FOIA 25-180: Two boxes checked — the trial records both “already provided” and “do not exist”

Watchdog Alerts

Why isn’t this basic information available to the public?

1. The Notice of Denial checks box 1, “Exempt from Disclosure,” and box 2, “Record Does Not Exist,” on the same form for the same request. Those are alternative reasons, not cumulative ones: a record is either withheld under an exemption or it does not exist. The exemption subsection line is blank, so the form never identifies which exemption is supposed to apply.
2. The letter says the “underlying, raw data has already been provided” in FOIA 25-135 and cites Densmore v Department of Corrections. The 25-135 production does contain four jury trial sheets with case numbers, verdicts and dates. What it does not contain is a compiled count — and the difference between “we gave you the records” and “we have no such record” is exactly the distinction MCL 15.233(4) and (5) require an office to state plainly.
3. The response came in four business days, at no charge, with a clean letter that quotes the request verbatim and answers each subpart separately. On timeliness and mechanics this is the office's best FOIA response in the archive. The problem is not speed. It is that the answer says two different things at once.
4. The request set a $50 ceiling and asked for an itemized estimate in advance. The office quoted nothing — not a CMS query, not a manual count of trial logs, not a redacted set of the trial sheets. The same office quoted $9,548 for roughly 3,300 case files in FOIA 26-22 and $2,931.12 for approximately 886 cases in FOIA 25-129.
5. No page of any responsive record was produced. The nine-page packet is the request, the letter, the denial form, two statutory excerpts, a blank appeal form and a policy printout. Nothing in it tells the public how many 2024 criminal cases in Delta County were decided by a judge and how many by a jury.
6. The request covers all twelve months of 2024, the year ProsecutorByKarpel went live. The denial does not say which months the office can report on, does not offer the months after go-live, and does not mention the transition at all.

Timing caveat. ProsecutorByKarpel went live in June 2024, and this request covers calendar year 2024, so part of the requested period predates the system. This page does not fault the office for lacking a system-generated trial report before go-live, and it does not assert a specific implementation date. The criticism is that the office never said which months it could report on and never offered the months after go-live.

On Saturday, August 2, 2025, a request went out to the Delta County Prosecutor's Office asking for four numbers about the 2024 criminal term: how many cases went to a bench trial, how many went to a jury trial, and how those trials ended — guilty or not guilty. The office received it on Monday, August 4, and answered on Friday, August 8, four business days later. The answer was no. All four numbers were denied, each on the same ground: the records do not exist.

What makes the file worth reading is not the denial. A prosecutor's office is not obliged to keep a running tally of trial outcomes, and a certificate of nonexistence is a lawful answer when no such tally exists. What makes it worth reading is the second sentence of the denial, which appears three times: “the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135.” In the same packet, on the same page, the office certifies that the records do not exist and explains that it already gave them to the requester.

Both boxes on the Notice of Denial are checked. Box 1, Exempt from Disclosure, carries the sentence about 25-135 and a citation to Densmore v Department of Corrections. Box 2, Record Does Not Exist, carries the statutory certificate. The subsection line in box 1 is blank. No exemption is named anywhere in the nine-page packet.

Summary

FOIA 25-180 is a nine-page packet. Two pages are the response letter. Two are the request. One is the Notice of Denial. One is a blank FOIA Appeal Form. Two reproduce MCL 15.240. One is the county's FOIA policy page. Not one page is a public record responsive to the request.

The numbers are simple. Four business days to respond, inside the five the statute allows. Zero extensions taken. Zero dollars quoted. Zero pages produced. Four denials in one letter — the request as a whole, then the bench-trial count, the jury-trial count, and the verdict breakdown, each denied separately. One statutory certificate of nonexistence. Two reason boxes checked on the denial form. Zero exemption subsections identified.

That last pair is the whole file. A denial form with two reasons checked is not a form with a fallback; it is a form making two incompatible claims at once. Either the records exist and are being withheld under an exemption, or they do not exist at all. The office checked both and named no exemption, which means the only reason with any content behind it is the one about 25-135 — and that reason says the records were already released.

