KELLY, J.
This case asks us to determine if the trial court appropriately found requested documents exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq. We address also whether it was appropriate for defendant to charge fees to plaintiffs for the work of defendant’s attorney in retrieving and separating documents plaintiffs sought under the act.
This case revolves around an underlying settlement agreement between defendant and a third party. Plaintiffs filed a FOIA request for documents associated with the agreement. Requested were “site plans” and “global readings” on real property, all exhibits to the agreement, including certain exhibits listed as intentionally deleted, and side agreements or letters related to the agreement.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that the requested documents were exempt from disclosure. Coblentz v Novi, 264 Mich App 450; 691 NW2d 22 (2004). We affirm in part and reverse in part that decision. We conclude that the Court of Appeals appropriately affirmed the grant of summary disposition to defendant on plaintiffs’ request for “site plans” and “global readings.” But the Court of Appeals erred in affirming summary disposition regarding the request for all exhibits to the underlying settlement agreement, including the intentionally deleted exhibits. These exhibits were not exempt from disclosure and were sufficiently identified in the FOIA request.
The Court of Appeals also erred in affirming summary disposition for defendant on the requested “side agreements” to the settlement agreement. These items [562] were not exempt because defendant failed to comply with MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii). Finally, the Court of Appeals erred in finding appropriate the fees that defendant charged for its attorney’s work in separating documents. The attorney in question was not an employee of defendant. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of a judgment compelling disclosure consistent with this opinion.
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In a separate civil action against defendant, Sandstone Associates Limited Partnership-A (Sandstone) obtained a judgment that totaled tens of millions of dollars, including costs, interest, and attorney fees. Sandstone and defendant then entered into an agreement in which defendant waived its appellate rights and Sandstone received real property rather than the money judgment. The major component of the agreement called for defendant to turn over 75 “net usable” acres to Sandstone for development.
The property had previously been set aside as parkland. It is adjacent to property owned by plaintiffs. Some of the property carried deed restrictions, including possible reciprocal negative easements.1 Plaintiffs’ properties contained the same deed restrictions. The [563] settlement agreement required defendant to arrange for the removal of the deed restrictions on its property and on plaintiffs’ property. It was agreed that, if defendant failed, it would convey additional property to Sandstone. In an effort to remove the restrictions, defendant contacted plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs retained counsel who filed a FOIA request with defendant, seeking:
1. All exhibits, including but not limited to exhibits G, T, U, V, W, AA, BB, GG, MM, NN, PB for the Agreement for Entry of Consent Judgment dated June 25, 2002 between Sandstone and the City of Novi;
2. Any and all site plans for Sandstone regarding the 75 dedicated acres; and....
Defendant’s attorney responded to these requests by writing:
1. Exhibits G, T, U, V, W, AA, BB, GG, MM, NN, PP: I have advised you by phone and letter that there are no such exhibits. The reference in the index, indicating that they were intentionally deleted, is merely to clarify for the reader that such exhibits have not been lost or detached from the Agreement. These exhibits do not exist, and never existed.
2. Site Plan: I have also advised you by phone and letter that a site plan or concept plan for the 75 acres does not exist. It has never existed. I do not know how [to] provide any further explanation.
Plaintiffs then informally requested all side agreements to the Sandstone settlement agreement and the “global readings.” Defendant’s attorney responded that he did not know what “global” meant. With regard to the side agreements, he stated that he assumed that [564] this meant the “side letters” to the Sandstone agreement. He indicated that he was attempting to learn from Sandstone’s counsel which of the side letters were submitted with an understanding of confidentiality.
Plaintiffs next filed a second FOIA request. Among the items sought were:
1. Any and all side agreements entered into between the City of Novi and Sandstone and/or its attorneys or representatives;
2. Global readings on “extra land”; global positioning satellite (GPS) readings on “extra land”;
3. Settlement agreements, releases, copies of drafts in settlement of the insurance cases relating to this property!;.]
After plaintiffs’ second FOIA request, defendant began to negotiate with Sandstone for release of the side agreements. Sandstone initially stated that none could be released, but later agreed to release five of the seven side letters.
