
3 MS. HALL: Well, the citizen complaints
4 instigate that investigation and are a part of that
5 complaint, just like the case here -- our case here
6 today, our case includes the complaint filed by
-7 Mr. Rudd. It's one file.
8 THE COURT: Because the city chose to
9 handle it that way.
10 MS. HALL: Well, because that's how --
11 THE COURT: The city -- the city could
12 keep citizen complaints in a separate file. Citizen
13 complaints, 2014, citizen complaints --
14 MS. HALL: They could, but --
16 MS. HALL: -- in this case and based on
17 the affidavit presented here today, Your Honor,
18 that's not how they -- they do it. Just like the
19 court doesn't keep complaints in separate files apart
20 from the pleadings.
21 THE COURT: Well, that's --
22 MS. HALL: Well, that --
23 THE COURT: But I mean, the complaint of
24 course is a term of art, though.
25 MS. HALL: But any complaint -- I mean,
18
1 when you file a complaint with an administrative
2 agency, that's in the -- that's in the file for --
3 For example, with the State of Michigan for an
4 appraiser, that complaint that's filed by an entity
5 against that appraiser is in that file for that
6 individual. It would make no sense to have it in a
7 separate shadow file somewhere where there's just
8 tons of complaints. I mean, I don't know why -- what
9 the purpose of that is. The complaint is what
10 instigates and starts the investigation --
11 THE COURT: True.
12 MS. HALL: -- for the county. And my --
13 we believe today that both of the requests by
14 Mr. Rudd are exempted under the exemption for the
15 under Section 15.243.
17 MS. HALL: And yeah, I believe the Newark
18 case was talking about the investigative reports and
19 ultimately those were exempted. And I -- I -- there
20 was --
21 THE COURT: I don't -
22 MS. HALL: -- no distinction.
23 THE COURT: -- know that any of the cases
24 that you've cited or any that I've seen -- I'm not
25 faulting your office. -- talk about citizen
19
1 complaints, really.
2 MS. HALL: Well, they talk about all
3 documents --
5 MS. HALL: -- Your Honor. And if I'm
6 requesting all documents relating to a case here in
7 this Court, that would include a complaint.
8 THE COURT: All right. But -- You --
9 you've done a nice job here today with some serious
10 questioning.
11 MS. HALL: No. Thank you, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: But -- but again, your
13 position is anything that goes into the Tim Hicks'
14 personnel file, anything at all -- Jimmy John's
15 slips, Christmas cards, compliments from the
16 public -- that's all now secret because I threw it
17 into the Tim Hicks' personnel file?
18 MS. HALL: I don't know that that's what
19 would go in the personnel file.
20 THE COURT: No.
21 MS. HALL: So that's why I --
22 THE COURT: No. That's not my question.
23 My question -- You're saying anything that goes into
24 that file --
25 MS. HALL: If it was --
20
1 THE COURT: -- is --
2 MS. HALL: -- related to an investigative
3 purpose --
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 MS. HALL: -- or instigated a complaint
6 THE COURT: So if it --
7 MS. HALL: -- yes.
8 THE COURT: -- wasn't related to it --
9 MS. HALL: Yes, I would say then you would
10 not. Because if it's something where -- I don't
11 know what would go in a file that wasn't to start --
12 I mean, if I got a Christmas card or if I sent a
13 Christmas card to your chambers, I wouldn't expect
14 that to go into a file or -- I don't know if an
15 employee sent one to you, I wouldn't expect that
16 Christmas card, Your Honor, to go into his personnel
17 file. I mean, it's stuff related to complaints that
18 warrant someone taking a look to see if an
19 investigation has to be done. And I think that
20 turning over that stuff would prohibit people from
21 making complaints and getting meaningful
22 investigations. I mean, this is to present date, so
23 that could include any complaints that are currently
24 under investigation.
25 I think you're opening yourself up to a
21
1 whole can of worms if we start saying you can have
2 everything -- all of our investigate -- which you can
3 under that exemption, and that's the whole purpose of
4 that exemption is so that meaningful investigations
5 can be done and citizens will make complaints and not
6 feel -- and have that chilling effect, as Mr. Bogren
7 said, you know, stopping those complaints, so --
8 THE COURT: Thank you.
9 MS. HALL: Thank you, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Mr. Rudd?
11 MR. DANIEL RUDD: If it pleases the Court,
12 what if I remain seated here so that I could answer
13 your questions --
14 THE COURT: No.
15 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- promptly?
16 THE COURT: My experience -- You -- you
17 may stay there, but I want you to stand up.
18 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Oh, no.
19 THE COURT: You may stay there if you want
20 to, that's fine. My experience has been that I can
21 hear better and people frankly get better arguments
22 if they're up.
23 Why do you want this stuff?
24 MR. DANIEL RUDD: These records I've
25 requested because, like the public, as is evident in
22
1
2 THE COURT: But you don't even live in the
3 county.
4 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Well, I'm frequently in
5 the county.
7 MR. DANIEL RUDD: And I have a concern
8 that the Norton Shores Police Department does not
9 maintain consistent standards in dealing with citizen
10 initiated complaints. I have a concern that -- And
11 actually, Norton Shores has not for the past -- not
12 since 2014 even published the very summary
13 statistical data of how many complaints are received,
14 how many were internal versus external, how many were
15 substantiated versus unsubstantiated, and that's a --
16 that's actually a requirement that's part of their
17 CALEA certification and --
18 THE COURT: CALEA is -- is an acronym,
19 C-A-L-E-A. Right?
20 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I think so, but I'm not
21 talking about the -- the CALEA that's related to
22 privacy issues --
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- that was signed into
25 law in the Obama era. It's -- it's a law enforcement
23
1 certification organization. But these standards are
2 -- are fairly common throughout the country.
3 So my concern was with not just how many
4 complaints are there, although that information isn't
5 currently publicly available that I'm aware of. My
6 concern is are these complaints handled in a way that
7 is consistent, that's effective, that -- are the
8 actual concerns of the citizens addressed? Because
9 if the citizens don't have any idea of how Norton
10 Shores arrived at their disposition, I'm not
11 suggesting that they should disclose -- I mean, these
12 personnel files contain Garrity statements, they
13 contain a lot of information that is shielded and
14 protected and privileged by various statutes in
15 Michigan.
16 I've been very clear in my request and in
17 my pleadings in my appeal to the Norton Shores city
18 that I'm not asking for those things. I'm not asking
19 for personnel evaluations, I'm not asking for
20 anything that would indicate the specific actions
21 that they take when discipline is warranted.
22 What I'm looking for is -- I would like
23 to know, and even if the names are redacted, of who
24 the citizens are, what is the basic nature of the
25 complaint? What's the basic nature of the
24
1 disposition and how did you arrive at that?
2 THE COURT: Now my questioning of Ms. Hall
3 at several points to talk about whether or not your
4 request could be severed into two parts, and you seem
5 to be going down that road a little bit. You're
6 saying you don't want the internal investigation
7 reports. Correct?
8 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Correct.
9 THE COURT: But if the court orders
10 disclosure simply of the citizen complaint file,
11 that's incomplete relief for you. Correct?
12 MR. DANIEL RUDD: That would be
13 incomplete.
14 THE COURT: Because you want to know what
15 the city did with it.
16 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Yes.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MR. DANIEL RUDD: And according to the
19 City of Norton Shores, on their website as they
20 describe this process, they indicate when your
21 complaint is received, it will be assigned and
22 investigated and we'll keep you apprised of what's
23 happened. Once the investigation is completed, a
24 summary of that investigation, which would not
25 include all of the confidential information -- a
25
1 summary of that information is provided to the chief
2 of police. The chief of police then corresponds with
3 the complainant to advise them as to here is how we
4 worked this out.
5 THE COURT: Okay. So --
6 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Those are all separate
7 records, in my opinion.
8 THE COURT: If -- if you win in this case,
9 what's the order say?
10 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Well --
11 THE COURT: You're -- you're agreeing you
12 don't get internal investigation reports?
14 THE COURT: You like the fact that I'm
15 talking about disclosing the citizen complaints.
16 Correct?
17 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I do.
18 THE COURT: But that enough -- that's not
19 enough. You want something from the city that
20 intimates what the city did with it. Isn't that a
21 personnel record?
22 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I would say that the
23 portion of that, some -- the disposition which is
24 then -- I mean, a personnel record is -- is defined
25 as a record that's created for the purpose of
26
1 managing personnel issues and it -- it is true that
2 in Kent County -- and that's been --
3 THE COURT: The Kent County case, you
4 mean?
5 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Yep. And the appellate
6 decision there has been cited in numerous other
7 published decisions, because the supreme court did
8 basically affirm --
9 THE COURT: Did you cite the supreme court
10 version of that?
12 THE COURT: I can't remember.
13 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I didn't actually --
14 Because the burden was on him, I just basically
15 addressed the case law which he had presented. But I
16 did read the supreme court determination and I -- and
17 I felt like, well, that doesn't really -- that
18 doesn't affect what we're discussing here.
19 But numerous cases have cited the
20 appellate decision to the extent that it was
21 affirmed, but they're all very clear in -- in a
22 couple of things. First of all, that was a -- a very
23 narrow thing they were requesting. They already had
24 the complaint. They already had the disposition. In
25 fact, that matter had been --
27
1 THE COURT: Which case are you talking
2 about now?
3 MR. DANIEL RUDD: The Kent County.
4 THE COURT: That was the case where the
5 deputies union wanted materials from the sheriff to
6 question or --
7 MR. DANIEL RUDD: They wanted --
8 THE COURT: -- challenge some disciplinary
9 action.
10 MR. DANIEL RUDD: They wanted the real
11 stuff, the investigative records because, you know,
12 an adverse action had been taken against these
13 employees. And interesting in that case, the issue
14 of the confidentiality of those records had already
15 been established through a different statute. The
16 union tried to first get them I think through the
17 Employee Right to Know Act or something of that
18 nature, and so a -- a large part of the analysis from
19 the court of appeals is saying, you know, we do think
20 that the personnel records exemption as articulated
21 in the FOIA corresponds to the same general policy
22 considerations. And in both Newark and that decision
23 and many subsequent decisions --
24 And I agree, there's not -- there's not a
25 -- a case as of yet that makes an authoritative
28
1 determination on the citizen's record portion,
2 however -- or citizen complaint.
3 THE COURT: Well, you might be famous
4 before we're done. But let me go back to my question
5 for a minute. If -- if you win then, I can say, all
6 right, city has to disclose, at least for in camera
7 review, the actual citizen complaint file. Okay?
8 Right?
9 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I would say --
10 THE COURT: You like that?
11 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- if I win today then
12 the in camera review would potentially encompass even
13 more than that, because subsequent decisions -- In
14 -- in the most recent --
15 THE COURT: Well, just a minute. Just
16 bear with me --
17 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Okay.
18 THE COURT: -- for a minute. You agree
19 that internal affairs investigations are not
20 disclosable?
21 MR. DANIEL RUDD: No.
22 THE COURT: I thought that's what that
23 whole line of cases said.
24 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I --
25 THE COURT: Newark and all those, they
29
1 said you don't get to do internal investigation --
2 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I --
3 THE COURT: -- evaluations and reports.
4 MR. DANIEL RUDD: My denial of that is
5 based upon the distinction between exemptible and
6 exempt. And Newark, Kent County and then the case
7 THE COURT: (Unintelligible.)
8 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Many other cases are
9 very clear in that distinction that just because
10 something is exemptible, it doesn't mean it's exempt.
11 That's where the balancing test comes in.
12 THE COURT: And the court has to look at
13 those to do the balancing test.
14 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Often has to do an in
15 camera review of exactly those reports. And the case
16 law indicates that someone in my position is really
17 limited on their ability to say, well, here's exactly
18 what they -- what I want, because that whole process
19 is kind of shrouded in secrecy, which isn't great for
20 the public's confidence in it, but it also creates a
21 limitation of me being very specific about what those
22 records I want are and why I want them.
23 So the case law dealing with that
24 conundrum says that the court is typically going to
25 be required to get some help from the parties and it
30
1 places the primary emphasis on the person who is
2 withholding the records, because the burden of proof
3 is on them, not just at summary disposition stage,
4 although much more so here. But the burden of proof
5 is on them to demonstrate in very specific ways
6 particular to each individual record, not a whole
7 file. It's fine to keep them all together, but that
8 doesn't change the fact that these are individual
9 records. And in most cases --
10 In fact, in Newark, the trial court had
11 actually conducted an in camera review of the records
12 themselves and that's because the defendant had not
13 presented affidavits which adequately described the
14 nature of the records, which I would contend is also
15 the case here today. The case law in Michigan is
16 really clear that the affidavits, if you're trying to
17 do this at a summary disposition level -- And no
18 offense. I agree that you've been given what you've
19 been given. But at this level --
20 THE COURT: No offense what?
21 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I was saying no offense
22 to Attorney Hall. She didn't write this brief and --
24 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- she's been given this
25 position. But the case law is very clear that if
31
1 you're -- if you're relying on affidavits, it needs
2 to be on personal knowledge, it needs to describe
3 very specifically the exact nature of what those
4 documents are, not a whole file, because we don't --
5 we don't want to necessarily say that the Jimmy
6 John's receipt is exemptible.
7 But that's a really important distinction
8 because even throwing aside every -- everything
9 that's been kind of covered here today, we've still
10 only reached the point of exemptible, you know, to --
11 that's why I'm arguing in my brief that --
12 THE COURT: Well, give me the practical
13 important of this -- your argument exempt versus
14 exemptible. What's that mean?
16 THE COURT: What's that mean to me?
17 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- in new -- in Newark,
18 what they established was --
19 THE COURT: No. No. Practical, what's
20 that mean to me?
21 MR. DANIEL RUDD: It means that if it's
22 exemptible, now you have to make a very
23 particularized determination and issue.
24 THE COURT: So step one is exemptible.
25 And step two, should it be exempt?
32
THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. DANIEL RUDD: And that's where the
4 public interest balancing test comes in. And it is
5 actually a separate balancing test for the personnel
6 records exemption. They're similar, but it's
7 different than it would be for the exemption of
8 investigations that are still pending. Those are
9 similar analysis, but they are different. A lot of
10 the same criteria apply.
17_ The case law does hold, though, that even
12 if they were to -- at the bench trial that's
13 currently scheduled, they could actually come to that
14 hearing and say: Well, we agree it's no longer good
15 under that, but now we want to serve this exemption.
16 So I'll give you that. But all of that only works,
17 you know, at that point. It -- Summary disposition
18 at this point is -- is completely implausible. And
19 the only way that --
20 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this.
21 The court rules You've done a nice job. Your
22 briefing is probably among the best I've ever seen
23 for somebody representing themself. The -- Are
24 there --
25 Well, let me try it this way. They're
33
1 seeking summary disposition, all right, under C10.
2 All right. The court rules allow me to grant you
3 summary disposition today sort of on a rebound
4 argument, even though you haven't maybe haven't
5 filed such a motion.
6 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I didn't ask for it
7 because it's not appropriate.
8 THE COURT: Well, what -- So you say
9 there are factual disputes?
10 MR. DANIEL RUDD: There are factual
11 disputes, certainly.
12 THE COURT: So we have a trial to decide
13 the factual disputes?
14 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Yes, and that's why --
15 THE COURT: So you don't think --
16 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- another reason
17 summary disposition is inappropriate.
18 THE COURT: Isn't the bench trial just
19 going to be an extended version of the argument we're
20 having today?
21 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Yes, it is, and I -- I
22 stated that specifically to Mr. Bogren.
23 THE COURT: What factual disputes are
24 there?
25 MR. DANIEL RUDD: The factual disputes
34
1 would be, number one, is it credible that Chief Gale
2 asserts that this is the blanket policy that we apply
3 across the board? Is that -- because that's a
4 credibility determination in an affidavit and in that
5 case summary disposition is not appropriate.
6 THE COURT: Well, I don't know about that.
7 Isn't that issue really whether what he asserts
8 complies with the law?
9 MR. DANIEL RUDD: That's the legal
10 question, but there is still a factual question of is
11 this even the policy that they --
12 THE COURT: Okay. Let's suppose I find
13 that he's a good, credible witness but he's wrong
14 about the law.
15 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Then they lose on that,
16 too.
17 THE COURT: So that's why I'm saying, does
18 this credibility matter at all?
19 MR. DANIEL RUDD: It does, because I've
20 also alleged that this denial of the request was
21 arbitrary and capricious and I'm asking for the
22 putative sanctions that are expressed under the
23 statute when a denial is made in that fashion. So my
24 assertion would be not only does this not comport
25 with what we know of the policies within Norton
35
1 Shores, but this doesn't comport with Norton Shores'
2 previous actions. And I -- I believe that there
3 certainly is a factual dispute there.
4 The transcript of the deposition isn't
5 available yet because, you know, we barely had time
6 to do that.
7 THE COURT: Okay. So if you win today,
8 what's the order say?
9 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Summary disposition is
10 denied. Bench trial will continue as planned in the
11 scheduling order, and sanctions under 2.114(D) for
12 signing a document that was frivolous, not
13 well-grounded in fact and law. I mean, the only
14 reason you could even possibly consider summary
15 disposition at this point is if Mr. Bogren is correct
16 in stating that the case law of these three cases
17 he's presented -- Newark, Kent County and then one
18 other case, which I think is equally inapplicable
19 here -- he's saying it puts this beyond argument, and
20 that was not a true statement at all. The way he
21 frames Newark is completely false. He says the court
22 of appeals rejected the argument that location is not
23 determinative.
24 THE COURT: Let's hold off on the
25 derivative issues for a minute --
36
2 THE COURT: -- sanctions, arbitrary,
3 capricious, attorney fees, that kind of stuff. Let's
4 hold off on those.
5 At trial, if you win, what's the order
6 say?
7 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Well, it would indicate
8 which of those records are exempt and which -- which
9 of those records must be disclosed.
10 THE COURT: All right. Wouldn't it be
11 better for me to start examining those now?
12 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I definitely think so.
13 And I suggested to Mr. Bogren that that's what should
14 have been presented to the Court.
15 THE COURT: All right. Now back to my
16 probably --
17 (Whereupon, video stopped at
18 10:30:49 A.M.; video resumed
19 at 10:33:04 A.M..)
20 THE COURT: Ms. Hall, you can you can
21 read my handwriting?
22 MS. HALL: Yes, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So we're
24 back to work here. All right. Let's do this.
25 Before I go to my further questions on the board, I
37
1 should give Mr. Rudd a chance to finish up any of his
2 comments that you think are germane that are in your
3 outline.
4 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Okay. Well --
5 The COURT: Briefly.
6 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- you've asked me what
7 the order would look like today. Maybe one thing
8 that would additionally be helpful in reaching the
9 determination would be if the parties would brief the
10 Court on the process for separating these out. In
11 Federated Publication versus City of Lansing, this
12 case, trial court, appellate court, supreme court,
13 appellate court, back to trial court, so these -- and
14 this case specifically focused on citizen complaints.
15 Although in this case, it was pretty much a given
16 that the citizen complaints were disclosed all the
17 way up to the supreme court and back down, they just
18 -- after the trial court, they kind of just decided,
19 well, we're going to do that.
20 But the supreme court gives a lot of
21 instructive information on the process in the
22 balancing test, but there's also some contemplation
23 of how the trial court should divide these records
24 out. Really that burden is, from the very beginning
25 based on the FOIA statute, that's -- that is on the
38
1 person who holds the records. They're supposed to
2 separate exempt from non-exempt.
3 THE COURT: Well, let me go to the board
4 now for a minute. I've written three columns on the
5 board. Column A is -- it says: Only citizen
6 complaints. That's on the left. Column B is on the
7 right, it says internal affairs findings, et cetera.
8 And then Column C is in orange in the middle and --
9 and I wrote -- quote: What they did with it -- end
10 quote. Okay?
11 Now, I really pushed Ms. Hall on this and
12 she wouldn't concede much, but I would think that a
13 stand alone citizen complaint probably is exempt and
14 should be disclosed. Do you agree?
15 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I think not exempt and
16 should be disclosed.
17 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Thank you. You
18 agree that something that is internal affairs
19 reports, Column B, is generally not disclosable?
20 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Yes, those actual
21 records.
22 THE COURT: Fair enough. Now in the
23 bottom of Column B, so you agree with me that they're
24 not disclosable, but the statute itself says even for
25 those, there's an exception for the balancing.
39
1 Right?
2 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Yes. So I should --
3 THE COURT: So that's --
4 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- back up.
5 THE COURT: So you like that where I wrote
6 on the green in the bottom?
8 THE COURT: That even for personnel
9 records, there's that exception for balancing?
10 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Yep. And then the court
11 would review that and make a discretionary decision.
12 THE COURT: Now what I've asked you bad
13 questions about is this thing in the middle, which is
14 that you've talked sometimes about, well, I want to
15 know what they did with it. I want to know how they
16 handled it and things like that.
17 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Right.
18 THE COURT: And that's what I put in the
19 middle in the orange. Where is the authority to
20 disclose that?
21 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Well, it would be -- I
22 don't -- I agree that I don't -- like they're not
23 required to generate something for me --
24 THE COURT: Right.
25 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- because I want that
40
1 summary.
2 THE COURT: Yeah.
3 MR. DANIEL RUDD: But according to their
4 -- their statement on their website, they do generate
5 a writing, they do generate what would be considered
6 a public record for the purpose, at least, of
7 corresponding with the citizen who initiated the
8 complaint. So what I specifically asked for was any
9 record that's created which is disseminated outside
10 of that confidential process. In my opinion, if that
11 goes to the city council, if that goes to anybody
12 outside of those confidential constrictions, that's a
13 public record and that's disclosable.
14 THE COURT: Okay. So I -- I'm not sure I
15 see any basis for that third category, Category C,
16 the quote: What they did with it part.
17 Now your -- your position might be then to
18 say, well, wait a minute, judge, it's not your job to
19 do that. It's their job to show that it is
20 exemptible. Right? So that would give you some
21 relief in Category C.
22 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Right. They would have
23 to --
24 THE COURT: Yeah.
25 MR. DANIEL RUDD: They would have to --
41
1 THE COURT: It's their burden.
2 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- demonstrate the
3 balancing test.
4 THE COURT: So close calls go in favor of
5 you, you're the plaintiff. It's their job.
6 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Pro-disclosure statute.
7 THE COURT: It's their job to show that
8 the stuff in Category C should be exempt?
9 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Yes, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: All right. But you would --
11 you -- I don't see anything in any of the cases you
12 guys have cited that addresses Category C.
13 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Category C or Category
14
15 THE COURT: Category C is in the middle.
17 THE COURT: The -- the quote: What they
18 did with it category.
19 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I mean, the only case
20 law that would address that would be some of the
21 recent case law on the frank discussions exemption.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MR. DANIEL RUDD: But if -- that really
24 would not apply to anything of this nature.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
42
1 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I think the reason
2 there's not a lot of case law on that is because it's
3 -- it's a given. If the department sends a letter to
4 a citizen, that's a public record. It's only in rare
5 circumstances, maybe under the privacy exemption if
6 they were to say: Well, this is a unique
7 circumstance where this citizen could really -- you
8 know, they unjustifiably -- Maybe it involves
9 allegations of something that happened to a child.
10 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rudd, under
11 MCR 2.116(1)(5), I'm obligated -- the phrasing there
12 is mandatory, I'm obligated to give you the
13 opportunity to amend your Complaint when you're
14 defending against a C10 motion. Now you can say no
15 or I -- I am relieved of that burden if I can
16 conclude that an amendment here would not be
17 justified. Now from my part, in other words, that
18 the amendment would be futile. I don't think futile
19 is in the statute, but that's a shorter -- or the
20 court rule, excuse me, but that's probably a shorter
21 way of describing it.
22 Now, do you think there's any -- Do you
23 want to amend your Complaint?
24 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Well, I would
25 respectfully say that that entire discussion would
43
1 only be applicable if the Court were at a point where
2 you found, based on the documentary evidence before
3 you, that there is -- a reasonable person could
4 possibly see that there is a matter of factual
5 dispute still at play, and then I would be given the
6 opportunity to amend my complaints.
7 THE COURT: Do you have legal training?
8 MR. DANIEL RUDD: No. I mean --
9 THE COURT: Have you worked as a paralegal
10 or anything?
11 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I did a mandatory
12 internship with Rachel Terpstra and Brianna Scott -
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. DANIEL RUDD: -- in family court for
15 five years.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 MR. DANIEL RUDD: So --
18 THE COURT: Well, you -- you answer like
19 lawyers do. I think the court rule requires me to
20 extend an opportunity to you now. And you said:
21 Well, Judge, if I'm going to lose, yes, then I want
22 to amend --
23 MR. DANIEL RUDD: That's --
24 THE COURT: -- in so many words, and
25 that's what the lawyers say. Well, I'm going -- if
44
1 I'm going to lose, then I'm going to amend. And I'm
2 not going to tip my hand like that.
3 MR. DANIEL RUDD: The --
4 THE COURT: The ball is in your court, I
5 think. I'm obligated to give you that opportunity
6 and it's your choice whether you want to go with that
7 or not.
8 Now, let's leave that where it is for now.
9 Let me go back to Ms. Hall. Okay? Ms. Hall,
10 anything else?
11 MS. HALL: Your Honor, I would just like
12 to point out when you were speaking and you
13 indicated, well, can't they keep the complaints in a
14 separate file somewhere? And my response to you is I
15 guess they could; but in this situation, they don't,
16 according to my affidavit. Well, I don't think it
17 would really matter. It's a part of the
18 investigation and I think that the Newark decision
19 recognizes the location of the document isn't
20 paramount to whether or not a document is exempted,
21 so I would like to point that out.
22 Let's say hypothetically that complaint
23 was in File A over here, which it is not in this case
24 based on the evidence presented for my C10 motion.
25 THE COURT: Yes, but your chief says:
45
1 Everything that comes in goes to internal affairs and
2 it's always --
3 MS. HALL: That's -- that's not what it
4 says.
5 THE COURT: -- or personnel -- That's --
6 It's always put in the personnel file and -- and I --
7 MS. HALL: But that's --
8 THE COURT: -- and it sounds to me like
9 there's an attempt here to just create a wide open --
10 MS. HALL: But that's not what it says,
11 Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Okay. What's it say?
13 MS. HALL: The --
14 THE COURT: Let's --
15 MS. HALL: -- affidavit says
16 THE COURT: Let's talk about it.
17 MS. HALL: Yeah. When -- It says when
18 citizen complaints are received by the Norton Shores
19 Police Department, an internal investigation file is
20 opened and all records related to the complaint are
21 kept together in --
22 THE COURT: What paragraph --
23 MS. HALL: -- a separate --
24 THE COURT: -- are you --
25 MS. HALL: -- file. I'm on Page 2 of the
46
1 affidavit, 6A.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MS. HALL: And I think --
4 THE COURT: So in every case, that's what
5 happens?
6 MS. HALL: That is what happens.
8 MS. HALL: And he's taken the deposition
9 of this -- this police officer and that --
10 THE COURT: He did?
11 MS. HALL: I believe that's who -- Did
12 you do the --
13 MR. DANIEL RUDD: It was only two days
14 ago, so the transcript is not available yet.
15 MS. HALL: Well, and I would like to also
16 point out, I have not --
17 THE COURT: Did you depose the mayor, too?
18 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I did.
19 THE COURT: All right. So you guys were
20 able to work that out, even though I declined to sign
21 your subpoenas?
23 THE COURT: Okay. Perfect. Very good.
24 Good news.
25 MS. HALL: He -- We did do the
47
1 depositions. And he did testify, when citizen
2 complaints are received by the Norton Shores Police
3 Department, an internal investigation file is opened.
4 It's placed in there and that's where the file
5 starts. It's not like it's this officer whatever
6 sent the police department a Christmas card, we're
7 going to stick it in there or officer -- You know
8 what I mean? It's -- it's an investigation file
9 limited to that complaint. And that's how he
10 testified today and that's the evidence presented
11 today. I've received no response. My office did not
12 receive a written response from Mr. Rudd, I would
13 like to say. I don't have a written response. I
14 have not read his --
15 THE COURT: A response to what?
16 MS. HALL: The motion for summary. Did he
17 file one?
18 THE COURT: Oh, yeah.
19 MS. HALL: I haven't received --
20 THE COURT: He did a nice job. He sent --
21 sent a proof of service, he said, that he --
22 MS. HALL: I don't have a copy of it and
23 that is fine, but I just would like to --
24 THE COURT: Well, no. That's not fine.
25 MS. HALL: Well, I mean, I haven't
48
1 received it to date. And as of yesterday, I was in
2 the office and I was down in Kalamazoo with
3 Mr. Bogren, so I would like to --
5 MS. HALL: -- point that out.
6 THE COURT: Well, let's -- let's --
7 MS. HALL: But --
8 THE COURT: Hold on.
9 MS. HALL: -- based --
10 THE COURT: Hold on.
11 MS. HALL: Based --
12 THE COURT: You -- Mr. Rudd, you said you
13 sent them a copy in the US mail on December 15th.
14 MR. DANIEL RUDD: That's correct. I even
15 snapped a picture of it going into the envelope and
16 going into the mailbox.
17 MS. HALL: And it could very well be, you
18 know, with mail and the holidays, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Well, hold on. That was a
20 week ago.
21 MR. DANIEL RUDD: I've also offered to
22 provide electronic service.
23 THE COURT: Who did you -- Who did you
24 depose two days ago?
25 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Chief Gale.
49
1 THE COURT: And anybody else?
2 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Mayor Nelund.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 MR. DANIEL RUDD: And if I had the
5 transcript, I would certainly rely on it to
6 contradict what's stated in this affidavit.
7 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Hall, anything
8 else?
9 MS. HALL: Your Honor, I would just like
10 to indicate this is a C10 motion. No evidence has
11 been provided that the public interest would, you
12 know, be harmed by not disclosing this stuff. The
13 only thing presented here today is the affidavits
14 which meet the balancing test. The three -- The
15 cases that we've cited say all -- request all
16 documents, which would include a complaint in this
1-7 scenario specifically based on an affidavit, and so
18 we believe it's exempt --
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MS. HALL: -- under the statue.
21 THE COURT: Now let's go back to my chart
22 for a minute.
23 MS. HALL: Yes.
24 THE COURT: All right. The column on the
25 right --
50
1 MS. HALL: Yes.
2 THE COURT: -- internal affairs findings.
3 And I -- I think we all agree under the case law that
4 those are exempt. Correct?
5 MS. HALL: Yes.
6 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Or exemptible.
7 THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough. Now Ms.
8 Hall, much of your presentation here today says that
9 we stop there, that we don't go below this red circle
10 that says no. You're --
11 MS. HALL: But there's the balancing test.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MS. HALL: Oh, yes.
14 THE COURT: I thought you started out by
15 saying there wasn't any balancing --
16 MS. HALL: No. There is in that -- I
17 mean, that's right in the statute, Your Honor.
19 MS. HALL: And that's what the affidavit
20 that we've support -- we've attached to our motion
21 for summary supports.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MS. HALL: Which is similar to those in
24 the three cases cited in terms of what the public
25 interest is in protecting this information.
51
2 MS. HALL: And none of those cases
3 required complaints to be turned over, I would like
4 to point out. Thanks.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we've had a
6 wide-ranging discussion prompted primarily by my
7 fairly aggressive questioning of both of you. This
8 is an interesting issue, actually, and it's incumbent
9 upon me at this point I think to try to clean some of
10 these things up a bit.
11 So number one is Chief Gale's affidavit
12 says -- quote: When citizen complaints are
13 received -- end quote. So Ms. Hall is right. He
14 doesn't say anything goes into that file.
15 I -- I think the whole fast food takeout
16 stuff was prompted by my hypothetical question which
17 was designed to get her to concede that there's
18 something, it would seem like, that would be a
19 citizen complaint that wouldn't be a personnel
20 record, but we've plowed that road quite a while, but
21 I want to say I understand what the chief said and
22 I'm not trying to denigrate that, but I started off
23 on the hypothetical stuff and went from there.
24 Now the second preliminary point is that I
25 started out by asking Mr. Rudd, well, why do you
52
1 care? Well, that's not what the law is. It was
2 designed to try to figure out if there was something
3 else going on here. But the -- the FOIA law pretty
4 much says that the burden is on the government,
5 essentially, to show that some exception -- or some
6 exemption applies. And I'm sorry, Mr. Rudd, I got -
7 that last you were talking about exempt, but
8 exemptible. I get it. But for today's purposes,
9 making a fine distinction like that, I think, gets me
10 at least off the track a bit.
11 I also asked Mr. Rudd about his residency,
12 why he cares because he doesn't live in the county.
13 Well, that's not really relevant to any purpose and I
14 know that. And he can make this request if he lives
15 in some other county or some other state or whatever,
16 so he has the right to do that.
17 So that takes care of the preliminaries.
18 The second part of my analysis is to say
19 this. There are several reasons why it would be an
20 error for the Court to make a decision today and so
21 the Court's denying the motion today without
22 prejudice, so let's talk about those reasons.
23 Well number one is I was unaware that Ms.
24 Hall says she never got Mr. Rudd's brief, so that's

