In August 2017, Tooles sued the commission, claiming the agency’s responses violated FOIA. After litigation began, the commission voluntarily turned over the requested records in April 2018. A trial court later found Tooles had prevailed on this issue but awarded only $11,396.68 in attorney fees, significantly less than Tooles had requested.
Dispute Over Fee Award
The trial judge limited the fee award to pre-April 2018 litigation, rejecting Tooles’ claim for fees incurred after receiving the requested records. The court also reduced the fees based on an adjusted hourly rate and a finding that Tooles had prevailed on only one of its 11 claims.
Tooles appealed, arguing that the April 2018 production of records did not resolve the entire case, as further litigation was required to secure a dispositive ruling. The company claimed this limitation undermines FOIA’s intent to deter agencies from withholding records.
In contrast, the road commission argued that awarding post-disclosure fees is unnecessary, as the case was effectively moot after Tooles received the requested documents. The commission also asserted that Tooles unnecessarily prolonged litigation, inflating costs.
Michigan Supreme Court Review
The state’s highest court will consider whether FOIA permits or prohibits awarding “fees for fees”—costs incurred while litigating a party’s entitlement to attorney fees. The court will also address whether attorney fees should extend to litigation after the public records at issue are disclosed.
