Illustration for FOIA 26-292: The request was written to be cheap, and the office read it as a withdrawal
FOIA 26-292 · 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

On Sunday, October 25, 2026, a requester faxed the Delta County Prosecutor's Office a four-paragraph request for twelve numbers: the number of felony authorizations issued in each month of calendar year 2025. The request ended with a “Scope Limitations” list, subsections (a) through (f), written to keep the price down by excluding names, case numbers, identifiers, charging documents, narrative, and — at (f) — “any compilation, analysis, cross-tabulation, or new document that does not already exist.”

The office received the request on Monday, October 26 and answered on Thursday, October 29, business day three of five. It denied paragraph 1 because “no record currently exists documenting the request,” issued a certificate of nonexistence, and then wrote the sentence that makes this file worth keeping: “Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided, subject to statutorily necessary redactions and exemptions. However, as you specify in your request under ‘Scope Limitations’ subsection (f) that is not a portion of your request. Should you wish to clarify your request, the request would be granted…”

The office used the requester's own cost-saving clause to withdraw the request, and then offered to grant the request if he removed the clause. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 were denied as nonexistent. No fee was quoted.

How to read this page

Documented facts come from the released records and are dated and quoted. The agency's position is what the office asserted or did. Legal interpretation is analysis of Michigan's Freedom of Information Act and is labeled as such. Open questions are issues the record does not resolve. Nothing on this page asserts that the office was legally required to compile the twelve numbers, that the report described in paragraph 2 exists, or that anyone acted in bad faith. Where the record supports only a question, only a question is stated.

Summary

This is a two-page letter about a one-page request for twelve integers. It is short, it is timely, and it is the cleanest example in this archive of a technique that has been building across a dozen files: the office conceding that the underlying data exists while refusing to produce the aggregate, and then finding a reason why the aggregate was never really asked for.

In 25-278 the office wrote that “the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available.” In 26-28 it wrote that “the underlying data could be obtained which would allow the requester to obtain or calculate the requested aggregate numerical data.” In 26-292 it writes that “records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided.” Three files, three years, three different subjects, and the same sentence with the nouns changed. Each time the office says the data is there. Each time the number is not.

What is new here is the mechanism. In the earlier files the office priced the compilation. In this one it does not price it — it says the requester already excluded it, by his own hand, in subsection (f). The refusal is not based on cost, exemption or nonexistence. It is based on a reading of the request that turns the requester's attempt to limit the fee into a withdrawal of the question.

The four paragraphs, and what happened to each
ParagraphWhat was asked forWhat the office saidRecords produced
1Twelve monthly felony-authorization counts for calendar 2025“granted in part, denied in part” — no record exists; certificate of nonexistence; underlying data “could be located and provided” but subsection (f) excludes itNone
2The “Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report” named in the 26-20 response, run for 2025Denied — record does not exist; generated in the old case-tracking system before the office lost accessNone
3The same report on a fiscal-year basis, if that is how it is keptDenied — record does not existNone
4Any other existing table, spreadsheet, query output or internal report stating 2025 felony authorizations by monthDenied — record does not exist; certificate of nonexistenceNone

What was requested

The request is dated October 25, 2026 and was transmitted by fax. Paragraph 1 is one sentence: “The number of felony authorizations issued by the office in each month of calendar year 2025 — twelve numbers, one for each month from January 2025 through December 2025.” Paragraph 2 asks for a specific report by name. Paragraph 3 asks for the same report on a fiscal-year basis. Paragraph 4 asks for any other existing record that states the monthly figures.

Then comes the part that matters:

“SCOPE LIMITATIONS — WHAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT ASK FOR. To keep this request as inexpensive as possible, I expressly do not request and do not wish to receive: (a) any defendant, respondent, or victim name; (b) any case number, docket number, or court file number; (c) any date of birth, address, telephone number, or criminal identification number; (d) any charging document, information, complaint, warrant, or case file; (e) any narrative, memorandum, cover letter, or explanatory text beyond the numbers themselves; or (f) any compilation, analysis, cross-tabulation, or new document that does not already exist.”

Subsections (a) through (e) are privacy and scope exclusions. They remove identifiers, case files, and narrative. Subsection (f) is different: it is a cost exclusion. It says the requester does not want the office to build anything new. The intent is transparent from the preamble — “to keep this request as inexpensive as possible” — and from the rest of the request, which repeatedly asks for records “in whatever form the office ordinarily produces that report” and “in whichever format it is already kept.”

The request also asks for a fee waiver or reduction under MCL 15.234, and for a detailed estimate before processing if any fee is anticipated.