I
25 -- that's an issue. I thought there was a glitch
53
1 with the discovery process here because the Court
2 did, about a week or two ago, deny or decline to sign
3 Mr. Rudd's subpoenas because some technical issues
4 with the depositions. But the credit to you guys,
5 those have been handled and I think we ought to have
6 an opportunity to quote those, like Mr. Rudd
7 requests, and to use them, if necessary, in oral
8 arguments. That would be another reason to delay
9 making a -- or to deny the motion here today.
10 A third reason is the operation of 15. I
11 asked Mr. Rudd some questions about that. I think
12 given his presentation and given his answers, the
13 Court ought to just step back a bit and give him an
14 opportunity to consider that.
15 Now, I will say this. Ms. Hall, I'm going
16 to task you with preparing the order about today. So
17 number one would just say, I think, the Court is
18 denying the motion for the reasons asserted on the
19 record -- without prejudice for the reasons asserted
20 on the record. Okay?
21 The next thing -- We're recording, so
22 please use an oral response.
23 MS. HALL: Oh, yes. I apologize.
24 THE COURT: That's fine. You're just
25 nodding your head and that's probably not going to
54
1 work for the record.
2 Number two is we'll give Mr. Rudd 21 days
3 from today to amend his complaint if he wants to do
4 that. And within that 21 days, Mr. Rudd, if you
5 choose not to do that, if you just let us know then
6 we can move forward from there.
7 Now the other reason for -- among others
8 for denying the motion without prejudice today is to
9 allow some additional briefing on some of the things
10 we've talked about here, including this stuff on the
11 board.
12 Finally, the trial date of February 1 will
13 have to be adjourned. There's a -- There have been
14 schedule changes in our old docket here and I'm not
15 going to be in -- in town on that day, so I -- And
16 part of those docket changes are because my regular
17 administrative assistant is absent for reasons and
18 she -- Usually I'd send you out the side door and
19 say: Go talk to Sue she'll give you a date -- a new
20 date, but we're probably unable to do that right now.
21 That's probably going to have to wait until next week
22 sometime. So that's another reason.
23 Now it would seem to me, Ms. Hall, that
24 this process can be expedited if the Court ordered
25 the city to present the documents to the Court for in
55
1 camera review, but that may go to the heart of the
2 case. So if the Court is denying the motion for
3 summary disposition, it's probably unwise, at least,
4 for the Court to try to do something like that, so I
5 guess that would have to wait for some kind of a
6 judgement at trial, so I'm not going to order you to
7 do that.
8 Now either side can assert the motion
9 anew, if you want. And if you do that, if you want
10 to submit some additional briefing, that's fine. But
11 for today, I think that almost concludes our work.
12 Ms. Hall, do you have any questions?
13 MS. HALL: I just want to make sure I'm
14 clear on what the additional issues are. Are you not
15 finding -- looking at your chart, have we not
16 addressed Section B? Does that -- Does what we
17 provided --
18 THE COURT: Well --
19 MS. HALL: -- then --
20 THE COURT: -- I'm going to decline to get
21 too much --
22 MS. HALL: Okay.
23 THE COURT: -- more specific. I think
24 there are some procedural hiccups. I think 15 alone
25 would merit --
56
1 MS. HALL: Okay.
2 THE COURT: -- denying the motion without
3 prejudice. That alone would be a reason --
4 MS. HALL: Okay.
5 THE COURT: -- to do that.
6 MS. HALL: All right.
7 THE COURT: Mr. Rudd, do you have any
8 questions?
9 MR. DANIEL RUDD: One -- one question, I
10 think. When contemplating an amended complaint, are
11 you imagining a complaint -- an amended complaint
12 regarding FOIA request or are you imagining more of
13 like an amended FOIA request, like requesting
14 different records?
15 THE COURT: Well, you can do whatever you
16 want. I'm focused on the court case before me now.
18 THE COURT: And for example, I've asked
19 you both about the -- the verbiage in your complaint,
20 which is citizen complaint policies and things like
21 that. And so there may be a reason. Frankly, I'm
22 not trying to give you veiled hints. You know, I --
23 You seem to know what you're doing and so I don't
24 know what that amended complaint would say, but this
25 gives you an opportunity to reframe it or repackage
57
1 it or whatever way you want. And given our focus
2 today on the two-pronged nature of your complaint, it
3 just seemed to me that that's probably a situation
4 where I cannot conclude that an amendment would be
5 futile. Okay.
6 MR. DANIEL RUDD: Thank you, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Ms. Hall, anything else?
8 MS. HALL: No, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Okay. You can tell Mr. Bogren
10 that he owes you lunch and more for sending you up
11 here for probably the most animated FOIA discussion
12 your firm will ever have.
13 MS. HALL: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Okay?
15 MS. HALL: Yeah.
16 THE COURT: You have my permission to tell
17 him that.
18 Mr. Rudd, you did nice work. Whenever I
19 see pro se or in pro per on the file, I kind of go:
20 Oh, here we go. You wouldn't believe some of the
21 stuff I get from people representing themselves, so
22 you did a nice -- technically, your presentation was
23 good.
24 All right. Anything else for today, Ms.
25 Hall?
58
1 MS. HALL: No, Your Honor.
3 MR. DANIEL RUDD: No. Thank you, Your
4 Honor.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 (Whereupon, proceedings concluded
7 at 10:54:02 A.M..)
8 --oo0oo--
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
1
3 STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) ss.
4 COUNTY OF MUSKEGON )
6 I, certify that this transcript,
7 consisting of 60 pages is a complete, true, and
8 correct transcript of the videotaped proceedings and
9 testimony taken in DANIEL W. RUDD versus CITY OF
10 NORTON SHORES, File No. 2017-004334-CZ on December
11 22, 2017, Videotaped.
12 **Please note proper names and/or case names unknown
13 to this reporter are spelled phonetically and may not
14 be correct.
15
16
17
18
19
Michelle M. McKee, CSR-3841
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter
21
22
23
24
25
60
39:20 apart in - 18:19 30:13, 33:4, 33:5, C
1
additional[3] - 55:9, apologize [5] - 4:1, 38:22, 39:25, 40:9,
1 [2] - 7:14, 55:12 56:10, 56:14 42:3, 50:14, 51:11, C-A-L-E-A 01 - 23:19
4:9, 4:13, 14:12,
1)(s)(ix pi - 3:20 additionally 0]- 38:8 51:15 C10 iai - 34:1 , 43:14,
54:23
10:00:12 p]- 3:2 address 0]- 42:20 ball oi - 45:4 45:24, 50:10
appeal in - 24:17
10:30:49 0]- 37:18 barely o]- 36:5 CALEA [3[ - 23:17,
addressed [3]- 24:8, appeals vii - 8:21, 9:5,
10:33:04 in - 37:19 Based [1] - 49:11 23:18, 23:21
27:15, 56:16 28:19, 36:22
10:54:02 0]- 59:7 based 04)- 3:21, camera i5) - 29:6,
addresses in - 42:12 APPEARANCES pi -
15 rn - 16:15 5:24, 6:2, 6:18, 7:2, 29:12, 30:15, 31:11,
adequately oi - 31:13 1:16
15.243[2] - 3:19, 7:3, 16:10, 18:16, 56:1
adjourned o]- 55:13 appeared 0]- 1:17
19:15 30:5, 38:25, 44:2, cannot0]- 58:4
administrative[2] - appellate [4] - 27:5,
15th in - 49:13 45:24, 49:9, 50:17 capricious[2]- 35:21,
19:1, 55:17 27:20, 38:12, 38:13
17-004334-CZ in - 1:7 basic [2] - 24:24, 37:3
adverse[2] - 9:6, applicable [1] - 44:1
17-4334-CZ oi - 3:5 24:25 card [9[ - 14:9, 14:14,
28:12 applies in - 53:6
basis[2] - 10:22, 15:8, 15:22, 16:6,
advise 0)- 26:3 apply [3] - 33:10, 35:2,
2 41:15 21:12, 21:13, 21:16,
affairs [7] - 17:9, 42:24
bear[1] - 29:16 48:6
2 ili - 46:25 17:11, 29:19, 39:7, appraiser[2] - 19:4,
beginning 01- 38:24 cards in - 20:15
2.114(D in - 36:11 39:18, 46:1, 51:2 19:5
behalf in - 1:20 care [2] - 53:1, 53:17
2.116(C)(10)in - 3:13 affect m - 27:18 appreciate in - 5:7
behind o]- 5:15 cares 0]- 53:12
2.116(0(5 in - 43:11 affidavit on - 6:3, 7:3, apprised o]- 25:22
below in - 51:9 case[48) - 3:22, 5:24,
2014[2] - 18:13, 23:12 18:17, 35:4, 45:16, appropriate[2] - 34:7,
bench [3] - 33:12, 6:15, 8:18, 9:11,
2017 i3i - 1:14, 3:1, 46:15, 47:1, 50:6, 35:5
34:18, 36:10 9:21, 9:25, 10:1,
60:11 50:17, 51:19, 52:11 arbitrary [2] - 35:21,
13:23, 16:1 1, 16:22,
2017-004334-CZ in - affidavits[5] - 11:2, 37:2 best o]- 33:22
17:6, 18:5, 18:6,
60:10 31:13, 31:16, 32:1, arguing pi - 32:11 better[4] - 5:11,
18:16, 19:18, 20:6,
21 [2] - 55:2, 55:4 50:13 argument[5]- 32:13, 22:21, 37:11
26:8, 27:3, 27:15,
22[2] - 3:1, 60:11 affirm in - 27:8 34:4, 34:19, 36:19, between in - 30:5
28:1, 28:4, 28:13,
22nd in - 1:14 affirmed [2] - 9:5, 36:22 beyond oi - 36:19
28:25, 30:6, 30:15,
27:21 arguments[2] - 22:21, bit[4] - 25:5, 52:10,
30:23, 31:15, 31:25,
agency [2] - 3:21, 19:2 54:8 53:10, 54:13
3 aggressive o]- 52:7 arrive oi - 25:1 blanket in - 35:2
33:11, 35:5, 36:16,
36:18, 38:12, 38:14,
39 in - 10:21 ago [4] - 47:14, 49:20, arrived in - 24:10 board [5] - 35:3,
38:15, 42:19, 42:21,
49:24, 54:2 art0]- 18:24 37:25, 39:3, 39:5,
43:2, 45:23, 47:4,
6 agree oo]- 11:3, articulated in - 28:20 55:11
51:3, 56:2, 57:16,
60 p]- 60:7 28:24, 29:18, 31:18, aside 0]- 32:8 Bogren [9] - 5:19,
60:12
6A in - 47:1 33:14, 39:14, 39:18, assert in - 56:8 8:16, 10:8, 22:6,
cases osi - 7:3, 7:22,
39:23, 40:22, 51:3 asserted [2] - 54:18, 34:22, 36:15, 37:13,
7:23, 8:1, 8:3, 19:23,
agreeing in - 26:11 54:19 49:3, 58:9
A ahead [2] - 3:9, 5:21 bottom [2] - 39:23,
27:19, 29:23, 30:8,
assertion oi - 35:24 31:9, 36:16, 42:11,
A.M oi - 37:18 allegations in - 43:9 asserts[2] - 35:2, 35:7 40:6
50:15, 51:24, 52:2
A.M.[3] - 3:2, 37:19, alleged in - 35:20 assigned in - 25:21 brevity in - 5:12
category [4] - 41:15,
59:7 allow [2] - 34:2, 55:9 assistant oi - 55:17 Brianna 0]- 44:12
42:13, 42:15, 42:18
ability in - 30:17 almost[2] - 9:11, attached o]- 51:20 bribe in - 14:15 Category[5]- 41:15,
able in - 47:20 56:11 attempt in - 46:9 brief[9] - 3:14, 3:22, 41:21, 42:8, 42:12,
above-entitled pi - alone[3] - 39:13, attorney pi - 37:3 5:25, 7:23, 10:9, 42:13
1:13 56:24, 57:3 Attorney [2] - 1:19, 31:22, 32:11, 38:9, certainly [3] - 34:11,
absent p]- 55:17 amend [6] - 43:13, 31:22 53:24
36:3, 50:5
absolutely pi - 9:8 43:23, 44:6, 44:22, authoritative o]- briefing [3] - 33:22, certification [2] -
access in - 17:7 45:1, 55:3 28:25 55:9, 56:10 23:17, 24:1
according [5] - 7:20, amended [4] - 57:10, authority o]- 40:19 briefly[2]- 3:17, 38:5
Certified p]- 60:20
9:19, 25:18, 41:3, 57:11, 57:13, 57:24 available[3] - 24:5, bunch in - 4:16
certify [11- 60:6
45:16 amendment[3] - 36:5, 47:14 burden [7] - 27:14,
cetera [11- 39:7
acid in - 5:1 43:16, 43:18, 58:4 aware[1]- 24:5 31:2, 31:4, 38:24,
challenge 0]- 28:8
acronym pi - 23:18 analysis[3] - 28:18, 42:1, 43:15, 53:4
chambers in - 21:13
Act in - 28:17 33:9, 53:18 business 0]- 14:14
action [2]- 28:9,
B chance[11- 38:1
anew in - 56:9 businessman 0]-
bad [2] - 8:17, 40:12 change in - 31:8
28:12 animated in - 58:11 16:6
BAILIFF in - 5:9 changes[3]- 10:16,
actions[2] - 24:20, answer[3] - 3:16,
balance [1] - 6:9 55:14, 55:16
36:2 22:12, 44:18
balancing on - 30:11, charges[2] - 10:16,
actual[3] - 24:8, 29:7, answers in - 54:12
1
11:9 clean [1] - 52:9 concern [5] - 11:11, 30:6. 36:17 31:23, 32:12, 32:16,
chart[2] - 50:21, clear[6] - 24:16, 23:7, 23:10, 24:3, couple [2] - 9:2, 27:22 32:19, 32:24, 33:2,
56:15 27:21, 30:9, 31:16, 24:6 course [2]- 9:12, 33:20, 34:8, 34:12,
check[i1- 16:25 31:25, 56:14 concerns[2] - 11:2, 18:24 34:15, 34:18, 34:23,
checked 0)- 4:5 CLERK[)- 5:9 24:8 court[33] - 5:13, 8:21, 35:6, 35:12, 35:17,
Chief[41- 6:3, 7:3, CLERK-BAILIFF 01 - conclude [2) - 43:16, 8:25, 9:4, 9:5, 9:16, 36:7, 36:24, 37:2,
35:1, 52:11 5:9 58:4 18:19, 25:9, 27:7, 37:10, 37:15, 37:20,
chief[s1- 7:20, 26:1, close[1[ - 42:4 concluded [1] - 59:6 27:9, 27:16, 28:19, 37:23, 38:5, 39:3,
26:2, 45:25, 49:25, cold [2]- 4:7, 4:25 concludes[1] - 56:11 30:12, 30:24, 31:10, 39:17, 39:22, 40:3,
52:21 column [2] - 39:5, conducted 0)- 31:11 33:21, 34:2, 36:21, 40:5, 40:8, 40:12,
child [1] - 43:9 50:24 confidence 01- 30:20 38:12, 38:13, 38:17, 40:18, 40:24, 41:2,
chilling [31- 10:9, Column [41- 39:6, confidential[3) - 38:18, 38:20, 38:23, 41:14, 41:24, 42:1,
39:8, 39:19, 39:23 25:25, 41:10, 41:12 40:10, 43:20, 44:14, 42:4, 42:7, 42:10,
13:20, 22:6
confidentiality [1[ - 44:19, 45:4, 57:16 42:15, 42:17, 42:22,
choice [l] - 45:6 columns 0)- 39:4
28:14 Court[16]- 3:15, 6:15, 42:25, 43:10, 44:7,
choose 01- 55:5 comments[2] - 5:22,
consider[3] - 12:5, 20:7, 22:11, 37:14, 44:9, 44:13, 44:16,
chose 01- 18:8 38:2
36:14, 54:14 38:10, 44:1, 53:20, 44:18, 44:24, 45:4,
Christmas oo]- 14:9, common [1] - 24:2
considerations 0)- 54:1, 54:13, 54:17, 45:25, 46:5, 46:8,
14:14, 15:8, 15:22, complainant[i1- 26:3
55:24, 55:25, 56:2, 46:12, 46:14, 46:16,
16:6, 20:15, 21:12, Complaint[5] - 10:1, 28:22
56:4 46:22, 46:24, 47:2,
21:13, 21:16, 48:6 10:7, 43:13, 43:23 considered 01- 41:5
COURT[231] - 1:4, 47:4, 47:7, 47:10,
circle [1] - 51:9 complaint[37] - 7:25, consistent[2] - 23:9,
3:5, 3:11, 3:25, 4:3, 47:17, 47:19, 47:23,
CIRCUIT[2] - 1:4, 9:15, 10:14, 11:1, 24:7
4:8, 4:11, 4:13, 4:17, 48:15, 48:18, 48:20,
1:15 12:1, 12:20, 17:16, consisting [1] - 60:7
4:20, 4:22, 5:3, 5:5, 48:24, 49:4, 49:6,
circumstance[1] - 18:5, 18:6, 18:23, constrictions[1] -
5:12, 5:15, 5:18, 49:8, 49:10, 49:12,
43:7 18:25, 19:1, 19:4, 41:12
5:21, 6:8, 6:11, 6:15, 49:19, 49:23, 50:1,
circumstances 0[- 19:9, 20:7, 21:5, construed 0)- 11:21
6:22, 6:25, 7:4, 7:10, 50:3, 50:7, 50:19,
43:5 24:25, 25:10, 25:21, contain [3] - 16:11,
8:3, 8:8, 8:11, 8:14, 50:21, 50:24, 51:2,
citation [2] - 8:21, 27:24, 29:2, 29:7, 24:12, 24:13
8:20, 8:24, 9:9, 9:20, 51:7, 51:12, 51:14,
8:25 39:13, 41:8, 45:22, contemplating [1] -
10:4, 10:11, 10:14, 51:18, 51:22, 52:1,
cite 0)- 27:9 46:20, 48:9, 50:16, 57:10
10:19, 10:25, 11:5, 52:5, 54:24, 56:18,
cited 01]- 3:22, 5:25, 52:19, 55:3, 57:10, contemplation [1) -
11:7, 11:16, 11:25, 56:20, 56:23, 57:2,
7:22, 8:1, 19:24, 57:11, 57:19, 57:20, 38:22
12:2, 12:5, 12:9, 57:5, 57:7, 57:15,
27:6, 27:19, 42:12, 57:24, 58:2 contend [1] - 31:14
12:14, 12:17, 12:22, 57:18, 58:7, 58:9,
50:15, 51:24 complaints[43] - 6:23, CONTENTS 01- 2:1
12:25, 13:7, 13:10, 58:14, 58:16, 59:2,
cites 01- 8:17 7:8, 7:12, 8:2, 8:9, continue[11- 36:10
13:12, 13:22, 14:2, 59:5
citizen [30] - 6:22, 8:8, 8:12, 10:20, 12:2, contradict[1] - 50:6
14:8, 14:13, 14:18, Court's[1] - 53:21
8:12, 9:15, 12:2, 12:10, 12:18, 13:20, conundrum 01-
14:21, 14:24, 15:2, courts[1] - 7:25
12:9, 17:18, 18:2, 15:6, 16:3, 16:12, 30:24
15:11, 15:14, 16:1, covered [1] - 32:9
18:3, 18:12, 18:13, 16:23, 17:18, 18:2, copy [4] - 7:15, 17:3,
16:4, 16:16, 16:18, create 0)- 46:9
19:25, 23:9, 25:10, 18:3, 18:12, 18:13, 48:22, 49:13
16:20, 17:2, 17:5, created [2] - 26:25,
26:15, 29:2, 29:7, 18:19, 19:8, 20:1, cord [1] - 4:4
21:17, 21:21, 21:23, 17:15, 17:17, 17:21, 41:9
38:14, 38:16, 39:5, correct 02)- 6:23, 17:24, 18:1, 18:8, creates[1] - 30:20
39:13, 41:7, 43:4, 22:5, 22:7, 23:10, 10:23, 16:21, 25:7, 18:11, 18:15, 18:21, credibility [2] - 35:4,
43:7, 46:18, 48:1, 23:13, 24:4, 24:6, 25:8, 25:11, 26:16,
26:15, 38:14, 38:16, 18:23, 19:11, 19:16, 35:18
52:12, 52:19, 57:20 36:15, 49:14, 51:4,
39:6, 44:6, 45:13, 19:21, 19:23, 20:4, credible [2] - 35:1,
citizen's [1] - 29:1 60:8, 60:14
46:18, 48:2, 52:3, 20:8, 20:12, 20:20, 35:13
citizens(4) - 22:5, corresponding [2] -
52:12 20:22, 21:1, 21:4, credit[1] - 54:4
24:8, 24:9, 24:24 7:16, 41:7 21:6, 21:8, 22:8,
complete [1]- 60:7 criteria 0]- 33:10
city [16]- 3:17, 9:16, corresponds[2] - 22:10, 22:14, 22:16,
completed [2] - 17:8, CSR-3841 [1] - 60:19
9:21, 10:19, 14:3, 26:2, 28:21 22:19, 23:2, 23:6,
16:2, 18:8, 18:11, 25:23 council 0]- 41:11 23:18, 23:23, 25:2, D
24:17, 25:15, 26:19, completely [2] - counsel 0)- 1:18 25:9, 25:14, 25:17,
26:20, 29:6, 41:11, 33:18, 36:21 country [1] - 24:2 DANIEL[96] - 1:6,
26:5, 26:8, 26:11,
55:25 complies[1] - 35:8 county [6] - 15:23, 22:11, 22:15, 22:18,
26:14, 26:18, 27:3,
CITY [2] - 1:8, 60:9 compliments[1] - 19:12, 23:3, 23:5, 22:24, 23:4, 23:7,
27:9, 27:12, 28:1,
City [2]- 25:19, 38:11 20:15 53:12, 53:15 23:20, 23:24, 25:8,
28:4, 28:8, 29:3,
city's[11- 14:8 comport[2] - 35:24, COUNTY [2] - 1:4, 25:12, 25:16, 25:18,
29:10, 29:15, 29:18,
claiming 0)- 12:11 36:1 60:4 26:6, 26:10, 26:13,
29:22, 29:25, 30:3,
claims 0)- 3:18 concede [2] - 39:12, County [7] - 8:18, 26:17, 26:22, 27:5,
30:7, 30:12, 31:20,
clarify [2] - 15:4, 15:18 52:17 27:2, 27:3, 28:3, 27:11, 27:13, 28:3,
2
28:7, 28:10, 29:9, denied [1] - 36:10 discovery [0) - 54:1 eggs[2] - 9:12, 9:13 53:6
29:11, 29:17, 29:21, denigrate [i] - 52:22 discreetly [i] - 8:15 either 0]- 56:8 exemptions 01-
29:24, 30:2, 30:4, deny [2] - 54:2, 54:9 discretionary [0] - electronic [i) - 49:22 11:20
30:8, 30:14, 31:21, denying [5] - 53:21, 40:11 emphasis[i) - 31:1 EXHIBITS [i]- 2:14
31:24, 32:15, 32:17, 54:18, 55:8, 56:2, discussing [i) - 27:18 employee[1] - 21:15 expect[2] - 21:13,
32:21, 33:1, 33:3, 57:2 discussion [3] - Employee [i] - 28:17 21:15
34:6, 34:10, 34:14, department[4] - 7:20, 43:25, 52:6, 58:11 employees [2] - 7:14, expedited [i]- 55:24
34:16, 34:21, 34:25, 15:23, 43:3, 48:6 discussions 01- 28:13 experience [2]-
35:9, 35:15, 35:19, Department[3] - 23:8, 42:21 empted [i] - 6:2 22:16, 22:20
36:9, 37:1, 37:7, 46:19, 48:3 dismissal [1] - 3:18 encompass[i] - expressed [1]- 35:22
37:12, 38:4, 38:6, Department's 01 - disposition [16] - 6:6, 29:12 extend [0) - 44:20
39:15, 39:20, 40:2, 7:14 7:16, 24:10, 25:1, end [2] - 39:9, 52:13 extended o]- 34:19
40:4, 40:7, 40:10, depose [2] - 47:17, 26:23, 27:24, 31:3, enforcement[2] - extent[0) - 27:20
40:17, 40:21, 40:25, 49:24 31:17, 33:17, 34:1, 3:21, 23:25 external [i] - 23:14
41:3, 41:22, 41:25, deposition [2]- 36:4, 34:3, 34:17, 35:5, ENT[2] - 4:5, 4:23
42:2, 42:6, 42:9, 36:9, 36:15, 56:3
42:13, 42:16, 42:19,
47:8 entertaining o]- 3:8 F
depositions[2] - 48:1, Disposition [2] - 3:9, entire o]- 43:25
42:23, 43:1, 43:24, fact[5] - 26:14, 27:25,
54:4 3:13 entitled [i] - 1:13
44:8, 44:11, 44:14, 31:8, 31:10, 36:13
deputies [i) - 28:5 dispute[2] - 36:3, entity [2] - 8:2, 19:4
44:17, 44:23, 45:3, factual(9] - 17:10,
deputy [i) - 8:18 44:5 envelope [1] - 49:15
47:13, 47:18, 47:22, 34:9, 34:10, 34:13,
derivative o]- 36:25 disputes[5] - 34:9, equally [i] - 36:18
49:14, 49:21, 49:25, 34:23, 34:25, 35:10,
describe [2] - 25:20, 34:11, 34:13, 34:23, era [i] - 23:25
50:2, 50:4, 51:6, 36:3, 44:4
32:2 34:25 error[i] - 53:20
57:9, 57:17, 58:6, fair[2] - 39:22, 51:7
described [0) - 31:13 disseminated [i] - especially [i] - 13:23
59:3, 60:9 fairly [2]- 24:2, 52:7
describing [2] - 7:17, 41:9 essentially [0] - 53:5
data [0] - 23:13 false[i) - 36:21
43:21 distinction [5] - 19:22, established [2] -
date [5] - 21:22, 49:1, family [i] - 44:14
designed [2]- 52:17, 30:5, 30:9, 32:7, 28:15, 32:18
55:12, 55:19, 55:20 famous[i] - 29:3
53:2 53:9 et[0) - 39:7
days[4] - 47:13, fashion [i] - 35:23
determination [8]- divide o]- 38:23 evaluations[2] -
49:24, 55:2, 55:4 fast[0) - 52:15
13:15, 14:9, 17:10, docket[2] - 55:14, 24:19, 30:3
dealing [2] - 23:9, faulting [i] - 19:25
27:16, 29:1, 32:23, 55:16 evidence [5] - 6:18,
30:23 favor[4] - 6:6, 9:14,
35:4, 38:9 document[4] - 3:22, 44:2, 45:24, 48:10,
December[4]- 1:14, 36:12, 45:19, 45:20 42:4
determinative[i] - 50:10
3:1, 49:13, 60:10 documentary [i) - fear[0] - 5:18
36:23 evident[i] - 22:25
decide [1] - 34:12 44:2 February [i]- 55:12
determine[2] - 13:25, exact[i] - 32:3
decided [i] - 38:18 15:20 documents 0il - Federated [ii - 38:11
exactly [2]- 30:15,
decision [7]- 9:4, 3:23, 5:25, 6:4, 7:17, fees[0] - 37:3
different[6] - 7:6, 7:7, 30:17
27:6, 27:20, 28:22, 28:15, 33:7, 33:9, 7:24, 15:21, 20:3, felt o]- 27:17
examining o]- 37:11
40:11, 45:18, 53:20 57:14 20:6, 32:4, 50:16, few [i] - 5:22
example[2] - 19:3,
decisions[3] - 27:7, directly o]- 8:4 55:25 figure[1] - 53:2
57:18
28:23, 29:13 disciplinary [i] - 28:8 dog [i] - 17:21 File[3] - 1:7, 45:23,
examples[i) - 15:12
decline [2] - 54:2, dog-eared [0]- 17:21 60:10
discipline 01 - 24:21 exception [3] - 39:25,
56:20 done [8]- 6:16, 6:17, file [44]- 3:5, 7:19,
disclosability [i] - 40:9, 53:5
declined [i] - 47:20 10:10, 20:9, 21:19, 9:17, 9:23, 11:17,
13:25 excuse En - 43:20
defend [1] - 9:6 disclosable 01]- 22:5, 29:4, 33:21 11:19, 12:20, 13:3,
exempt[04] - 16:14,
defendant[i] - 31:12 9:22, 12:23, 13:2, door[2] - 9:16, 55:18 13:5, 13:14, 14:5,
30:6, 30:10, 32:13, 14:10, 15:3, 15:15,
Defendant[2] - 1:9, 13:10, 14:11, 15:3, double o]- 16:25 32:25, 37:8, 39:2, 15:24, 16:7, 16:24,
1:20 15:16, 29:20, 39:19, down [3] - 25:5, 38:17, 39:13, 39:15, 42:8, 18:7, 18:12, 19:1,
Defendant's [i] - 3:8 39:24, 41:13 49:2 50:18, 51:4, 53:7 19:2, 19:5, 19:7,
defending [i] - 43:14 disclose[3]- 24:11, drank [i] -4:16 exempted [3] - 19:14, 20:14, 20:17, 20:19,
defined [1] - 26:24 29:6, 40:20 drew 01 - 11:13 19:19, 45:20 20:24, 21:11, 21:14,
definitely [2] - 4:15, disclosed [4] - 37:9, drives[i]- 10:21 exemptible [io] - 30:5, 21:17, 25:10, 29:7,
37:12 38:16, 39:14, 39:16 30:10, 32:6, 32:10, 31:7, 32:4, 45:14,
definition [2] - 14:2, discloses[i] - 10:18 E 32:14, 32:22, 32:24, 46:6, 46:19, 46:25,
16:1 disclosing [7] - 6:4,
e-mail[1]- 12:10 41:20, 51:6, 53:8 48:3, 48:4, 48:8,
delay [i) - 54:8 6:5, 10:13, 10:25,
eared [i] - 17:21 exemption [ia] - 3:20, 48:17, 52:14, 58:19
demonstrate[2]- 13:18, 26:15, 50:12
effect[3] - 10:9, 3:24, 6:2, 16:14, filed [4]- 3:14, 18:6,
31:5, 42:2 disclosure [7] - 6:12,
13:20, 22:6 19:14, 22:3, 22:4, 19:4, 34:5
denial[3]- 30:4, 6:13, 11:18, 11:20,
effective[i] - 24:7 28:20, 33:6, 33:7, files[6] - 13:19, 15:5,
35:20, 35:23 14:4, 25:10, 42:6 33:15, 42:21, 43:5,
3
16:11, 18:19, 24:12 9:13, 42:12, 47:19, hand 0]- 45:2 IN [11- 1:4 26:12, 30:1, 45:18,
finally [1] - 55:12 54:4 handle ]- 18:9 inapplicable[1] - 46:19, 48:3, 48:8
findings[3] - 17:10, handled [3] - 24:6, 36:18 investigations[7]-
39:7, 51:2 H 40:16, 54:5 inappropriate[1] - 7:18, 12:15, 17:9,
fine [8] - 4:8, 22:20, handwriting [1] - 34:17 21:22, 22:4, 29:19,
HALL[140]- 1:19,
31:7, 48:23, 48:24, 37:21 include [6] - 7:25, 33:8
3:10, 3:12, 4:1, 4:4,
53:9, 54:24, 56:10 happy [1] - 3:16 17:13, 20:7, 21:23, investigative (4] -
4:9, 4:12, 4:15, 4:18,
finish [2] - 5:21, 38:1 harassing 0]- 10:22 25:25, 50:16 17:13, 19:18, 21:2,
4:21, 4:23, 5:4, 5:7,
firm [1] - 58:12 hardest[1] - 5:11 includes[1] - 18:6 28:11
5:10, 5:14, 5:17,
first 0]- 7:10, 8:16, harmed [1] - 50:12 including [3] - 15:6, investigator[1] -
5:20, 5:24, 6:10,
27:22, 28:16 head [1] - 54:25 17:10, 55:10 17:11
6:14, 6:17, 6:24, 7:2,
five [l] - 44:15 hear[3] - 4:3, 4:19, incomplete [2] - involves[1] - 43:8
7:6, 7:12, 8:6, 8:10,
focus[3]- 8:8, 8:11, 22:21 25:11, 25:13 issue[7] - 6:21, 9:4,
