the decision of the Court of Appeals that the plaintiffs’ records must be disclosed, but reject its analysis. We remand this case to the trial court with orders to release the records in an unedited format, subject to the redactions discussed above. Mallett, C.J., and Riley, and Weaver, JJ., concurred with Brickley, J. 1 216 Mich App 79; 549 NW2d 15 (1996). 2 416 Mich 661; 331 NW2d 184 (1983). 3 Id. at 86. 4 Id. at 93. 5 Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 231; 507 NW2d 422 (1993). 6 MCL 15.231(2); MSA 4.1801(1)(2). 7 With the exception of its ruling regarding the redactions, discussed below. 8 In a reverse FOIA action, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin rather than compel disclosure of public records. Tobin, n 2 supra at 670-671. 9 Tobin, n 2 supm at 669 (<HOLDING>). 10 Id. 11 MCL 15.233; MSA 4.1801(3). 12
holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents holding that unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption holding that the government must provide the party seeking disclosure with a detailed index describing the documents the government claims are exempt from disclosure under foia holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties holding that ajny asserted right by third parties to prohibit disclosure must have a basis independent of the foia