Michigan Court of Appeals Holds No Definitive Timeline for Fulfilling FOIA Requests

On Dec. 11, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed a complaint brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) that challenged the amount of time public bodies have to fulfill records requests under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan v City of Grand Rapids, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Case No. 373417 (Dec. 11, 2025). In March 2023, the ACLU submitted a FOIA request to the City of Grand Rapids seeking public records related to the City’s delays in fulfilling other FOIA requests in the past. The City responded to the ACLU’s request in April 2023, estimating that it would take 2 hours and 15 minutes to complete the request, but that it would take 8 to 10 months to provide the records. The ACLU filed a complaint asserting that a delay of 8 to 10 months to provide records pursuant to a FOIA request that only requires 2 hours and 15 minutes to fulfill “constructively denied” their FOIA request.

The City produced the requested record in June 2024, taking over 13 months to produce the records after its initial response to the ACLU. In its review of the case, the Michigan Court of Appeals determined the core of the parties’ dispute was whether FOIA imposes any strict deadlines for public bodies in fulfilling FOIA requests, even though FOIA does not contain any express provisions that provide a timeframe for fulfillment.

The Court analyzed the statutory provisions of FOIA to determine whether any timeframe existed for fulfilling FOIA requests. While FOIA provides that public bodies “shall furnish a requesting person a reasonable opportunity for inspection and examination” of public records, the Court held that this provision specifically applies to the time allowed and the setting provided for personal inspection, examination, and copying of records. The ACLU did not request to inspect, examine, or copy records in an environment provided by the City; instead, they requested the City to provide the records. Therefore, the Court determined that this provision was inapplicable.

The only provision addressing any timeframe for fulfilling FOIA requests is when a public body requires a good-faith deposit for record requests exceeding 50 dollars. Under these circumstances, FOIA requires the public body to provide a “best efforts estimate” of the “timeframe it will take the public body to comply with the law in providing the public records to the requestor.” Here, the Court easily concluded that the City complied with this requirement when it estimated the request would take 8 to 10 months to fulfill.

Further, the Court found that there is no binding authority addressing the timeframe within which public bodies must provide records pursuant to a FOIA request. Although the Court noted that there are remedies available under FOIA if a public body “has arbitrarily and capriciously violated FOIA by refusal or delay in disclosing or providing copies of public records[,]” the ACLU did not allege that the City acted arbitrarily or capriciously in taking over 13 months to produce the requested records. The ACLU urged the Court to establish a rebuttable presumption that a public body must begin fulfilling a FOIA request within 30 days of the requestor’s deposit, and a firm deadline of 90 days by which record productions must be complete, barring extraordinary circumstances. The Court declined to adopt such deadlines, as doing so would be “impos[ing] deadlines that the Legislature has not seen fit to impose” itself. Therefore, based on a plain reading of FOIA, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that there are no definitive timelines that public bodies must comply with in fulfilling records requests.

If you have questions regarding this article, please contact Alexander S. Lindamood or a member of Clark Hill’s Education and Municipal Law team.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.