8:13, 8:19, 8:23, 9:8,
58:1 hearing 0]- 33:14 incumbent[1] - 52:8 28:13, 32:23, 35:7,
9:18, 9:24, 10:5,
focused [2] - 38:14, heart0]- 56:1 indicate [6] - 10:6, 52:8, 53:25
10:12, 10:18, 10:24,
57:16 help [1] - 30:25 24:20, 25:20, 37:7, issues[5]- 23:22,
11:3, 11:6, 11:15,
FOIA [8] - 3:19, 13:2, helpful [1] - 38:8 50:10 27:1, 36:25, 54:3,
11:22, 12:1, 12:4,
28:21, 38:25, 53:3, hiccups [1] - 56:24 indicated [1] - 45:13 56:14
12:8, 12:13, 12:16,
57:12, 57:13, 58:11 HICKS 0]- 1:15 indicates[1] - 30:16 itself[2] - 6:8, 39:24
12:21, 12:24, 13:4,
food [2] - 11:8, 52:15 13:9, 13:11, 13:13, Hicks[1] - 16:5 individual[4] - 13:5,
FOR 0]- 1:4 14:1, 14:6, 14:12, Hicks'141- 14:4, 19:6, 31:6, 31:8 J
Forget0]- 12:6 14:16, 14:20, 14:23, 15:15, 20:13, 20:17 influential [1] - 16:6 J.D [1] - 1:19
forward [1] - 55:6 15:1, 15:4, 15:13, hide [1] - 5:15 information [6] - 24:4, January 01- 7:14
fought[1] - 4:6 15:17, 16:3, 16:8, himself[1] - 3:6 24:13, 25:25, 26:1, Jimmy [5] - 11:14,
frames[1]- 36:21 16:17, 16:19, 16:21, hinting 0]- 14:15 38:21, 51:25 13:1, 13:12, 20:14,
frank [1] - 42:21 17:3, 17:12, 17:16, hints [1] - 57:22 inherently [1]- 17:14 32:5
frankly [2] - 22:21, 17:20, 17:23, 17:25, hoarseness[1] - 4:19 initiated [2] - 23:10, job [7] - 20:9, 33:21,
57:21 18:3, 18:10, 18:14, hold [6]- 33:11, 41:7 41:18, 41:19, 42:5,
frequently [1] - 23:4 18:16, 18:22, 18:25, 36:24, 37:4, 49:8, instigate [1] - 18:4 42:7, 48:20
Friday[1]- 3:1 19:12, 19:17, 19:22, 49:10, 49:19 instigated 0]- 21:5 John's[s] - 11:14,
frivolous[3] - 10:20, 20:2, 20:5, 20:11, holds[1] - 39:1 instigates[1] - 19:10 13:1, 13:12, 20:14,
12:20, 36:12 20:18, 20:21, 20:25, holidays[1] - 49:18 instructive [1] - 38:21 32:6
full 0]- 13:19 21:2, 21:5, 21:7, Honor[23] - 3:10, interest[a] - 6:4, 6:5, Jon 01- 6:3
futile 13]- 43:18, 58:5 21:9, 22:9, 37:22, 3:17, 4:2, 7:9, 7:23, 6:12, 10:12, 33:4, Judge[1] - 44:21
45:11, 46:3, 46:7, 17:4, 18:17, 20:5, 50:11, 51:25 JUDGE [1] - 1:15
G 46:10, 46:13, 46:15, 20:11, 21:16, 22:9, interesting [3] - 7:11, judge [1] - 41:18
46:17, 46:23, 46:25, 37:22, 42:9, 45:11, 28:13, 52:8 judgement[1] - 56:6
Gale [3] - 6:3, 35:1, 47:3, 47:6, 47:8, internal(24]- 7:4,
46:11, 49:18, 50:9, justified [1] - 43:17
49:25 47:11, 47:15, 47:25, 7:17, 7:24, 8:4, 8:7,
51:17, 58:6, 58:8,
Gale's[1] - 52:11 48:16, 48:19, 48:22, 12:3, 12:4, 12:6,
58:13, 59:1, 59:4
Garrity [1] - 24:12 48:25, 49:5, 49:7, 12:15, 12:19, 17:8,
K
HONORABLE [1] -
general [1] - 28:21 49:9, 49:11, 49:17, 17:9, 17:11, 23:14, Kalamazoo [1] - 49:2
1:15
generally[1] - 39:19 50:9, 50:20, 50:23, 25:6, 26:12, 29:19, keep[6] - 9:16, 18:12,
house [1] - 10:21
generate[3] - 40:23, 51:1, 51:5, 51:11, 30:1, 39:7, 39:18, 18:19, 25:22, 31:7,
hypothetical [2] -
41:4, 41:5 51:13, 51:16, 51:19, 46:1, 46:19, 48:3, 45:13
52:16, 52:23
germane[1] - 38:2 51:23, 52:2, 54:23, 51:2 Kent[7] - 8:18, 27:2,
hypothetically [1] -
given [9] - 31:18, 56:13, 56:19, 56:22, internship[1] - 44:12 27:3, 28:3, 30:6,
45:22
31:19, 31:24, 38:15, 57:1, 57:4, 57:6, intertwined [1] - 12:15 36:17
43:3, 44:5, 54:12, 58:8, 58:13, 58:15, intimates[1]- 26:20 kept[1] - 46:21
58:1 59:1 investigate[2] - 17:9, kids[1] - 4:24
glitch [1] - 53:25 Hall[22] - 3:7, 3:9, 15[2] - 54:10, 56:24 22:2 kind [6] - 30:19, 32:9,
goal(1]- 9:2 11:12, 13:3, 13:4, idea[1]- 24:9 investigated [2] - 37:3, 38:18, 56:5,
government[1] - 53:4 14:4, 14:24, 25:2, ignoring [1] - 9:13 15:19, 25:22 58:19
grant[1] - 34:2 31:22, 37:20, 39:11, imagining [21 - 57:11, investigation [25]- knowledge [1] - 32:2
great0]- 30:19 45:9, 50:7, 51:8, 57:12 7:5, 7:24, 8:5, 8:7,
green [1] - 40:6 52:13, 53:24, 54:15, implausible[1] - 10:2, 10:10, 12:19, L
grounded [1] - 36:13 55:23, 56:12, 58:7, 33:18 13:15, 13:17, 15:6,
implicate [1] - 11:1 language [1] - 9:25
guess[3] - 12:24, 58:25 15:10, 16:12, 18:4,
important[2]- 32:7, Lansing 0]- 38:11
45:15, 56:5 Hall's [2] - 11:19, 19:10, 21:19, 21:24,
32:13 large [1] - 28:18
guys[6] - 9:3, 9:11, 14:10 25:6, 25:23, 25:24,
4
last ii)- 53:7 11:18, 11:23, 15:7, 35:19, 36:9, 37:1, MUSKEGON [21- 1:4, 27:19
law [22) - 3:21, 3:22, 15:13, 15:22, 16:9, 37:7, 37:12, 38:4, 60:4
5:24, 13:23, 23:25, 18:23, 18:25, 19:8, 38:6, 39:15, 39:20, Muskegon [i] - 3:3 0
27:15, 30:16, 30:23, 21:12, 21:17, 21:22, 40:2, 40:4, 40:7, must - 37:9
Obama 01- 23:25
31:15, 31:25, 33:11, 24:11, 26:24, 27:4, 40:10, 40:17, 40:21,
obligated [3[ - 43:11,
35:8, 35:14, 36:13, 30:10, 32:14, 32:16, 40:25, 41:3, 41:22, N 43:12, 45:5
36:16, 42:20, 42:21, 32:20, 36:13, 42:19, 41:25, 42:2, 42:6,
names[3) - 24:23, occurred - 15:10
43:2, 51:3, 53:1, 44:8, 48:8, 48:25, 42:9, 42:13, 42:16,
60:12 OF[7] 1:2, 1:4, 1:8,
53:3 51:17 42:19, 42:23, 43:1,
narrow - 27:23 2:1, 60:3, 60:4, 60:9
Law [ii - 1:19 meaningful[2) - 43:24, 44:8, 44:11,
44:14, 44:17, 44:23, narrowly [1] - 11:21 offense[3] - 31:18,
lawyers [2] - 44:19, 21:21, 22:4
45:3, 47:13, 47:18, nature[7)- 24:24, 31:20, 31:21
44:25 means )1) - 32:21
47:22, 49:14, 49:21, 24:25, 28:18, 31:14, offered - 49:21
least(4)- 29:6, 41:6, meet ri] - 50:14
49:25, 50:2, 50:4, 32:3, 42:24, 58:2 office [4] - 9:10,
53:10, 56:3 merit[3]- 10:14,
51:6, 57:9, 57:17, necessarily [2] - 19:25, 48:11, 49:2
leave[1] - 45:8 10:16, 56:25
58:6, 59:3 13:24, 32:5 officer Es) - 10:17,
left[3] - 5:19, 8:17, meritless[1] - 11:1
MS[137] - 3:10, 3:12, necessary ri] - 54:7 12:12, 47:9, 48:5,
39:6 Michelle[1] - 60:19
4:1, 4:4, 4:9, 4:12, need [2] - 8:16, 16:21 48:7
legal [2) - 35:9, 44:7 MICHIGAN )2] - 1:2,
4:15, 4:18, 4:21, needs[2] - 32:1, 32:2 Officer[3] - 10:21,
letter - 43:3 60:3
4:23, 5:4, 5:7, 5:10, Nelund [1] - 50:2 11:12, 11:19
level[2] - 31:17, 31:19 Michigan [5] - 3:3,
5:14, 5:17, 5:20, never[1] - 53:24 often [2] - 10:15,
limitation - 30:21 8:20, 19:3, 24:15,
5:24, 6:10, 6:14, new [2) - 32:17, 55:19 30:14
limited [2] - 30:17, 31:15
6:17, 6:24, 7:2, 7:6, Newark 03]- 9:10, old (1) - 55:14
48:9 middle[4) - 39:8,
7:12, 8:6, 8:10, 8:13, 9:21, 13:23, 16:22, omelet[11- 9:13
line[2]- 9:2, 29:23 40:13, 40:19, 42:15
8:19, 8:23, 9:8, 9:18, 19:17, 28:22, 29:25, once - 25:23
LISA - 1:19 might[3] 9:1, 29:3,
9:24, 10:5, 10:12, 30:6, 31:10, 32:17, one psi - 7:8, 7:19,
Lisa[5)- 13:2, 13:4, 41:17
10:18, 10:24, 11:3, 36:17, 36:21, 45:18 11:5, 18:7, 21:15,
14:4, 14:10, 14:24 minute[12] - 4:22, 5:5,
11:6, 11:15, 11:22, news[2] - 9:3, 47:24 32:24, 35:1, 36:17,
list Li] - 11:9 8:9, 8:12, 12:7, 29:5,
12:1, 12:4, 12:8, newspaper[zi - 17:6, 38:7, 48:17, 52:11,
live[2] - 23:2, 53:12 29:15, 29:18, 36:25,
12:13, 12:16, 12:21, 17:7 53:23, 54:17, 57:9
lives [1] - 53:14 39:4, 41:18, 50:22
12:24, 13:4, 13:9, next[3] - 15:21, 54:21, oo000 ri] - 59:8
location [3] - 13:24, Monday[21- 4:5, 4:24
13:11, 13:13, 14:1, 55:21 open - 46:9
36:22, 45:19 morning RI - 3:10,
14:6, 14:12, 14:16, nice [5] - 20:9, 33:21, opened [2] - 46:20,
look [6]- 7:9, 8:15, 3:11
14:20, 14:23, 15:1, 48:20, 58:18, 58:22 48:3
16:22, 21:18, 30:12, most[4] - 8:3, 29:14,
15:4, 15:13, 15:17, nodules [1] - 4:4 opening [1[ - 21:25
38:7 31:9, 58:11
16:3, 16:8, 16:19, non [5] - 6:13, 13:2, operation in - 54:10
looking [2] - 24:22, MOTION [1]- 1:8
16:21, 17:3, 17:12, 14:11, 15:16, 39:2 opinion [2] - 26:7,
56:15 Motion pi - 3:8, 3:12
17:16, 17:20, 17:23, non-disclosable [3] - 41:10
lose[3]- 35:15, 44:21, motion pa]- 3:14,
17:25, 18:3, 18:10, 13:2, 14:11, 15:16 opportunity [7]-
45:1 34:5, 43:14, 45:24,
18:14, 18:16, 18:22, non-disclosure[1] - 43:13, 44:6, 44:20,
lunch [1] - 58:10 48:16, 50:10, 51:20,
18:25, 19:12, 19:17, 6:13 45:5, 54:6, 54:14,
53:21, 54:9, 54:18,
20:2, 20:5, 20:11, non-exempt - 39:2 57:25
55:8, 56:2, 56:8,
M 20:18, 20:21, 20:25, None [2] - 2:4, 2:15 oral [2] - 54:7, 54:22
57:2
mail[5]- 9:16, 12:10, 21:2, 21:5, 21:7, none - 52:2 orange [2) - 39:8,
move[1]- 55:6
17:24, 49:13, 49:18 21:9, 22:9, 37:22, NORTON [2] - 1:8, 40:19
MR [94] - 22:11, 22:15,
mailbox - 49:16 45:11, 46:3, 46:7, 60:10 order[7] - 26:9, 36:8,
22:18, 22:24, 23:4,
maintain [1] - 23:9 46:10, 46:13, 46:15, Norton [13]- 3:6, 3:7, 36:11, 37:5, 38:7,
23:7, 23:20, 23:24,
managing [1] - 27:1 46:17, 46:23, 46:25, 7:13, 7:21, 23:8, 54:16, 56:6
25:8, 25:12, 25:16,
mandatory [2]- 43:12, 47:3, 47:6, 47:8, 23:11, 24:9, 24:17, ordered )1[ - 55:24
25:18, 26:6, 26:10,
44:11 47:11, 47:15, 47:25, 25:19, 35:25, 36:1, orders rij - 25:9
26:13, 26:17, 26:22,
materials[2] - 9:22, 48:16, 48:19, 48:22, 46:18, 48:2 organization [1] - 24:1
27:5, 27:11, 27:13,
28:5 48:25, 49:5, 49:7, note rij - 60:12 ought[2] - 54:5, 54:13
28:3, 28:7, 28:10,
matter[4] - 27:25, 49:9, 49:11, 49:17, noted in - 11:2 outlandish [1[ - 15:12
29:9, 29:11, 29:17,
35:18, 44:4, 45:17 50:9, 50:20, 50:23, nothing [2) - 10:15, outline [1] - 38:3
29:21, 29:24, 30:2,
mayor[2) - 47:17, 51:1, 51:5, 51:11, 13:18 outside[2) - 41:9,
30:4, 30:8, 30:14,
51:13, 51:16, 51:19, 41:12
50:2 31:21, 31:24, 32:15, number[6] - 7:8, 35:1,
51:23, 52:2, 54:23,
McKee [1] - 60:19 32:17, 32:21, 33:1, 52:11, 53:23, 54:17, outweigh rij - 6:5
56:13, 56:19, 56:22,
MCL [1] - 3:19 33:3, 34:6, 34:10, 55:2 outweighed )1) -
57:1, 57:4, 57:6,
MCR [2] - 3:13, 43:11 34:14, 34:16, 34:21, Number - 3:5 10:13
58:8, 58:13, 58:15,
mean [26] - 6:21, 34:25, 35:9, 35:15, numerous[2] - 27:6, outweighs )1[ - 6:12
59:1
5
overall in - 13:21 piece[2] - 12:10, 52:6 40:13, 54:11, 56:12, red in - 51:9
overview in - 17:6 17:21 primary 0]- 31:1 57:8 redacted 0]- 24:23
owes 01- 58:10 place r]- 13:17 privacy [2[ - 23:22, quickly En - 12:20 reference in - 8:7
placed [2] - 16:24, 43:5 quite[2] - 10:15, referring [2]- 16:23,
48:4 privileged - 24:14 52:20 17:12
P
places in - 31:1 pro [2] - 58:19 quote [8] - 17:7, 39:9, reflux in - 5:1
P70200 - 1:19 39:10, 41:16, 42:17, reframe [1] - 57:25
Plaintiff[61- 1:7, 1:17, Pro - 42:6
Page r]- 46:25 52:12, 52:13, 54:6 regarding [2] - 17:8,
3:18, 3:23, 6:1, 6:19 Pro-disclosure -
PAGE[2] - 2:3, 2:14 57:12
plaintiff[2] - 8:4, 42:5 42:6
pages in - 60:7
planned 0]- 36:10 procedural o]- 56:24 R regular [1] - 55:16
paper[2i - 12:10, rejected in - 36:22
play in - 44:5 proceedings[3] - Rachel [1] - 44:12
17:21 relate in - 15:9
pleadings[2] - 18:20, 1:13, 59:6, 60:8 ranging in - 52:6
paragraph [1]- 46:22
24:17 process[7] - 25:20, related [5] - 21:2,
paralegal in - 44:9 rare 01-43:4
pleases 01- 22:11 30:18, 38:10, 38:21, 21:8, 21:17, 23:21,
paramount[2] - 10:2, reached r]- 32:10
plowed in - 52:20 41:10, 54:1, 55:24 46:20
45:20 reaching 01- 38:8
point 06]- 9:1, 9:6, prohibit in - 21:20 relating [2] - 7:24,
parking in - 4:16 read [5] - 9:12, 12:19,
15:18, 15:19, 32:10, prohibits in - 13:19 20:6
part ool - 13:13, 14:6, 27:16, 37:21, 48:14
33:17, 33:18, 36:15, prompted RI - 52:6, relevant oi - 53:13
18:4, 23:16, 28:18, real [1[ - 28:10
44:1, 45:12, 45:21, 52:16 relief[2] - 25:11,
41:16, 43:17, 45:17, reality in - 10:22
47:16, 49:5, 52:4, promptly in - 22:15 41:21
53:18, 55:16 really [13]- 15:20,
52:9, 52:24 pronged in - 58:2 relieved r]- 43:15
particular[1[ - 31:6 20:1, 27:17, 30:16,
points in - 25:3 proof[3] - 31:2, 31:4, rely [2] - 3:14, 50:5
particularized 0)- 31:16, 32:7, 35:7,
Police[a] - 7:13, 23:8, 48:21 relying in - 32:1
32:23 38:24, 39:11, 42:23,
46:19, 48:2 proper[1] - 60:12 remain in - 22:12
parties[2]- 30:25, 43:7, 45:17, 53:13
police[6] - 7:20, protected 0]- 24:14 reason on - 6:19, remember[1] - 27:12
38:9
15:23, 26:2, 47:9, protecting [1] - 51:25 6:20, 34:16, 36:14, rendered in - 15:2
parts in - 25:4
48:6 provide in - 49:22 43:1, 54:8, 54:10, repackage in - 57:25
past[2]- 10:21, 23:11 policies[3] - 7:14, provided [s] - 6:18, 55:7, 55:22, 57:3, reporter in - 60:13
pause 0]- 4:22 35:25, 57:20 6:20, 26:1, 50:11, 57:21 Reporter 01- 60:20
PD o]- 11:8 policy [4)- 13:21, 56:17 reasonable [1] - 44:3 reports[13] - 7:5,
pending in - 33:8 28:21, 35:2, 35:11 public [14]- 6:4, 6:5, reasons[s] - 53:19, 7:16, 8:5, 8:7, 15:6,
people[5] - 9:14, portion [2] - 26:23, 6:11, 6:12, 11:11, 16:12, 17:13, 19:18,
13:19, 21:20, 22:21, 53:22, 54:18, 54:19,
29:1 16:5, 20:16, 22:25, 55:17 25:7, 26:12, 30:3,
58:21 position [4] - 20:13, 33:4, 41:6, 41:13, rebound in - 34:3 30:15, 39:19
per in - 58:19 30:16, 31:25, 41:17 43:4, 50:11, 51:24 represented in - 1:18
Perfect 0]- 47:23 receipt in - 32:6
possibly [2] - 36:14, public's in - 30:20 receive 01 - 48:12 representing i2]
permission o]- 58:16 44:4 Publication [1] - 38:11 33:23, 58:21
person [5] - 1:17, received RI - 23:13,
potentially [1] - 29:12 publicly 0]- 24:5 25:21, 46:18, 48:2, represents[2] - 3:6,
14:14, 31:1, 39:1, practical[2] - 32:12, published [2] - 23:12, 3:7
44:3 48:11, 48:19, 49:1,
32:19 27:7 52:13 request[8] - 15:8,
personal o]- 32:2 pre o]- 6:2 purpose [6] - 19:9, 24:16, 25:4, 35:20,
recent[2] - 29:14,
personnel[31] - 3:20, pre-empted [1] - 6:2 21:3, 22:3, 26:25, 50:15, 53:14, 57:12,
42:21
3:23, 6:1, 7:1, 11:17, prejudice [4] - 53:22, 41:6, 53:13 57:13
11:19, 12:12, 13:3, recognizes o]- 45:19
54:19, 55:8, 57:3 purposes in - 53:8 record [16]- 7:1, 13:8, requested [4] - 3:23,
13:5, 13:8, 14:5, preliminaries in - pursuant[2] - 3:13, 6:1, 15:5, 22:25
14:10, 15:15, 15:24, 13:24, 26:21, 26:24,
53:17 3:19 26:25, 29:1, 31:6, requesting pi - 7:15,
16:7, 20:14, 20:17, 20:6, 27:23, 57:13
preliminary 0]- 52:24 pushed in - 39:11 41:6, 41:9, 41:13,
20:19, 21:16, 24:12,
preparing in - 54:16 put[7] - 11:16, 13:2, 43:4, 52:20, 54:19, requests[3] - 7:7,
24:19, 26:21, 26:24,
present[3] - 7:15, 14:10, 15:24, 16:7, 54:20, 55:1 19:13, 54:7
27:1, 28:20, 33:5,
21:22, 55:25 40:18, 46:6 recording in - 54:21 require 0)- 8:1
40:8, 46:5, 46:6,
presentation [3] - putative in - 35:22 records[241- 3:21, required [3] - 30:25,
52:19
51:8, 54:12, 58:22 puts in - 36:19 3:24, 6:1, 12:12, 40:23, 52:3
perspective in -
presented [8]- 18:17, putting [2] - 9:22, 14:4 17:7, 22:24, 26:7, requirement En -
13:21
27:15, 31:13, 36:17, 28:11, 28:14, 28:20, 23:16
phonetically m -
37:14, 45:24, 48:10, Q 30:22, 31:2, 31:9, requires in - 44:19
60:13
50:13 31:11, 31:14, 33:6, residency [1] - 53:11
phrasing [1] - 43:11 questioning [3] -
pretty [4] - 9:4, 12:20, 37:8, 37:9, 38:23, respectfully o]-
pick 0]- 11:14 20:10, 25:2, 52:7
38:15, 53:3 39:1, 39:21, 40:9, 43:25
picking [1] - 9:12 questions [8]- 3:15,
previous in - 36:2 46:20, 57:14 response[6] - 45:14,
picture in - 49:15 5:22, 22:13, 37:25,
primarily [2] - 3:14, 48:11, 48:12, 48:13,
6
48:15, 54:22 schedule 0)- 55:14 shrouded or - 30:19 statute [8]- 6:8, takeout r51- 11:8,
restaurant or - 11:9 scheduled or - 33:13 side[2] - 55:18, 56:8 28:15, 35:23, 38:25, 11:18, 13:1, 13:12,
result[2] - 9:6, 12:18 scheduling 01- 36:11 sign [2] - 47:20, 54:2 39:24, 42:6, 43:19, 52:15
results 01- 7:17 Scott 0)- 44:12 signed [1) - 23:24 51:17 talks or - 6:8
resumed 0)- 37:18 se 0)- 58:19 signing 01- 36:12 statutes 0)- 24:14 task 0)- 54:16
review [6] - 29:7, seated pi - 22:12 similar[31- 33:6, stay [2] - 22:17, 22:19 technical - 54:3
29:12, 30:15, 31:11, second [2) - 52:24, 33:9, 51:23 step 01- 15:21, 32:24, technically p)- 58:22
40:11, 56:1 53:18 simply or - 25:10 32:25, 54:13 term 0)- 18:24
road [2] - 25:5, 52:20 secrecy [1] - 30:19 situation [2] - 45:15, stick or - 48:7 terms pi - 51:24
RUDD [96]- 1:6, secret o)- 20:16 58:3 still [5] - 4:19, 32:9, Terpstra rij - 44:12
22:11, 22:15, 22:18, Section [3]- 3:19, slip raj- 11:18, 13:1, 33:8, 35:10, 44:5 test raj - 30:1 1, 30:13,
22:24, 23:4, 23:7, 19:15, 56:16 13:12 stop or - 51:9 33:4, 33:5, 38:22,
23:20, 23:24, 25:8, see rel - 8:21, 21:18, slips ri) - 20:15 stopped [2] - 9:1, 42:3, 50:14, 51:11
25:12, 25:16, 25:18, 41:15, 42:11, 44:4, snapped [1] - 49:15 37:17 testified or - 48:10
26:6, 26:10, 26:13, 58:19 someone [3] - 15:22, stopping 0)- 22:7 testify rij - 48:1
26:17, 26:22, 27:5, seeking [7] - 3:18, 6:6, 21:18, 30:16 straw Li) - 11:13 testimony o j - 60:9
27:11, 27:13, 28:3, 6:22, 7:4, 7:8, 7:18, sometime or - 55:22 stuff[15]- 12:3, 12:4, THE[231]- 1:4, 3:5,
28:7, 28:10, 29:9, 34:1 sometimes rij - 40:14 12:6, 15:9, 21:17, 3:11, 3:25, 4:3, 4:8,
29:11, 29:17, 29:21, seem [sr - 15:14, 25:4, somewhere RI - 19:7, 21:20, 22:23, 28:11, 4:11, 4:13, 4:17,
29:24, 30:2, 30:4, 52:18, 55:23, 57:23 45:14 37:3, 42:8, 50:12, 4:20, 4:22, 5:3, 5:5,
30:8, 30:14, 31:21, send [2] - 15:23, 55:18 son),[4] - 4:21, 8:10, 52:16, 52:23, 55:10, 5:9, 5:12, 5:15, 5:18,
31:24, 32:15, 32:17, sending oj - 58:10 39:17, 53:6 58:21 5:21, 6:8, 6:11, 6:15,
32:21, 33:1, 33:3, sends r2) - 11:8, 43:3 sort[6] - 8:14, 10:9, subject 0)- 3:24 6:22, 6:25, 7:4, 7:10,
34:6, 34:10, 34:14, sense or - 19:6 13:14, 13:15, 15:8, submit[1) - 56:10 8:3, 8:8, 8:11, 8:14,
34:16, 34:21, 34:25, sent r6) - 21:12, 21:15, 34:3 submitted or - 7:13 8:20, 8:24, 9:9, 9:20,
35:9, 35:15, 35:19, 48:6, 48:20, 48:21, sought[2] - 8:4, 17:7 subpoenas[2] - 10:4, 10:11 , 10:14,
36:9, 37:1, 37:7, 49:13 sounds ri) - 46:8 47:21, 54:3 10:19, 10:25, 11:5,
37:12, 38:4, 38:6, separate[1o)- 6:25, subs rn - 11:14 11:7, 11:16, 11:25,
speaking [2) - 16:10,
39:15, 39:20, 40:2, 9:17, 18:12, 18:19, subsequent[2] - 12:2, 12:5, 12:9,
45:12
40:4, 40:7, 40:10, 19:7, 26:6, 33:5, 28:23, 29:13 12:14, 12:17, 12:22,
specific r5)- 15:9,
40:17, 40:21, 40:25, 39:2, 45:14, 46:23 substantiated or - 12:25, 13:7, 13:10,
24:20, 30:21, 31:5,
41:3, 41:22, 41:25, separating oj - 38:10 23:15 13:12, 13:22, 14:2,
56:23
42:2, 42:6, 42:9, 14:8, 14:13, 14:18,
serious or - 20:9 specifically [6) - 8:6, substantiative or -
42:13, 42:16, 42:19, 14:21, 14:24, 15:2,
serve 0)- 33:15 32:3, 34:22, 38:14, 10:15
42:23, 43:1, 43:24, 15:11, 15:14, 16:1,
service[2) - 48:21, 41:8, 50:17 Sue or - 55:19
44:8, 44:11, 44:14, 16:4, 16:16, 16:18,
49:22 spelled oj - 60:13 suffering (1] - 4:6
44:17, 44:23, 45:3, 16:20, 17:2, 17:15,
several [2] - 25:3, split 01- 7:19 suggested oj - 37:13
47:13, 47:18, 47:22, 17:17, 17:21, 17:24,
53:19 spot ri) - 8:17 suggesting [2]-
49:14, 49:21, 49:25, 18:1, 18:8, 18:11,
severed or - 25:4 ss[1) - 60:3 12:17, 24:11
50:2, 50:4, 51:6, 18:15, 18:21, 18:23,
shadow or - 19:7 stage or - 31:3 summary osj - 6:6,
57:9, 57:17, 58:6, 19:11, 19:16, 19:21,
sheriff0)- 28:5 stand [2] - 22:17, 23:12, 25:24, 26:1,
59:3, 60:9 19:23, 20:4, 20:8,
sheriffs oj - 17:8 39:13 31:3, 31:17, 34:1,
Rudd [23]- 3:5, 3:6, 20:12, 20:20, 20:22,
shield [3] - 9:22, standards[2] - 23:9, 34:3, 34:17, 35:5,
6:22, 9:10, 10:21, 21:1, 21:4, 21:6,
11:17, 11:19 24:1 36:9, 36:14, 41:1,
16:13, 18:7, 19:14, 21:8, 22:8, 22:10,
shielded [2j - 14:3, start[3] - 21:11, 22:1, 48:16, 51:21, 56:3
22:10, 38:1, 43:10, 22:14, 22:16, 22:19,
24:13 37:11 Summary [3] - 3:9,
48:12, 49:12, 52:25, 23:2, 23:6, 23:18,
SHORES[2] - 1:8, started [3] - 51:14, 3:12, 33:17
53:6, 53:11, 54:6, 23:23, 25:2, 25:9,
60:10 52:22, 52:25 support o)- 51:20
54:11, 55:2, 55:4, 25:14, 25:17, 26:5,
Shores[12]- 3:6, 3:7, starts[2] - 19:10, 48:5 supports 01- 51:21
57:7, 58:18, 59:2 26:8, 26:11, 26:14,
7:13, 7:21, 23:8, STATE [2] - 1:2, 60:3 suppose[4) - 9:18,
Rudd's[2] - 53:24, 26:18, 27:3, 27:9,
23:11, 24:10, 24:17, State or - 19:3 11:7, 14:13, 35:12
54:3 27:12, 28:1, 28:4,
25:19, 36:1, 46:18, state[1) - 53:15 supposed [1) - 39:1
rule [3] - 14:25, 43:20, 28:8, 29:3, 29:10,
48:2 statement r2) - 36:20, supreme[8] - 8:25,
44:19 29:15, 29:18, 29:22,
Shores'rij - 36:1 41:4 9:4, 27:7, 27:9,
rules[2] - 33:21, 34:2 29:25, 30:3, 30:7,
short[3] - 9:2, 11:13 statements 0)- 24:12 27:16, 38:12, 38:17,
30:12, 31:20, 31:23,
38:20
s shorter[2] - 43:19,
43:20
states or - 10:9
stating 0)- 36:16
32:12, 32:16, 32:19,
32:24, 33:2, 33:20,
sanctions[3]- 35:22, Shorthand or - 60:20 statistical or - 23:13 T 34:8, 34:12, 34:15,
36:11, 37:2 show [3] - 41:19, 42:7, statue 0)- 50:20 TABLE pi - 2:1 34:18, 34:23, 35:6,
scenario [1) - 50:17 53:5
7
35:12, 35:17, 36:7, 46:21 up [9] - 11:14, 21:25, worms[1] - 22:1
36:24, 37:2, 37:10, tons[1] - 19:8 22:17, 22:22, 38:1, write [1] - 31:22
37:15, 37:20, 37:23, totally [1] - 10:20 38:17, 40:4, 52:10, writing [1] - 41:5
39:3, 39:17, 39:22, town pi- 55:15 58:10 written [4] - 7:16,
40:3, 40:5, 40:8, track[11- 53:10 USN- 49:13 39:4, 48:12, 48:13
40:12, 40:18, 40:24, training [11- 44:7 wrote [2) - 39:9, 40:5
41:2, 41:14, 41:24, transcript[5] - 36:4, V
42:1, 42:4, 42:7, 47:14, 50:5, 60:6,
various[1] - 24:14
42:10, 42:15, 42:17, 60:8
veiled [1] - 57:22 yards[1] - 9:2
42:22, 42:25, 43:10, trial [12]- 31:10,
verbiage[3] - 9:21, years[1]- 44:15
44:7, 44:9, 44:13, 33:12, 34:12, 34:18,
13:22, 57:19 yesterday[i] - 49:1
44:16, 44:18, 44:24, 36:10, 37:5, 38:12,
version [2] - 27:10, yourself[1] - 21:25
45:4, 45:25, 46:5, 38:13, 38:18, 38:23,
34:19
46:8, 46:12, 46:14, 55:12, 56:6
versus[6]- 3:6, 23:14,
46:16, 46:22, 46:24, tried [1]- 28:16
23:15, 32:13, 38:11,
47:2, 47:4, 47:7, true[5] - 8:3, 19:11,
47:10, 47:17, 47:19, 60:9
27:1, 36:20, 60:7
47:23, 48:15, 48:18, video [2] - 37:17,
try [6] - 5:11, 11:5,
48:20, 48:24, 49:4, 37:18
33:25, 52:9, 53:2,
49:6, 49:8, 49:10, videotaped [1] - 60:8
56:4
49:12, 49:19, 49:23, Videotaped [1] - 60:11
trying [5] - 7:19, 8:15,
50:1, 50:3, 50:7, violation [1] - 3:19
31:16, 52:22, 57:22
50:19, 50:21, 50:24, virtue[1]- 5:13
turn [1]- 8:2
51:2, 51:7, 51:12, vocal [1] - 4:4
turned [1] - 52:3
51:14, 51:18, 51:22, vs En- 1:7
turning [2] - 15:7,
52:1, 52:5, 54:24, 21:20
56:18, 56:20, 56:23, turns[1] - 4:25 w
57:2, 57:5, 57:7, wait[4] - 5:5, 41:18,
two[10] - 7:6, 7:7,
57:15, 57:18, 58:7, 55:21, 56:5
8:15, 25:4, 32:25,
58:9, 58:14, 58:16, wants[2] - 11:25, 55:3
47:13, 49:24, 54:2,
59:2, 59:5
55:2, 58:2 warrant[1] - 21:18
themself[1] - 33:23
two-pronged [1] - warranted [1] - 24:21
themselves[2] - 58:2 water[3] - 3:25, 4:14,
31:12, 58:21 type [1] - 10:25 5:6
third [2]- 41:15, 54:10 typically [1] - 30:24 ways [1] - 31:5
three [7] - 4:7, 4:24,
website [2] - 25:19,
8:1, 36:16, 39:4,
50:14, 51:24
u 41:4
week [3] - 49:20, 54:2,
threw [1] - 20:16 ultimately [1] - 19:19
55:21
throughout[1] - 24:2 unable[1] - 55:20
weeks pi - 4:7
throw 01- 11:19 unaware[1] - 53:23
weigh [1] - 6:20
throwing [2] - 15:3, under[is] - 13:2,
weighing [2] - 6:16,
32:8 16:14, 19:14, 19:15,
6:18
thrown [1] - 12:19 21:24, 22:3, 33:15,
welcome[1] - 5:9
Tim [5]- 14:4, 15:15, 34:1, 35:22, 36:11,
well-grounded [1] -
16:5, 20:13, 20:17 43:5, 43:10, 50:20,
36:13
TIMOTHY [1] - 1:15 51:3
whole[7] - 22:1, 22:3,
tip [1] - 45:2 underlying [2]- 10:2,
29:23, 30:18, 31:6,
today [28]- 3:7, 6:7, 16:11
32:4, 52:15
16:10, 16:13, 18:6, uniform [1] - 11:10
wide [2] - 46:9, 52:6
18:17, 19:13, 20:9, Unintelligible [1]-
wide-ranging [1] -
29:11, 31:15, 32:9, 30:7
52:6
34:3, 34:20, 36:7, union [2]- 28:5, 28:16
win [5] - 26:8, 29:5,
38:7, 48:10, 48:11, unique[1] - 43:6
29:11, 36:7, 37:5
50:13, 51:8, 53:20, unjustifiably [1] - 43:8
withholding [1] - 31:2
53:21, 54:9, 54:16, unknown [1] - 60:12
witness[1] - 35:13
55:3, 55:8, 56:11, unless [2] - 6:11
WITNESS[1] - 2:3
58:2, 58:24 unsubstantiated [1] -
words[2]- 43:17,
today's[1] - 53:8 23:15
44:24
together[2] - 31:7, unwise [1] - 56:3
works[1]- 33:16
8
EXHIBIT I
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Defendant.