There is a version of this file in which the office is right, and it is worth stating plainly. FOIA is a disclosure statute, not a research service. It does not require an agency to count its own cases, build a table it does not keep, or answer a question that no existing document answers. If the office has no trial-outcome tally, it can say so. What it cannot do quite so easily is say so and say the underlying records were already handed over, because those two sentences describe different worlds. The first says there is nothing to give. The second says the giving already happened.

What was requested

The request is dated August 2, 2025, captioned “FOIA Request — 2024 Criminal Trials: Type and Outcome Summary,” and addressed to the FOIA Coordinator at 310 Ludington Street. It asks for records documenting the total number of criminal cases prosecuted by the office that proceeded to trial between January 1 and December 31, 2024, broken down three ways: bench trials, jury trials, and for each type, guilty versus not guilty or acquittal.

“If this information is tracked in internal reports, trial logs, performance summaries, or can be extracted from your case management system (CMS), please provide the most complete version available.”

Four features of the request matter to how it should have been read.

It asked for a count, not a case file. The words “total number” carry the request. Everything else describes acceptable packaging. A requester who asks “how many” has not asked for a document; he has asked a question a document might answer.

It offered the office the cheap route. The request did not demand a bespoke report. It asked for whatever already existed — an internal report, a trial log, a performance summary, a CMS extract — and said to send the most complete version available. That is a requester saying: do not build me anything.

It set a fifty-dollar ceiling and asked for an estimate first. “If the estimated cost to fulfill this request exceeds $50, I request a written itemized cost estimate in advance per MCL 15.234.” That provision usually forces an agency to price the work. Here it produced nothing, because no work was priced. The office quoted no fee, demanded no deposit, and did not explain why the request cost nothing to answer.

It asked for exemptions to be named and the rest released. “If any part of the request is denied, please: cite the specific exemption under MCL 15.243; describe the withheld content sufficiently to permit appeal; provide all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions per MCL 15.244(1).” The request anticipated the obvious objection — that case-level records carry defendant names and dates of birth — and pre-empted it by asking for redaction rather than withholding.

The paper trail

Figure 1 · Four business days, no extension, one answer

Select any date to read what happened and which clock it started or stopped.

Aug 2, 2025 Request dated Aug 4, 2025 Received Aug 11, 2025 Five-day deadline Aug 8, 2025 Denied in full Aug 8, 2025 Two boxes checked Feb 4, 2026 Review window

Documented: the response is dated August 8, 2025 and captioned “Re: FOIA Request #25-180.” It runs two pages. It acknowledges receipt, quotes the request verbatim, denies it, certifies nonexistence, explains the appeal right, notes that the office enclosed its FOIA policy web address and a blank appeal form, and closes “Best Regards” over a signature labeled FOIA Coordinator.

The letter is, by the standards of this archive, fast and cleanly written. It arrives four business days after receipt, well inside the five the statute allows. It takes no extension. It quotes the request rather than paraphrasing it. It states a disposition for each subpart instead of answering the whole request with one word. It tells the requester where to appeal and what the appeal deadline is. On the mechanics of responding, this is the best-executed denial in the file.

The Notice of Denial is where the mechanics stop being clean. It is checked “All” of the request was denied, not “Part.” Reason box 1, “Exempt from Disclosure,” is checked, with this sentence typed into the explanation line: “The records have already been provided in response to FOIA Request 25-135 (see Densmore v Department of Corrections 203 Mich 363 (1994)).” The subsection number — the blank that identifies which exemption under section 13 is being claimed — is left blank. Reason box 2, “Record Does Not Exist,” is also checked. Reason box 3, “Redaction,” is not checked. The contact named is Emily DeSalvo, at 906-789-5100.

Two boxes, two theories. Box 1 says the records exist and are exempt — or, more precisely here, that they exist and have already been given out. Box 2 says they do not exist at all. A denial form is supposed to record one decision. This one records both, and leaves the exemption unidentified, so the only theory with any detail attached is the one that concedes the records exist.

The two boxes

Set the letter and the form side by side and the file develops a problem no amount of legal analysis resolves.

The sentence about 25-135 is doing a great deal of work in a small space, and it is worth being precise about what it does and does not establish. It does not say “a compiled report of trial outcomes does not exist.” It says the underlying, raw data was already provided. Those are different claims about different things, and the letter never distinguishes them. If the office meant “we have no tally, but you already have the case files,” that is a coherent and probably lawful answer — and it is not the answer the form gives.

