FOLLOW US

The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to review a long-running legal battle involving Tooles Contracting Group LLC, a minority-owned construction company, and the Washtenaw County Road Commission. The case concerns whether Tooles is entitled to additional attorney fees for time spent litigating its right to fees in a lawsuit under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The court's review follows a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals that limited Tooles' attorney fee award, citing the company’s role in prolonging the litigation.

Background of the Case

Tooles, a bidder on a $7 million contract to construct a service center for the road commission in 2017, alleged the commission violated FOIA by failing to disclose records regarding its "hiring or utilization of minority-owned and/or disadvantaged business entities." Although Tooles submitted the lowest bid, the road commission awarded the contract to another company and claimed it had no such records regarding minority-owned contractors.

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.

Tooles contends that denying such fees could embolden government agencies to deny FOIA requests, knowing that requesters may drop cases due to high legal costs. "The threat of attorney fees is an important deterrent," Tooles argued in its petition.

The road commission, however, described Tooles' actions as “gamesmanship” and insisted the awarded fees were fair given the circumstances.

Broader Implications

The case presents an opportunity for the Michigan Supreme Court to clarify how FOIA’s fee-shifting provisions apply when disputes extend beyond document production. Advocates for open government suggest a ruling in Tooles’ favor could strengthen FOIA enforcement by ensuring plaintiffs are not discouraged from pursuing valid claims.