201 S. Lake Ave Lisa A. Hall(P70200)
daniel@stock20.com 950 Trade Centre Way, Suite 310
(269-226-8822)
RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
The Defendant, City of Norton Shores, moves for an Order granting summary disposition
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), as there are no genuine issues of material fact and the defendant
is entitled to judgment as matter of law. This motion is based on the facts, legal authorities and
arguments contained in the Brief in Support of Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition filed
with this motion.
DATED: March 8, 2018 PLUNKETT COONEY
BY:
Michael S. Bogren (P34835)
Open.00560.72801.19986884-1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W.RUDD,
Defendant.

Spring Lake, Michigan 49456 Attorney for Defendant
(269-226-8822)
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
STANDARD
A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) should be granted
when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no
genuine issue of material fact. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120, 597 NW2d 817
(1999). A genuine issue of material fact exists when reasonable minds could differ after
drawing reasonable inferences from the record. West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177,
183,665 NW2d 468 (2003). In reviewing this issue, the Court must consider the pleadings,
affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence and construe them in
a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Corley v Detroit Bd ofEd, 470 Mich 274, 278,
681 NW2d 342 (2004). When the burden of proof at trial would rest on the nonmoving
1
party, that party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must,
by documentary evidence, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial. The Healing Place at North Oakland Med Ctr v Allstate Ins Co, 277 Mich App 51, 55, 744
NW2d 174(2007).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 27, 2017 Plaintiff requested the following public records in a written
FOIA request submitted to the City of Norton Shores (the "City"):
Any/all complaints submitted against the Norton Shores Police Department's

document describing the results of the internal investigation.
(Am. Complaint and Am. Answer, ¶ 6). On or about February 16, 2017, the City of Norton
Shores denied this request stating:
Request #4 - This item is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Section 13,
(Am. Complaint and Am. Answer ¶ 9). Plaintiff appealed this denial in a letter dated
February 23, 2017.(Am. Complaint and Am. Answer, ¶ 10). Plaintiffs appeal was denied in
a letter from Mayor Gary Nelund dated March 3, 2017.(Am. Complaint and Am. Answer,
12).
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this matter on August 29, 2017. Plaintiffs
initial complaint pertained solely to his assertion FOIA was violated when he filed his
request on January 27, 2017 but received a denial based upon MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix), which
exempts from disclosure personnel records of a law enforcement agency. Plaintiff
subsequently amended his complaint on January 12, 2018 adding allegations that the City
2
violated FOIA when it failed to respond to the January 27, 2017 FOIA request in accordance
with MCL 15.235(2) and failed to separate exempt from nonexempt material in accordance
with MCL 15.244. For the reasons set forth below, summary disposition is appropriate on
all counts.
ARGUMENT
I. WHERE THE RECORDS SOUGHT FALL WITHIN THE EXEMPTION FOR

PERSONNEL RECORDS OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND WHERE
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE DOES NOT OUTWEIGH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN NONDISCLOSURE.
A. The Records Plaintiff Seeks Are Personnel Records of a Law
Enforcement Agency.
MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix), provides that a public body may exempt from disclosure
personnel records of a law enforcement agency: "Unless the public interest in disclosure
outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance, public records of
a law enforcement agency, the release of which would do any of the following: Disclose
personnel records oflaw enforcement agencies."
The Michigan Court of Appeals addressed a very similar FOIA issue in Newark
Morning Ledger Co v Saginaw County Sheriff; 204 Mich App 215, 514 NW2d 213 (1994).
There, plaintiff sought access to all records regarding defendant's completed internal
affairs investigations, including all factual findings and determinations made by the
internal affairs investigators and relevant command personnel. Id. at 216. The request was
denied, citing the law enforcement personnel records exemption, which was then MCL
15.243(1)(t)(ix). The trial court ruled the records fell within the exemption. On appeal
plaintiff argued the trial court erred in adopting defendant's assertion that all the
requested documents constituted "personnel records" within the meaning of the

3
exemption. Plaintiff argued that investigation records were not necessarily "personnel
records" merely because the records were placed in personnel files. The Court of Appeals
rejected this argument:"Although we agree with plaintiff that location is not determinative,
we conclude that the records requested by plaintiff were 'personnel records of law
enforcement agencies.'" Id. at 217.
The Court then analyzed the FOIA exemption and concluded the records sought
were exempt from disclosure. In reaching this conclusion the Court noted that the
Legislature, in enacting the Employee Right to Know Act (MCL 423.501, et. seq.),
determined that the employee should not be allowed access to the records of the
employer's internal investigations. Since that Act was designed to extend an employee's
ability to gain access to the employer's files beyond the rights afforded to the public by the
FOIA, the "Legislature's clearly expressed intent in the ERKA to prohibit access by an
employee to any internal investigations relating to that employee demonstrates that the
Legislature intended that access to those records be severely restricted." Id. at 217 - 218.
"We can reasonably infer that in drafting the FOIA, the Legislature had the same intent
relative to records of closed internal affairs investigations such as those requested by
plaintiff. The Legislature would not have denied an employee access to documents that
were readily available to the public pursuant to the FOIA. Therefore, we conclude that the
Legislature intended that the internal affairs investigatory records requested by plaintiff
fall within the meaning of the term 'personnel record of law enforcement agencies' as used
in the FOIA." Id. at 218.
In Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v Kent County Sheriff; 238 Mich App 310, 605
NW2d 363 (1999), affd, 463 Mich 353, 616 NW2d 677 (2000), plaintiff, the Kent County
4
Deputy Sheriffs' Association, sought the release of defendant's internal affairs files, and
specifically, the records and witness statements defendant kept relating to defendant's
investigation of two deputy sheriffs disciplined for violating agency rules. Id. at 312. The
trial court ordered the records be disclosed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that
the records of internal investigations fell within the exemption for personnel records of a
law enforcement agency. Id. at 330.
Sutton v City of Oak Park, 251 Mich App 345,650 NW2d 404 (2002), also holds that
exemption. In Sutton, plaintiff requested under FOIA a copy of all documents regarding an
internal investigation. The request was denied, stating that the records were exempt from
disclosure as being investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes. Plaintiff
appealed the denial. The Oak Park city council voted unanimously to deny plaintiffs
request for the records relating to the internal investigation. The city council stated the
records were exempt from disclosure because they were records compiled for law
enforcement purposes and could interfere with an ongoing investigation and result in an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The city council also asserted the records were
exempt from disclosure because they were personnel records of a law enforcement agency.
Id. at 347. The trial court ruled the records were exempt from disclosure and the Court of
Appeals agreed, citing the Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n, and Newark Morning Ledger
cases as authority for holding the internal investigation records constituted personnel
records of a law enforcement agency.
Plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint that,"Defendant was fully apprised of the
law at the time the FOIA request was denied, but still required plaintiff to commence this
5
civil action to compel the disclosure of citizen complaints and corresponding documents
which are not privileged." (Am. Complaint ¶ 35). Essentially, Plaintiff would parse the
original complaint that caused the internal investigation and the final disposition of the
investigation from the actual investigation itself. However, the case law does not support
the Plaintiffs position. In Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n, Newark Morning Ledger, and
Sutton, plaintiffs sought all documents associated with the internal investigations. The
Court of Appeals did not require the initial complaints to be disclosed, nor did the Court
require the disposition of the complaints to be disclosed. The entire internal investigation
process was considered as a whole, and all of the records associated with the process were
held to fall within the exemption. Consequently, there can be no violation of MCL 15.244
as Plaintiff alleges in Count II of his Amended Complaint. MCL 15.244 requires a public
body to separate the exempt and nonexempt material from a public record only when the
public record contains material which is not exempt. Here, as provided for by the
applicable statute and case law, the entire internal investigation falls within the exemption.
Moreover, there is no question that "all documents associated with the internal
investigations" included both the citizen complaints and the final disposition of the
investigations. As set forth above, in Newark, plaintiff sought access to all records
regarding defendant's completed internal affairs investigations, including all factual
findings and determinations made by the internal affairs investigators and relevant
command personnel. There was no order that the factual findings and determinations be
released, nor was there any order that the underlying citizen complaint be released. In fact,
the Court of Appeals in Newark specifically noted the trial court's analysis relating to
citizen complaints and the public's interest in nondisclosure of these documents, quoting:
6
It is the opinion of the Court that the public's interest in nondisclosure of these
documents pertains to the working conditions of the sheriff department employees.
These employees are subject to complaints from disgruntled persons who have been
arrested and placed in jail; they are subject to complaints from prisoners who are
incarcerated; they are subject to complaints from every citizen who feels an officer
has taken some improper action. To disclose the nature of these complaints to the
general public subjects the officers to much scandalous and untrue material. Some
of these complaints are intentionally generated by persons knowing the complaint is
false in order to subject the deputy to disciplinary action. Newark, at 224.
The same result must follow here. As Chief Jon Gale avers in his Affidavit, when a citizen
complaint is received, an internal investigation file is opened and all records related to the
complaint are kept together in a single file. (Affidavit of Chief Jon Gale, ¶ 6(a); Exhibit A).
Based on the Court of Appeals' decisions in Kent County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n,
Newark Morning Ledger, and Sutton, it is beyond argument that the records Plaintiff sought
fall within the law enforcement personnel records exemption of MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix).
And because all records Plaintiff sought fall within the law enforcement personnel records
exemption,there is no violation of MCL 15.244.
B. The Public Interest in Disclosure of the Records Does Not Outweigh the
Public Interest in Nondisclosure.
The Affidavits of Chief Gale (Exhibit A) and Anthony Chandler, the City of Norton
Shores FOIA Coordinator (Exhibit B), demonstrate the public interest in disclosure of the
records does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. Chief Gale avers that
disclosure of internal affairs records would have a serious negative impact on the
Department's ability to conduct meaningful internal investigations and would have a
negative impact on the morale of the Department. Specifically, Chief Gale has provided a
sworn affidavit that states:
7
• In order to obtain all pertinent information necessary to complete an internal
investigation, the cooperation of the person making the complaint is
necessary.
• Based on Chief Gale's experience as a law enforcement officer and as a Chief
of Police, public disclosure of the name of the person making a complaint
against police officers would have a chilling effect on the willingness of other
citizens to make a complaint.
• Even if the name of the individual making the complaint were not disclosed, a
disclosure of the nature of the events complained of would have the same
chilling effect, as the identity of those involved can often be ascertained by a
• This chilling effect is especially pronounced if an internal complaint is made
by one officer against another because in my experience officers are
reluctant to give statements about the conduct and actions of other officers.
• If statements made during the course of internal investigations were made
public, in the future officers would be unwilling to provide statements, or if
they did provide statements they would be guarded and not as candid as they
otherwise would be.
• Disclosing the information requested would, in my opinion, severely hamper,
if not destroy, the ability of the Department to conduct meaningful internal
• Disclosing the results of the internal investigations would, based on my
experience, have a serious negative impact on officer morale and would

impair the ability of the Department to properly function, as many people
would assume the truth of the allegations made against an officer even if the
allegations were deemed to be unfounded.
(Exhibit A, ¶ 6). Mr. Chandler, who responded to the FOIA request, has averred in his
affidavit that he discussed the request with Chief Gale and the denial based on the
exemption in MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix), was invoked for the reasons identified by Chief Gale.
The Court of Appeals decisions fully support the City's determination that the public
interest in disclosure does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. In Sutton, the
Court held:
Further, we believe that the affidavit of Deputy Director Robert Bauer

provides sufficient reasons for nondisclosure. In his affidavit, he avers:
3. It is my experience that the process involved in conducting internal

investigations is extremely difficult since employees are reluctant to give
statements about the conduct and actions offellow employees.
4. If such statements made during the course of internal investigations were

made public, employees would likely refuse to give such statements, or
would not be completely candid and forthcoming during such investigations.
5. Further, if such statements are made public, the ability of the City's Public
Safety Department to conduct such investigations would be destroyed or
severely curtailed since information could not be obtained.
We find that these reasons establish that the public interest favors
nondisclosure of the records requested by plaintiff. See, e.g., Kent Co. Deputy
Sheriffs Ass'n, id. at 365-366,616 N.W.2d 677. Plaintiff has not shown that the
public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure,
as required by the statute to warrant disclosure.
Sutton, 251 Mich App at 350-351. Similarly, in Kent County Deputy Sheriffs Ass'n, the Court
held:
Defendant sufficiently established that public interest favored nondisclosure.

The affidavit of the undersheriff justified confidentiality on these grounds:
9
1. Internal investigations are inherently difficult because employees are
reluctant to give statements about the actions of fellow employees.
2. If their statements would be a matter of public knowledge they might

refuse to give any statements at all or be less than totally forthcoming and
candid.
3. Also, disclosure could be detrimental to some employees.
4. Public disclosure of records relating to internal investigations into

possible employee misconduct would destroy or severely diminish the
Sheriff Department's ability to effectively conduct such investigations.
We agree that these reasons soundly establish that the public interest favors
nondisclosure of these records. The association fails to persuade us that the
public interest in meaningful arbitration of grievances favors disclosure.
Chief Gale's Affidavit establishes that the public interest in disclosure in this case
does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure. The concerns cited by Chief Gale go
the very ability of the Department to conduct meaningful investigations - and to the
willingness of citizens to file complaints in the first instance.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff provided no explanation for the disclosure. While
the City understands there is no requirement that a FOIA request be supported by a reason
in the first instance, and it is not the plaintiffs burden to prove the records should be
disclosed, where the plaintiff offers no reason for the disclosure, there is little for the City
to balance against. The City is not minimizing the overall public interest in the ability to
participate in, and be aware of, the affairs of government. However, when a blanket request
is made that directly impacts the ability of the police to perform a vital function, that
general interest must give way to the identified concerns of the police.
For the above reasons, dismissal of Counts II and III is appropriate.
10
II. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF MCL 15.235(2)
Plaintiff contends that the City failed to respond to his FOIA request pursuant to
MCL 15.235(2). This argument ignores Plaintiffs own admissions and the record evidence
in this matter.
MCL 15.235(2) provides that after receiving a FOIA request, a public body must
respond within five business days. It may (1) grant the request,(2) deny the request in
writing,(3) partly grant the request and partly deny it in writing, or (4) issue an extension
notice giving the public body 10 extra business days to respond. A failure to respond in one
of the four ways set forth constitutes the public body's final determination to deny the
request, MCL 15.235(3).
Plaintiff admits he sent his FOIA request on Friday, January 27, 2017. (Am.
Complaint, ¶ 6). The request was made by Plaintiff via email. Exhibit C. Pursuant to the
applicable FOIA provision, it was deemed received on Monday, January 30, 2017. MCL
15.235(1) ("A written request made by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic
transmission is not received by a public body's FOIA coordinator until 1 business day after
the electronic transmission is made."). Thus, the City had 5 business days to respond,
which would have required a response on or before February 6, 2017. However, contrary
to Plaintiffs allegations, the City immediately responded on January 30, 2017 via email to
Plaintiff, issuing an extension notice giving the public body 10 extra business days to
respond, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. The City subsequently responded to the
FOIA request on February 16, 2017, well within the allowed timeframe. (Am. Complaint, ¶
9). Thus, Count I of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
11
RELIEF REQUESTED
For the reasons set forth above, the City respectfully requests the Court grant its
motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) and dismiss the Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
DATED: March 8, 2018 PLUNKETT COONEY
BY:
Michael S. Bogren 34835)
Lisa A. Hall (P70200)
Open.00560.72801.19986886-1
12
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Defendant.

danielrib,stock20.com Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
mbogren(5),plunkeucooney.com
AFFIDAVIT OF ION GALE
Jon Gale, first having been duly sworn,states that if called as a witness in this matter
could testify to the following facts:
1. My name is Jon Gale and 1 have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this
Affidavit.
2. I am the Chief of Police for the City of Norton Shores Police Department and
have held that position since h---Vd0/411.
3. I was contacted by Anthony Chandler, Director of Administrative Services
and the City of Norton Shores' Freedom of Information Act Coordinator regarding a FOIA
Request sent to the City by Daniel Rudd.
5. Based on my consultation with Mr. Chandler, the FOIA Request was denied
based on the exemption for personnel records of a law enforcement agency.
6 In my opinion the public interest in disclosure of these records did not
outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure for the following reasons:
a. When citizen complaints are received by the Norton Shores Police
Department an internal investigation file is opened and all records related to the
complaint are kept together in a single file.
b. The complaint is investigated by a command officer at the Norton
Shores Police Department.
c. In order to obtain all pertinent information necessary to complete the
investigation the cooperation of the person making the complaint is necessary.
d. Based on my experience as a law enforcement officer and as a Chief of
police officers would have a chilling effect on the willingness of other citizens to
make a complaint.
e Even if the name of the individual making the complaint were not
disclosed, a disclosure of the nature of the events complained of would have the
same chilling effect, as the identity of those involved can often be ascertained by a
2
f. This chilling effect is especially pronounced if an internal complaint is
made by one officer against another because in my experience officers are reluctant
to give statements about the conduct and actions of other officers.
g. If statements made during the course of internal investigations were
made public, in the future officers would be unwilling to provide statements, or if
they did provide statements would be guarded and not as candid as they otherwise
would be.
h. Disclosing the information requested would, in my opinion, severely
hamper, if not destroy, the ability of the Department to conduct meaningful internal
i. Disclosing the results of the internal investigations would, based on
my experience, have a serious negative impact on officer morale and would impair
the ability of the Department to properly function, as many people would assume
the truth of the allegations made against an officer even if the allegations were
7. When Mr. Rudd appealed the denial of his FOIA Request to the Mayor, the
Mayor consulted with me and I expressed the same concerns about disclosure of the
records.
8. It is my understanding the appeal was denied for those reasons.
3
Jon G
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COUNTY OF nitko&A, , ))SS.
On this "'day of ))0vouleL,2017, before me, a Notary Public, in and for said
county and state, personally appeared Jon Gale, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that he
has read the foregoing Affidavit and knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true of his
knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be upon his inform knowledge and belief
and as to those matters he believes them to be true.
r‘, Ltt1( Oct

COLLETTE J. DEBLOCK
NOTARY PUBLIC, Notary Public43bc:;,Q County,
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN Michigan. My commission expires:
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
ACTING IN THE COUNTY OF 09/03/2021
MUSKEGON
Open.00560.72801.19411803-1
4
EXHIBIT B
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Defendant.

danielPstock20.com Kalamazoo, Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
mbogrenplunkettcooney.com
AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY CHANDLER
Anthony Chandler, first having been duly sworn, states that if called as a witness in
this matter could testify to the following facts:
1. My name is Anthony Chandler and I have personal knowledge of the facts
stated in this Affidavit.
2. I am the Director of Administrative Services and the City of Norton Shores'
Freedom of Information Act Coordinator and held that position in January and February
2017.
3. The City of Norton Shores received a FOIA Request from Daniel Rudd in
January 2017..
5. l consulted with Jon Gale, Chief of Police for the City of Norton Shores
regarding the request.
6. Based on Chief Gale's input I denied Mr. Rudd's FOIA request based on the
exemption for personnel records of a law enforcement agency.
7. Based on the negative effects identified by Chief Gale that disclosure of the
records would have it was my opinion that the public interest in disclosure of the records
did not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure.
8. The primary negative effects identified by Chief Gale were the chilling effect
disclosure would have on future complaints and the negative impact on the Police
Department's ability to conduct effective internal investigations.
Anthony Chandler
STATE OF MICHIGAN
)SS.
COUNTY OF
On this aQA day of4Veir 120I7, before me, a Notary Public, in and for said
county and state, personally appeared Anthony Chandler, who being duly sworn, deposes and
says that he has read the foregoing Affidavit and knows the contents thereof, and that the same
arc true of his knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be upon his infonn
knowledge and belief and as to those matters he believes them to be true.
(544
1 (/
h
Notary Public, 7445/ 1.--County,
Ntehiqn.LcoAmi sion
CA:9-
Open.00560.72801.19411895-1
2
EXHIBIT C
From: Daniel Rudd [mailto:daniel(astock20.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 4:58 PM
To: Anthony Chandler
Subject: FOIA REQUEST
Mr. Chandler, please see the attached FOIA request.
Let me know if you need anything further.

Daniel Rudd
1
EXHIBIT D
From: Mary Gray
To: danieastock20.com
Subject: FOIA Request
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 3:53:00 PM
Attachments: extension 1-30-17.odf
Good Afternoon,
Please see the attached Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request in connection with your
FOIA request.
Mary Gray, Assistant to Douglas M. Hughes/Susan M.Franklin

Williams Hughes, PLLC
120 W. Apple Avenue, P.O. Box 599
Muskegon, MI 49443-0599
Phone: 231-726-4857
Fax: 231-727-2130
E-mail: marygray@williamshugheslaw.com
City: Keep original and City of Norton Shores Extension Form
provide copy, along with 4814 Henry Street
Policy & Public Summary, Norton Shores, MI 49441
to requestor at no dine.
Phone:(231)798-4391
Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request

Michigan Freedom of information Act, Public Act 442 of 1976, MCL 15.231, etseq.
Request No.:2017-003 Date Received: 1/27/2017 Check if received via: X Email D Fax 0 Other Electronic Method
Date of This Notice: 1/30/2017 Date delivered to junk/spam folder.
(Please Print or Type) Date discovered in junk/spam folder.
Name Phone
Daniel W. Rudd 231-557-2532
Firm/Organization Fax
Street Email
201 S. Lake Avenue daniel@stock20.com
City State Zip
Spring Lake MI 49456
Requestfor. X Copy 0 Certified copy 0 Record inspection 0 Subscription to record issued on regular basis
Delivery Method: 0 Will pick up 0 Will make own copies onsite 0 Mail to address above X Email to address above
❑ Deliver on digital media provided by the City:
Record(s)You Requested:(Listed here or see attached copy of original request) See attached original request.
We are extending the date to mspond to your FOIA request for no more than 10 business days, until 2/17/2017(month, day, yew).
Only one extension may be taken per FOIA request If you have any questions regarding this extension, contact Susan Franklin at 231-
726-4857.
Estimated Time Frame to Provide Records: 2/17/2017
The time frame estimate is nonbinding upon the City, butthe City is providing the estimate in good faith. Providing an estimated time
frame does not relieve a public body from any ofthe other requirements of this act.
Reason for Extension:
X 1. The City needs to search for, collect, or appropriately examine or review a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public
records pursuant to your request. Specifically,the City must locate, assemble and review and redact records responsive to your
request. Further,the City must coordinate documents from the following departments: Norton Shores Police Department, Norton
Shores Administration.
X 2.The City needs to collect the requested public records from its legal counsel which is located apart from the City office.
Specifically, the City must coordinate documents from the following locations: Williams Hughes,PLLC, who will be required to locate,
assemble and review and redact records responsive to your request 3.
❑ 3. Other(describe):
ds
Signature of Norton Shor Cityltoiray:\
'HIEVAU
Date:
1/30/17
PAUsersIMBOnotton shores1FOIA 201711tudthextension 1-3047.docx

Under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act § 15.231 et seq. l am making the following
requests for public records from the Norton Shores Police Department and the City of Norton
Shores.
FOIA REQUEST 1: I am requesting a copy of any and all subpoenas or orders to appear in
court which were received by the employees or officers of the Norton Shores Police
Department or the City of Norton Shores related to a civil court proceeding such as a
personal protection orders (domestic or non-domestic), child abuse and neglect, child
custody, stalking, harassing or similar disputes from May 1, 2013 until the present.
FOIA REQUEST 2: I am requesting a copy of any FOIA requests which include or reference
the name "Daniel Rudd"(or some similar vaiation), AND which were submitted to the City of
Norton Shores on or after May 1, 2013 until the present. Please provide only a copy of the
request itself and a copy of the response from Norton Shores. I am not at this time
requesting a copy of the documents which were provided.
FOIA REQUEST 3: I am requesting a copy of any/all billing statements for legal services
provided to the City of Norton Shores or the Norton Shores Police Department from June 1,
2015 until the present.
FOIA REQUEST 4: l am requesting a copy any/all complaints submitted against the Norton
Shores Police Department's policies or employees from January 1, 2014 until the present. I
am also requesting a copy of any corresponding written report, disposition or document
describing the results of the intemal investigation.
Delivery of FOIA Requested Documents: The preferred method of delivery would be ".pdf
documents attached to an e-mail at the address noted below. If electronic delivery is not
available, I would prefer to pick up the documents in hard copy from the city offices.
Clarifications In Part: If clarifying information is required on any single item please contact
me immediately regarding that clarification instead of waiting until the other items have been
granted or denied.
Fees and Fulfillment in Part: If there are any fees for searching or copying these records,
please inform me by e-mail and I will arrange for payment. If some portion of this request can
be fulfilled immediately or at a minimal cost, please proceed with those portions instead of
waiting until all of the items can be fulfilled in their entirety.
The Michigan Freedom of Information Act requires a response to this request within
five days. If access to the records I am requesting will take longer than this amount of time,
please contact me with information about when l might expect copies or the ability to inspect
the requested records.
If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel
justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures
available to me under the law.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at: daniel@stock20.com
or by phone: 231-557-2532.
Sincerely,
r -.)Zi(A)1(ti
Daniel W. Rudd
daniel©stock20.com
201 S LAKE AVE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Defendant.

(269-226-8822)
PROOF OF SERVICE
sworn, deposes and says that on the 8th day of March, 2018, she caused a true copy of
Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition, Brief in Support of Renewed
Motion for Summary Disposition, Notice of Hearing, and Proof of Service, to be served
upon Daniel W. Rudd, in pro per, and that such service was made by enclosing same in a
sealed envelope with first class postage fully prepaid, addressed to the above, and
depositing said envelope and its contents in a receptacle for the United States mail at
Portage, Michigan, and said envelope was addressed to his last known business address, as
follows:
Daniel W. Rudd
201 S. Lake Ave
1' tilk
Diane Austin
Open.00560.72801.20009806-1
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT K
Rudd v City of Norton Shores

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
DANIEL RUDD,
Plaintiff, File No. 17-004334-CZ

vs.
MOTION
Defendant.
RECORD
of the proceedings had in the above-entitled
cause on the 2nd day of April, 2018, before
HON. TIMOTHY G. HICKS, Circuit Judge.
APPEARANCES:
The Plaintiff appeared in person,

but was not represented by counsel;
LISA A. HALL, J.D. (P70200)

Attorney at Law
on behalf of the Defendant.
1 of 25 sheets April 2, 2018 Page 1 to 1 of 61

Rudd v City of Norton Shores
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 it and doesn't wish to pursue that count. However, I
WITNESS: PAGE 2 did want to provide it to the Court to let you know
None 3 we did respond timely.
4 THE COURT: Is that true, Mr. Rudd?
5 MR. RUDD: Yes, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: OK. Great. Thank you. I can
7 cross it off my list.
8 MS. HALL: Yes, Your Honor. So that's
9 Count I. The second, so then Counts II and Count III
10 would be the renewed motion portion, which we
11 addressed at length at the last hearing. I'm happy
12 to answer any further questions this Court has. But
13 one thing the Court did indicate at the last hearing,

EXHIBITS: PAGE
14 Your Honor, it had some concerns about was whether or
None
15 not complaints were a document that was part of the
16 internal affairs file. And I wanted to point out in
17 this renewed motion, Your Honor, that the Newark case
18 did, in fact, contemplate complaints as a part -- in
19 the trial court as a part of that overall
20 investigatory file. So I just want to point that out
21 that that was something that was contemplated in the
22 trial court level when the Court had applied this
23 exemption and so it was something that was
24 contemplated by being a part of the one file.
25 THE COURT: It was the Newark court, I
2 4
1 Monday, April 2, 2018 1 think, that said a couple times that location wasn't
2 At 10:06:09 A.M.. 2 dispositive.
3 Muskegon, Michigan 3 MS. HALL: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.