What the form gives is a certificate of nonexistence under the statutory language, which speaks to whether the public records requested exist “under the name nor any other name reasonably known to the public body.” A count of jury trials is not a record with a name. The office's own sentence acknowledges that the records from which such a count could be assembled were produced a month earlier. So the certificate is technically true about a document that was never asked for, and the sentence beside it is true about records that were.

There is a real legal point underneath this, and it cuts in the office's favor. Michigan's FOIA does not require a public body to create a new record, compile a statistic, or answer a question that no existing document answers. An office that keeps case files but no trial-outcome summary can decline to build one. The archive has made this point before, in FOIA 25-136, where the same office denied a request for a plea-agreement count. The point is not that the office had to produce a number. The point is that it had a clean way to say no — no compiled record exists, and we decline to create one — and instead checked a box certifying that nothing exists, next to a box saying everything already does.

What 25-135 actually produced

The cross-reference is not vague. FOIA 25-135, submitted June 27, 2025 and answered July 17, 2025, asked for case-level records of the 2024 cases that went to trial. The office granted it in part and produced twenty-four pages covering eight case files: felony informations, complaints, jury trial sheets, an order of acquittal or dismissal, judgments of sentence, and sentencing-on-jury-verdict forms.

Six of those documents record a jury trial and its outcome — three felony jury trial sheets and three misdemeanor sentencing-on-jury-verdict forms:

• 23-11012-FH — guilty on Counts 1–3, verdict May 30, 2024.
• 23-10872-FH — guilty on Count 1, trial July 30–31, 2024.
• 23-11056-FH — guilty on Counts 1–4, verdict September 25, 2024.
• Three misdemeanor files with sentencing-on-jury-verdict forms.

That is what the office means by “the underlying, raw data.” It is real, it was produced, and a reader can count from it. What the office did not produce, in 25-135 or in 25-180, is the tally itself. FOIA 25-180 asked for the tally and was told, in effect, that the tally does not exist but the raw data does — a sentence that is honest about the office's recordkeeping and incompatible with the certificate printed beneath it.

The distinction matters to the public because of what it costs to close the gap. A requester holding twenty-four pages of case documents can count six documented jury trials. He cannot know, from those pages alone, whether they are all the jury trials held in 2024, because the production was a partial grant and the office has never said how many cases it identified in its search. The count that would answer that question is exactly the count the office declined to compile. The public is left with the raw material and no denominator.

The zeros

The timeliness number is the one that deserves credit, and it is the reason this page does not treat 25-180 as a failure of process. Four business days, no extension, a disposition stated for each subpart, an appeal right explained. Compared with 25-135 and 25-136 — where the same office took a ten-business-day extension on the ground that it needed to review “a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records,” then denied on nonexistence — 25-180 is a model of promptness. Speed is not the problem here. Coherence is.

The zero-dollar figure is more interesting than it looks. A request that is denied because nothing exists costs nothing to answer, so a zero quote is consistent with the certificate. But the request had offered to pay up to fifty dollars and had asked for an itemized estimate if the work would exceed it. The office never engaged with that offer, because engaging with it would have required deciding whether there was work to price. A one-line estimate — “no charge; no responsive records” — would have closed the same file with less ambiguity.

The pattern this fits

25-180 is the second request in this archive asking the office to turn its own case files into a count, and the second to be answered with a certificate of nonexistence.

The pattern is not that the office refuses everything. It produced case files in 25-135, quoted a detailed fee in 26-22, and made a partial production in 25-133. The pattern is narrower and more specific: when the request asks the office to aggregate its own records into a number, the answer is that no such number exists. When the request asks for the records themselves, the answer is often yes, for a price.

That is a defensible records-management position and an indefensible transparency one, and the difference is worth naming. An office that will sell you 3,300 case files but will not tell you how many cases it tried has not withheld a record. It has withheld the only thing most of the public actually wants, which is the total. The raw data is available to anyone with $9,548 and the patience to count. The count itself is available to no one.