What the office answered

The letter is dated October 29, 2026, signed by Emily DeSalvo as FOIA Coordinator, and runs two pages. Page one restates the request. Page two carries the dispositions.

Paragraph 1 is the one to read closely, because it contains three moves in six sentences:

“As to your request in Paragraph 1, your request is granted in part, denied in part. The request is denied to the extent that no record currently exists documenting the request. As to that aspect, the undersigned hereby certifies that, after a search for records and to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, the public record requested, and described above, does not exist…

“Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided, subject to statutorily necessary redactions and exemptions. However, as you specify in your request under ‘Scope Limitations’ subsection (f) that is not a portion of your request. Should you wish to clarify your request, the request would be granted subject to review for the time and scope necessary to comply with the request.”

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are denied together, with an explanation that is the most factually specific thing in the letter:

“The document referenced as ‘Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report’ and previously provided to you in FOIA Request 25-94 and 25-195, was generated through the old case tracking system prior to the Prosecutor's Office losing access. No such document has been generated or created to cover the time period requested.”

Paragraph 4 is denied with the standard sentence and a certificate of nonexistence. Then the appeal paragraph.

The clause that withdrew the request

The office's argument has a structure, and it is worth setting out in order because each step depends on the one before it.

Step one: no record currently exists that states the twelve monthly numbers. That is plausible. An office does not usually maintain a document titled “felony authorizations by month.”

Step two: records exist from which the number could be calculated. The office says so expressly: “Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided.” That is a concession that the underlying data is in the office's possession.

Step three: calculating the number from those records would be a “compilation” or “analysis,” and the requester excluded compilations in subsection (f).

Step four: therefore the request, as written, does not ask for the calculation. It asks only for a record that does not exist. And a request for a record that does not exist is answered by a certificate of nonexistence.

The argument is internally consistent, and it depends entirely on a reading of subsection (f) that the text does not support. Subsection (f) excludes “any compilation, analysis, cross-tabulation, or new document that does not already exist.” The request in paragraph 1 asks for twelve numbers, not for a document. A number stated in a response letter is not a compilation, an analysis, a cross-tabulation, or a new document. It is an answer.

The distinction is not pedantic. If the requester had asked for a spreadsheet, subsection (f) would exclude the spreadsheet. He asked for the figures. The office's reading converts “do not build me a new document” into “do not tell me the number,” which is not what the clause says and not what the request says.

And the office's own offer proves the point. It offers to locate and provide “records allowing for the number to be calculated.” Those records, assembled for the purpose of producing a number, are precisely the compilation subsection (f) excludes. So the office offers to do the thing the clause forbids and refuses to do the thing the request asks. The clause is being read one way when it is used to refuse and the opposite way when it is used to offer.

What subsection (f) says, and what the office made it do
Subsection (f) textWhat it was written to doWhat the office used it to do
“any compilation, analysis, cross-tabulation, or new document that does not already exist”Keep the office from building a new document, so no compilation fee could be chargedWithdraw the request for the twelve numbers, on the theory that producing a number is a compilation
“To keep this request as inexpensive as possible”Signal that the requester would accept a bare answer with no formatting workTreated as a limit on what the office may say, not on what it may build
“I expressly do not request and do not wish to receive”Narrow the scope to reduce search and redaction timeRead as an express refusal to receive the answer to paragraph 1

The remedy the office offers is also worth noting. “Should you wish to clarify your request, the request would be granted subject to review for the time and scope necessary to comply with the request.” The clarification required is the removal of subsection (f). In other words: withdraw your cost protection, and we will do the work and then tell you what it costs. That is a lawful thing for a public body to say. It is also the opposite of what the request was trying to achieve, and it is presented as though the requester had created the problem himself.

The same concession, three times

The sentence in 26-292 is not new. It is the third appearance of a formulation this office has used across three separate files, and the repetition is what makes it a pattern rather than an incident.

Three files, three subjects, one concession
FileWhat was asked forWhat the office said about the underlying data
25-278An aggregate figure the office does not maintain as a record“the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available”
26-28A headcount of open cases“the underlying data could be obtained which would allow the requester to obtain or calculate the requested aggregate numerical data”
26-292Twelve monthly felony-authorization counts for 2025“Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided”

In each case the office concedes possession of the data, declines to produce the aggregate, and offers the underlying records instead — usually at a price. In 26-28 the price was $1,653.33. In 26-292 no price is quoted, because the office did not get as far as pricing: the request was withdrawn by construction before any estimate was needed.