4 RECORD 4 THE COURT: All right.
5 THE COURT: Daniel Rudd versus Norton 5 MS. HALL: It isn't -- it isn't. And that
6 Shores. The file number is 2017-4334-CZ. Mr. Rudd 6 was actually very important In that case because I
7 represents himself. Ms. Hall represents the city 7 think the court in that choice -- in that court
8 here today. This is a Defense Motion for Summary 8 decided to do an in camera review of the documents
9 Disposition. 9 because the internal affairs records were actually
10 Ms. Hall? 10 kept in the employee's Individual file. It was a
11 MS. HALL: Thank you, Your Honor. This is 11 little different than the case we have here.
12 a Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant to 12 According to the affidavit with Chief Jon
13 MCR 2.116(C)(10). At the last hearing, we had filed 13 Gale, they open a file similar, like I said in court
14 a Motion for Summary Disposition on Mr. Rudd's 14 last time, to a court file where when a corn plaint is
15 complaint and the Court allowed Mr. Rudd to amend his 15 filed, whether it be internal or citizen, an
16 complaint. Mr. Rudd did, in fact, file an amended 16 investigation is done and that's kept in the
17 complaint adding two additional counts. One, failure 17 investigatory file. It's not interwoven in, you
18 to separate the documents from the file and, two, 18 know, Judge Hicks' personnel file or Lisa Hall's
19 that we didn't respond timely. 19 personnel file, which I think, Your Honor, could lead
20 I filed a Renewed Motion for Summary 20 to that Jimmy John's receipt that we talked about
21 Disposition addressing those counts. Specifically in 21 last time or the Christmas card being in the file,
22 regards to the count that we didn't respond timely, 22 too, where a parsing of the file may be necessary.
23 we have provided the extension request he indicated 23 That's not the case here, Your Honor. And based on
24 we didn't file. Mr. Rudd talked to me this morning 24 the affidavit of Chief Gale, it's clear that these
25 and believes that was just an oversight. He did have 25 files are opened, the investigation is done and
3 5
Kum] v UM/ or Norton snores
1

there's not items not related to that investigation 1 were the last time you were here.
2 in that file. 2 You know, I went back to the beginning
3 So, Your Honor, if -- if you don't have 3 here, because it is an Motion for Summary
4 any further questions for me, I mean, I'll rely 4 Disposition, and Mr. Rudd's original request sought
5 primarily on the brief, but based I -- 5 four things.
6 THE COURT: What's -- what's the name -- 6 MS. HALL: Yes.
7 I don't know if they're talking paper files or 7 THE COURT: And I'm tried to put them on
8 electronic files. But in either case, what is the 8 the board.
9 name on that file? 9 MS. HALL: Yep.
10 MS. HALL: On that file? How they -- 10 THE COURT: We've been really locked in on
11 THE COURT: I mean, how is it -- is it -- 11 number four.
12 how is it titled? 12 MS. HALL: Yes.
13 MS. HALL: That, Your Honor, I would have 13 THE COURT: What's the status of the other
14 to refer to the affidavit and I believe they just 14 three?
15 open it. It would probably be the -- if -- I can't 15 MS. HALL: We've produced everything --
16 -- I can't speculate. 16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 THE COURT: Yeah, I think -- 17 MS. HALL: -- for one through three, Your
18 MS. HALL: I don't have a name for it. I 18 Honor.
19 can't. 19 THE COURT: Do you agree, Mr. Rudd?
20 THE COURT: I think -- I think in his -- 20 MR. RUDD: Yes, Your Honor.
21 And I'm sorry to interrupt. But I think in his 21 THE COURT: Wonderful. So we can cross
22 deposition, the chief said that there were about 10 22 that off the list, then.
23 to 20 per year? 23 MS. HALL: That's what the fee was for
24 MS. HALL: Yes. 24 initially when you received the billing --
25 THE COURT: And I don't think his 25 THE COURT: Okay.
6 8
1 deposition addressed the question I'm asking. 1 MS. HALL: -- is for the copying of all
2 MS. HALL: No. I mean, if it -- 2 those documents.
3 THE COURT: So, I mean, if it -- if it's 3 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Hall, the last
4 against Officer Rudd is under R for Rudd -- 4 question I have for you is this: I went all the way
5 MS. HALL: It could -- 5 back to the Evening Standard case, which seems to be
6 THE COURT: -- or if it's filed by citizen 6 -- the Evening News case, I'm sorry, which seemed to
7 Tim Hicks does it go under H for Hicks? 7 be sort of the foundational issue here. And they
8 MS. HALL: Your Honor -- 8 talk about this six rules and all this kind of stuff
9 THE COURT: You don't know. 9 and it says that --
10 MS. HALL: -- I don't know the answer to 10 MS. HALL: Uh-huh.
11 that question. But it's not -- It's not kept in, 11 THE COURT: -- one of them, one of the six
12 you know, Judge Hicks' employment personnel file like 12 rules is the public body shall separate the exempt
13 in the Newark decision where I think that was the big 13 and nonexempt material and make the nonexempt
14 issue is they had interwoven them and they had no -- 14 material available for examination and copying.
15 you know, there wasn't a separation of what would be 15 MS. HALL: Yes.
16 in there. And so here today, we've got the affidavit 16 THE COURT: So in that particular file,
17 from Chief Gale saying that this is -- would be the 17 can the city separate physically the complaint from
18 investigation file which does include the complaint. 18 the internal -- from the resulting internal
19 THE COURT: So one of your colleagues who 19 investigation report?
20 came to court after you did made a reference to -- 20 MS. HALL: Yes. It would be a separate
21 quote: The Hicks whiteboard treatment. I didn't -- 21 document, but our position today is it's a part of
22 end quote. I didn't realize that had become a 22 that personnel file because it relates. And the
23 phrase, but it may -- at least in your office maybe 23 affidavit that Chief Gale gives is he feels having to
24 it is and so here we are. But my -- my questions 24 turn over complaints of that large of a magnitude is
25 today are probably a little less pejorative than they 25 really going to have a chilling effect on the
7 9
rum° v L.ity or 'Norton anores
1 citizens in that county coming forward and giving

1 MS. HALL: He does -- Yes. You're right,
2 these types of complaints because even when you 2 he doesn't. But I will point out those cases
3 redact them, you can kind of find out who's the one 3 regarding FOIA interpretation, Your Honor, all say
4 that did this and he said in his -- 4 but there's been nothing to show that the -- having
5 THE COURT: If it's about 2395 -- 5 citizens of this county come forward and being able
6 MS. HALL: Yeah. 6 to give their complaints freely would be outweighed
7 THE COURT: -- Lake Harbor Road, you know 7 by his need. And he still has to somewhat show that
8 what it is. 8 or challenge that and nothing's been produced to do
9 MS. HALL: He said in his experience, it 9 that.
10 would have a -- it would effect the people coming 10 THE COURT: You would agree that under the
11 forward. And I will point out in the Newark decision 11 section of FOIA relating to exemptions under S, I
12 that wasn't addressed and that's why that court 12 don't see one that says complaints.
13 remanded that is that balancing test needs to be 13 MS. HALL: It says personnel records.
14 looked at again because that wasn't even addressed. 14 Yep.
15 It was more based on, well, what's the effect on our 15 THE COURT: Right.
16 employees internally is kind of what the balancing 16 MS. HALL: And the case law that's
17 was and that's not the case here. 17 interpreted personnel records, Your Honor, have
18 I mean, Chief is very concerned about what 18 included complaints in that. Specifically, Newark
19 type of affect that will have on turning that stuff 19 talked about it.
20 over and making all of that public with people coming 20 THE COURT: All right. And if I said to
21 forward. And we need people to cooperate in these 21 you, okay, we're going to separate complaints from
22 types of investigations and we need to be able to 22 the other stuff in the file, your answer would be
23 answer the questions and turning that all over is 23 that the complaints maybe aren't technically covered
24 going to prohibit people from coming forward if it's, 24 here but we have a balancing that has to be done, and
25 you know, all the sudden subject to, you know, 25 that's what Chief Gale is really addressing.
10 12
1 whenever someone requests it for no really valid 1 MS. HALL: Your Honor, I would -- I would
2 reason. 2 propose today that they are exemptible under the
3 I mean, I understand from a FOIA request 3 personnel records exemption, but that balancing test
4 Mr. Rudd isn't obligated to give me what the reason 4 always comes into play. I mean, it just -- you have
5 is he wants this. But all those cases -- Kent City, 5 to apply that before the exemption comes forward,
6 Sutton, Newark -- the plaintiff has to show the 6 so -- or you have to apply that if you're going to
7 public interest outweighs it and I don't think he's 7assert that exemption. And in Newark, the complaints
8 shown that today. It's really a personal interest of 8 were very much considered as a part of documents that
9 his because he's got, you know, other matters he's 9 were exempt under that same exemption. So it is
10 dealing with and that's why he is seeking this 10 something that's considered a part of the personnel
11 information. It's not what the purpose -- It's not 11 record.
12 like these newspapers wanting to get the media out 12 THE COURT: Okay. Well, you're making
13 there, you know, that are pulling this. This is an 13 this argument at a good time. Last week, I got a --
14 individual citizen that has perhaps a different 14 I received a minor pension from the 10 years that I
15 motive. 15 served toiling in the public schools.
16 THE COURT: Well, I have about four pages 16 MS. HALL: Oh.
17 of notes to prepare for today's hearing. And right 17 THE COURT: It was a long, long time ago
18 at the top I say to myself: Don't analyze this like 18 and the pension reflects that fact. But nonetheless,
19 you would a discovery dispute with relevance and 19 I -- I get that. So I received a letter from the
20 things like that. 20 Office of Retirement Services that said this nice guy
21 MS. HALL: Sure. 21 in Boca Raton, Florida, who cites some FOIA, there's
22 THE COURT: And I think your comments are 22 some organization about transparency attached to this
23 good. I think they acknowledge that. Maybe you're 23 guy and he wants the state to disclose what it's
24 scratching your head about Mr. Rudd's interest, but I 24 paying in pension benefits to people like me. So I
25 think under FOIA Law -- 25 though what's he care, but then I thought under FOIA
11 13
4 of 25 sheets April 2 2018 Page 10 to 13 of 61
r\UUU V airy Ui PlUILUI1 OflUfes
1 I don't know that, you know, he has to justify it.

1 to a system where they produce that kind of
2 Okay. Anything else. 2 statistical information, as well as a brief abstract
3 MS. HALL: No, Your Honor. 3 of the nature of the complaint and how it was
4 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rudd? 4 resolved right on their website where you can just
5 MR. RUDD: Thank you, Your Honor. 5 search it because it gives the public confidence that
6 THE COURT: You may stay there if you want 6 I can trust that my police department, if someone
7 to. I do like you -- like it when you stand up. But 7 brings a complaint to them, that that complaint is
8 if you've got a lot of materials and if you want to 8 going to be handled in a consistent manner with
9 stay there, that's fine. 9 standards, with transparency.
10 MR. RUDD: Okay. I appreciate it. If 10 Now there's portions of those internal
11 it's okay, I'd like to start by just focusing in on 11 investigations where it would actually hurt the
12 what I think are the most substantial legal errors in 12 public to have that information disclosed if it gave
13 the defense, what they're putting forward today. 13 up specific information that, you know, compromised
14 THE COURT: Your brief mentioned something 14 future investigations. There are circumstances where
15 called the CALEA standards, C-A-L-E-A. 15 portions of those internal affairs investigations
16 MR. RUDD: Yes. That's -- 16 can't be released. But in most cases, the majority
17 THE COURT: What are those? I double 17 of those records can and are released. And what that
18 tracked and I don't know that I saw that defined. 18 does is it provides the citizens of Michigan with
19 MR. RUDD: CALEA is an organization which 19 confidence, you know, that these things are going to
20 provides accreditation services to law enforcement 20 be looked into in an upfront way and that certain
21 -- 21 officers aren't going to get special treatment
22 THE COURT: Okay. 22 because of who they know or political reasons.
23 MR. RUDD: -- agencies. 23 You know, the institutions in Michigan are
24 THE COURT: All right. 24 given some latitude in conducting internal
25 MR. RUDD: And they put forward standards 25 investigations, but the only way that that can
14 16
1 which relate to the handling of internal affairs and 1 properly work is if there's some form of external
2 transparency issues and Norton Shores has been 2 objective, independent accountability.
3 accredited by CALEA for a very long time. 3 And in the case of the FOIA law, you know,
4 And, in fact, as part of that CALEA 4 the judicial review is an integral part of that. A
5 certification, one of the things that Norton Shores 5 judge who's actually looking to see, wait a minute,
6 has done historically is to produce at least a 6this was withheld and I'm going to take a look at
7 statistical summary of what type of -- how many 7 this particular reason for why the public has a
8 internal complaints they've received, how many were 8 greater interest in this information being kept
9 substantiated, how many were not substantiated, how 9 private instead of this information being made
10 many of those were internally generated, how many 10 available. And I feel like the position put forward
11 were externally generated, how many resulted in 11 by Defendants circumvents that external transparency
12 discipline, how many resulted in nothing, how many 12which would be offered by the judiciary.
13 resulted in termination. And those even statistical 13 Their motion today is basically saying
14 summaries came to halt in 2015. They weren't 14 that we're to take these affidavits which put forth a
15 produced in 2015 or 2016 or 2017. And -- 15 very generalized and a very conclusory justification
16 THE COURT: So they stopped producing 16 which covers all those categories of investigations
17 them? 17 that I read -- that I mentioned -- you know, the
18 MR. RUDD: Right. So, you know, just the 18 internal, the external that resulted in discipline,
19 fact that Norton Shores does this, and if you look 19 not resulted in discipline -- not just those
20 through the documentation for CALEA standards in 20 categories of everything but every type of record
21 these areas, the public's interest in having 21 that's a part of that.
22 information on how a police department handles 22 So in the deposition with Chief Gale, he
23 internal complaints, the public's interest in this is 23 acknowledged that one of the first steps in
24 extremely well-established by -- I mean, most of the 24 investigating a complaint would be to pull up any
25 major metropolitan police departments are now moving 25 police reports that were generated related to the
15 17
Nuuu v l,Ity of ivonon Jnores
1
incident that the complaint pertains to. And those

1 complaints.
2 police reports would be reviewed and put into the 2 THE COURT: Where does it say that? Maybe
3 file. 3 I'm looking at the wrong document. Maybe you've got
4 And I asked: Well, what about, you know, 4 a later request.
5 audio from the cruiser, you know, or the recordings 5 MR. RUDD: I think maybe in the -- the
6 of the interactions, would that be reviewed, as well? 6 appeal of the FOIA request it specifically narrowed
7 And he acknowledged that, yes, it would. And I 7 it down saying the complaints generated by citizens.
8 asked: Does that mean that those records would no 8 You know, it's possible that the request did say any
9 longer exist in their original place? Because you 9 and all, but then I particularly took issue with the
10 can walk in and get a copy of a police report. Just 10 withholding of complaints that are generated by
11 because that has now been considered as part of an 11 citizens because I felt like that's clearly and
12 internal investigation is that going to be shielded 12 obviously a public record.
13 from discovery? What about the audio, will that be 13 THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's why I put
14 shielded from discovery? 14 this little asterisk by complaint. So you're saying
15 You know, is -- that's exactly what Newark 15 that in this lawsuit you have narrowed your request
16 was addressing, this idea that location is not 16 to citizen complaints and you're not seeking
17 determinative. Doesn't matter what you call the 17 complaints by an officer against another officer?
18 record. It doesn't matter where you put the record. 18 Because Chief Gale addresses that in his deposition
19 The record is defined by the character of the record. 19 -- or in his affidavit.
20 And contrary, this is where we really 20 MR. RUDD: Well, I'm not certain that I
21 differ. And I don't think this is just a matter of 21 actually did say I only want those, but I think I --
22 interpretation. I think Defendant has really 22 what I asserted the biggest objection was to say --
23 fundamentally misstated Newark in that, number one, 23 was regarding the citizen complaints and that is what
24 Newark goes to great lengths to talk about the 24 I'm primarily interested in -- in pursuing.
25 different types or records there might be and to 25 THE COURT: Well, okay. The -- You need
18 20
1 articulate very specifically why in certain 1 to tell me whether a police officer and a police
2 circumstances the records of those internal affairs 2 officer complaint --
3 investigations would benefit the public. Like if 3 MR. RUDD: Okay.
4 they've already been completed and -- and the 4 THE COURT: -- is still a part of the
5 misconduct was substantiated, that's potentially 5 lawsuit.
6 beneficial to the public to know about that. 6 MR. RUDD: I would say -- I would -- I
7 It -- I mean, it very clearly and 7 would hold the position that yes.
8 distinct -- Newark does not stand for the 8 THE COURT: I mean, it's your lawsuit.
9 proposition that because something's in a personnel 9 MR. RUDD: With -- But I would also say
10 record that's it, that's the end of the inquiry. 10 that if -- for instance, if Norton Shores had
11 That's not the case at all. And it -- and it doesn't 11 produced a detailed affidavit saying, okay, regarding
12 directly address citizen complaints. Most -- 12 the complaint that was generated on June 7th, 2016,
13 THE COURT: I think your request said 13 this was generated internally by an officer. And due
14 complaints, didn't it? Your original request said 14 to the nature of the complaint, the public has a
15 complaints? 15 greater interest in keeping this private rather than,
16 MR. RUDD: Says for a copy of the citizen 16 you know, having this disclosed because the complaint
17 complaints. This is maybe the most -- 17 was unfounded and it could hurt, you know, future
18 THE COURT: Well, hold on a minute. I -- 18 investigations. I would consider that to be an
19 Unless I have the wrong one in front of me, it says a 19 appropriate justification. And if they had asserted
20 copy of any -- all complaints submitted against the 20 that at any stage in the process, I probably would
21 Norton Shores PD. 21 have accepted that on face value.
22 MR. RUDD: And then it -- 22 THE COURT: I very much applaud your
23 THE COURT: That could include from 23 attempts to -- to look for some middle ground here.
24 another officer, couldn't it? 24 Really, I do, and that's a credit to your position.
25 MR. RUDD: Well, it specifies citizen 25 But I am trying to get you guys to the finish line
19 21
Kuaa v GIN of Norton snores
1 here.

1
I'm saying that undermines the intent of the FOIA
2 MR. RUDD: Uh-huh. 2 severely.
3 THE COURT: So as I evaluate today's 3 And in Newark, they go -- I mean, it
4 motions, I should consider to relate to all 4 specifically says the personnel records' exemption
5 complaints, police or citizens. I mean, if -- if we 5 requires that the balance be considered in the
6 do -- I mean, Ms. Hall's taking notes, I'm sure. If 6 particular instance, and it's quoting the statue
7 we do what you're suggesting, which maybe she could, 7 there. The difficulty with the Court's treatment of
8 that's just going to prolong our lawsuit by a few 8 the internal affairs investigatory records as a
9 months, isn't it -- 9 single category is that public interest and
10 MS. HALL: I -- 10 disclosure and nondisclosure may vary depending on
11 THE COURT: -- because she's going to go 11 the circumstances of an investigation and the nature
12 back and amend the affidavits to say, well, wait a 12 of the documents produced.
13 minute, we don't -- I mean, I appreciate what you're 13 Those are the two distinctions that I've
14 saying. 14 been hammering from the beginning. I'm saying, you
15 MR. RUDD: I'm not just saying that she 15 now, Chief Gale's opinion about how disclosing
16 could do that now. I'm saying that she should do 16 personnel records might affect officer morale. He
17 that and she -- that Norton Shores was required to do 17 didn't need to establish that. The case law already
18 that, that the case law is really clear. And Newark 18 establishes that that's a valid reason. What those
19 certainly stands for that proposition. Evening News 19 affidavits needed to do was describe the particular
20 definitely stands for that proposition that what 20 circumstances of the investigation, you know, to the
21 should've occurred from the original FOIA request 21 extent that they can, as much as is possible, and
22 would be those complaints which -- which do not 22 why, according to the nature of the particular
23 reveal, you know, internal investigation, 23 documents, those portions of records should be
24 confidential stuff, stuff that would harm 24 withheld.
25 investigations, whatever records or even whatever 25 I mean, taking it all and saying we're
22 24
1 portions of records did not include that information 1 going to exempt it all as one big unit, Michigan law
2 should have been produced. And then the city was 2 does allow for records to be treat -- like if there's
3 required, because they have to separate exempt from 3 a ton of records, you can categorize them, but the
4 nonexempt, they should've described specifically what 4 categories have to be narrowly drawn and Evening News
5 is being withheld, kind of like what I just said 5 talks about that. That's not what -- that's not what
6 there. That's how the FOIA works. That really is 6 has occurred here.
7 both the statutory requirement and that is certainly 7 What they're trying to do is exactly the
8 the requirement that's set forth in Newark. 8 opposite of what Newark calls for. And Newark did
9 I mean, Defendant is kind of saying, okay, 9 not deem the records exempt. Newark remanded to the
10 so Newark decided that -- that if something is a 10 trial court. We have no idea if they had to produce
11 personal record and then it proceeded to the analysis 11 the citizen complaints or not because we don't know
12 and deemed the records exempt that is not what 12 what the trial court ruled after it got sent back
13 happened. The Court said -- the Court accepted the 13 there. But that request was for 14 years' worth of
14 argument that location is not determinative. 14 all documents and that case did not find its way back
15 In fact, Newark is most often cited with 15 to the court on remand, so I'm guessing some
16 that proposition, that you can't shield something by 16 documents were produced.
17 putting it in the file. The -- the opinion goes on 17 The Defendant is saying that in all three
18 and on about that citing. Federal case law, I mean, 18cases, they considered all the records as a whole and
19 from the United States Supreme Court, and clearly 19none were produced. Absolutely not true. In sheriff
20 sets that forth. And then it proceeds to take a very 20 -- Kent County Sheriff, the Supreme Court decision
21 critical view of what the trial court did with it, 21 specifically says approximately 30 some documents had
22 even though the trial court actually reviewed all the 22 already been produced totaling around 270 some I
23 documents, which is -- Norton Shores does not want 23 believe pages, and that was just for the one
24 you to review the documents. They want you to accept 24 investigation. And in that investigation, they
25 just the conclusory affidavits, rubber stamp it. And 25 already had the complaint. They already had the
23 25
Kum v city or Norton Snores
1 disposition.

1 into one file, didn't he?
2 The case -- The officers had been 2 MR. RUDD: Into -- Yeah. He's
3 disciplined. They were trying to, you know, fight 3 considering one --
4 through a grievance issue and they wanted the very 4 THE COURT: Right.
5 specific internal investigation records which would 5 MR. RUDD: Like to investigate -- the
6 disclose who ratted on us. That's what they weren't 6 investigation of the complaint.
7 going to disclose. And that's not what I'm asking 7 THE COURT: All right.
8 for. But they certainly had all the other records. 8 MR. RUDD: Now qualifying that really
9 So it's completely wrong to say in those 9 quickly, he did note in the deposition that not all
10 -- in Sutton, the third case where they also quote -- 10 citizen complaints generate an internal
11 where they also say all the records were withheld, 11 investigation. Some, if there's allegations of
12 not true. In Sutton, it was the complainant who was 12 criminal activity, are referred to an external agency
13 asking for the internal affairs records. He already 13 to investigate a criminal activity which, by the way,
14 had the disposition. He already had the complaint. 14 would have no bearing whatsoever on a personnel file.
15 He wrote it. What he wanted was the confidential 15 THE COURT: Are any of them peremptorily
16 stuff and they said no. Like these three cases are 16 dismissed?
17 absolutely inapplicable to what they're trying to 17 MR. RUDD: Yes.
18 establish. 18 THE COURT: I would guess that the city
19 THE COURT: These three cases? 19 probably gets some -- some complaints that are, in so
20 MR. RUDD: Newark, Kent County Sheriff's, 20 many words, way out there.
21 and -- 21 MR. RUDD: And we discussed that in the
22 THE COURT: You mean -- 22 deposition. It was just before the hearing and, you
23 MR. RUDD: -- and Sutton -- 23 know, you talked about Jimmy John's and Christmas
24 THE COURT: All right. Sutton. All 24 card. I talked about a complaint that officer so and
25 right. 25 so is directing aliens to harass me by hovering over
26 28
1 MR. RUDD: -- do not support Defendant's 1 my yard. You know, if it's not that kind of
2 position at all. I mean, these are really -- 2 complaint, where would it go and if it is. So they
3 THE COURT: You took Chief Gale's 3 get diverted in various places.
4 deposition. Correct? 4 If it becomes an internal records'
5 MR. RUDD: Yes. 5 investigation file, like what's in the nature of, you
6 THE COURT: And I think the mayor, as 6 know, what's discussed in Newark and Kent County,
7 well. You can leave the water bottle on your desk as 7 that is supposed to stay under lock and key in the
8 long as it's water. That's fine. You don't have to 8 chief's office and that's to comply with the Right to
9 lean over and get it every time. 9 Know Act.
10 Do you know how the file is titled? 10 Where those same -- you know, an employee
11 MR. RUDD: Could you repeat the question? 11 can get access to their personnel records, but they
12 THE COURT: Sure. The question I asked 12 can't get access to those specific documents, like
13 same question I asked Ms. Hall. 13 the internal affairs investigations. That gets
14 MR. RUDD: Okay. 14 separated out. And I specifically asked Chief Gale
15 THE COURT: Tim Hicks files a complaint 15 when he talked about once we reach a disposition does
16 against Chief Gale. So does it -- How is it filed? 16 that disposition include any kind of reference to
17 Does it go into -- What's the name on the file? 17 those Garrity statements -- you know, the statements
18 That's -- is it -- is -- Does it go under the all 18 internal officers made, which is the primary thing to
19 2017 complaint file? Does it go into the H file for 19 keep private. And he said: No, they don't. And I
20 Hicks because I file a lot of complaints? Does it go 20 said: Why is that? And this is a rough paraphrase,
21 into the R file for Rudd because you're the -- the 21 but -- and he indicated that doesn't go into the
22 targeted officer, in so many words? Do you know? 22 disposition document because those records are
23 MR. RUDD: Yes. For the internal affairs 23 confidential. Well, that's an appropriate separation
24 file, this -- it goes into a specific file. 24 of exempt from nonexempt.
25 THE COURT: I think he said they all go 25 Now the only experience I have with this
27 29
NUUU v utty 01 Norton onores
1 process is the one complaint that I myself filed. So

1 to supply that -- and they keep saying: Look, we
2 I filed my complaint, I wrote it on a official 2 understand, they don't have to supply that. But then
3 department form that said this is an official police 3 they go on to say how, you know, if it's not
4
record, you know, you could be in trouble if you put 4 supplied, they don't have it. That's not true.
5 something false on it. It cites a statute. So I 5 These are the professionals. These are
6 know that's an official public record because I 6 the people who -- These are the people who should be
7 signed it. And I also got correspondence regarding 7 setting -- really carefully thinking, okay, we want
8 the disposition of my complaint, just like the 8 the public to trust us. We want them to believe that
9 website says that everybody gets when you do that, so 9 we're going to treat their complaints with respect
10 I know that's another public record. And neither of 10 and we're going to, you know, put a lot of diligence
11 those things contained anything that would fit the 11 into it. We're not just going to be covering for our
12 description of the affidavit provided by Chief Gale. 12 brothers in blue. This isn't just going to be some
13 And when I deposed Chief Gale, he could 13 code of silence. This is going to lead to the
14 not, off the top of his head, for the life -- he 14 scandals we're seeing in Grand Rapids Police
15 could not think of a specific example where it would 15 Department where these phone calls get released and
16 chill the public -- the public's willingness to make 16 they're talking about how to let their fellow
17 complaints if they disclosed certain types of 17 officers or prosecutors off of DUI charges. That
18 information. In fact, he had a very difficult time 18 erodes the public confidence.
19 remembering how many complaints there were. I mean, 19 The more secrecy in these things, the more
20 this isn't a situation where even that affidavit, it 20 difficult it is for people to trust that they're
21 doesn't deal with particular records. It's like a 21 conducting their internal affairs' investigations in
22 philosophical, we're going to have a policy that 22 an appropriate way. That's the -- that's the same
23 anything related to internal affairs' stuff is off 23 thing that happened with, you know, we're now taking
24 limits. Asking the Court to -- to endorse that is -- 24 a look at why didn't Michigan -- the University of
25 I mean, it's -- it's exactly the error that they 25 Michigan State, why did they not root out this
30 32
1 identified in Newark. 1 problem with an abusive doctor in their internal
2 In the most recent brief from Defendants, 2 investigations? And pages and pages of documents are
3 they quote a portion of the opinion where it shows 3 finally being produced and the public wants to know
4 the trial -- the trial judge is -- you know, is kind 4 why is it that nobody took the allegations of these
5 of describing this same kind of blanket exception 5 women seriously for so many years. Why? Because --
6 idea, and Defendant is quoting that portion of the 6 because that doctor got special treatment. He was a
7 opinion as support for their position. And it says 7 golden boy. The public wants to know that people
8 the same result must follow here, but that judge was 8 aren't getting special treatment. And Norton Shores
9 being quoted for what not to do. That was in the 9 recognizes the value in this.
10 opinion as an example of how to get remanded and 10 If you'll remember maybe four to six years
11 that's exactly what they're asking you to do here 11 back, Officer Rhyndress was involved in a second
12 today. And we kind of covered this in the last 12 fatal officer-involved shooting in a period of a
13 hearing. 13 couple years. And if you look at the comments -- and
14 THE COURT: Sure. We're covering much of 14 as far as I understand the court rules, you're
15 the same ground, but I -- that -- I'm not offended by 15 allowed to take judicial notice of, you know, media
16 doing it again. 16 publications, not for the truth of what they're
17 MR. RUDD: I'm a little offended. As a 17 asserting but for understanding public perception.
18 citizen of Michigan, I'm offended by the idea that 18 You look at the comments in those stories, and they
19 they're putting forward where, you know, he didn't 19 start out with -- and MLive comments are crazy.
20 say what his reasons were so we don't have anything 20 I'll -- acknowledging that, but the people are just
21 to balance against. In my opinion, that is an 21 all kinds of conjecture about what a terrible person
22 admission by the City of Norton Shores. They might 22 Officer Rhyndress must be. How he must be out of
23 as well just plainly say: We do not either have the 23 control, like we're all in danger from Officer
24 knowledge or the inclination to objectively do a 24 Ryndress.
25 balancing test. If they're saying the requestor has 25 Prosecutor's Office conducted an
31 33
RUUU v ..Rv Ul IWrrori Jnores
1 investigation and it included a lot of the same stuff

1 involved, so that's what that refers to. Number
2 that normally wouldn't be made available to the 2 eight, the police report regarding the incident.
3 public. But when they finished the investigation. 3 That would be, for example, the officer's report
4 They laid all this stuff out, including interviews 4 about what happened when he -- and why he acted as he
5 with officers that painted a clear picture of why 5 did. Number nine, the cruiser video.
6 this officer was put in a position where he had to 6 And I -- on the right-hand side of my
7 respond and act quickly to save lives and he did it. 7 whiteboard, I've written: Exempt or not exempt. And
8 And man, do you see the tenure of those comments 8 I thought I heard you say a couple times that you
9 change. One person actually apologizes, which you 9 weren't seeking this, you weren't seeking this. So
10 don't see that on MLive comments very often. But 10 on my list of nine, is there anything that we can
11 suddenly everybody recognized, heck, I mean, that 11 cross off that your -- that you would concede is
12 changed the public's perception dramatically. 12 exempt? And I'll ask you to go to the board if there
13 But when you withhold all that 13 are. You can just take the different colored marker
14 information, you take away the public's ability to 14 and just draw a line through it or put an X across
15 feel like if I walk in there to Chief Gale and I tell 15 the number.
16 him this officer intimidated me, this officer did 16 MR. RUDD: I would -- But in doing this
17 this, is Chief Gale going to be looking out for my 17 --
18 best interests or is he going to be covering for that 18 THE COURT: Use a different colored
19 officer? That's what the public wants to know. If 19 marker.
20 Norton Shores isn't aware of that on their own 20 MR. RUDD: Are we talking exemptible?
21 independently, they are absolutely incapable of the 21 THE COURT: I'm trying to -- I make
22 balancing test. 22 enough errors on my own. I'm trying to let -- figure
23 But in either regard, even if they're good 23 out exactly what I still need to decide and that's
24 at the balancing test, as a citizen, I still have a 24 really what this is about. So if you're -- if you
25 right to say: Judge, I don't think they balanced 25 are at all ambiguous or equivocating then you should
34 36
1 this and I'd like you to look at the particular 1not concede the point. Because for anything that you
2 records, the particular exemptions. We don't even 2 -- you agree under the statue or the case law is
3 know what those are because the affidavits don't give 3 exempt, I'm not going to deal with it anymore. In
4 a particularized description of what's being 4 fact, after -- after you're done marking that up,
5 withheld. 5 I'll probably ask Ms. Hall to do anything else on the
6 THE COURT: All right. Turn the machine 6 board and I'll probably take a picture of it for my
7 off a minute. 7 files. Okay.
8 (Whereupon, proceedings recessed 8 And you -- you think that the results and
9 at 10:42:41 A.M.; proceedings 9 the findings of the internal investigation, they're
10 resumed at 10:45:43 P.M..) 10 not exempt? I thought the cases pretty much nailed
11 THE COURT: Mr. Rudd, I'm guessing at 11 that one down.
12 about nine things that might be in one of those 12 MR. RUDD: No, I don't -- I don't -- I
13 files. And for now, I'm just going to assume that 13 actually -- In Newark, it very specifically says
14 they're paper files. And my nine things are, and I 14 once investigation is concluded that those -- the
15 should probably read them for record purposes: 15 disposition should be disclosed. However, if a -- if
16 Number one, complaint by the citizen. Two, complaint 16 the disposition does contain things like a Garrity
17 by an officer. Three, Gale's interview notes 17 statement or maybe things that are an unwarranted
18 regarding the citizen. Four, Gale's interview notes 18 invasion of someone's privacy, those things should be
19 regarding his conversation with an officer. Number 19 redacted.
20 five is Garrity, you're -- you're item from a few 20 THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Gereaux,
21 minutes ago, Garrity statements. Number six, results 21 you go to the board. And then number six, let's say
22 and findings of the internal investigation. Number 22 results, findings of internal investigation closed
23 seven, notes of others investigating, i.e., I think 23 files, just put closed underneath Internal
24 you said that if there was an allegation of a crime, 24 Investigation. And then you should add a number
25 they would ask the state police or somebody to get 25 nine, results, findings, internal investigation open.
35 37
Rudd v eity of Norton Snores
1 A number 10. I'm sorry.