The appeal, and what the Board did with it

Denial upheld. The requester appealed, and the Board of Commissioners upheld the denial. Chair John Malnar’s letter of September 3, 2025 records receipt of the appeal on August 18, 2025 and the determination at the regular meeting on September 2, 2025.

Documented: the letter gives one sentence of reasoning, and it introduces a third formulation rather than resolving the two the office had already used. It says the request was “initially denied because the response excluded records that the Delta County FOIA Coordinator determined were deemed to not exist or was already provided.” The office’s own Notice of Denial had checked both an exemption box under MCL 15.243 and a nonexistence box. The Board’s letter adds “already provided” without saying what was provided, when, or to whom.

Our reading: this is the crux of the page, and the appeal does not resolve it. A requester who is told that records are exempt, that they do not exist, and that they were already provided has been given three answers that cannot all be true of the same records. To decide whether to appeal further, he needs to know which answer applies to which part of the request. Neither the office nor the Board supplied that. The letter does not mention the certificate of nonexistence, the exemption box, or the bench-trial and jury-trial breakdown that was asked for. It records no vote count and cites no agenda item.

Timing: counting from August 18, 2025 and treating September 1, 2025 (Labor Day) as a legal holiday, September 2 was the tenth business day, so the determination fell on the statutory deadline. The written notice is dated September 3, one day later.

Legal framework

Show the statutes, cases, and sources cited on this page

• MCL 15.235(2) — a public body must respond to a request within five business days, with a limited extension available under MCL 15.235(6). The office received the request August 4, 2025 and responded August 8, 2025, inside the window, without an extension.
• MCL 15.233 — the disclosure duty, and the provisions this archive has cited for the point that FOIA does not require a public body to compile a new record or create a statistic it does not already keep. The office did not cite them.
• MCL 15.243 — the exemptions. The Notice of Denial checks the “Exempt from Disclosure” box but leaves the subsection number blank, so no exemption under section 13 is identified anywhere in the packet.
• Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich App 363 (1994) — cited in the letter and on the form as “203 Mich 363.” The decision is generally cited for the proposition that FOIA reaches records that exist and does not compel an agency to create new ones. It supports the office's right to decline to compile a count. It does not support certifying that records do not exist while stating that they were already produced.
• MCL 15.240 — appeal to the head of the public body or a civil action in circuit court within 180 days. The letter explains the right; the packet encloses a blank appeal form and two copies of the statute.
• MCL 15.244 — segregation. The request asked for reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. No redaction was made and none was claimed, so the duty was not engaged.

What would change this

Three documents would settle most of what this page cannot. A search declaration stating what the office searched and what it found would establish whether the certificate rests on a real search or on the absence of a report. A sentence identifying the exemption claimed in box 1 — or a corrected form unchecking it — would resolve the contradiction between the two boxes. And a count of the 2024 cases the office identified as having gone to trial, even a partial one, would tell the public whether the six jury trials documented in 25-135 are the whole story or a fraction of it.

None of those documents is required by FOIA, and this page does not pretend otherwise. They are the documents an office would produce if it wanted its denial to be understood rather than merely obeyed.

Open questions

• Did the office search its case management system for a trial-outcome report, and what did the search consist of? The letter says only that “a review of the records reveal they do not exist.”
• Which exemption under section 13 was intended by box 1? The subsection line is blank, and no exemption is named in the letter.
• How many 2024 cases did the office identify as having proceeded to trial? 25-135 produced eight case files; the office has never said whether that was all of them.
• Were any bench trials held in 2024? The packet does not say, and the 25-135 production contains jury trial sheets only.
• If the underlying raw data in 25-135 is sufficient to answer the request, as the letter asserts, why does the office treat the count as a record that does not exist rather than a compilation it declines to make?

Documents

These are redacted copies prepared for publication. Requester names, home addresses, personal phone numbers, and email addresses have been removed. Unredacted originals are not hosted on the public web server.