What varies across the three is only the reason. In 25-278 and 26-28 the reason was that the aggregate did not exist as a record and assembling it would cost money. In 26-292 the reason is that the requester excluded the assembly. The constant is the outcome: the public is told the data is there and the number is not.

The report the office says it already gave him

Paragraphs 2 and 3 ask for a document by name: the “Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report” identified in the office's February 5, 2026 response to Request No. 26-20. The office's answer contains a provenance claim that can be checked against this archive:

“The document referenced as ‘Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report’ and previously provided to you in FOIA Request 25-94 and 25-195, was generated through the old case tracking system prior to the Prosecutor's Office losing access.”

According to this archive, 25-94 produced three “Warrants Authorized by Agency” reports covering 2021 through 2023. FOIA 25-195 produced two budget memos and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023. Neither production is described anywhere in the record as containing a document called “Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report.” That name appears in the office's February 5, 2026 response to 26-20, which this site documents as a denial.

So the claim that the report was “previously provided” in 25-94 and 25-195 does not match the record of what those two files produced. It may be that the office is using a loose description for reports that are similar but differently titled. It may be that the February 5, 2026 letter named a report the office had produced under another name. The letter does not reconcile the two, and the archive cannot.

There is a second oddity in the same sentence. The office says the report “was generated through the old case tracking system prior to the Prosecutor's Office losing access.” The request is for calendar year 2025. If the old system was lost before 2025, then the 2025 authorizations were recorded somewhere else, and the office's explanation does not say where. If the old system was in use during 2025, then the loss happened after the period requested, and the report for 2025 could have been run before access ended. Either way, the sentence explains why a report cannot be generated now without explaining why it could not have been generated then.

The timeline

Eleven days, three business days used
DateDayEventBusiness day
October 25, 2026SundayRequest dated and faxed—
October 26, 2026MondayReceived by the office, per its own letter0
October 27, 2026Tuesday—1
October 28, 2026Wednesday—2
October 29, 2026ThursdayResponse letter dated and signed3
November 2, 2026MondayFifth business day — deadline under MCL 15.2355

What the record shows

One. The office received the request on October 26, 2026 and answered on October 29, 2026, business day three of five. It was timely.

Two. The office denied paragraph 1 on the ground that no record states the twelve monthly numbers, and issued a certificate of nonexistence.

Three. In the same paragraph the office conceded that “records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided.”

Four. The office declined to calculate the number on the ground that the requester's own subsection (f) excluded “any compilation, analysis, cross-tabulation, or new document.”

Five. The office offered to grant the request if the requester would “clarify” it — which requires removing subsection (f).

Six. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 were denied as nonexistent, with the claim that the “Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report” was previously provided in 25-94 and 25-195, a claim the archive's record of those productions does not support.

Seven. No fee was quoted, no deposit was demanded, and the MCL 15.234 fee waiver the request asked for was neither granted nor denied.

Opinion: the request was written to be cheap, and the office read it as a withdrawal

There is a particular kind of frustration that comes from watching a public body answer a question it was not asked. This letter does that, and it does it politely, in two pages, on time, with a certificate attached. Everything about the form is correct. What is wrong is the subject.

The requester asked for twelve numbers. He was careful about it. He excluded names, case numbers, birth dates, addresses, criminal identification numbers, charging documents, warrants, case files, narrative, memoranda, cover letters and explanatory text. He asked for the figures and nothing else. Then, because he had evidently been charged for compilation work before, he added subsection (f): do not build me a new document, because I do not want to pay for one.

That clause is the most reasonable sentence in the request. It is a requester trying to save the office work and himself money. It is also the sentence the office picked up and used to close the file. The reasoning is that producing a number from records is a “compilation,” that the requester excluded compilations, and that therefore he never asked for the number.

The problem with that reasoning is that it proves too much. Every aggregate a public body produces is, in some sense, a compilation. If asking for a number is asking for a compilation, then no requester can ever ask for a number without also asking for the work of producing it — and any requester who tries to limit the work has, by that act, given up the number. The clause meant to reduce the cost of the answer becomes the reason there is no answer.

The office seems to have noticed. Its next sentence offers to do the thing it just said the requester had excluded: “Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided.” That is a compilation. It is the exact work subsection (f) was written to avoid. So the clause is being read strictly when it helps the office refuse and loosely when it helps the office offer. That is not a reading of the request. It is a use of it.

