If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HASSAN M. AHMAD, UNPUBLISHED June 20, 2019 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 341299 Court of Claims UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, LC No. 17-000170-MZ Defendant-Appellee. Before: CAMERON, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and TUKEL, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this action brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq., plaintiff, Hassan M. Ahmad, appeals as of right the November 20, 2017 order of the Court of Claims granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, the University of Michigan (“the University”), pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim). Because plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima facie claim under the FOIA, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Claims and remand. I. BASIC FACTS Plaintiff challenges the University’s denial of his FOIA request. Dr. John Tanton—“an ophthalmologist and conservationist,” according to the University, and “a figure widely regarded as the grandfather of the anti-immigration movements,” according to plaintiff—donated his personal writings, correspondence, and research (collectively, “the Tanton papers”) to the Bentley Library’s collection. His donation included 25 boxes of papers, but boxes 15-25 were to remain closed for 25 years from the date of accession, i.e., until April 2035, purportedly in accordance with the terms of the gift.1 1 The University indicates that the restriction is memorialized in a charitable gift agreement, but that agreement is not contained in the lower court record. Regardless, plaintiff in his complaint has referenced the existence of the agreement and has acknowledged that the records were -1- Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with the University, seeking all of the Tanton papers, including those found in boxes 15-25 and marked as “closed.” The University eventually denied plaintiff’s request, asserting that the Tanton papers were closed to research until April 2035 and were therefore not “public records” subject to FOIA disclosure because they were not “utilized, possessed, or retained in the performance of any official University function.” Following plaintiff’s unsuccessful administrative appeal, he filed suit in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims granted the University’s motion for summary disposition, concluding that the Tanton papers are not “public records.” This appeal followed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo on appeal. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) is appropriately granted if the plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. . . . A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 (quotations marks and citations omitted). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court accepts as true and construes in a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals