FOIA Request #26-56: Data Exclusions — Critical Information Withheld
Filed: February 24, 2026
Response: February 26, 2026
Status: DENIED — Densmore Exception (Improper)
What Was Requested
I requested any records identifying specific categories of data that WILL NOT be transferred from the old legacy system (Adult/Juvenile Case Tracking, or ACT/JCT) to the new ProsecutorbyKarpel system.
Specific examples of what I asked about:
- Historical cases
- Case dispositions
- Notes
- Plea agreements
- Attachments
- Any other data categories that were not migrated
This request was designed to answer a critical question: What information was permanently left behind when the Prosecutor’s Office transitioned to a new system that cost over $100,000?
What Was Provided
NOTHING.
The Prosecutor’s Office refused to provide any documents.
What Was Supposed to Be Provided
The response acknowledged that a responsive document exists:
- Email exchange dated 12/18/2023
This email, dated two months after the ProsecutorbyKarpel contract was signed, almost certainly contains information about which data categories were being considered for exclusion from the migration.
Reason for Denial
The Prosecutor’s Office denied the request under Densmore v Department of Corrections, claiming these documents were “already provided” in FOIA Requests #26-44 and #26-45.
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 is not just improper — it’s alarming. Here’s why:
1. Completely Different Request
This request asks about DATA EXCLUSIONS — what was NOT migrated.
Previous requests:
- #26-44: Migration status (complete vs. ongoing)
- #26-45: Migration timelines (dates and schedules)
These are fundamentally different questions:
- Status: Is the migration done?
- Timelines: When was it scheduled to be done?
- Exclusions: What data was left behind?
These are three completely different types of information. Knowing whether a migration is “complete” tells you nothing about whether historical case records, plea agreements, or disposition notes were preserved.
2. We Already Know Data Was Excluded
The February 6, 2024 email provided in Request #26-44 states:
“They don’t want everything in Karpel as we don’t want to pay for additional storage at this time.”
This email confirms:
- Deliberate decisions were made about what data to exclude
- The exclusion was driven by cost — saving on storage fees
- Someone (“they”) in the Prosecutor’s Office made these decisions
The question is not whether data was excluded — we already know it was. The question is WHICH data was excluded.
3. The Densmore Exception Does Not Apply
Densmore applies only when:
- The SAME records are requested
- There is NO justification for the duplicate request
In this case:
- I am NOT seeking the same records as #26-44 or #26-45
- I am seeking records about data exclusions, not status or timelines
- I have a clear, compelling justification: the February 6, 2024 email revealing that data was excluded to save money
The Michigan Supreme Court has consistently held that Densmore does not apply when follow-up requests seek different information or arise from reviewing previous responses.
4. This Information Was Never Provided
Neither Request #26-44 nor #26-45 provided any documentation about which data categories were excluded from migration. The 156 pages of emails from #26-44 contain the admission that exclusions occurred, but they do NOT specify:
- Which historical cases were not migrated
- Whether plea agreements were preserved
- Whether disposition notes were transferred
- Whether case attachments were included
- What the complete list of excluded data is
That information exists in the December 18, 2023 email — and the Prosecutor’s Office is refusing to release it.
Why This Matters
This is not just a technical question about data migration. It’s a question about justice, accountability, and the permanent loss of public records.
Justice System Implications
If data was excluded from migration, that has real-world consequences:
For Defendants:
- May not have access to complete case histories
- Cannot review plea agreements from before June 2024
- May lack evidence needed for appeals
For Victims:
- Cannot track case outcomes
- May not have access to disposition information
- Cannot understand how their cases were resolved
For Attorneys:
- Cannot build comprehensive defense strategies
- Lack access to historical precedent
- Cannot verify plea deal histories
For the Public:
- Cannot hold prosecutors accountable for past decisions
- Cannot track conviction rates or plea deal patterns
- Loses transparency into the justice system
The Cost-Driven Decision
The February 6, 2024 email reveals that data exclusions were driven by a desire to “not pay for additional storage.”
This raises critical questions:
- How much storage capacity is the Prosecutor’s Office paying for?
- What is the annual storage cost?
- Is saving on storage fees worth losing access to historical records?
- Were alternative solutions considered (e.g., archiving, cloud storage, one-time migration costs)?
- Who made the decision to prioritize cost over completeness?
The Public’s Right to Know
Taxpayers have invested over $109,000 in the ProsecutorbyKarpel system. They deserve to know:
- Did we get a complete system, or did we sacrifice historical records to save on storage fees?
- Which records are now permanently inaccessible?
- How will the Prosecutor’s Office handle requests for pre-2024 case information?
- What backup systems exist, if any, for historical data?
What Should Be Provided
The Prosecutor’s Office should provide:
- The December 18, 2023 email exchange — This document was explicitly acknowledged as responsive
- Complete data exclusion documentation — A detailed list of which data categories were not migrated and why
- Decision-making records — Records showing who made the exclusion decisions and when
- Cost-benefit analysis — Any documents showing how much storage fees were avoided versus the value of the excluded data
- Alternative solutions considered — Any documentation showing whether other options for preserving historical data were evaluated
- Legacy system access plan — How the Prosecutor’s Office plans to access historical data that was not migrated
The Alarming Pattern
This denial is part of a systematic effort to block public oversight:
| FOIA Request | Critical Question | Response | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| #26-44 | Is the migration complete? | 156 pages of emails (no direct answer) | Incomplete |
| #26-45 | Was the migration on schedule? | NOTHING | DENIED |
| #26-56 | What data was left behind? | NOTHING | DENIED |
| #26-57 | What are the full costs? | NOTHING | DENIED |
Three improper denials. Three critical questions. Zero answers.
The Prosecutor’s Office is using the Densmore exception as a blanket excuse to block access to information the public has a clear right to see.
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 data exclusion information was never provided in previous requests
- The December 18, 2023 email contains unique information about which data categories were excluded
- The public has a compelling interest in understanding what records were sacrificed to save on storage fees
- The refusal to provide this information violates both FOIA and the public’s right to access historical justice system records
The Board of Commissioners has the authority to reverse this improper denial.
The Stakes
This is about more than FOIA. It’s about whether historical records from the Delta County justice system are preserved or lost.
If plea agreements, disposition notes, or case attachments were not migrated to ProsecutorbyKarpel, that information may be permanently inaccessible — lost to save a few hundred dollars in storage fees.
That’s not acceptable for a justice system that depends on complete records.
Taxpayers have invested over $109,000 in a new case management system. They deserve to know whether it’s actually complete — or whether they paid for a system that sacrificed historical records to save on storage costs.
The Prosecutor’s Office has a choice: provide the documentation and be transparent, or continue blocking access and leave the public to wonder what justice system records were left behind.
UPDATE: 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 decisions are made.
Leave a comment