In response to this FOIA request, defendant told plaintiffs that global or GPS readings did not exist. It also refused to release the two remaining side agreements, stating:
The request is denied with regard to two documents representing commercial and/or financial information voluntarily submitted to the City of Novi for use in developing governmental policy... as contemplated and required under MCL 15.243(g) [sic, (l)(f)].
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking production of all intentionally deleted exhibits. Plaintiffs claimed that they had located one of the exhibits, exhibit AA, despite the fact that defendant [565] contended that it never existed. They also asked the court to order production of global readings, site plans, and all side agreements.
Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition before the close of discovery. Attached was an affidavit from its mayor, Richard Clark. Clark stated that, as of the date of the affidavit, Sandstone had submitted no site plans for the 75 acres. He also affirmed that no “global readings” or GPS readings existed in connection with the Sandstone settlement agreement. Plaintiffs responded, but did not attach any documentary evidence rebutting Clark’s affidavit.
The court granted defendant’s motion in part. Regarding the site plans and global readings, it found, on the basis of Clark’s affidavit, that none existed. It concluded that further depositions of other city officials on the topic would be duplicative. The circuit court denied defendant’s request for summary disposition on the fee issue pending further hearings. It also deferred ruling on the side agreements until it could make an in camera review. With respect to the intentionally deleted exhibits, it found them irrelevant and granted summary disposition for defendant.
Following its review of the side agreements that defendant claimed were exempt, the court found that defendant properly complied with the requirements of MCL 15.243(l)(f). The side letters, it found, fell within the governmental policy exemption of FOIA because they helped to facilitate the Sandstone agreement. Thus, it granted summary disposition to defendant.
The trial court then turned to the appropriateness of the fees for its attorney that defendant charged to plaintiffs. Defendant contended that the fees were appropriate because defendant’s attorney was the lowest paid employee who could separate the exempt side [566] letters from the nonexempt letters. The court granted summary disposition to defendant on this issue. It found that the attorney was defendant’s employee and concluded that the fees were appropriate under MCL 15.234. In the same order, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.
On plaintiffs’ appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was not appropriate for the lower court to grant summary disposition concerning the intentionally deleted exhibits on the basis of relevance. But it affirmed the decision on alternative grounds, concluding that the intentionally deleted exhibits were not part of the final settlement agreement. It based its conclusion on the fact that these exhibits were listed in the agreement with the words “INTENTIONAL DELETION” written next to them. Coblentz, 264 Mich App 453-454.
Regarding the global readings and site plans, the Court of Appeals found that summary disposition was appropriate because of Clark’s affidavit and plaintiffs’ failure to offer factual support for their existence. It also concluded that summary disposition was appropriate despite the fact that discovery had not been concluded. The Court opined that it was unlikely that further discovery would provide the factual support necessary. Id. at 454-457.
It found that the two side agreements were exempt from disclosure. Specifically, it concluded that defendant adequately complied with FOIA’s requirement that it place a description of the exempt material in a central location within a reasonable time. This is despite the fact that defendant did not file the description until after plaintiffs had made their FOIA requests and until five months after Sandstone had submitted the documents. The Court of Appeals found this reasonable [567] because negotiations had continued between defendant and Sandstone over the deed restrictions. Id. at 458-459.
Finally, the Court of Appeals found the fees charged for the work of defendant’s attorney appropriate. It concluded that defendant’s attorney met the dictionary definition of an employee. And it found that he was the lowest paid employee who could handle the FOIA request. Id. at 460-461.
Plaintiffs sought, and we subsequently granted, leave to appeal. 474 Mich 886 (2005).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review questions of statutory interpretation and the proper application of statutes using a de novo standard. Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc v City of Holland, 463 Mich 675, 681; 625 NW2d 377 (2001). We review rulings on motions for summary disposition using the de novo standard as well. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). Summary disposition was granted here under MCR 2.116(C)(10).2 In reviewing a ruling made under this court rule, a court tests the factual support by reviewing the documentary evidence submitted by the parties. Spiek, 456 Mich 337. We review the evidence and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable [568] to the nonmoving party. Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388, 391; 617 NW2d 305 (2000). “Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).