Related FOIA requests

• FOIA 26-292 — FOIA 26-292: The office used the requester's own cost-saving clause to withdraw the request, then offered to grant it if he removed the clause (Granted in part, denied in part — no records produced; the office conceded the data exists and refused the aggregate on the ground that the requester's own scope limitation excluded it, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-291 — FOIA 26-291: The office answered a request for a privilege log with nine document titles — and cited a subsection of the FOIA that does not exist (Granted in part — a nine-row title-and-date table supplying two of the eleven requested fields, no count, and a citation to a subsection of MCL 15.243 that does not exist, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-290 — FOIA 26-290: The office refused the victim-services records because it says you already have them — from a packet that contained none (Refused — five paragraphs labelled “granted” but zero pages produced, on the authority of a prior production that contained no responsive documents; the sixth paragraph received no disposition, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-131 — FOIA 26-131: Twenty case files, priced at $82.66 before a single page is copied (Granted in part — release conditioned on a $41.33 deposit; no records produced yet, April 17, 2026)
• FOIA 26-35 — FOIA 26-35: The office counted 52 pleas in 85 minutes — eight days after saying the same kind of aggregate did not exist (Granted — 52 pleas reported from the District and Circuit Court dockets, no fee quoted, no exemption cited, no pages withheld; the count is over-inclusive by the office's own admission, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-34 — FOIA 26-34: The office denied a count of diversion cases by defining “diversion” down to a programme it does not run (Denied — certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), Denial Form box 2 checked, on the ground that the only diversion programme in Delta County is juvenile diversion administered by the Probate Court; no exemption cited, no fee quoted, no waiver determination, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-33 — FOIA 26-33: Asked to count deferred prosecution agreements, the office certified the total nonexistent and priced the underlying data at $9,093.33 (Granted in part and denied in part — the aggregate record denied as requiring creation of a new record, with a certificate of nonexistence and Denial Form box 2 checked; the underlying data granted subject to a $9,093.33 estimate, a $4,546.66 deposit and a 270-day production estimate; public-interest fee waiver left undetermined, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-32 — FOIA 26-32: What the office's own memos say about the migration that broke its records — a 95-page production that answers its own denial (Granted in part, denied in part — five records produced across 95 pages, with only personal contact information redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a); no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-31 — FOIA 26-31: Asked how many crime scenes a prosecutor attended, the office listed eight documents and denied them as duplicative (Denied in full — refused as a duplicative request under Densmore v Department of Corrections, on the ground that the eight listed records were already produced in response to FOIA 25-267; Denial Form box 1 checked with the section 13 subsection left blank; no aggregate figure supplied and no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-30 — FOIA 26-30: Eight documents, one number, and a Densmore refusal built on a premise the record does not fully support (Denied — no aggregate total produced; eight responsive documents identified but not reproduced under a Densmore prior-production rationale; no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-29 — FOIA 26-29: A count of inherited convictions the office could not locate — priced at $1,033.33 for the work of counting (No count produced — office could not locate a record; underlying data granted subject to segregation and priced at $1,033.33 with a $516.66 deposit, February 5, 2026)
• FOIA 26-28 — FOIA 26-28: A headcount of cases open when the prosecutor took office — denied, then priced at $1,653.33 on an 800-file baseline (Denied in part, granted in part — no record states the headcount, with a certificate of nonexistence; underlying data granted subject to segregation and priced at $1,653.33 with an $826.66 deposit, February 5, 2026)
• FOIA 26-22 — FOIA 26-22: A conviction rate the office says does not exist, priced at $9,548 (Denied — record does not exist; $9,548 quote for the underlying files, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 26-21 — FOIA 26-21: A count of convictions the office says does not exist — then a quiet amendment that changed the number behind the bill (Denied as a compilation — no count produced; fee of $9,548.00 quoted for underlying files; amended response revised the volume figure without explanation, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 26-20 — FOIA 26-20: The aggregate case total, and the records that would let you count it (Denied — record does not exist, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 25-279 — FOIA 25-279: The office granted the personnel and budget records on paper — then sent three invoices totaling $34,673.79 and none of the records (Granted in part on paper — dozens of records listed as enclosed and none enclosed; three cost itemizations totaling $34,673.79, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-278 — FOIA 25-278: The office says it never