DAVID E BLOCH V DAVISON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID E. BLOCH,
UNPUBLISHED
July 29, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 290709
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 08-089820-CZ
DAVISON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and SAAD and SERVITTO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, David Bloch, appeals the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to
defendant, Davison Community Schools. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In the spring of 2008, plaintiff made requests for numerous documents from defendant
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231, et seq.1 Among other documents,
plaintiff asked for copies of four reports someone at Davison Central Elementary School made to
Child Protective Services (CPS) about alleged sexual abuse by plaintiff involving his daughter,
1
Plaintiff requested the personnel file for the principal of Davison Central Elementary School,
job descriptions and information about the qualifications for the positions of principal and
counselor in the Davison schools, guidelines for counselors and teachers for reporting child
abuse, reports to Child Protective Services about plaintiff’s alleged abuse of his daughter and any
meeting notes, letters, statements and notes from telephone conversations about plaintiff’s
alleged abuse. Plaintiff also asked for information on state certification requirements for
elementary school guidance counselors. The record reflects that, except for the reports drafted
for CPS, defendant fully complied with plaintiff’s FOIA request and sent plaintiff personnel
records, information about job descriptions and qualifications, reporting requirements, as well as
reports, notes and letters about the alleged child abuse. Indeed, the only documents that were
withheld or redacted were four one-page reports made by an employee of the defendant school
district directly to CPS. The record also reflects that plaintiff obtained numerous documents
directly from CPS concerning the child abuse allegations and investigations that followed the
reports from the defendant school district. We also note that plaintiff has another case pending
in this Court in which he is seeking damages for allegedly false accusations of child abuse that
his ex-wife made during their rancorous divorce.
-1-
who was enrolled as a second-grader at the school. Defendant’s FOIA officer declined to give
plaintiff the reports sent to CPS, citing the Child Protection Law (CPL), MCL 722.625, and an
exemption under FOIA, MCL 15.243(1)(b)(iv). Plaintiff appealed the decision to defendant’s
superintendent, who ultimately sent plaintiff the documents, but redacted all of the text from
each one. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint and asked the court to order defendant to
disclose his requested documents.
Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10)
and argued that plaintiff may not have the reports defendant’s employee sent to CPS because
they are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Specifically, defendant argued that because the
CPL states that the names of mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse must be kept
confidential, and because the reports are handwritten and in a narrative form that would identify
the reporter, the documents are exempt from disclosure under MCL 15.243(1)(b)(iv). Defendant
further asserted that, under MCL 15.243(1)(l) of FOIA, counseling facts or evaluations of a
person may not be disclosed “if the individual’s identity would be revealed by a disclosure of
those facts or evaluation.” Because the reports relate to the counseling of a child and contain
information that would readily identify plaintiff’s daughter, defendant argued that plaintiff, as a
member of the public, may not obtain disclosure of the documents. Defendant further argued
that disclosing documents that would reveal the identity of a reporter of suspected child abuse
would have a chilling effect on those who are required to convey allegations of suspected child
abuse to CPS.
In response, plaintiff argued that defendant’s employees did not act in good faith when
they reported suspected child abuse of his daughter to CPS and that this precludes application of
the confidential source exemption under FOIA. He further argued that defendant should have
typed the documents and redacted only the information that would reveal the identity of the child
and the reporter. Plaintiff emphasized that his requested disclosure would not be to the “public,”
but would be made privately to him. He also made various factual allegations about the conduct
of individual school employees and their relationship with his ex-wife, with whom he was
engaged in acrimonious divorce proceedings.
We hold that the trial court correctly granted summary disposition to defendant. Though
the trial court did not cite the specific subrule on which it relied in granting defendant’s motion,
the record indicates that it agreed with defendant’s argument, which was based on letters and
other documentary evidence outside of the pleadings. Accordingly, we review the decision
under MCR 2.116(C)(10). As this Court explained in Bialick v Megan Mary, Inc, 286 Mich App
359, 362; 780 NW2d 599 (2009):
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary
disposition made under MCR 2.116(C)(10) de novo. Dressel v Ameribank, 468
Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003). When deciding a motion for summary
disposition under this rule, a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits,
depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence then filed in the action
or submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
MCR 2.116(G)(5); Wilson v Alpena Co Rd Comm, 474 Mich 161, 166; 713
NW2d 717 (2006). “Summary disposition is appropriate only if there are no
genuine issues of material fact, and ‘the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
-2-
matter of law.’ ” Bragan v Symanzik, 263 Mich App 324, 327-328; 687 NW2d
881 (2004) (citation omitted).