The standard of review for FOIA cases was clarified this term in Herald Co, Inc v Eastern Michigan Univ Bd of Regents, 475 Mich 463; 719 NW2d 19 (2006). The Court stated:
We continue to hold that the clear error standard of review is appropriate where the parties challenge the factual findings of the trial court. However, where the parties do not dispute the underlying facts but rather challenge the trial court’s exercise of discretion, we hold that an appellate court must review that determination for an abuse of discretion, which this Court now defines as a determination that is outside the principled range of outcomes. [Id. at 467 (emphasis in original).]
The determination whether a description of material claimed to be exempt under MCL 15.243(l)(f) was recorded in a central location within a reasonable time after submission is a discretionary one. Therefore, the trial court’s decision on the defendant’s compliance with the requirements of MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
III. SITE PLANS AND GLOBAL READINGS
In response to plaintiffs’ request for site plans and global readings, defendant provided Clark’s affidavit claiming that the documents did not exist. If a record does not exist, it cannot be produced. Given that defendant denied the existence of the records and that it provided supporting documentation for its position, the [569] burden shifted to plaintiffs to produce documentation to counter defendant’s affidavit.
MCR 2.116(G)(4) provides:
A motion under subrule (C)(10) must specifically identify the issues as to which the moving party believes there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. When a motion under subrule (C)(10) is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleading, but must, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him or her.
Under this court rule, a plaintiff cannot rest solely on its complaint. Affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence must be offered to survive summary disposition. See Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). In this case, plaintiffs failed to provide such documentary evidence.
Regarding the global readings, plaintiffs admit that they are unsure what they were seeking. They base their request on a handwritten note contained in one of the drafts of the Sandstone agreement. The note is in the margin and merely states “global.” Plaintiffs concede that they were guessing at the meaning of the word. Plaintiffs offer no documentary evidence showing that their guess was well-founded. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary disposition. MCR 2.116(G)(4).
The site plans present a similar situation. While everyone agrees that, eventually, site plans for the development must be filed with defendant, the question is whether they had been filed at the time of plaintiffs’ FOIA request. Again, defendant provided Clark’s affidavit to support its contention that site plans had not [570] been filed with the city, and plaintiffs offered nothing to contradict this point. They did not even demonstrate that a local ordinance required Sandstone to file a site plan by the date of the FOIA request.3 Without factual support to contradict Clark’s affidavit, the trial court properly granted summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10).
Plaintiffs complain that summary disposition was premature because discovery had not been completed. They assert that they were unable to depose defendant’s employees, including Clark, to obtain the information necessary to counter defendant’s summary disposition motion. Such situations are controlled by MCR 2.116(H), which provides:
Affidavits Unavailable.
(1) A party may show by affidavit that the facts necessary to support the party’s position cannot be presented because the facts are known only to persons whose affidavits the party cannot procure. The affidavit must
(a) name these persons and state why their testimony cannot be procured, and
(b) state the nature of the probable testimony of these persons and the reason for the party’s belief that these persons would testify to those facts.
(2) When this kind of affidavit is filed, the court may enter an appropriate order, including an order
(a) denying the motion, or
(b) allowing additional time to permit the affidavit to be supported by further affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or other discovery.
[571] In this case, plaintiffs did not comply with MCR 2.116(H). They did not offer the required affidavits of probable testimony to support their contentions. Therefore, they cannot complain that discovery was prematurely ended.
Given that plaintiffs did not counter defendant’s documentary evidence as required by MCR 2.116(G)(4) or MCR 2.116(H), the trial court appropriately granted summary disposition to defendant under MCR 2.116(0(10). Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals decision with regard to plaintiffs’ request for global readings and site plans.
IV THE INTENTIONALLY DELETED EXHIBITS
In the final draft of the Sandstone agreement, the table of contents listed and lettered the exhibits. Next to some of the letters, the words “INTENTIONAL DELETION” were inserted. In their FOIA request, plaintiffs asked for all exhibits to the Sandstone agreement, including the intentionally deleted exhibits. Defendant argues that the FOIA request was not sufficiently clear. Much of this argument is based on defendant’s contention that there was only one final agreement and that plaintiffs requested the exhibits to that final agreement.
MCL 15.233(1) states, in relevant part:
Except as expressly provided in section 13 [exemptions from disclosure], upon providing a public body’s FOIA coordinator with a written request that describes a public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find the public record, a person has a right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of the requested public record of the public body. [Emphasis added.]