1 THE COURT: So you want me to take my list
2 MR. RUDD: Your Honor? 2 of 10 items and deal with 4-1/2 --
3 THE COURT: Mr. Rudd? 3 MR. RUDD: Yeah. I actually think --
4 MR. RUDD: I do think there, you know, may 4 THE COURT: -- or 7-1/2 or something like
5 be circumstances, too, where under some of these 5 that? Okay.
6 there might be a different exception where they would 6 MR. RUDD: I do -- I did bring a copy of
7
redact or, you know, Gale's interview notes with 7 a 2013 published decision that kind of lays out -- it
8 citizens, you know, there might be a different 8 summarizes a bunch of these cases and lays out a
9 exemption -- reason for not disclosing, you know, his 9 process.
10 personal notes. But I -- The Garrity statements is 10 THE COURT: Which case is that? Is that
11 the only one that I would say comes off there. 11 the Aromo case?
12 THE COURT: All right. 12 MR. RUDD: This is King versus Oakland
13 MR. RUDD: Now, there are times where the 13 County Prosecutor.
14 courts have ruled that the public's interest in 14 THE COURT: All right.
15 knowing that information outweighed the public's 15 MR. RUDD: And -- and I brought --
16 interest in protecting that. That's pretty rare that 16 THE COURT: Is it published or
17 that's the case, but a judge has to decide that. Has 17 unpublished?
18 to look at them and then make particularized findings 18 MR. RUDD: It's published.
19 of fact. 19 THE COURT: All right. What's the --
20 THE COURT: Mr. Rudd, do you think the 20 MR. RUDD: I brought a copy for everybody.
21 Court's in a position now to grant summary 21 THE COURT: Well, just tell me what the
22 disposition either way? 22 cite is.
23 MR. RUDD: Well -- 23 MR. RUDD: You mean the case number?
24 THE COURT: The city's the moving party 24 THE COURT: Well, okay. I mean, if you've
25 here today, but I think we discussed the last time we 25 got a copy, hand them out.
38 40
1 were here under MCR 2.116(I)(2), I think it is, I can 1 MR. RUDD: Okay. The --
2 grant you summary disposition if I think that's 2 THE COURT: So if you say the partial, I'm
3 merited based strictly on the city's filing of the 3 going to take that as a no, you think that the Court
4 motion. 4
5 MR. RUDD: Well, the Defendant's position 5 MR. RUDD: Do you mean like dispose the
6 and then the position you took on the last brief I 6 whole thing and we're done with it?
7 filed asking for more particularized affidavits that 7 THE COURT: Well, I want to do it the
8 that was, in essence, a Motion for Summary 8right way, but that's a question I'm going to ask Ms.
9 Disposition, I think that's -- that's a way that 9Hall in a minute. They don't get a free shot when
10 summary disposition in my favor would be appropriate 10 they file a Motion for Summary Disposition like this.
11 because I think that's what's needed to move this 11 That -- that opens the door to the Court granting the
12 forward. 12 summary disposition the other way and you'd be
13 THE COURT: Well, I expected you to say 13 surprised how many defense lawyers fail to grasp that
14 that. My question is: There are certain 14 point. Now neither Ms. Hall nor her colleagues at
15 circumstances where the Court can grant -- I mean, 15 her firm are among those misinformed lawyers.
16 there has to be the correction foundation for the 16 They're pretty good about this stuff.
17 Court to grant a Motion for Summary Disposition. 17 MR. RUDD: So I would -- I would think
18 MR. RUDD: Uh-huh. 18 that summary disposition would be appropriate on the
19 THE COURT: So do you think the Court has 19 citizen complaints themselves. I think they should
20 the correct foundation at this point to grant summary 20 be produced, possibly with redactions if -- if it's
21 disposition either way? 21 warranted in a specific case. But if they are
22 MR. RUDD: Partial summary disposition, 22 produced with redactions, I think Defendant should be
23 yes, on -- 23 required to give an explanation for what's redacted
24 THE COURT: Partial? 24 and that gives you the opportunity to decide if you
25 MR. RUDD: Yeah. That happens. 25 need to review that redaction in camera.
39 41
FNUUU V L.Ity UI IYVI WII ofluleb
1 THE COURT: But globally, you think the 1is really a critical point for even giving me the

2 Court is not in a position to grant summary 2opportunity to state a case.
3 disposition either way? 3 THE COURT: The -- Some of the cases
4 MR. RUDD: In a way to resolve all claims, 4 involve, I think, post-trial proceedings and I'm just
5 no, I -- I don't think so. 5 wondering what do you try in a case like this? It
6 THE COURT: What's going to -- What's the 6 seems to me that most of these cases probably would
7 -- What factual development remains for trial? 7 be resolved on motions.
8 MR. RUDD: Well, just -- The factual 8 Mr. Rudd, thank you. Ms. Hall, you get to
9 development would only be in regards to whether or 9 clean up.
10 not the denial was arbitrary or capricious and -- 10 MS. HALL: Your Honor, briefly I want to
11 THE COURT: I think the last time we were 11-- Let me go back here. I want to start with the
12 here, I think I referred to those as derivative 12 fact that this exemption requires the balancing test
13 issues. Right? 13 to be done on each specific individual request. So
14 MR. RUDD: Yes. 14 when you have an exemption, it's on that
15 THE COURT: Okay. 15 particularized instance.
16 MR. RUDD: But they're -- but they are 16 And today here, we're requesting -- or
17 technically not derivative according to the statute. 17 today, we're dealing with a FOIA request from Mr.
18 I mean, they're -- 18 Rudd that says any and all complaints submitted
19 THE COURT: But if -- if the Court grants 19 against Norton Shores Police Department's policies or
20 the city's Motion for Summary Disposition here today 20 employees from January 1, 2014 until the present.
21 then the Court's exceeding to the correctness of 21 It's not deciphering citizen complaints, and I think
22 their position. 22 you touched on this a little bit, Your Honor,
23 MR. RUDD: Uh-huh. 23 recognizes an internal complaints. I mean, it's
24 THE COURT: And if the Court does that 24 asking for all of them. And so we have done the
25 then we aren't going to have testimony of -- If 25 balancing in our affidavit, similar to that which was
42 44
1 they're right, I don't think there's any basis for 1 done in Kent County and Sutton, both cases of which,
2 you to recover attorney fees or things like that, is 2 Your Honor, come after Newark. And in in one
3 there? 3 additional --
4 MR. RUDD: In that circumstance that you 4 THE COURT: But doesn't -- doesn't the
5 described, then no, there wouldn't be. 5 affidavit have to address the six factors from
6 THE COURT: Right. 6 Evening News?
7 MR. RUDD: But -- 7 MS. HALL: No, it doesn't. I mean, it has
8 THE COURT: So my -- my point is that in 8 address the fact -- It has to show how the balancing
9 this case and in other types of cases like Elliot 9 test would be outweighed, but it doesn't have to set
10 Larson Civil Rights Act's claims, Consumer Protection 10 forth each of these. It didn't in Kent County, it
11 Act Claims and other situations where the statute 11 didn't in Sutton, and that's the same exemption we
12 authorizes the attorneys fees, usually it is a 12 were dealing with.
13 post-judgement issue. 13 THE COURT: Well, rule number four, I
14 MR. RUDD: Oh, yes. 14 think, from Evening News is affidavits describing the
15 THE COURT: Even when I have a jury, it's 15 matters withheld must be supplied by the agency.
16 a post-judgement issue. 16 MS. HALL: Number four, detailed
17 MR. RUDD: I agree. 17 affidavits described in the matters withheld --
18 THE COURT: All right. 18 THE COURT: Right.
19 MR. RUDD: Unless -- unless litigation for 19 MS. HALL: -- must be supplied by the
20 FOIA gets so bogged down and we haven't even gotten 20 agent --
21 to the point where there's a specific description of 21 THE COURT: So --
22 what's being withheld, you know, at that point the 22 MS. HALL: -- and we did. We provided --
23 question of whether or not the public body is acting 23 THE COURT: Well, wait a minute.
24 in good faith might come up ahead of resolution of 24 MS. HALL: -- an affidavit. Yes.
25 the dispute because describing what those records are 25 THE COURT: You've given me an affidavit,
43 45
rcuuu v filly ul PILMWEI Jilt/ WS
1 but the affidavit is very heavy on balancing.

1 MS. HALL: The CALEA.
2 MS. HALL: And -- 2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 THE COURT: I don't see much in Gale's 3 MS. HALL: He referenced --
4 affidavit that describes the matters withheld. 4 THE COURT: Are you familiar with that?
5 MS. HALL: It does. It states that any 5 MS. HALL: He referenced -- It's a
6 and all of the complaints that we receive, plus any 6 certification. He referenced that we had an online
7 investigatory documents that we get related to that, 7 and I think we talked about this at the last hearing.
8 goes in it. 8 There's like a summary of how many complaints we get
9 THE COURT: Okay. 9 and then there's also a summary of what the outcomes
10 MS. HALL: It does describe the documents. 10 were. Mr. Rudd was provided the public information
11 THE COURT: But, I mean, it doesn't give 11 that we had at our deposition with Chief Jon Gale.
12 me the kind of detail like on my list of 10 things 12 He -- we -- Chief Jon Gale went and got everything
13 here, does it? 13 that was publically published and gave that to him.
14 MS. HALL: And They didn't require that in 14 So there's no question we're trying to -- we're
15 Kent County or Sutton. 15 trying to hide something or not do something. Those
16 THE COURT: Yeah, maybe -- 16 -- that information was given to hirn at the end of
17 MS. HALL: The affidavit didn't -- 17 the deposition, so I just want to let the Court be
18 THE COURT: Maybe they're wrong. 18 aware of that.
19 MS. HALL: Well, I mean, those cases were 19 Third, he also indicated in his -- in his
20 both post Newark. 20 oral argument, Your Honor, that, you know, this stuff
21 THE COURT: Yeah. 21 can be turned over and this stuff -- It could be. I
22 MS. HALL: And -- and I'm not 22 mean, but we're claiming the exemption here. I mean,
23 mis-characterizing Newark. I mean, the decision 23 there's a valid exemption that the city can take.
24 says: Because the trial court did not make 24 It's being supported by an affidavit. Maybe in some
25 sufficient particularized findings in regard to the 25 cases, they had -- they had chosen to turn it over,
46 48
1 balancing of the public interest and disclosure and 1 that city or that county. That doesn't necessarily
2 nondisclosure, we remand this. And that is what -- 2 mean we can't take the exemption now because some
3 that is why it was remanded. They weren't 3 other county did it by choice three years ago or back
4 necessarily saying you need to set forth everything 4 in the Ann Arbor case or he referenced another case.
5 here. They found that the particularized basis given 5 I mean, that's the choice of the person taking that
6 wasn't enough. 6 FOIA request in and saying we're going to disclose
7 And I think it was because when you read 7 this or we're not.
8 this -- and again, we can all, you know, speculate in 8 And there's an exemption here that was
9 terms of what we thought -- is I don't think it 9 taken properly and was supported by an affidavit of
10 really focused on the public interest and that is 10 both the chief and the city manager explaining why
11 what -- that's what we did in our affidavits, Your 11 this would affect citizen complaints and internal
12 Honor. We did provide affidavits. We did set forth 12 complaints, which is even more concerning. This
13 the documents that we are holding back under this 13 wasn't just limited to citizen complaints. He wanted
14 exemption. 14 all internal complaints, as well. And to come here
15 This exemption requires you to do it on 15 today in court and say: Well, maybe I changed that
16 each particularized request and -- and this is what 16 or maybe it's just the citizen complaints. Well, I
17 we have here. Any and all complaints submitted 17 mean, we're dealing with this FOIA request as of
18 against the Norton Shores Police Departments, that 18 January 27th and that is what we're here for today.
19 would include both citizen and internal, and we 19 So we're seeking -- I don't believe
20 claimed the exemption under that. And I think based 20 there's any more fact to develop. I think summary
21 on Kent County and Sutton, it's a valid exemption and 21 disposition is ripe. I think we've given him an
22 the affidavits support that. 22 opportunity to amend his complaint. In fact, at the
23 I also want to address this CALEA summary 23 last hearing, he even asked should I amend my -- I
24 of complaints. I think -- 24 mean, he was asking amend my complaint, amend my
25 THE COURT: What -- CALEA? 25 FOIA. I mean, we've given him ample opportunity to
47 49
uuu v ulLy ul Ill111.011 JIlLn
1 respond. I think there's no question of fact that 1

exempt.
2 we're entitled to summary disposition based on the 2 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
3 case law. 3 MS. HALL: Thank you.
4 THE COURT: Is the Court poised to grant 4 THE COURT: The Court takes the motion
5 summary disposition either way? 5 under advisement for these reasons: The Court needs
6 MS. HALL: I do not believe there are ways 6 to complete the steps espoused in Evening News
7 to -- Well, I believe the Court rules afford you the 7 Association and adopted and then reinforced in
8 opportunity, yes, Your Honor. 8 subsequent cases. The Court's not in a position to
9 THE COURT: But you think that -- well, 9 do that yet.
10 you say there are no factual disputes. 10 The city's position essentially is that
11 MS. HALL: I don't think there's any 11 because we're commingling everything in one file, the
12 factual disputes. 12 whole file then becomes exempt. I'm not sure that's
13 THE COURT: So if that's the case -- 13 a correct reading of the law. But what the Court's
14 MS. HALL: Yeah. 14 going to do is this: The Court's ordering the city
15 THE COURT: -- if there are no factual 15 to within -- I'm going to give you a 14-day
16 disputes then the Court is in a position -- 16 deadline, Ms. Hall. See any problems with that?
17 MS. HALL: To render summary disposition. 17 MS. HALL: No.
18 THE COURT: Either way. 18 THE COURT: I know that work seems to be
19 MS. HALL: Yeah, either way. And I think 19 slowing down this week because of spring break, but
20 based on the case law, it's in favor of the 20 you're here and you have contacts with the city,
21 Defendants based on the exemption. 21 don't you, who are working?
22 THE COURT: I figured you'd say that. 22 MS. HALL: Yes, Your Honor.
23 MS. HALL: And I -- I don't know -- 23 THE COURT: Okay. So within 14 days, I
24 THE COURT: What I don't want to have 24 want you to deliver two things. I want you to
25 happen, I don't want the Court to decide the motion 25 deliver all the complaints for the years in question
50 52
1 now and have you, for example, you're in -- It's a 1 for in camera review and I want you to deliver six
2 credit to you that you're conceding the point, 2 sample files. They need to be representative of
3 because I think you have to. 3 content and year for the Court to examine in camera.
4 MS. HALL: Yeah. 4 And I think at that point, the Court's in a position
5 THE COURT: But I don't want you to next 5 then to decide -- to better decide the motion.
6 week file -- say: Hey, wait a minute. There are 6 MS. HALL: Your Honor, just -- all
7 factual disputes here that preclude granting summary 7 complaints for the years in question, so all of the
8 disposition for Mr. Rudd. 8 citizen and noncitizen complaints --
9 MS. HALL: Yes. 9 THE COURT: Correct.
10 THE COURT: That's why I'm pushing on that 10 MS. HALL: -- in the last -- so since 2014
11 question. Now for him, he says: I don't think so -- 11forward. And then six sample full files?
12 MS. HALL: Your Honor, I -- I don't 12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 believe there's any factual disputes. I believe the 13 MS. HALL: I missed the last part. You
14 case law supports the fact that the exemption allows 14 said full files representative?
15 us to exempt those records. I think the case law 15 THE COURT: Of type and year. So I'm
16 includes complaints. I think that Kent County and 16 going to trust you and the city to figure that. I
17 Sutton, both cases that's come after Newark, does not 17 mean, I don't want you just to peel off the skinniest
18 require you to set forth some affidavit with every 18 ones from 2016, you know, I want a sample.
19 single item in. Well, this would 4 years of the 19 MS. HALL: Your Honor, I am reminded, too,
20 number of files, so times 20, 160 files. How many -- 20 it is spring break this week. Is there a possibility
21 how many -- okay, in this file, there's a cruiser 21 -- He's gone this week.
22 report that's exempt, there's a -- It doesn't 22 THE COURT: I just said it was spring
23 require that. 23 break.
24 Under this exemption, it's an 24 MS. HALL: I know. I know. That's --
25 investigation of the law enforcement agency and it's 25 THE COURT: Do you want 21 days?
51 53
INUUU V filly Ul ilui LOH 01101e3
1 Ms. Hall: -- completely my miss. Well, 1haven't seen the case. I did some independent

2 just in case -- Can we do 21 days? 2 research and I didn't see this one. Let me -- let me
3 THE COURT: Sure. 3 take a quick look at it.
4 MS. HALL: I -- I have no problem. I'm 4 MR. RUDD: I don't think the case is
5 here all 14 days -- 5 necessarily precedential --
6 THE COURT: Yeah. 6 THE COURT: And I --
7 MS. HALL: -- But just to get everything. 7 MR. RUDD: -- it just lays out the
8 THE COURT: 21 is fine. 8 different --
9 MS. HALL: Thank you, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: I mean, does the case say that
10 THE COURT: And make sure they're all 10 counsel has the right to be there?
11 sealed up and even hand delivery is probably better, 11 MR. RUDD: No. It's --
12 just to dispel any confusion. I am very aware of 12 THE COURT: I mean, typically, an in
13 some of the confidentiality issues here, but I think 13 camera review is only for the judge --
14 I need to see them before I can make that. Both the 14 MR. RUDD: Right.
15 Newark case and the Evening News case contemplated an 15 THE COURT: -- in this case or criminal
16 in camera review. In Newark, the court actually did 16 cases.
17 it. I'm not sure the judge did so in Evening News, 17 MR. RUDD: The law -- the law has been
18 but I don't think there's any problem with ordering 18 established kind of contemplates this in different
19 that. 19 scenarios and it's a little bit designed to prevent a
20 Ms. Hall, anything else? 20 judge from having to review a thousand documents in
21 MS. HALL: No, Your Honor. 21 that situation, so the judge would get to choose
22 THE COURT: Mr. Rudd? 22 between these different methods. Like if they
23 MR. RUDD: Two questions, Your Honor. 23 produced detailed affidavits describing everything, a
24 THE COURT: Sure. 24 judge might not do in camera review at all.
25 MR. RUDD: Were those six sample files per 25 THE COURT: Yeah.
54 56
1 year requested or -- 1 MR. RUDD: If there's like a medium amount
2 THE COURT: No, total. 2 of documents, you might get some assistance from
3 MR. RUDD: -- six files divided over the 3 counsel where, you know, trusted attorneys are
4 years? 4 allowed to see the confidential documents and keep it
5 THE COURT: Yeah. It would seem to me we 5 to themselves and then they work together to -- to
6 have, what, five years or something, so at least one 6 make presentation or brief the Court to save time.
7 per year and then one more for -- 7 So I was just asking if --
8 MR. RUDD: Okay. Question number two? 8 THE COURT: It's a fair question. Let me
9 THE COURT: Sure. 9 just skim it real quickly and look -- The pages
10 MR. RUDD: The case law that I passed 10 you've given me, it looks like the last three are
11 around, I'm not very interested in the outcome of 11 devoted to a dissent, so there are --
12 that case because it's a different exemption and 12 MR. RUDD: Oh, yeah.
13 those kind of things, but it -- I thought it 13 THE COURT: -- three or four pages here.
14 succinctly set forth the various ways that a court 14 Let me just --
15 can approach this process. One of the ways it 15 MR. RUDD: The process is described on
16 describes is that the judge would engage in a process 16 pages, I think, like, three to six of the majority.
17 with counsel. Like counsel would be involved in the 17 THE COURT: It looks like part of it
18 in camera review. Obviously that's problematic in 18 quotes the Evening News case that I've been talking
19 this case because I'm the requestor of the records -- 19 about.
20 THE COURT: Right. 20 MR. RUDD: Yeah, exactly.
21 MR. RUDD: -- and I'm not an attorney. 21 THE COURT: In fact, they talk about the
22 But if I did have an attorney representing me would 22 -- a three-step process, which is interesting,
23 that alter the way the Court wishes to proceed with 23 because step one says the Court is supposed to follow
24 that in camera review process? 24 the six-step process for Evening News. So maybe
25 THE COURT: Well, I don't think so, but I 25 there's nine steps. I don't know for sure.
55 57
now v i,iw or Norron anores
1

All right. Let me just take a look. 1 just need to what -- where we're at in terms of the
2 (Whereupon, proceedings recessed 2 ruling.
3 at 11:07:15 A.M.; proceedings 3 THE COURT: Well, I think a few minutes
4 resumed at 11:08:46 A.M..) 4 ago I said this, and I'm just going to affirm what I
5 THE COURT: I see the section in the King 5 said earlier. I think at this point, the Court lacks
6 case to which Mr. Rudd refers. Mr. Rudd, I think 6 information to perform the analysis required by
7 you've given me an easy way out with your comments a 7 Evening News Association. So in so many words, yes,
8 minute ago and it -- and I appreciate your honesty 8 I think your presentation is a bit conclusory.
9 and your candor. The fact that you're representing 9 Okay? All right. Thank you very much.
10 yourself, I think, defeats any purpose for having an 10 MR. RUDD: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 in camera discussion even with counsel, so -- so I'll 11 MS. HALL: Thank you, Your Honor.
12 do it myself. And I've tried to limit the work a 12 (Whereupon, proceedings concluded
13 bit. I'm expecting the citizen complaints to be one 13 at 11:11:17 A.M..)
14 or two pages tops and that's why I just said six 14 --00000--
15 representative files, not more. 15
16 MR. RUDD: Well, just to be clear, what I 16
17 was saying was -- I was asking if -- if I had the 17
18 opportunity. There's a few public, you know, policy 18
19 groups that actually provide attorneys for cases that 19
20 are of this nature and I'm in the process of an 20
21 application for that, so I could potentially have a 21
22 real live trained lawyer on the case and I just 22
23 thought -- 23
24 THE COURT: You're doing a nice job. I'm 24
25 not sure you need one, but that's your call. I would 25
58 60
1 say this. Between now -- That's about the second or 1
2
2 third time you've been up, Ms. Hall. I'll get you in 3 STATE OF MICHIGAN )
3 just a minute. ) ss.
4 COUNTY OF MUSKEGON )
4 MS. HALL: Okay.
5 THE COURT: Between now and 21 days, if 5
6 you guys want to submit anything else, go right ahead 6 I, certify that this transcript,
7 but do appreciate the fact that I've caused some 7 consisting of 61 pages is a complete, true, and
8 correct transcript of the videotaped proceedings and
8 delay here, but I think we're dealing with a 2017
9 testimony taken in DANIEL W. RUDD versus CITY OF
9 case prefix so I really want to push us along toward 10 NORTON SHORES, File No. 17-004334-CZ on April 2,
10 11 2018, Videotaped.
-- toward the finish line here.
12 **Please note proper names and/or case names unknown
11 Ms. Hall. 13 to this reporter are spelled phonetically and may not
12 MS. HALL: In your determining that you 14 be correct.
15
13 need to review the files, are you finding that there 16
14 isn't a particularized justification for not turning 17
18
15 the documents over at this time? Because the reason 19 ,
16 I ask, Your Honor, is Evening News basically Michelle M. McKee, CSR-3841
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter
17 indicates that a court should withhold from doing in
18 camera unless they have failed to give a 21
19 particularized justification, which my position in my 22
20 last brief and in this motion today is we provided
23
21 the particularized justification under the two --
22 under the three cases I provided and in -- you know, 24
23 with the affidavits.
25
24 So I'm just -- because you had indicated
25 if I wanted to file something between now and then, I 61
59
Nuou v uny or INIOFIUTI Jnores

1 60:13 30:12, 30:20, 44:25, Arbor[1] - 49:4 big [2] - 7:13, 25:1
ability pi - 34:14 45:5, 45:24, 45:25, areas oi - 15:21 biggest[1] - 20:22
1 [1]- 44:20
able - 10:22, 12:5 46:1, 46:4, 46:17, argument[3] - 13:13, billing [1] - 8:24
10[5] - 6:22, 13:14, 48:24, 49:9, 51:18
above-entitled - 23:14, 48:20 bit[4]- 44:22, 56:19,
38:1, 40:2, 46:12 affidavits[13]- 17:14,
1:13 Aromo pi - 40:11 58:13, 60:8
10:06:09 oi - 3:2 22:12, 23:25, 24:19,
Absolutely [1] - 25:19 articulate oi - 19:1 blanket pi - 31:5
10:42:41 pi - 35:9 35:3, 39:7, 45:14,
absolutely [2] - 26:17, assert oi - 13:7 blue - 32:12
10:45:43 pi - 35:10 34:21 45:17, 47:11, 47:12, asserted [2] - 20:22, board [4] - 8:8, 36:12,
11:07:15 oi - 58:3 abstract pi - 16:2 47:22, 56:23, 59:23 21:19 37:6, 37:21
11:08:46 pi - 58:4 abusive oi - 33:1 affirm [1] -60:4 asserting [1] - 33:17 Boca Eli - 13:21
11:11:17[1]-60:13 accept pi - 23:24 afford oi - 50:7 assistance [1]- 57:2 body[2]- 9:12, 43:23
14[3] - 25:13, 52:23, accepted - 21:21, agencies [i] - 14:23 Association [2] - 52:7, bogged pi - 43:20
54:5 23:13 agency[3] - 28:12, 60:7 bottle pi - 27:7
14-day - 52:15 access[2] - 29:11, 45:15, 51:25 assume pi - 35:13 boy pi - 33:7
160 pi - 51:20 29:12 agent oi - 45:20 asterisk pi - 20:14 break [3] - 52:19,
17-004334-CZ - according [3] - 5:12, ago[5] - 13:17, 35:21, attached pi - 13:22 53:20, 53:23
1:7, 61:10 24:22, 42:17 49:3, 58:8, 60:4 attempts pi - 21:23 brief[7]- 6:5, 14:14,
accountability pi - agree [4] - 8:19, attorney[3]- 43:2, 16:2, 31:2, 39:6,
2 17:2 12:10, 37:2, 43:17 55:21, 55:22 57:6, 59:20
2[2] - 3:1, 61:10 accreditation oi - ahead [2] - 43:24, 59:6 Attorney oi - 1:19 briefly pi - 44:10
2.116(C)(10) pi - 3:13 14:20 aliens [1] - 28:25 attorneys [3] - 43:12, bring pi - 40:6
2.116(1)(2 pi - 39:1 accredited - 15:3 allegation [1] - 35:24 57:3, 58:19 brings oi - 16:7
20[2] - 6:23, 51:20 acknowledge [1] - allegations [2] - audio [2] - 18:5, 18:13 brothers [1] - 32:12
2013[1] - 40:7 11:23 28:11, 33:4 authorizes pi - 43:12 brought - 40:15,
2014[2] - 44:20, 53:10 acknowledged [2] - allow pi - 25:2 available [3] - 9:14, 40:20
201512i - 15:14, 15:15 17:23, 18:7 allowed [3] - 3:15, 17:10, 34:2 bunch oi - 40:8
2016[3]- 15:15, acknowledging pi - 33:15, 57:4 aware [3] - 34:20,
21:12, 53:18 33:20 allows oi - 51:14 48:18, 54:12
2017[3]- 15:15, Act[2] - 29:9, 43:11 alter pi - 55:23
ambiguous[1] - 36:25 C-A-L-E-A [1] - 14:15
27:19, 59:8 act pi - 34:7 B
Act's - 43:10 amend - 3:15, CALEA [s] - 14:15,
2017-4334-CZ pi - 3:6
22:12, 49:22, 49:23, balance [2] - 24:5, 14:19, 15:3, 15:4,
2018[3]- 1:14, 3:1, acted [1] - 36:4
49:24 31:21 15:20, 47:23, 47:25,
61:11 acting [1]- 43:23
balanced oi - 34:25 48:1
21 [4] - 53:25, 54:2, activity [2] - 28:12, amended [1] - 3:16
balancing [12] - 10:13, camera [1i]- 5:8,
54:8, 59:5 28:13 amount[1] - 57:1
10:16, 12:24, 13:3, 41:25, 53:1, 53:3,
2395[1] - 10:5 add [11- 37:24 ample [1] - 49:25
31:25, 34:22, 34:24, 54:16, 55:18, 55:24,
270[1]- 25:22 adding [1] - 3:17 analysis [2] - 23:11,
44:12, 44:25, 45:8, 56:13, 56:24, 58:11,
27th [1] - 49:18 additional [2] - 3:17, 60:6
46:1, 47:1 59:18
2nd pi - 1:14 45:3 analyze pi - 11:18
based [8] - 5:23, 6:5, candor pi - 58:9
address - 19:12, Ann pi - 49:4
10:15, 39:3, 47:20, capricious[1] - 42:10
45:5, 45:8, 47:23 answer - 4:12,
3 7:10, 10:23, 12:22
50:2, 50:20, 50:21 card121 - 5:21, 28:24
addressed [4]- 4:11,
30 pi - 25:21 basis [2] - 43:1, 47:5 care pi - 13:25
7:1, 10:12, 10:14 apologizes pi - 34:9
bearing [1] - 28:14 carefully [1] - 32:7
addresses oi - 20:18 appeal 01- 20:6
4 become pi - 7:22 case[48] - 4:17, 5:6,
addressing [3] - 3:21, APPEARANCES pi -
becomes[2] - 29:4, 5:11, 5:23, 6:8, 9:5,
4 pi - 51:19 12:25, 18:16 1:16
52:12 9:6, 10:17, 12:16,
4-1/2 pi - 40:2 admission [1]- 31:22 appeared pi - 1:17
beginning [2] - 8:2, 17:3, 19:11, 22:18,
adopted oi - 52:7 applaud [1] - 21:22
24:14 23:18, 24:17, 25:14,
advisement pi - 52:5 application pi - 58:21
6 behalf pi - 1:20 26:2, 26:10, 37:2,
affairs[s] - 4:16, 5:9, applied pi - 4:22
61 [1] - 61:7 believes pi - 3:25 38:17, 40:10, 40:11,
15:1, 16:15, 19:2, apply[2]- 13:5, 13:6
beneficial oi - 19:6 40:23, 41:21, 43:9,
24:8, 26:13, 27:23, appreciate [4] - 14:10,
benefit pi - 19:3 44:2, 44:5, 49:4,
7 29:13 22:13, 58:8, 59:7
benefits pi - 13:24 50:3, 50:13, 50:20,
7-1/2[1] - 40:4 affairs'[2] - 30:23, approach [11 - 55:15
best pi - 34:18 51:14, 51:15, 54:2,
7th pi - 21:12 32:21 appropriate [5] -
better[2] - 53:5, 54:11 54:15, 55:10, 55:12,
affect[3] - 10:19, 21:19, 29:23, 32:22,
Between [2] - 59:1, 55:19, 56:1, 56:4,
A 24:16, 49:11 39:10, 41:18
59:5 56:9, 56:15, 57:18,
affidavit 091- 5:12, April[3] - 1:14, 3:1, 58:6, 58:22, 59:9,
A.M [2] - 35:9, 58:3 between [2] - 56:22,
5:24, 6:14, 7:16, 61:10 61:12
A.M.[3] - 3:2, 58:4, 59:25
9:23, 20:19, 21:11, arbitrary pi - 42:10
1

