FOIA Request #26-45: Migration Timelines — Improperly Denied
Filed: February 19, 2026
Response: February 26, 2026
Status: DENIED — Densmore Exception (Improper)
What Was Requested
I requested any records reflecting planned, estimated, or revised timelines for completion of the data migration to ProsecutorbyKarpel.
This request sought specific project management documents showing:
- When was the migration originally scheduled to be complete?
- Were timelines revised during the project?
- What milestones were planned and when were they expected?
- Did the project experience delays?
What Was Provided
NOTHING.
The Prosecutor’s Office refused to provide any documents.
What Was Supposed to Be Provided
The response acknowledged that responsive documents exist, specifically identifying these email exchanges:
- Email exchange dated 10/17/2023
- Email exchange dated 12/18/2023
- Email exchange dated 01/23/2024
- Email exchange dated 01/29/2024
- Email exchange dated 05/13/2024
All of these emails span the pre-Go Live period (October 2023 through May 2024) and almost certainly contain planning documents, timeline discussions, and schedule revisions.
Reason for Denial
The Prosecutor’s Office denied the request under Densmore v Department of Corrections, claiming these documents were “already provided” in FOIA Request #26-44.
Their response stated:
“As you have not provided good cause to require the reproduction of these responsive documents, pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections… these documents will not be reproduced under this FOIA Request.”
Why This Denial Is Improper
This denial violates the Michigan Freedom of Information Act and misapplies the Densmore exception. Here’s why:
1. Different Request Entirely
FOIA Request #26-44 asked for:
“Any records reflecting the current status of the data migration…including whether the migration is complete or ongoing.”
FOIA Request #26-45 asks for:
“Any records reflecting planned, estimated, or revised timelines for completion of the data migration.”
These are fundamentally different requests seeking different information:
- #26-44: Status (complete vs. ongoing)
- #26-45: Timelines (dates, schedules, estimates)
Knowing that a migration is “complete” does not tell you:
- When it was originally scheduled to be complete
- Whether the timeline was revised during the project
- What milestones were planned
- Whether the project was on time or delayed
2. Different Information Sought
The information sought in Request #26-45 cannot be derived from the documents provided in Request #26-44. The 156 pages of emails from #26-44 show the migration process and communications, but they do not contain:
- A clear project timeline document
- Estimated completion dates
- Revised completion dates
- Formal project schedules
- A document showing original planned timelines vs. actual completion
After reviewing the #26-44 response, I realized the specific timeline information was missing. That’s exactly why I filed the follow-up request.
3. The Densmore Exception Does Not Apply
The Densmore exception, 203 Mich App 363 (1994), applies only when:
- The SAME records are requested
- The requester has NO justification for the duplicate request
In this case:
- I am NOT seeking the same records as #26-44
- I am seeking different information (timelines vs. status)
- I have a legitimate justification — the previous response did not clearly provide the timeline information
Densmore was designed to prevent harassment through repeated requests for the same documents — not to prevent legitimate follow-up inquiries that arise naturally from reviewing previously provided documents.
4. Legitimate Reason for Follow-Up Request
After receiving and reviewing the 156 pages from Request #26-44, I discovered that while the emails discussed various aspects of the migration, they did not clearly or comprehensively provide the specific timeline information I was seeking.
The Michigan Supreme Court has consistently held that Densmore does not apply when a requester has a legitimate reason for seeking similar documents. The legitimate reason here is clear: the previous response did not contain the timeline information sought.
What Should Be Provided
The Prosecutor’s Office should provide the five email exchanges they acknowledged exist:
- Email exchange dated 10/17/2023 — Early planning correspondence likely containing initial timeline estimates
- Email exchange dated 12/18/2023 — Planning during implementation, likely discussing schedules
- Email exchange dated 01/23/2024 — Technical implementation timeline details
- Email exchange dated 01/29/2024 — Follow-up on scheduling or milestones
- Email exchange dated 05/13/2024 — Pre-Go Live timeline confirmation
These emails span the entire implementation period and almost certainly contain the timeline information the public deserves to see.
Why This Matters
With over $109,000 in confirmed taxpayer funds spent on the ProsecutorbyKarpel system (see our analysis of FOIA #25-201 and #26-46), the public has a right to know:
- Was the migration completed on schedule?
- Were there delays during implementation?
- How much did delays cost taxpayers (if any)?
- Was the June 10, 2024 Go Live date the original target or a revision?
Timeline transparency is fundamental to good government:
- Accountability: If the project experienced delays, the public deserves to know why
- Fiscal Responsibility: Delays typically cost money. The public deserves to know if the full cost includes delay-related expenses
- Planning for Future Projects: Understanding whether this project stayed on schedule helps evaluate the Prosecutor’s Office’s project management capabilities
- Transparency: The public should not have to guess whether a $100,000+ project was completed on time
The refusal to provide these documents suggests the Prosecutor’s Office may have something to hide about the project’s timeline and management.
The Pattern
This denial is part of a disturbing pattern of obstruction:
| FOIA Request | What Was Asked | Response | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| #26-44 | Migration status | 156 pages of emails | Granted (but incomplete) |
| #26-45 | Migration timelines | NOTHING | DENIED |
| #26-56 | Data exclusions | NOTHING | DENIED |
| #26-57 | Full financial records | NOTHING | DENIED |
Three separate FOIA requests, three improper denials — all using the same “Densmore” excuse. This is not a coincidence. It’s a systematic effort to block public oversight of the ProsecutorbyKarpel project.
What’s Next
An appeal of this denial has been filed with the Delta County Board of Commissioners. The appeal argues that:
- Densmore does not apply because different information is sought
- The five identified email exchanges contain unique timeline information not provided in #26-44
- The public has a right to know whether the $100,000+ project was completed on schedule
- The refusal to provide these documents violates FOIA’s transparency mandate
The Board of Commissioners has the authority to reverse this improper denial and order the documents released.
UPDATE: As of this writing, appeals have been filed for Requests #26-45, #26-56, and #26-57. The Delta County Board of Commissioners is considering these appeals. We will update this page as the appeals process unfolds.
Leave a comment