Defendant never claimed, and still does not claim, that it does not know what plaintiffs seek. But, focusing [572] on its view of what constituted the final agreement, it concludes that the requested exhibits either do not exist or that defendant is not required to produce them. It claims that only the final agreement is discoverable and that the requested exhibits were not part of it.
Even if the exhibits were not part of the final settlement agreement, defendant had to disclose them. The FOIA request sufficiently identified them. MCL 15.233(1). Defendant does not contend that it did not know what documents plaintiffs were requesting. Because plaintiffs’ description was sufficient to enable defendant to identify the documents, MCL 15.233(1) required defendant to produce them regardless of whether they were part of the final agreement.
Defendant’s restrictive reading of the FOIA request is not consistent with the language of the act. MCL 15.233(1). All that a request must accomplish is to describe the record “sufficiently” to enable the public body to identify it. Because defendant acknowledges that the FOIA request did that much, the request was adequate.
The Legislature chose not to require an exacting standard in MCL 15.233(1). It could have required a “written request that describes a public record precisely or fully.” But, instead, the Legislature chose to use the lesser standard of “sufficiently.” The words chosen by the Legislature are presumed intentional. We will not speculate that it used one word when it meant another. Detroit v Redford Twp, 253 Mich 453, 456; 235 NW 217 (1931).
Moreover, requiring only a description sufficient to permit identification of the requested items is consistent with the goals and intent of the Legislature in enacting FOIA. It is a prodisclosure act. Swickard v Wayne Co Medical Examiner, 438 Mich 536, 544; 475 [573] NW2d 304 (1991). All public records are subject to full disclosure unless they are clearly exempt. Id. If a request is “sufficient” to allow the public body to find a nonexempt record, the record must be disclosed. MCL 15.233(1).
Plaintiffs’ request satisfies this requirement. It specifically listed the intentionally deleted exhibits by letter, G, T, U, V, W, AA, BB, GG, MM, NN, and PE Defendant’s response demonstrates that plaintiffs’ description was adequate because it also listed these exhibits by letter. It is irrelevant that defendant believed these exhibits not to be part of the final agreement. Plaintiffs’ request provided defendant enough information for it to understand what documents plaintiffs wished to review.
A FOIA request must be fulfilled unless MCL 15.243 lists an applicable specific exemption. MCL 15.233(1). Defendant points to no exemption applicable to the intentionally deleted exhibits. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendant, and the Court of Appeals erred in affirming that decision. MCL 15.233(1) required the trial court to order defendant to turn over the intentionally deleted exhibits.
V THE SIDE AGREEMENTS OR SIDE LETTERS
A. THE SIDE LETTERS ARE NOT EXEMPT PROM DISCLOSURE
The trial court and the Court of Appeals found two of the side letters exempt from disclosure pursuant to MCL 15.243(l)(f). That provision reads:
A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this act any of the following:
[574] (f) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy if:
(;i) The information is submitted upon a promise of confidentiality by the public body.
(ii) The promise of confidentiality is authorized by the chief administrative officer of the public body or by an elected official at the time the promise is made.
(Hi) A description of the information is recorded by the public body within a reasonable time after it has been submitted, maintained in a central place within the public body, and made available to a person upon request. This subdivision does not apply to information submitted as required by law or as a condition of receiving a governmental contract, license, or other benefit.
Because FOIA is a prodisclosure act,4 the public agency bears the burden of proving that an exemption applies. MCL 15.240(4). In this case, defendant did not carry that burden. Because it failed to meet the requirements of MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii), the side letters were not exempt.
B. DEFENDANT OFFERED NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DELAY IN THIS CASE
We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant recorded a description of the side letters within a reasonable time after they were submitted to defendant. The proffered reason for the delay, ongoing negotiations between defendant and Sandstone to secure the public release of the letters, is a consideration irrelevant to the recording requirements of MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii).
MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii) requires a public body to record a description of material claimed to be exempt within a [575] reasonable time after its submission to the body. If it fails to comply with this requirement, the material is not exempt. MCL 15.243(1) (f). Whether the time the public body takes to record a description of the material is reasonable is measured from the date the material is submitted. It is not measured from the date the parties designate it as confidential. Because reasonableness is a discretionary determination, we review the trial court’s finding for an abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion if its determination falls beyond the principled range of outcomes. Herald, 475 Mich 467.