rcuou v airy or Norton onores

cases[19] - 11:5, 12:2, 11:14, 19:12, 19:16, 19:14, 19:15, 19:17, content[1]- 53:3 38:20, 38:24, 39:13,
16:16, 25:18, 26:16, 19:25, 20:16, 20:23, 19:20, 20:1, 20:7, CONTENTS [1] - 2:1 39:19, 39:24, 40:1,
26:19, 37:10, 40:8, 25:11, 28:10, 31:18, 20:10, 20:16, 20:17, contrary [1] - 18:20 40:4, 40:10, 40:14,
43:9, 44:3, 44:6, 34:24, 35:16, 35:18, 20:23, 22:5, 22:22, control[1] - 33:23 40:16, 40:19, 40:21,
45:1, 46:19, 48:25, 41:19, 44:21, 47:19, 25:11, 27:20, 28:10, conversation [1]- 40:24, 41:2, 41:7,
51:17, 52:8, 56:16, 49:11, 49:13, 49:16, 28:19, 30:17, 30:19, 35:19 42:1, 42:6, 42:11,
58:19, 59:22 53:8, 58:13 32:9, 41:19, 44:18, cooperate [1] - 10:21 42:15, 42:19, 42:24,
categories [3] - 17:16, citizens [7] - 10:1, 44:21, 44:23, 46:6, copy [6] - 18:10, 43:6, 43:8, 43:15,
17:20, 25:4 12:5, 16:18, 20:7, 47:17, 47:24, 48:8, 19:16, 19:20, 40:6, 43:18, 44:3, 45:4,
categorize [1] - 25:3 20:11, 22:5, 38:8 49:11, 49:12, 49:13, 40:20, 40:25 45:13, 45:18, 45:21,
category[1] - 24:9 city poi - 3:7, 9:17, 49:14, 49:16, 51:16, copying [2]- 9:1, 9:14 45:23, 45:25, 46:3,
caused [1]- 59:7 23:2, 28:18, 48:23, 52:25, 53:7, 53:8, Correct[2] - 27:4, 46:9, 46:11, 46:16,
certain [5]- 16:20, 49:1, 49:10, 52:14, 58:13 53:9 46:18, 46:21, 47:25,
19:1, 20:20, 30:17, 52:20, 53:16 complete [2] - 52:6, correct[4] - 39:20, 48:2, 48:4, 50:4,
39:14 City [2] - 11:5, 31:22 61:7 52:13, 61:8, 61:14 50:9, 50:13, 50:15,
certainly [3] - 22:19, CITY [2] - 1:8, 61:9 completed [1] - 19:4 correction [1]- 39:16 50:18, 50:22, 50:24,
23:7, 26:8 city's[4]- 38:24, 39:3, completely [2] - 26:9, correctness[1] - 51:5, 51:10, 52:2,
certification [2] - 15:5, 42:20, 52:10 54:1 42:21 52:4, 52:18, 52:23,
48:6 Civil [1] - 43:10 comply [1] - 29:8 correspondence [1] - 53:9, 53:12, 53:15,
Certified [1] - 61:20 claimed [1] - 47:20 compromised [1] - 30:7 53:22, 53:25, 54:3,
certify [1] - 61:6 claiming [1]- 48:22 16:13 counsel[6] - 1:18, 54:6, 54:8, 54:10,
challenge [1] - 12:8 claims[2]- 42:4, concede [2] - 36:11, 55:17, 56:10, 57:3, 54:22, 54:24, 55:2,
change [1] - 34:9 43:10 37:1 58:11 55:5, 55:9, 55:20,
changed [2]- 34:12, Claims[1]- 43:11 conceding [1] - 51:2 55:25, 56:6, 56:9,
count[2] - 3:22, 4:1
49:15 clean [1] - 44:9 concerned [1]- 10:18 56:12, 56:15, 56:25,
Count[2]- 4:9
character[1]- 18:19 clear[4] - 5:24, 22:18, concerning [1] - 49:12 57:8, 57:13, 57:17,
counts[2] - 3:17, 3:21
characterizing [1] - 34:5, 58:16 concerns[1] - 4:14 57:21, 58:5, 58:24,
Counts[1] - 4:9
46:23 clearly [3] - 19:7, concluded [2] - 37:14, 59:5, 60:3
county [4] - 10:1,
charges[1] - 32:17 20:11, 23:19 60:12 court[20]- 4:19, 4:22,
12:5, 49:1, 49:3
chief[2] - 6:22, 49:10 closed [2] - 37:22, conclusory [3] - 4:25, 5:7, 5:13, 5:14,
County [9] - 25:20,
Chief[2]- 5:12, 5:24, 37:23 17:15, 23:25, 60:8 7:20, 10:12, 23:21,
26:20, 29:6, 40:13,
7:17, 9:23, 10:18, code [1]- 32:13 conducted [1]- 33:25 23:22, 25:10, 25:12,
45:1, 45:10, 46:15,
12:25, 17:22, 20:18, colleagues[2] - 7:19, conducting [2] - 25:15, 33:14, 46:24,
47:21, 51:16
24:15, 27:3, 27:16, 41:14 16:24, 32:21 49:15, 54:16, 55:14,
COUNTY [2] - 1:4,
colored [2] - 36:13, confidence [3] - 16:5, 59:17
29:14, 30:12, 30:13, 61:4
34:15, 34:17, 48:11, 36:18 16:19, 32:18 Court[30] - 3:15, 4:2,
couple [3] - 5:1,
48:12 coming [4] - 10:1, confidential [4] - 4:12, 4:13, 4:22,
33:13, 36:8
chiefs[1] - 29:8 10:10, 10:20, 10:24 22:24, 26:15, 29:23, 23:13, 23:19, 25:20,
COURT[155] - 1:4,
chill [1]- 30:16 comments[7] - 11:22, 57:4 30:24, 39:15, 39:17,
3:5, 4:4, 4:6, 4:25,
confidentiality [1] - 39:19, 41:3, 41:11,
chilling [1]- 9:25 33:13, 33:18, 33:19, 5:4, 6:6, 6:11, 6:17,
54:13 42:2, 42:19, 42:24,
choice [3] - 5:7, 49:3, 34:8, 34:10, 58:7 6:20, 6:25, 7:3, 7:6,
48:17, 50:4, 50:7,
49:5 commingling [1]- confusion [1]- 54:12 7:9, 7:19, 8:7, 8:10,
50:16, 50:25, 52:4,
choose[1] - 56:21 52:11 conjecture [1] - 33:21 8:13, 8:16, 8:19,
52:5, 53:3, 55:23,
chosen [1] - 48:25 complainant[1]- consider[2] - 21:18, 8:21, 8:25, 9:3, 9:11,
57:6, 57:23, 60:5
Christmas[2] - 5:21, 26:12 22:4 9:16, 10:5, 10:7,
Court's [7]- 24:7,
28:23 complaint[30]- 3:15, considered [5]- 13:8, 11:16, 11:22, 12:10,
38:21, 42:21, 52:8,
CIRCUIT [1]- 1:4 3:16, 3:17, 5:14, 13:10, 18:11, 24:5, 12:15, 12:20, 13:12,
52:13, 52:14, 53:4
Circuit[1] - 1:15 7:18, 9:17, 16:3, 25:18 13:17, 14:4, 14:6,
courts[1] - 38:14
circumstance ]1] - 16:7, 17:24, 18:1, considering [1] - 28:3 14:14, 14:17, 14:22,
covered [2] - 12:23,
43:4 20:14, 21:2, 21:12, consistent[1] - 16:8 14:24, 15:16, 19:13,
31:12
circumstances [6] - 21:14, 21:16, 25:25, consisting [1] - 61:7 19:18, 19:23, 20:2,
26:14, 27:15, 27:19, covering [3] - 31:14,
16:14, 19:2, 24:11, Consumer[1]- 43:10 20:13, 20:25, 21:4,
28:6, 28:24, 29:2, 32:11, 34:18
24:20, 38:5, 39:15 contacts [1] - 52:20 21:8, 21:22, 22:3,
30:1, 30:2, 30:8, covers[1]- 17:16
circumvents [1] - contain [1] - 37:16 22:11, 26:19, 26:22,
35:16, 49:22, 49:24 crazy[1] - 33:19
17:11 contained [1] - 30:11 26:24, 27:3, 27:6,
complaints[50]- 4:15, 27:12, 27:15, 27:25, credit[2] - 21:24, 51:2
cite [1]- 40:22 contemplate[1]- 4:18
4:18, 9:24, 10:2, 28:4, 28:7, 28:15, crime [1] - 35:24
cited [1]- 23:15 contemplated [3] -
12:6, 12:12, 12:18, 28:18, 31:14, 35:6, criminal [3] - 28:12,
cites [2] - 13:21, 30:5 4:21, 4:24, 54:15
12:21, 12:23, 13:7, 35:11, 36:18, 36:21, 28:13, 56:15
citing [1] - 23:18 contemplates [1] -
15:8, 15:23, 19:12, 37:20, 38:3, 38:12, critical [2] - 23:21,
citizen [22] - 5:15, 7:6, 56:18

muou v ulLy or Nor= anores

44:1 departments[1] - dismissed oi - 28:16 eight[1] - 36:2 13:3, 13:5, 13:7,
cross[3] - 4:7, 8:21, 15:25 dispel [1] - 54:12 either[8] - 6:8, 31:23, 13:9, 24:4, 38:9,
36:11 deposed [1] - 30:13 dispose oi - 41:5 34:23, 38:22, 39:21, 44:12, 44:14, 45:11,
cruiser [31 - 18:5, deposition [9]- 6:22, Disposition [9] - 3:9, 42:3, 50:5, 50:19 47:14, 47:15, 47:20,
36:5, 51:21 7:1, 17:22, 20:18, 3:12, 3:14, 3:21, 8:4, Either[1] - 50:18 47:21, 48:22, 48:23,
CSR-3841 oi - 61:19 27:4, 28:9, 28:22, 39:9, 39:17, 41:10, electronic [1] - 6:8 49:2, 49:8, 50:21,
48:11, 48:17 42:20 Elliot[1] - 43:9 51:14, 51:24, 55:12
D derivative [2] - 42:12, disposition [21] - employee [1] - 29:10 exemptions[2]-
42:17 26:1, 26:14, 29:15, employee's [1] - 5:10 12:11, 35:2
danger - 33:23
describe [2] - 24:19, 29:16, 29:22, 30:8, employees[2] - 10:16, EXHIBITS - 2:13
DANIEL [2] - 1:6, 61:9
46:10 37:15, 37:16, 38:22, 44:20 exist - 18:9
Daniel 01- 3:5
described [4] - 23:4, 39:2, 39:10, 39:21, employment[1] - 7:12 expected [1] - 39:13
days[5] - 52:23,
43:5, 45:17, 57:15 39:22, 41:12, 41:18, end [3] - 7:22, 19:10, expecting oi - 58:13
53:25, 54:2, 54:5,
describes [2] - 46:4, 42:3, 49:21, 50:2, 48:16 experience [2] - 10:9,
59:5
55:16 50:5, 50:17, 51:8 endorse oi - 30:24 29:25
deadline [1] - 52:16
describing [4]- 31:5, dispositive [1] - 5:2 enforcement[2] - explaining pi - 49:10
deal[3] - 30:21, 37:3,
43:25, 45:14, 56:23 dispute [2] - 11:19, 14:20, 51:25 explanation [1]-
40:2
description [3] - 43:25 engage oi - 55:16 41:23
dealing [5] - 11:10,
30:12, 35:4, 43:21 disputes[5] - 50:10, entitled [2] - 1:13, extension oi - 3:23
44:17, 45:12, 49:17,
designed [i]- 56:19 50:12, 50:16, 51:7, 50:2 extent[1] - 24:21
59:8
desk pi - 27:7 51:13 equivocating pi - external[4] - 17:1,
decide [6] - 36:23,
detail [1] - 46:12 dissent oi - 57:11 36:25 17:11, 17:18, 28:12
38:17, 41:24, 50:25,
detailed [3] - 21:11, distinct oi - 19:8 erodes pi - 32:18 externally pi - 15:11
53:5
45:16, 56:23 distinctions [1] - error 0]- 30:25 extremely oi - 15:24
decided [2] - 5:8,
determinative [2] - 24:13 errors[2] - 14:12,
23:10
18:17, 23:14 diverted pi - 29:3 36:22 F
deciphering -
determining pi - divided [1] - 55:3 espoused oi - 52:6
44:21 face [1] - 21:21
59:12 doctor[2]- 33:1, 33:6 essence[1] - 39:8
decision [5] - 7:13, fact psi - 3:16, 4:18,
develop oi - 49:20 document[4] - 4:15, essentially oi - 52:10
10:11, 25:20, 40:7, 13:18, 15:4, 15:19,
development[2] - 9:21, 20:3, 29:22 establish [2] - 24:17,
46:23 23:15, 30:18, 37:4,
42:7, 42:9 documentation [1] - 26:18
deem 01- 25:9 38:19, 44:12, 45:8,
devoted pi - 57:11 15:20 established [2] -
deemed [1] - 23:12 49:20, 49:22, 50:1,
differ oi - 18:21 documents[20[ - 15:24, 56:18
defeats [1] - 58:10 51:14, 57:21, 58:9,
different oii - 5:11, 3:18, 5:8, 9:2, 13:8, establishes [1] -
Defendant[71- 1:9, 59:7
11:14, 18:25, 36:13, 23:23, 23:24, 24:12, 24:18
1:20, 18:22, 23:9, factors pi - 45:5
36:18, 38:6, 38:8, 24:23, 25:14, 25:16, evaluate - 22:3
25:17, 31:6, 41:22 factual [7] - 42:7,
55:12, 56:8, 56:18, 25:21, 29:12, 33:2, Evening [13] - 9:5, 9:6,
Defendant's [2] - 27:1, 42:8, 50:10, 50:12,
56:22 46:7, 46:10, 47:13, 22:19, 25:4, 45:6,
39:5 50:15, 51:7, 51:13
difficult[2] - 30:18, 56:20, 57:2, 57:4, 45:14, 52:6, 54:15,
Defendants[3] - fail pi - 41:13
32:20 59:15 54:17, 57:18, 57:24,
17:11, 31:2, 50:21 failed [1] - 59:18
difficulty [1] - 24:7 done[9] - 5:16, 5:25, 59:16, 60:7
defense [2] - 14:13, failure pi - 3:17
diligence [1] - 32:10 12:24, 15:6, 37:4, exactly[6]- 18:15,
41:13 fair pi - 57:8
directing [1] - 28:25 41:6, 44:13, 44:24, 25:7, 30:25, 31:11,
Defense oi - 3:8 faith pi - 43:24
directly pi - 19:12 45:1 36:23, 57:20
defined [2] - 14:18, false pi - 30:5
discipline [3] - 15:12, door pi - 41:11 examination [1] - 9:14
18:19 familiar [1] - 48:4
17:18, 17:19 double pi - 14:17 examine [1] - 53:3
definitely [1] - 22:20 far pi - 33:14
disciplined [1]- 26:3 down [4[ - 20:7, 37:11, example[4]- 30:15,
delay[1] - 59:8 fatal oi - 33:12
disclose [4] - 13:23, 43:20, 52:19 31:10, 36:3, 51:1
deliver[3[ - 52:24, favor[2] - 39:10,
26:6, 26:7, 49:6 dramatically [1]- exceeding [1]- 42:21
52:25, 53:1 50:20
disclosed [4]- 16:12, 34:12 exception [2] - 31:5,
delivery pi - 54:11 Federal pi - 23:18
21:16, 30:17, 37:15 draw pi - 36:14 38:6
denial[1] - 42:10 fee [1]- 8:23
disclosing [2] - 24:15, drawn [1] - 25:4 exempt[16] - 9:12,
Department oi - fees [2] - 43:2, 43:12
38:9 due oi - 21:13 13:9, 23:3, 23:12,
32:15 fellow[1] - 32:16
disclosure [2] - 24:10, DUI oi - 32:17 25:1, 25:9, 29:24,
department[3] - felt[1]- 20:11
47:1 36:7, 36:12, 37:3,
15:22, 16:6, 30:3 few [4] - 22:8, 35:20,
Department's pi -
discovery[3] - 11:19, E 37:10, 51:15, 51:22,
58:18, 60:3
18:13, 18:14 52:1, 52:12
44:19 easy pi - 58:7 fight[1]- 26:3
discussed [3] - 28:21, exemptible [2] - 13:2,
Departments[1] - effect[3] - 9:25, figure [2] - 36:22,
29:6, 38:25 36:20
47:18 10:10, 10:15 53:16
discussion [1] - 58:11 exemption [22] - 4:23,
3

rluuti v i.uy ui rvunvn oiwies

figured [1] - 50:22 39:16, 39:20 35:11 himself[1] - 3:7 instance [3] - 21:10,
File [2] - 1:7, 61:10 foundational[1] - 9:7 guy [2] - 13:20, 13:23 historically [1]- 15:6 24:6, 44:15
file [42] - 3:6, 3:16, Four[1] - 35:18 guys [2] - 21:25, 59:6 hold [2] - 19:18, 21:7 instead [1] - 17:9
3:18, 3:24, 4:16, four[7]- 8:5, 8:11, holding [1] - 47:13 institutions [1] - 16:23
4:20, 4:24, 5:10, 11:16, 33:10, 45:13, H HON [1]- 1:15 integral [1] - 17:4
5:13, 5:14, 5:17, 45:16, 57:13 honesty [1] - 58:8 intent [1] - 24:1
hall [1] - 54:1
5:18, 5:19, 5:21, free [1] - 41:9 Honor[35]- 3:11, 4:5, interactions [1] - 18:6
HALL[73] - 1:19, 3:11,
5:22, 6:2, 6:9, 6:10, freely [1] - 12:6 4:8, 4:14, 4:17, 5:3, interest[12] - 11:7,
4:8, 5:3, 5:5, 6:10,
7:12, 7:18, 9:16, front[1] - 19:19 5:19, 5:23, 6:3, 6:13, 11:8, 11:24, 15:21,
6:13, 6:18, 6:24, 7:2,
9:22, 12:22, 18:3, full [2] - 53:11, 53:14 7:8, 8:18, 8:20, 12:3, 15:23, 17:8, 21:15,
23:17, 27:10, 27:17, 7:5, 7:8, 7:10, 8:6,
fundamentally [1] - 12:17, 13:1, 14:3, 24:9, 38:14, 38:16,
27:19, 27:20, 27:21, 8:9, 8:12, 8:15, 8:17,
18:23 14:5, 38:2, 44:10, 47:1, 47:10
8:23, 9:1, 9:10, 9:15,
27:24, 28:1, 28:14, future [2] - 16:14, 44:22, 45:2, 47:12, interested [2] - 20:24,
9:20, 10:6, 10:9,
29:5, 41:10, 51:6, 21:17 48:20, 50:8, 51:12, 55:11
11:21, 12:1, 12:13,
51:21, 52:11, 52:12, 52:22, 53:6, 53:19, interesting [1]- 57:22
12:16, 13:1, 13:16,
59:25
G 14:3, 22:10, 44:10,
54:9, 54:21, 54:23, interests [1] - 34:18
filed [8] - 3:13, 3:20, 59:16, 60:10, 60:11 Internal [1] - 37:23
Gale [15] - 5:13, 5:24, 45:7, 45:16, 45:19,
5:15, 7:6, 27:16, hovering [1] - 28:25 internal[34] - 4:16,
7:17, 9:23, 12:25, 45:22, 45:24, 46:2,
30:1, 30:2, 39:7 hurt[2] - 16:11, 21:17
17:22, 20:18, 27:16, 46:5, 46:10, 46:14, 5:9, 5:15, 9:18, 15:1,
files [17] - 5:25, 6:7, 15:8, 15:23, 16:10,
29:14, 30:12, 30:13, 46:17, 46:19, 46:22,
6:8, 27:15, 35:13, 16:15, 16:24, 17:18,
34:15, 34:17, 48:11, 48:1, 48:3, 48:5,
35:14, 37:7, 37:23, 18:12, 19:2, 22:23,
48:12 50:6, 50:11, 50:14, i.e [1] - 35:23
51:20, 53:2, 53:11, 24:8, 26:5, 26:13,
Gale's[6]- 24:15, 50:17, 50:19, 50:23, idea [4] - 18:16, 25:10,
53:14, 54:25, 55:3, 27:23, 28:10, 29:4,
27:3, 35:17, 35:18, 51:4, 51:9, 51:12, 31:6, 31:18
58:15, 59:13 29:13, 29:18, 30:23,
38:7, 46:3 52:3, 52:17, 52:22, identified [1] - 31:1
filing [1] - 39:3 32:21, 33:1, 35:22,
Garrity [5] - 29:17, 53:6, 53:10, 53:13, II [1] - 4:9
finally[1] - 33:3 37:9, 37:22, 37:25,
35:20, 35:21, 37:16, 53:19, 53:24, 54:4, III [1] - 4:9
findings [6] - 35:22, 44:23, 47:19, 49:11,
38:10 54:7, 54:9, 54:21, important[1]- 5:6
37:9, 37:22, 37:25, 49:14
generalized [1]- 59:4, 59:12, 60:11 IN [1] - 1:4
38:18, 46:25 internally [3] - 10:16,
17:15 Hall 021- 3:7, 3:10,
fine [3]- 14:9, 27:8, inapplicable [1] -
9:3, 27:13, 37:5, 15:10, 21:13
54:8 generate [1] - 28:10 26:17
41:9, 41:14, 44:8, interpretation [2] -
finish [2]- 21:25, generated [7] - 15:10, incapable [1] - 34:21
52:16, 54:20, 59:2, 12:3, 18:22
59:10 15:11, 17:25, 20:7, incident[2] - 18:1,
59:11 interpreted [1] - 12:17
finished [1]- 34:3 20:10, 21:12, 21:13 36:2
Hall's [2]- 5:18, 22:6 interrupt[1] - 6:21
firm [1] - 41:15 Gereaux[1] - 37:20 inclination [1] - 31:24
halt - 15:14 interview [3] - 35:17,
first[1] - 17:23 given [8] - 16:24, include [5]- 7:18,
hammering [1] - 24:14 35:18, 38:7
fit - 30:11 45:25, 47:5, 48:16, 19:23, 23:1, 29:16,
49:21, 49:25, 57:10, hand [3] - 36:6, 40:25, interviews[1]- 34:4
five [2] - 35:20, 55:6 47:19
58:7 54:11 interwoven [2] - 5:17,
Florida [1] - 13:21 included [2]- 12:18,
globally [1] - 42:1 handled [1] - 16:8 7:14
focused [1] - 47:10 34:1
golden [1] - 33:7 handles[1]- 15:22 intimidated [1] - 34:16
focusing [1] - 14:11 includes [1] - 51:16
Grand [1] - 32:14 handling [1] - 15:1 invasion [1] - 37:18
FOIA [16] - 11:3, including [1]- 34:4
grant[7]- 38:21, 39:2, happy [1] - 4:11 investigate [2] - 28:5,
11:25, 12:3, 12:11, independent[2]-
39:15, 39:17, 39:20, harass [1] - 28:25 28:13
13:21, 13:25, 17:3, 17:2, 56:1
42:2, 50:4 Harbor[1]- 10:7 investigating [2] -
20:6, 22:21, 23:6, independently [1]-
granting [2] - 41:11, harm [1]- 22:24 17:24, 35:23
24:1, 43:20, 44:17, 34:21
51:7 head [2]- 11:24, 30:14 investigation [23] -
49:6, 49:17, 49:25 indicate [1]- 4:13
grants [1] - 42:19 heard [1]- 36:8 5:16, 5:25, 6:1, 7:18,
follow [2] - 31:8, 57:23 indicated [4] - 3:23,
hearing [8] - 3:13, 9:19, 18:12, 22:23,
grasp [1] - 41:13 29:21, 48:19, 59:24
FOR [1] - 1:4 24:11, 24:20, 25:24,
great[1] - 18:24 4:11, 4:13, 11:17, indicates [1] - 59:17
form [2] - 17:1, 30:3 26:5, 28:6, 28:11,
Great[1] - 4:6 28:22, 31:13, 48:7, individual [3] - 5:10,
forth [8] - 17:14, 23:8, 29:5, 34:1, 34:3,
greater[2]- 17:8, 49:23 11:14, 44:13
23:20, 45:10, 47:4, 35:22, 37:9, 37:14,
21:15 heavy [1]- 46:1 information [14]-
47:12, 51:18, 55:14 37:22, 37:25, 51:25
grievance [1] - 26:4 heck[1]- 34:11 11:11, 15:22, 16:2,
forward [12] - 10:1, Investigation [1] -
ground [2]- 21:23, Hicks [5]- 7:7, 7:21, 16:12, 16:13, 17:8,
10:11, 10:21, 10:24, 37:24
31:15 27:15, 27:20 17:9, 23:1, 30:18,
12:5, 13:5, 14:13, investigations[12] -
groups[1]- 58:19 HICKS [1] -1:15 34:14, 38:15, 48:10,
14:25, 17:10, 31:19, 10:22, 16:11, 16:14,
guess[1] - 28:18 Hicks'[2]- 5:18, 7:12 48:16, 60:6
39:12, 53:11 16:15, 16:25, 17:16,
guessing [2] - 25:15, hide [1] - 48:15 inquiry[1] - 19:10
foundation [2] - 19:3, 21:18, 22:25,

fNUUll v INUILUI1 01101b

29:13, 32:21, 33:2 40:7, 46:12, 55:13, location [3] - 5:1, metropolitan [1] - 26:23, 27:1, 27:5,
investigatory [4] - 56:18 18:16, 23:14 15:25 27:1 1, 27:14, 27:23,
4:20, 5:17, 24:8, kinds [1] - 33:21 lock [1] - 29:7 Michelle [1] - 61:19 28:2, 28:5, 28:8,
46:7 King [2] - 40:12, 58:5 locked [1] - 8:10 MICHIGAN [2] - 1:2, 28:17, 28:21, 31:17,
involve [1] - 44:4 knowing [1] - 38:15 look [12]- 15:19, 17:6, 61:3 36:16, 36:20, 37:12,
involved [4] - 33:11, knowledge [1] - 31:24 21:23, 32:1, 32:24, Michigan [7] - 3:3, 38:2, 38:4, 38:13,
33:12, 36:1, 55:17 33:13, 33:18, 35:1, 16:18, 16:23, 25:1, 38:23, 39:5, 39:18,
issue [6] - 7:14, 9:7, L 38:18, 56:3, 57:9, 31:18, 32:24, 32:25 39:22, 39:25, 40:3,
20:9, 26:4, 43:13, 58:1 middle [1] - 21:23 40:6, 40:12, 40:15,
lacks [1] - 60:5
43:16 looked [2] - 10:14, might[9]- 18:25, 40:18, 40:20, 40:23,
laid [1] - 34:4
issues [3] - 15:2, 16:20 24:16, 31:22, 35:12, 41:1, 41:5, 41:17,
Lake [1] - 10:7
42:13, 54:13 looking [3] - 17:5, 38:6, 38:8, 43:24, 42:4, 42:8, 42:14,
large [1] - 9:24
item [2] - 35:20, 51:19 20:3, 34:17 56:24, 57:2 42:16, 42:23, 43:4,
Larson [1] - 43:10
items[2] - 6:1, 40:2 looks [2] - 57:10, minor[1] - 13:14 43:7, 43:14, 43:17,
Last[1] - 13:13 43:19, 54:23, 54:25,
57:17 minute [9] - 17:5,
last[17] - 3:13, 4:11,
J 4:13, 5:14, 5:21, 8:1,
19:18, 22:13, 35:7, 55:3, 55:8, 55:10,
M 41:9, 45:23, 51:6, 55:21, 56:4, 56:7,
J.D [1]- 1:19 9:3, 31:12, 38:25,
58:8, 59:3 56:11, 56:14, 56:17,
January [2] - 44:20, 39:6, 42:11, 48:7, machine[11- 35:6
minutes [2] - 35:21, 57:1, 57:12, 57:15,
49:18 49:23, 53:10, 53:13, magnitude [1] - 9:24
60:3 57:20, 58:16, 60:10
Jimmy[2]- 5:20, 57:10, 59:20 major[1]- 15:25
mis - 46:23 MS[72] - 3:11, 4:8,
28:23 latitude [1]- 16:24 majority[2]- 16:16,
mis-characterizing [1] 5:3, 5:5, 6:10, 6:13,
job [1]- 58:24 law [17] - 12:16, 14:20, 57:16
- 46:23 6:18, 6:24, 7:2, 7:5,
John's [2] - 5:20, 17:3, 22:18, 23:18, man [1]- 34:8 7:8, 7:10, 8:6, 8:9,
misconduct[1] - 19:5
28:23 24:17, 25:1, 37:2, manager[1]- 49:10 8:12, 8:15, 8:17,
misinformed [1] -
Jon [3] - 5:12, 48:11, 50:3, 50:20, 51:14, manner[1] - 16:8 8:23, 9:1, 9:10, 9:15,
41:15
48:12 51:15, 51:25, 52:13, marker[2] - 36:13, 9:20, 10:6, 10:9,
miss [1] - 54:1
judge[io] - 17:5, 31:4, 55:10, 56:17 36:19 11:21, 12:1, 12:13,
31:8, 38:17, 54:17, missed [1]- 53:13
Law [2] - 1:19, 11:25 marking [1]- 37:4 12:16, 13:1, 13:16,
55:16, 56:13, 56:20, misstated [1] - 18:23
lawsuit[4] - 20:15, material [2] - 9:13, 14:3, 22:10, 44:10,
56:21, 56:24 MLive [2] - 33:19,
21:5, 21:8, 22:8 9:14 45:7, 45:16, 45:19,
Judge[4] - 1:15, 5:18, 34:10
lawyer[1] - 58:22 materials [1]- 14:8 45:22, 45:24, 46:2,
7:12, 34:25 Monday[1] - 3:1
lawyers [2] - 41:13, matter[3] - 18:17, 46:5, 46:10, 46:14,
judgement[2] - 43:13, months[1] - 22:9
41:15 18:18, 18:21 46:17, 46:19, 46:22,
43:16 morale [1] - 24:16
lays [3]- 40:7, 40:8, matters [4] - 11:9, 48:1, 48:3, 48:5,
judicial [2] - 17:4, 56:7 morning [1] - 3:24
45:15, 45:17, 46:4 50:6, 50:11, 50:14,
33:15 lead [2] - 5:19, 32:13 Most[1]- 19:12
mayor[1] - 27:6 50:17, 50:19, 50:23,
judiciary [1] - 17:12 lean [1] - 27:9 most[7] - 14:12,
McKee[1]- 61:19 51:4, 51:9, 51:12,
June [1] - 21:12 15:24, 16:16, 19:17,
least[3]- 7:23, 15:6, MCR [2] - 3:13, 39:1 52:3, 52:17, 52:22,
jury[1] - 43:15 55:6 23:15, 31:2, 44:6
mean [43]- 6:4, 6:11, 53:6, 53:10, 53:13,
justification [5] - Motion [9] - 3:8, 3:12,
leave [1] - 27:7 7:2, 7:3, 10:18, 11:3, 53:19, 53:24, 54:4,
17:15, 21:19, 59:14, 3:14, 3:20, 8:3, 39:8,
legal [1] - 14:12 13:4, 15:24, 18:8, 54:7, 54:9, 54:21,
59:19, 59:21 39:17, 41:10, 42:20
length [1] - 4:11 19:7, 21:8, 22:5, 59:4, 59:12, 60:11
justify [1] - 14:1 MOTION [1]- 1:8
lengths [1]- 18:24 22:6, 22:13, 23:9, MUSKEGON [2] - 1:4,
motion [8] - 4:10,
less [1] - 7:25 23:18, 24:3, 24:25, 61:4
4:17, 17:13, 39:4,
K letter[1]- 13:19 26:22, 27:2, 30:19,
50:25, 52:4, 53:5,
Muskegon [1]- 3:3
level [1] - 4:22 30:25, 34:11, 39:15, must[5] - 31:8, 33:22,
keep [3] - 29:19, 32:1, 59:20
life [1] - 30:14 40:23, 40:24, 41:5, 45:15, 45:19
57:4 motions[2]- 22:4,
limit[1]- 58:12 42:18, 44:23, 45:7,
keeping [1] - 21:15 44:7
Kent[9] - 11:5, 25:20, limited [11- 49:13 46:11, 46:19, 46:23,
motive [1]- 11:15
N
limits [1] - 30:24 48:22, 49:2, 49:5,
26:20, 29:6, 45:1, move[1]- 39:11 nailed [1] - 37:10
line [3]- 21:25, 36:14, 49:17, 49:24, 49:25,
45:10, 46:15, 47:21, moving [2] - 15:25, name[4] - 6:6, 6:9,
59:10 53:17, 56:9, 56:12
51:16 38:24 6:18, 27:17
Lisa [1] - 5:18 media [2] - 11:12,
kept[4]- 5:10, 5:16, MR poi - 4:5, 8:20, names[2] - 61:12
LISA [1]- 1:19 33:15
7:11, 17:8 14:5, 14:10, 14:16, narrowed [2] - 20:6,
list[5] - 4:7, 8:22, medium [1] - 57:1
key [1]- 29:7 14:19, 14:23, 14:25, 20:15
36:10, 40:1, 46:12 mentioned [2] - 14:14,
kind [15] - 9:8, 10:3, 15:18, 19:16, 19:22, narrowly[1] - 25:4
litigation [1]- 43:19 17:17
10:16, 16:1, 23:5, 19:25, 20:5, 20:20, nature[6]- 16:3,
live [1] - 58:22 merited [1] - 39:3
23:9, 29:1, 29:16, 21:3, 21:6, 21:9, 21:14, 24:11, 24:22,
lives [1] - 34:7 methods[1]- 56:22
31:4, 31:5, 31:12, 22:2, 22:15, 26:20, 29:5, 58:20