Also, we review a trial court’s legal determination in a FOIA case de novo. Herald Co, Inc v
Eastern Mich Univ Bd of Regents, 475 Mich 463, 471-472; 719 NW2d 19 (2006).
Here, it is undisputed that the person who reported to CPS child abuse allegations made
by plaintiff’s daughter was a mandatory reporter under the CPL. The CPL specifically requires
that a school teacher or counselor “who has reasonable cause to suspect child abuse or neglect
shall make immediately, by telephone or otherwise, an oral report, or cause an oral report to be
made, of the suspected child abuse or neglect to [CPS].” MCL 722.623(1)(a). Thereafter,
“[w]ithin 72 hours after making the oral report, the reporting person shall file a written report as
required in this act.” Id. The act also specifically provides that “the identity of a reporting
person is confidential subject to disclosure only with the consent of that person or by judicial
process.” MCL 722.625. There is no evidence to suggest that the person who reported the
suspected sexual abuse of plaintiff’s daughter consented to a revelation of his or her identity.
For purposes of plaintiff’s FOIA request, under MCL 15.243(1), a public body may
exempt from disclosure “[i]nvestigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes” to the
extent the records would “[d]isclose the identity of a confidential source” as well as “information
specifically described and exempted from disclosure by statute.” Because the reports were
handwritten and in narrative form with various factual references, the trial court agreed with
defendant that disclosure would reveal the identity of the person who reported the abuse
allegations to CPS, in violation of the clear requirement in the CPL that the identity of the
reporter remain confidential. Accordingly, the trial court correctly ruled that there is a
particularized justification to deny disclosure. The Evening News Ass’n v City of Troy, 417 Mich
481, 503, 516; 339 NW2d 421 (1983). The clear statutory duty to maintain the confidentiality of
a reporter of suspected child abuse compels our conclusion that the documents are exempt from
disclosure under FOIA. To allow the revelation of a reporter’s identity through a simple FOIA
request would not only run afoul of the CPL, it would expose a reporter of suspected child abuse
to potential retribution from the alleged perpetrator and would have a significant chilling effect
on a reporter’s willingness to alert CPS to information critical to the protection and welfare of
the child.
Though plaintiff claims that defendant was required to separate the exempt from the
nonexempt material in order to facilitate disclosure, the entire report was exempt because it was
handwritten and, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion that defendant should have typed the reports to
hide the identity of the reporter, the FOIA “does not require a public body to create a new public
record” in order to satisfy a disclosure request. MCL 15.233(5).
We also reject plaintiff’s assertion that, because the reporter did not act in good faith, the
confidential source exemption does not apply. Plaintiff is referring to MCL 722.625, which
provides that, “[a] person acting in good faith who makes a report, cooperates in an investigation,
or assists in any other requirement of this act is immune from civil or criminal liability that might
-3-
otherwise be incurred by that action.” Plaintiff has not presented evidence that defendant or its
employees acted in bad faith but, in any case, the provision referring to the confidential identity
of a reporting person does not contain the same “good faith” requirement in the immunity
provision.2
Affirmed.
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
2
We reject plaintiff’s assertion that defendant was required to follow protocols adopted by CPS
with regard to disclosure of documents. Plaintiff has not shown that FOIA requires that CPS
make disclosure decisions when a request is made to another public body or entity like
defendant, a school district. We are also unpersuaded by plaintiff’s allegation that defendant’s
employees somehow violated the CPL. Plaintiff’s complaint merely sought disclosure of
documents under FOIA, the trial court ruled on that issue, and we limit our analysis to plaintiff’s
appeal of that ruling under FOIA.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