In this case, the side letters were sent to defendant between June and July 2002. Defendant did not record a description of them until November 26, 2002, several weeks after plaintiffs’ November 1,2002, FOIA request. The question, then, is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found that this four- to five-month interval was reasonable. Defendant argues that the delay was reasonable because, in the intervening months, defendant negotiated with Sandstone to determine which of the seven side letters it could publicly release. Defendant contends that, had it immediately recorded a description of the letters and asserted a FOIA exemption, Sandstone would have been discouraged from authorizing the letters’ public disclosure later. It argues that negotiations with Sandstone to disclose the letters would have been rendered futile.
We reject the argument that defendant’s negotiations with Sandstone made the delay reasonable and hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that defendant complied with MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii). Defendant’s proffered reason cannot justify any delay in meeting the filing requirement. However inconvenient the recording requirement may have been to [576] defendant and Sandstone, defendant was still required to comply with the provisions of MCL 15.243(l)(f). This exemption is intended to provide notice to the public that a public body possesses trade secrets, commercial information, or financial information submitted to it for use in developing governmental policy.
MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii) describes how those documents must be made available for public inspection. Only by the fortuity of plaintiffs’ ongoing negotiations with defendant regarding the removal of deed restrictions from plaintiffs’ property did plaintiffs become aware of the side letters. Otherwise, plaintiffs would never have known or suspected that they existed. Defendant’s rationale fails to explain how a requesting party could seek disclosure of a document of which it was unaware.
Were we to accept defendant’s rationale, a public body could knowingly possess such confidential information for extended periods without providing any notice to the public that the information exists. This would defeat the purpose of the recording requirements expressed clearly in MCL 15.243(l)(f). Therefore, whether defendant could later secure Sandstone’s permission to release the side letters is a consideration not legally relevant to its statutory obligation to record a description of the letters. It cannot be interpreted as a basis for finding that defendant filed a description within a “reasonable time.”
Justice CORRIGAN’S dissent argues that the unique facts of this case warranted the lengthy delay and that the trial court’s discretionary determination fell within the principled range of outcomes. It misses the point that defendant’s justification for the delay is legally irrelevant. Defendant bears the burden of qualifying the side letters as exempt under MCL 15.243(l)(f). Therefore, defendant must prove that the four- to [577] five-month delay in recording was a “reasonable time.” It is true, as Justice CORRIGAN contends, that the permissible time period for filing can vary. However, we do not need to pinpoint a general rule concerning what length of time would have been reasonable in this appeal because no valid reason was offered for the delay. We conclude simply that defendant’s justification for the four- to five-month delay is legally irrelevant in view of the notice requirements set forth in MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii). Therefore, the trial court’s finding that this interval was reasonable falls beyond the principled range of outcomes.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the delay was reasonable. Because defendant failed to comply with MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii), the side letters are not exempt.5
VI. THE AVAILABILITY OF FEES FOR THE WORK OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY
The lower courts erred in allowing defendant to charge plaintiffs for the work of defendant’s attorney in locating the two allegedly exempt letters and separating them from the nonexempt material. MCL 15.234(1) provides, in part:
A public body may charge a fee for a public record search, the necessary copying of a public record for inspection, or for providing a copy of a public record. Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the fee shall be limited to actual mailing costs, and to the actual incremental cost of duplication or publication including labor, the cost of search, [578] examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information as provided in section 14.
MCL 15.234(3) describes how the public body may calculate the cost of producing FOIA documents. It provides, in part:
In calculating the cost of labor incurred in duplication and mailing and the cost of examination, review, separation, and deletion under subsection (1), a public body may not charge more than the hourly wage of the lowest paid public body employee capable of retrieving the information necessary to comply with a request under this act.
Pursuant to this statute, the public body may charge the rate of the lowest paid public body employee capable of retrieving the information. While the lower courts attempted to apply the language of the statute, they failed to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. MCL 15.234(3) allows the public body to charge for an employee’s actions; it does not mention independent contractors. Therefore, to properly determine whether charges are appropriate, a court must resolve whether the person who examined the records is an employee or an independent contractor.