The offer that follows is the tell. “Should you wish to clarify your request, the request would be granted subject to review for the time and scope necessary to comply.” The only clarification that would change the outcome is the deletion of subsection (f). The requester is being asked to give up his cost protection in exchange for a promise to consider the request he already made. A public body is entitled to say that assembling a number will cost money and to quote a figure. What it is not entitled to do is convert a requester's effort to limit that cost into a waiver of the request itself.

And the concession underneath all of it is the part that should be quoted in every summary of this file. The office says the records exist. It says they “could be located and provided.” It says the number can be calculated from them. It says the only obstacle is a clause the requester wrote to be helpful. The data is there. The number is derivable. The office has both. And the public is told that the request, as written, does not ask for the answer.

This is the third time. In 25-278 and 26-28 the office said the same thing and attached a price. Here it attached a reading. The reading is cheaper for the office, because it requires no work and produces no invoice, and it leaves the requester holding a certificate that says the record does not exist — which is true, and which is not the question.

None of this requires a finding that the office had to compile the number. It may be that no statute compels a public body to perform arithmetic on its own records. What the record shows is narrower and harder to answer: the office said the data is available, said the number can be derived, and then declined to derive it because the requester asked it not to build anything. That is not a legal position. It is a use of the requester's own words against him, and it will work on the next request too, unless the next request is written without the clause that made this one cheap.

What this record does not show

It does not show that the twelve monthly figures exist as a maintained record. The office says they do not, and that is likely true; most prosecutors' offices do not keep a monthly felony-authorization tally as a standing document.

It does not show that the office was legally required to calculate the figures. Michigan's act requires production of existing records; whether it requires arithmetic on them is a contested question, and this page does not resolve it.

It does not show that the “Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report” exists for 2025. The office says the old system is gone. The archive's point is about the provenance claim, not about the report's existence.

And it does not show that subsection (f) was read in bad faith. A coordinator looking for a reason to close a request that would otherwise require compilation work could arrive at this reading honestly. The reading is still wrong, and the record shows it was made.

What to ask next

The first follow-up is the same request with subsection (f) removed and the cost question answered in advance. Ask for the twelve numbers and state that the requester understands a compilation may be required, that he is withdrawing subsection (f) for this purpose only, and that he asks for a written estimate before any work begins. That removes the office's stated obstacle and puts the fee question where it belongs.

The second is narrower and cheaper: ask for the count for a single month — January 2025 — with the same scope limitations minus (f). One number is a smaller compilation than twelve, and a refusal of one number is harder to justify than a refusal of twelve.

The third is the provenance question. Ask the office to identify, by page number, where in the 25-94 and 25-195 productions the “Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report” appears, and to state the run date of the report produced. If it is there, the page numbers settle it. If it is not, the office's explanation for paragraphs 2 and 3 has no support.

The fourth is the system question. Ask what case-tracking system the office used to record felony authorizations during calendar year 2025, and whether that system is currently accessible. The office says the old system was lost before the period requested. A one-line answer would establish whether any system was recording authorizations in 2025 at all.

Authorities and sources cited on this page

Show the statutes, cases, and sources cited on this page
  • Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq.
  • MCL 15.233(1) — certification that a public record does not exist, used by the office for paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4.
  • MCL 15.234 — fee waiver and reduction; invoked by the request, not addressed by the response.
  • MCL 15.235 — five-business-day response period; written grant or denial.
  • MCL 15.240 — appeal to the chairperson of the county board of commissioners, or judicial review in circuit court; the response letter states that a prevailing requester may recover attorney fees, costs and disbursements, actual or compensatory damages, and punitive damages of $1,000.00.

Documents relied on: the October 29, 2026 response letter (two pages), published below with the requester's identifying information redacted. The prior files referenced in the letter — 25-94, 25-195 and 26-20 — are published separately in this archive and are the source for the description of what those productions contained.

Redactions. The requester's name and the salutation line have been redacted from the published bundle. Everything else — the four paragraphs of the request, the six scope limitations, the disposition for paragraph 1, the concession that the records “could be located and provided,” the subsection (f) sentence, the denials for paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, the certificates of nonexistence, the office's signature block and the appeal paragraph — is legible.

No interactive figure on this page. The response produced no documents and no data to explore. Under this site's rule, interactive graphics are built when a release contains responsive documents worth examining; a refusal stated in prose is presented as text and tables.

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.

Response Letter (redacted) Two pages: the October 29, 2026 letter restating the four-paragraph request and the six scope limitations, denying paragraph 1 for want of an existing record while conceding that “records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided,” refusing the calculation on the authority of subsection (f), offering a conditional grant if the request is clarified, and denying paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 as nonexistent.