tracked plea bargaining — then bills $23,146.66 for a 4,000-file review it says is already covered by another invoice (Granted in part — 62 trials produced from the calendar; plea-offer data certified not to exist; a $23,146.66 estimate the office says is moot if the twin invoice is paid, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-277 — FOIA 25-277: No annual statistical report exists, the underlying data does, and the office prices it at $34,720 (Granted in part — no statistical report exists; the underlying data is granted at a $34,720 estimate built on a volume figure the office has never counted, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-257 — FOIA 25-257: Three certificates of nonexistence, then a $19,840 bill to rebuild the data by hand (Denied — three certificates of nonexistence, with a $19,840 estimate to rebuild the same data by hand, October 31, 2025)
• FOIA 25-254 — FOIA 25-254: Two certificates of nonexistence, two documents produced, and a $74,520 itemization copied from an earlier request (Granted in part, denied in part — two documents produced, two certificates of nonexistence, and a $74,520 estimate identical to FOIA 25-244's, October 31, 2025)
• FOIA 25-244 — FOIA 25-244: Ten service slips, thirteen policy manuals, and a $74,520 quote (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-241 — FOIA 25-241: The special-prosecutor petition the office filed, and the 2024 memo that says it did not need another one (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-240 — FOIA 25-240: Officer use-of-force referrals, and the $1,863 bill for the one part the office would search (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-239 — FOIA 25-239: The Brady/Giglio list and how the office tracks officer credibility (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-234 — FOIA 25-234: Four lab reports, two certificates, and 26.4 grams where the press said four ounces (Granted in part, October 1, 2025)
• FOIA 25-202 — FOIA 25-202: No RFP, no bid, no purchase order — and the emails that show how the system was picked (Granted in part, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-201 — FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contracts, invoices, and licensing (Granted in part, denied in part, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-200 — FOIA 25-200: The software the office runs on — seven systems named, one of them retired in June 2024 (Granted in full, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-197 — FOIA 25-197: A request for complaints against the office came back as the office's own civil-rights lawsuits (Granted in part, denied in part, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-196 — FOIA 25-196: Audits of the office, 2019 through 2024 — five county financial statements produced, two fiscal years missing (Granted in part — five annual county financial statements produced; fiscal years 2022 and 2024 absent from the release; no exemption cited and no certificate of nonexistence, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-195 — FOIA 25-195: Reports on the office's own work — four case-tracking reports produced, performance reviews certified nonexistent, county reports withheld as attorney-client (Granted in part and denied in part — ten documents produced; county reports withheld on attorney-client privilege; performance reviews certified nonexistent; $5,961.60 estimated, $2,980.80 deposit, 270 days, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-194 — FOIA 25-194: Every email and text the Prosecutor sent in 2024 — a $63,028.80 estimate on a request the requester offered to narrow (Granted in part and denied in part — exemptions cited; $63,028.80 estimated, $31,514.40 deposit required, 270 days, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-215 — FOIA 25-215: Three answers to one request — two certificates of nonexistence, a grant, and a $13,248 estimate (Granted in part, August 9, 2025)
• FOIA 25-139 — FOIA 25-139: Forfeitures in cases that ended without a conviction, certified not to exist — while the same office took an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-137 — FOIA 25-137: The average time from charge to disposition, certified not to exist — after a ten-day extension for “voluminous” records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-136 — FOIA 25-136: The plea-agreement count the office certified does not exist — after taking an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-135 — FOIA 25-135: The office denied the 2024 trial summary as a record that “does not exist” — then produced eight case files on the next page (Granted in part — 8 case files produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-134 — FOIA 25-134: The dismissed-case count the office certified does not exist — after taking an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-133 — FOIA 25-133: The office certified the monthly count did not exist — then attached an annual one and offered to sell the underlying data for $2,815.20 (Granted in part — one annual screening table produced; monthly counts withheld; $2,815.20 quoted with a $1,407.60 deposit, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-129 — FOIA 25-129: Arraignment-to-disposition times the office certified do not exist, then priced at $2,931.12 (Granted in part — two items denied as nonexistent; $2,931.12 quote on the third, June 26, 2025)
• FOIA 25-118 — FOIA 25-118: Final case outcomes for January and February 2025 (Fee estimate issued, June 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-94 — Prosecutor Case Outcome Statistics, 2021–2025 (Granted in Part, May 23, 2025)