Although we have applied the economic realities test most often in the workers’ compensation field, we conclude that it is instructive here. The test is a useful tool for discerning whether an employee-employer relationship exists. See Clark v United Technologies Automotive Inc, 459 Mich 681, 687; 594 NW2d 447 (1999). The test includes but is not limited to the following factors:
“First, what liability, if any, does the employer incur in the event of the termination of the relationship at will?
[579] “Second, is the work being performed an integral part of the employer’s business which contributes to the accomplishment of a common objective?
“Third, is the position or job of such a nature that the employee primarily depends upon the emolument for payment of his living expenses?
“Fourth, does the employee furnish his own equipment and materials?
“Fifth, does the individual seeking employment hold' himself out to the public as one ready and able to perform tasks of a given nature?
“Sixth, is the work or the undertaking in question customarily performed by an individual as an independent contractor?
“Seventh, control, although abandoned as an exclusive criterion upon which the relationship can be determined, is a factor to be considered along with payment of wages, maintenance of discipline and the right to engage or discharge employees.
“Eighth, weight should be given to those factors which will most favorably effectuate the objectives of the statute.” [Hoste v Shanty Creek Mgt, Inc, 459 Mich 561, 568 n 6; 592 NW2d 360 (1999), quoting McKissic v Bodine, 42 Mich App 203, 208-209; 201 NW2d 333 (1972); see also Askew v Macomber, 398 Mich 212, 217-218; 247 NW2d 288 (1976), and Schulte v American Box Board Co, 358 Mich 21, 32-32; 99 NW2d 367 (1959) (SMITH, J., concurring).]
No single factor is controlling when applying the test. Clark, 459 Mich 689.
In this case, defendant’s attorney did not receive a paycheck or other employee benefits from defendant. The record reflects that the attorney was employed by a law firm that defendant retained as city attorney. The attorney acted as the lead attorney for the firm in that capacity. His social security and other employment benefits were paid by his law firm. Defendant did not [580] directly pay the attorney for his services. Rather, defendant paid the law firm, which, in turn, paid the attorney.
The law firm provided the material and equipment necessary for the attorney to perform services for defendant. The attorney did not work exclusively for defendant, but acted as the attorney for other municipalities as well. There was no indication that the attorney was at all dependent on defendant for his living expenses. It appears that the attorney’s law firm maintained control over the attorney. Finally, defendant had no liability for the attorney in the event that his association with defendant was terminated
This is the classic example of an independent contractor. The attorney was the employee of the law firm. He and the law firm acted as independent contractors for defendant. Because MCL 15.234(3) does not mention independent contractors, defendant was not entitled to charge for the attorney’s work.
FOIA allows public bodies to charge a requesting party only for employees’ labor. MCL 15.234(3). Because the attorney who examined and separated the side letters was not defendant’s employee, the lower courts erred in allowing defendant to charge plaintiffs under MCL 15.234(3) for the attorney’s work.
VII. CONCLUSION
We affirm the part of the Court of Appeals decision that held that defendant was not required by FOIA to produce documents regarding global readings and site plans. Plaintiffs did not, as required by MCR 2.116(G)(4), counter defendant’s affidavit, and they did not demonstrate, pursuant to MCR 2.116(H), that further discovery would disclose such documents. There[581] fore, the trial court properly granted summary disposition to defendant on this issue.
We reverse the part of the Court of Appeals decision regarding the intentionally deleted exhibits. Plaintiffs’ request provided defendant sufficient information for defendant to know which documents plaintiffs wished to review. Because no exemption from disclosure applied, MCL 15.233(1) required the trial court to order defendant to turn over the intentionally deleted exhibits.
We also reverse the part of the Court of Appeals decision regarding the two side letters that defendant claimed were exempt. Defendant failed to comply with MCL 15.243(l)(f)(iii). It did not place a description of the material in a central location within a reasonable time of submission. This failure eliminates the side letters from being exempt.
Finally, we reverse the part of the decision affirming the allowance of fees for the work of defendant’s attorney. The attorney was an independent contractor. The lower courts erred in failing to note the legal distinction between employees and independent contractors. MCL 15.234(3) allows recovery for the costs associated only with employees.
We remand this case to the trial court for entry of a judgment compelling disclosure consistent with this opinion.
Taylor, C.J., and Weaver, Young, and Markman, JJ., concurred with KELLY, J.