rtuuu v ult.)/ 01 ivul LON OfILMUS

necessarily [3]- 47:4, 35:19, 35:21, 35:22, online ]1] - 48:6 party [1] - 38:24 policy.[2] - 30:22,
49:1, 56:5 36:1, 36:5, 45:16 ooOoo ]1] - 60:14 passed [1] - 55:10 58:18
necessary [1] - 5:22 number[n]- 3:6, open [3] - 5:13, 6:15, paying [1] - 13:24 political [1] - 16:22
need [13] - 10:21, 8:11, 18:23, 36:15, 37:25 PD ]1] - 19:21 portion [3] - 4:10,
10:22, 12:7, 20:25, 37:21, 37:24, 38:1, opened [1] - 5:25 peel [1] - 53:17 31:3, 31:6
24:17, 36:23, 41:25, 40:23, 45:13, 51:20, opens[1] - 41:11 pejorative [1] - 7:25 portions [4]- 16:10,
47:4, 53:2, 54:14, 55:8 opinion [6] - 23:17, pension [3] - 13:14, 16:15, 23:1, 24:23
58:25, 59:13, 60:1 24:15, 31:3, 31:7, 13:18, 13:24 position [17] - 9:21,
needed [2] - 24:19, o 31:10, 31:21 people [1o] - 10:10, 17:10, 21:7, 21:24,
39:11 opportunity[6] - 10:20, 10:21, 10:24, 27:2, 31:7, 34:6,
Oakland [1] - 40:12
needs[2] - 10:13, 52:5 41:24, 44:2, 49:22, 13:24, 32:6, 32:20, 38:21, 39:5, 39:6,
objection [1] - 20:22
Newark [29] - 4:17, 49:25, 50:8, 58:18 33:7, 33:20 42:2, 42:22, 50:16,
objective [1]- 17:2
4:25, 7:13, 10:11, opposite [1] - 25:8 per[3]- 6:23, 54:25, 52:8, 52:10, 53:4,
objectively [1]- 31:24
11:6, 12:18, 13:7, oral [1] - 48:20 55:7 59:19
obligated ]1] - 11:4
18:15, 18:23, 18:24, ordering [2] - 52:14, perception [2] - 33:17, possibility[1]- 53:20
Obviously [1]- 55:18
19:8, 22:18, 23:8, 54:18 34:12 possible [2] - 20:8,
obviously[1]- 20:12
23:10, 23:15, 24:3, organization [2] - peremptorily [1] - 24:21
occurred [2] - 22:21,
25:8, 25:9, 26:20, 13:22, 14:19 28:15 possibly [1] - 41:20
25:6
29:6, 31:1, 37:13, original [4]- 8:4, 18:9, perform [1] - 60:6 post[4]- 43:13,
45:2, 46:20, 46:23, OF[7] - 1:2, 1:4, 1:8,
19:14, 22:21 perhaps[1] - 11:14 43:16, 44:4, 46:20
51:17, 54:15, 54:16 2:1, 61:3, 61:4, 61:9
outcome [1] - 55:11 period [1] - 33:12 post-judgement[2] -
News[12] - 9:6, 22:19, offended [3] - 31:15,
outcomes [1]- 48:9 person [4] - 1:17, 43:13, 43:16
25:4, 45:6, 45:14, 31:17, 31:18
outweighed [3] - 12:6, 33:21, 34:9, 49:5 post-trial [1] - 44:4
52:6, 54:15, 54:17, offered [1] - 17:12
38:15, 45:9 personal [3] - 11:8, potentially [2] - 19:5,
57:18, 57:24, 59:16, Office [2] - 13:20,
outweighs[1] - 11:7 23:11, 38:10 58:21
60:7 33:25
overall [1] - 4:19 personnel[13]- 5:18, precedential[1] - 56:5
newspapers [1] - office [2] - 7:23, 29:8
oversight[1] - 3:25 5:19, 7:12, 9:22, preclude[1] - 51:7
11:12 officer[ie] - 19:24,
own [2] - 34:20, 36:22 12:13, 12:17, 13:3, prefix [1] - 59:9
next[1]- 51:5 20:17, 21:1, 21:2,
13:10, 19:9, 24:4, prepare in - 11:17
nice [2]- 13:20, 58:24 21:13, 24:16, 27:22,
nine [6] - 35:12, 35:14, 28:24, 33:12, 34:6, P 24:16, 28:14, 29:11 present[1] - 44:20
pertains pi - 18:1 presentation [2] -
36:5, 36:10, 37:25, 34:16, 34:19, 35:17, P.M.[1]- 35:10
35:19 philosophical [1] - 57:6, 60:8
57:25 P70200[1]- 1:19
Officer[4] - 7:4, 30:22 pretty [3]- 37:10,
nobody[1] - 33:4 PAGE[2] - 2:2, 2:13
phone[1] - 32:15 38:16, 41:16
noncitizen [1] - 53:8 33:11, 33:22, 33:23 pages[9] - 11:16,
officer's [1] - 36:3 phonetically [1] - prevent[1] - 56:19
nondisclosure [2] - 25:23, 33:2, 57:9,
officer-involved [1] - 61:13 primarily ]2] - 6:5,
24:10, 47:2 57:13, 57:16, 58:14,
33:12 phrase [1] - 7:23 20:24
None [2] - 2:3, 2:14 61:7
officers [5] - 16:21, physically [1] - 9:17 primary [1] - 29:18
none [1] - 25:19 painted [1] - 34:5
26:2, 29:18, 32:17, picture [2] - 34:5, 37:6 privacy [1]- 37:18
nonetheless [1] - paper[2] - 6:7, 35:14
34:5 place [1] - 18:9 private [3] - 17:9,
13:18 paraphrase [1] - 29:20
official [3] - 30:2, places [1] - 29:3 21:15, 29:19
nonexempt[4] - 9:13, parsing [1] - 5:22
30:3, 30:6 plainly[1] - 31:23 problem [3] - 33:1,
23:4, 29:24 part[14] - 4:15, 4:18,
often [2]- 23:15, Plaintiff[2] - 1:7, 1:17 54:4, 54:18
normally [1]- 34:2 4:19, 4:24, 9:21,
34:10 plaintiff[1] - 11:6 problematic [1] -
NORTON [2]- 1:8, 13:8, 13:10, 15:4,
OK [1]- 4:6 play[1] - 13:4 55:18
61:10 17:4, 17:21, 18:11,
once [2] - 29:15, 37:14 plus [1]- 46:6 problems[1] - 52:16
Norton [13] - 3:5, 15:2, 21:4, 53:13, 57:17
one[29] - 4:13, 4:24, point[04] - 4:16, 4:20, proceed [1] - 55:23
15:5, 15:19, 19:21, Partial [2] - 39:22,
7:19, 8:17, 9:11, 10:11, 12:2, 37:1, proceeded [1] - 23:11
21:10, 22:17, 23:23, 39:24
10:3, 12:12, 15:5, 39:20, 41:14, 43:8, proceedings[8] -
31:22, 33:8, 34:20, partial [1]- 41:2
17:23, 18:23, 19:19, 43:21, 43:22, 44:1, 1:13, 35:8, 35:9,
44:19, 47:18 particular[8]- 9:16,
25:1, 25:23, 28:1, 51:2, 53:4, 60:5 44:4, 58:2, 58:3,
note[2]- 28:9, 61:12 17:7, 24:6, 24:19,
28:3, 30:1, 35:12, poised [1] - 50:4 60:12, 61:8
notes[7]- 11:17, 24:22, 30:21, 35:1,
35:16, 37:11, 38:11, Police [3] - 32:14, proceeds[1] - 23:20
22:6, 35:17, 35:18, 35:2
45:2, 52:11, 55:6, 44:19, 47:18 process lio]- 21:20,
35:23, 38:7, 38:10 particularized [10] -
55:7, 56:2, 57:23, police [12] - 15:22, 30:1, 40:9, 55:15,
nothing [2] - 12:4, 35:4, 38:18, 39:7,
58:13, 58:25 15:25, 16:6, 17:25, 55:16, 55:24, 57:15,
15:12 44:15, 46:25, 47:5,
One [3] - 3:17, 34:9, 18:2, 18:10, 21:1, 57:22, 57:24, 58:20
nothing's [1] - 12:8 47:16, 59:14, 59:19,
55:15 22:5, 30:3, 35:25, produce [3]- 15:6,
notice [1] - 33:15 59:21
ones[1] - 53:18 36:2 16:1, 25:10
Number[7]- 35:16, particularly[1]- 20:9
policies [1] - 44:19 produced [13] - 8:15,
6

EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT M
STATE OF MICHIGAN
CI : 2017
-004334-CZ
IN THE 14TH CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF 1 Ay: • CCR-O
RD
PROPOSED
DANIEL W.RUDD,
Plaintiff, Case No.2017-004334-CZ

v.
/CITY OF NORTON SHORES,
Defendant.
Daniel W.Rudd (Pro Se) Michael S. Bogren(P34835)
daniel@stockN.com 950 Trade Centre Way,Suite 310
Kalamazoo,Michigan 49002
(269-226-8822)
STIPULATED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ADDITIONAL TIME TO

COMPLY
WITH THIS COURT'S ORDER DATED MAY 3.2018
At a session ofthe Court held in the City of Muskegon,County

of Muskegon,State of Michigan on May ,2018
PRESENT: Honorable Timothy G. Hicks, Circuit Court Judge
This matter having come before the Court on Defendant's Emergency

Ex Parte
Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Motion for Reconsideration Decisi
on or, in the
alternative,for Additional Time to Comply with this Court's Order dated May
3, 2018,and
the Court having reviewed the Emergency Motion;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline
for Defendant City of Nort on Shores
to comply with the Court's Order and Opinion
Granting Partial Summary Disposition to
Each Party, dated May 3, 2018,is extended
to June 7,2018.
05/21/2018
( 10:02 AM
rilOthY G. HitHY G. HICKS: P-35198
0-n-igl
eRCIIIT
CIRCU IT COURT RIOGF
Ircuit Court jua
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
QPI L'‘ALA
Daniel W.Rudd (Pro Se)
Michael S. Bogren(P34835)
Lisa A. Hall(P70200)
Attorneys for Defendant
Open.00560.72801.20304491-1
2
EXHIBIT N
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DANIEL W. RUDD,
Defendant.
Daniel W.Rudd (Pro Se) Michael S. Bogren (P34835)
danielftstock20.com 950 Trade Centre Way,Suite 310
(269-226-8822)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY EXECUTION OF THE

MAY 3.2018 ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY DISPOSITION TO EACH
PARTY PENDING APPEAL
At a session of the Court held in the City of Muskegon, County

of Muskegon,State of Michigan on May , 2018
PRESENT: Honorable Timothy G. Hicks, Circuit Court Judge
This matter having come before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Stay of
Execution of the May 3, 2018 Order Granting Partial Summary Disposition to Each Party
Pending Appeal is hereby denied for the reasons stated in the record.
dfA
eit. fri t0 141
Timothy G. Hicks
Circuit Court Judge
Open.00560.72801.20331452-1
EXHIBIT O
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN
2 FOURTEEN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT (MUSKEGON COUNTY)
3 DANIEL W. RUDD,
4 Plaintiff, Circuit Court File No.

17-004334-CZ
5 v
6 CITY OF NORTON SHORES,
7 Defendant.
8 ______________________________/
10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY
11
BEFORE THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY G. HICKS, CIRCUIT JUDGE
12
Muskegon, Michigan - Monday, May 21, 2018
13
RECEIVED by MCOA 5/24/2018 3:28:47 PM

14 APPEARANCES:
15 Appearing in Pro Per: MR. DANIEL W. RUDD

201 S. Lake Avenue
16 Spring Lake, Michigan 49456
17
18 For the Defendant: MR. LISA A. HALL, P70200

Plunkett Cooney
19 38505 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
20 (313) 983-4801
21
22 TRANSCRIBED BY: Ms. Jennifer T. Adams, CER 9285

Certified Electronic Recorder
23 (231) 724-6305
24
25
JENNIFER T. ADAMS - CER 9285

OFFICIAL COURT RECORDER - 60th DISTRICT COURT
MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 WITNESSES: PLAINTIFF PAGE
2 None
5 WITNESSES: DEFENDANT PAGE
6 None
10
11
12
13 EXHIBITS MARKED ADMITTED

14 None
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
2
1 Muskegon, Michigan
2 Monday, May 21, 2018 – 10:06 a.m.
3 THE COURT: File number is 20174344CC -– CZ,
4 excuse me, Daniel Rudd versus the City of Norton Shores.
5 Ms. Hall, go ahead with your motion for stay.
6 MS. HALL: Thank you, your Honor.
7 THE COURT: You’re welcome.
8 MS. HALL: Your Honor, this is a motion to stay
9 execution of the May 3, 2018 order pending the appeal.
10 I’ll rely primarily on my motion and brief filed with the
11 Court, your Honor, and if you have any questions I’m happy
12 to answer. But as you know, the City of Norton Shores
13 filed a claim of appeal from the final order dated May 4,

14 2018 on May 11, 2018, which required the City of Norton
15 Shores to turn the citizen complaints over to Plaintiff,
16 Mr. Rudd. And also turn over four plus years of complete
17 files to the Court for its review along with the –-
18 THE COURT: The deadline now is extended to –-
19 MS. HALL: June 7, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Thank you.
21 MS. HALL: Yes, your Honor. And given the
22 pending appeal, your Honor, coupled with the fact that the
23 citizen complaints are already in the possession of the
24 Court, we’re seeking here a stay on the execution of the
25 order. One, to turn over more documents and two, to turn

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
3
1 the complaints over to Mr. Rudd given the pending appeal at
2 issue. Until the Court of Appeals can have a decision to
3 rule on the appeal we will file. If we have to turn over
4 the complaints, your Honor, it would render the appeal moot
5 essentially because they’re turned over to Mr. Rudd. And
6 so we are seeking a stay here today. The City should be
7 allowed to pursue its appeal before expending its public
8 resources and putting all these files together. And the
9 Court should frankly preserve its judicial resources in
10 having to review these otherwise exempt documents before
11 the claim of appeals makes a final ruling on the claim of
12 appeal filed. So, your Honor, if you have no other
13 questions were seeking a stay be entered on the order so

14 that we can finish the appeal and go through that process
15 and get a ruling back.
16 THE COURT: Ms. Hall, thank you.
19 MS. HALL: Oh, I will note I didn’t receive any
20 response from Mr. Rudd. So to the extent he wants to talk
21 today I would object, your Honor, just because at the last
22 hearing he indicated he wanted to oppose this and I haven’t
23 receive any sort of formal response. Which is why I
24 noticed this and did it out on May 21st and was forced to
25 come here previously for another hearing for the stay. So

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
4
1 I would just like to place that on the record.
2 THE COURT: Sure. Yea, you were here last week,
3 right?
4 MS. HALL: Yea, we were here last week. Thank
5 you, your Honor.
7 MR. RUDD: To first address the objection is
8 there a court rule that requires a written response that I
9 object?
10 THE COURT: Pretty much.
11 MS. HALL: There is, your Honor. And there is
12 actually strong case law that if you don’t file a response
13 you shouldn’t be able to provide an oral argument. The

14 Court of Appeals recently ruled on that in a matter, so I
15 would like to place that objection on the record.
16 MR. RUDD: So I think that I agree that there is
17 a court rule on precedence that supports that in some
18 cases, but I think in the particular instance as I noted
19 specially when we were here last week –-
20 THE COURT: Well, look it, you’re required to
21 file it. You didn’t but I’ll hear you out.
22 MR. RUDD: Okay.
23 THE COURT: The one thing that you have to
24 understand is that the brief educates me about what your
25 position is. You know, I try to get ready for the hearing

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
5
1 before I walk out here. So the brief is always helpful.
2 MR. RUDD: Okay.
3 THE COURT: But its -– I’m not going to hold it
4 against you here.
5 MR. RUDD: I appreciate that, your Honor. As I
6 noted last week the only thing that we did have this brief
7 here which articulates that they would like to have a stay
8 pending the appeal, but does not articulate specific basis
9 by which they intend to appeal. Especially the portion
10 where this Court ordered the disclosure of the citizen
11 complaints. What we have in the brief is basically a
12 reiteration of the same arguments that were presented in at
13 least two motions for summary disposition indicating that

14 based on Newark and its prodigy that they should not have
15 to turn over the citizen complaints. So I appreciate the
16 Court giving me some latitude. The two main things I’d
17 like to address today and if the Court wants me to take one
18 at a time I’d certainly follow your direction.
19 THE COURT: Well, I do have some familiarity
20 with the case –-
21 MR. RUDD: Right.
22 THE COURT: So brevity would be the best thing.
23 MR. RUDD: Okay. So my -– the two things I’d
24 like to focus on are why I believe the appeal will fail at
25 the Court of Appeals level. And I think that’s relevant to

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
6
1 the question of would it be better for this Court to decide
2 a stay is warranted or better for the Court of Appeals to
3 make that decision? And also part of that question, the
4 second thing to cover would be what prejudice would occur
5 if this Court were to issue a stay instead of requiring the
6 Defendant to make their case to the Court of Appeals.
7 The case that I think is most directly on point
8 for that question and also probably most directly on point
9 for this entire case. I mentioned it in the first hearing
10 that we had, but didn’t really ever have my opportunity to
11 present a very specific analysis because we were always
12 focused on, I think, the question of what Newark puts into
13 this legal dispute. But that case would be Federated

14 Publications Incorporated versus the City of Lansing, also
15 Capital City Lodge got involved in the case. This case
16 created an extensive body of case law which really is right
17 on point with the question of citizen complaints. Although
18 in this case the citizen complaints themselves were not an
19 issue. The trial court originally authorized or ordered
20 that the investigatory records themselves for a span of
21 time would be disclosed, but the trial court ordered that
22 it would only be the investigatory records themselves which
23 were generated by citizen complaints. And the court
24 ordered that those which were generated by internal
25 complaints would be withheld.

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
7
1 Now the Court of Appeals ended up reversing that
2 and saying no you should disclose more than that. Not just
3 the –- not just the triggering event, but the actual
4 investigatory records. And then the withholding public
5 body appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Really
6 interest -– and the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of
7 Appeals also -–
8 THE COURT: Are you still arguing the motion for
9 stay?
10 MR. RUDD: Yes, I am. I’m sorry, I’ll try to
11 really focus in on that. In every sense, at every point in
12 this decision it’s favorable to my case throughout. But
13 the really important thing for the stay question is the

14 opinion issued by the Supreme Court, which is a pretty
15 lengthily opinion, actually details that -–
16 THE COURT: Are you familiar with the case, Ms.
17 Hall?
18 MS. HALL: I am, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Okay. That helps.
20 MR. RUDD: The Supreme Court noted that when the
21 public body appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals
22 they moved for a stay. A stay of the order saying turnover
23 all the investigatory records that are generated by citizen
24 complaints. Initially, the Court of Appeals granted the
25 stay. It was an emergency motion, but then shortly

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
8
1 thereafter they over turned that decision and said no we’re
2 not going to stay this as it got into the merits of the
3 case. Then it issued an order saying no we’re going to
4 disclose more. And when it got to the Supreme Court the
5 withholding body wanted them to reexamine the question of
6 the citizen complaints, but they already had been disclosed
7 because without a stay they were required to just turn them
8 over. That was a very intentional decision by the Court of
9 Appeals. The Supreme Court notes in their decision that
10 had the public body wanted to address that they should have
11 immediately brought their motion for a stay of that order
12 to the Supreme Court so that they could decide that.
13 I think what we’re seeing there is a mechanism

14 to prevent what appears to be occurring in this case.
15 Where a public body who wishes to prevent disclosure of
16 certain documents or, at least, delay that for an extended
17 period of time can simply bring any kind of argument
18 whatsoever and, you know, keep pressing it, pressing it at
19 the trial court; at the Appeals Court all the way up to the
20 Supreme Court. And they can say hey we should have a stay
21 of the order saying you have to disclose these records
22 until this is done being litigated. And what we end up
23 looking at is years and years before the records get turned
24 over.
25 Now, Defendant has had their opportunity to make

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
9
1 a case for why Newark says that, you know, because these
2 are tangentially associated with internal affairs
3 investigation, garrity statements, those type of things
4 that they can share in this cloak of protection. They’ve
5 had ample opportunity to bring that exact argument and
6 really the brief that they presented here does not look
7 like they intend to go beyond that. It looks like it’s
8 just an attempt to keep going down that road with the Court
9 of Appeals. That is very unlikely to prevail in the Court
10 of Appeals, but it does pose the opportunity for those
11 records to be disclosed or not disclosed -- withheld for a
12 great period of time while that happens. So the burden
13 should be on them since they had their chance here in the

14 trial court and I believe the Court’s opinion is, you know,
15 its two pages of it explaining exactly why and its -– it
16 addresses that properly. The burden should be on them to
17 file an emergency motion for stay of appeal.
18 The Court of Appeals will be able to decide
19 based on the merits of whatever they are presenting which I
20 can’t argue today because I don’t know what they are going
21 to present to the Court of Appeals, exactly. But as far as
22 what they have disclosed in this brief it’s the same thing.
23 So it would make more sense for this Court to say if you
24 want that stay you’ve got to get that stay in the Court of
25 Appeals.

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
10
1 I do –- I would if the Court is inclined to
2 consider a stay I would plead with the Court to review the
3 decisions in Federated Publications before doing so. The
4 other case that I intended to present from, which is very
5 on point, it comes after the case I just mentioned. Both
6 of these cases and every other case that I found talk about
7 Newark and Kent County Sheriffs in the same way that this
8 Court has interpreted. Not the way the City of Norton
9 Shores does. The other case is a published decision.
10 Published on March 2, 2004 the Court of Appeals docket
11 number is 243400. This case also went kind of back and
12 forth all the way up to the Supreme Court. But an
13 interesting thing in both of these decisions in the Supreme

14 Court is that this Court’s determination on the
15 discretionary portion of this FOIA dispute is going to
16 enjoy a deferential standard. They’ll have to establish
17 clearly erroneous based on what they’re claiming about
18 Newark. I don’t think that’s going to fly. It didn’t fly
19 back in Federated 16 years ago.
20 Which interestingly enough, the case was brought
21 to the Supreme Court by Mary Massaron who is arguably one
22 of the finest appellate attorneys in Michigan. Who is very
23 successful on appeals regarding FOIA and she didn’t try to
24 take that stay request any further than the Court of
25 Appeals then. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
11
1 espoused the opinion of this Court -- espoused regarding
2 Newark then. I would actually be surprised if attorney
3 Massaron tries to present the same argument to the Court of
4 Appeals.
5 So I’m requesting that this Court will deny the
6 stay. I would also request that if the City of Norton
7 Shores withdraws the appeal I believe that I cannot file my
8 motion for reconsideration with this Court now that a claim
9 of appeal has been filed. If the Court wishes to give some
10 direction I am open to that, but I would hope that if the
11 City of Norton Shores withdraws the claim of appeal then I
12 would –- that would not prejudice my ability to raise some
13 of the issues which I would like to have this Court take a

14 look at again in the current opinion and order.
15 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
16 MR. RUDD: Thank you, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Ms. Hall, anything else?
18 MS. HALL: Your Honor, just briefly. I’m not
19 sure if -– I’m not sure as to the stay reiteration that he
20 gave as related to Federated Publications is accurate. I’d
21 have to go back and look at what the underlying stay issues
22 were, but I do believe a stay -– there was reasons -–
23 reasons behind why stays were pursued and not pursued in
24 that matter. And I don’t have the cases in front of me and
25 wasn’t provided a brief to reply to, so if the Court would

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
12
1 like a response I’m happy to do that. But, your Honor,
2 here the issue is, we believe that the citizen complaints,
3 this is different than Federated Publications. One,
4 Federated Publications everything was turned -– everything
5 was ordered to be turned over, and there was -– even the
6 internal investigation complaints were and then that went
7 down and the Court of Appeals said no they don’t have to be
8 turned over, but in the meantime citizen complaints were
9 disclosed which rendered that issue moot. And I believe --
10 I’m not sure what the underlying reason was for why they
11 were disclosed, but the point is our issue on appeal is
12 whether or not we have to turn the citizen complaints over.
13 So if this order is not stayed then one, I have to come

14 here first. So Mr. Rudd indicated that the Court of
15 Appeals should be –- I have to come here first and ask you.
16 If you deny it, your Honor, we’ll go to the Court of
17 Appeals and seek the relief. But I think it makes since in
18 this case. I believe that –- I think that there’s a strong
19 chance we will prevail I think in this particular instance.
20 Mr. Rudd did not show that the balancing test
21 was met to show that the citizen complaints should be
22 disclosed. So I’m asking that a stay be entered so that we
23 can pursue the claim of appeal. And really in this case,
24 it’s different as well, because the Court already has all
25 of the citizen complaints. So there’s no -– there’s no

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
13
1 prejudicial effect here. There’s nothing that’s going to
2 be destroyed or lost like Mr. Rudd alleges. So, your Honor,
3 we’re asking that the stay be granted.
4 THE COURT: All right. Thanks. Today’s
5 argument covers some of the same ground we’ve covered
6 before. That is implicit I think in a motion for stay. The
7 Courts persuaded on balance that the Court should deny the
8 motion for stay. I think it’s -– life is complicated
9 enough without forcing folks into emergency postures when
10 that can be avoided. And I think at this point this gives
11 the City a couple of weeks to pursue the stay with the
12 Court of Appeals. But I think on the record that this
13 Court has now -- the Court’s denying the motion for a stay.

14 Now, the tricky part is you guys properly want
15 an order almost right away, don’t you? Do you have one
16 with you Ms. Hall?
17 MS. HALL: I do have one here just denying the
18 stay.
19 THE COURT: Great. Why don’t you show it to Mr.
20 Rudd and I’ll sign it if it’s appropriate.
21 MS. HALL: Sure.
22 MR. RUDD: It’s just copies?
23 MS. HALL: Yea.
24 MR. RUDD: Looks good to me.
25 MS. HALL: Thank you.

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
14
1 MR.RUDD: Your Honor, can I also note I agree
2 with attorney Hall. I wasn’t trying to convey it was in
3 appropriate to ask for the stay here. I was hoping that it
4 wouldn’t be granted.
5 THE COURT: Sure.
6 MR. RUDD: But it had to be done here.
7 THE COURT: Thank you. So both of you approve
8 this order as to form?
9 MS. HALL: Yes.
10 MR. RUDD: Yes, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Thank you. I will sign it and date
12 it.
13 Mr. Rudd, you’re inviting the Court to talk to

14 about –- I think give direction about the motion for
15 reconsideration. I disagree with the court rules. I know
16 that there’s a little bit of chess that goes on in
17 orchestrating these things. And the Court will consider
18 any motion that it can, that is properly before the Court.
19 Thank you.
20 MR. RUDD: Thank you, your Honor.
22 (At 10:23 a.m., proceeding concluded)
23
24
25

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
15
1 I certify that this transcript, consisting of 16 pages, is
2 a complete, true and correct transcript of Daniel W. Rudd versus
3 City of Norton Shores Defendant’s Motion to Stay and testimony
4 taken in this case on Monday, May 21, 2018.
8 May 23, 2018 ______________________________

Date JENNIFER T. ADAMS – CER 9285
9 60th District Court
990 Terrace Street
10 Muskegon, Michigan 49442
11
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
16

Norton Shores Seeks Emergency Review On Application To The Michigan Supreme Court

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Norton Shores Seeks Emergency Review On Application To The Michigan Supreme Court

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RECEIVED by MSC 6/1/2018 4:09:55 PM

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Plaintiff-Appellee, Supreme Court Case No. ____________

Court of Appeals Case No. 343759

Hon. Timothy G. Hicks

NOTICE OF FILING APPLICATION

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

By: MARY MASSARON (P43885)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Plaintiff-Appellee, Supreme Court Case No.

Court of Appeals Case No. 343759

Hon. Timothy G. Hicks

NOTICE OF FILING APPLICATION

Defendant-Appellant City of Norton Shores, states that on June 1, 2018,their

By: /s/ Mary Massaron

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Plaintiff-Appellee, Supreme Court Case No. ____________

Court of Appeals Case No. 343759

Hon. Timothy G. Hicks

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

By: MARY MASSARON (P43885)

Booth Newspapers, Inc v University of Michigan Board of Regents,

MCL 15.231........................................................................................................................................................ iv, 1

7.303(B)(1) and MCR 7.305(C)(3) and should do so here.

If Defendant-Appellant is required to comply with the circuit court’s order compelling it to

DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DENYING THE CITY’S

Plaintiff-Appellee, Daniel W. Rudd, says, “No.”

Defendant-Appellant, City of Norton Shores, says “Yes.”

The Muskegon County Circuit Court says, “No.”

The Court of Appeals says, “No.”

Plaintiff-Appellee, Daniel W. Rudd (“Rudd”), sued Defendant-Appellant, City of

disclose citizen complaints and departmental responses to them.

documents by June 7, 2018.

disclose documents that are exempt under FOIA.

1. Rudd’s FOIA request sought any documents related to complaints against

request submitted to the City:

Any/all complaints submitted against the Norton Shores Police Department’s

(Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 1/12/18, ¶ 6; Exhibit D, Defendant’s

City of Norton Shores denied this request stating:

15.243(1)(s)(ix), which exempts personnel records of a law enforcement agency from

individual’s or group’s expectation of privacy. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-25).

nondisclosure. (Id., pp 6-9).

are subject to disclosure under FOIA. (Id., p 3).

investigations that follow. (Id., pp 10-13).

3 The City renews its motion for summary disposition

Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition, p 11).

Supplemental Brief in Support of Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition).

Disposition to Each Party, pp 3-4).

3, 2018 order to June 7, 2018. (Exhibit M, 5/21/2018 Order Granting Defendant

Additional Time to Comply).

not outweigh the public’s strong interest in nondisclosure.

transform disclosed records into non-disclosed records.” (Id. at 113). Federated

appeal to this Court. (Id.).

the loss of its right of appeal if it releases them.

The Court Of Appeals Erred In Denying The City’s

A. Michigan’s Legislature accorded special consideration to an exemptible class

Michigan’s Legislature enacted the Freedom of Information Act to provide for

harmed if certain categories of information required disclosure.

In particular, the Michigan Freedom of Information Act exempts personnel records

of law enforcement agencies from automatic disclosure. MCL 15.243(s) provides:

(i) Identify or provide a means of identifying an informer.

(ii) Identify or provide a means of identifying a law enforcement

(iii) Disclose the personal address or telephone number of law