Paige Shiver Refiled FOIA Lawsuit Against Michigan
The former employee challenged the dismissal of her records requests in the state appellate court.
Updated on Sept. 22, 2026 in Football
Paige Shiver has refiled a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the University of Michigan in the appellate court. The move follows the September 9 dismissal of her original case by the Washtenaw County Circuit Court.
Why it matters
The lawsuit centers on the university's refusal to release records related to internal investigations, with the school arguing it is not subject to county court jurisdiction. The case underscores broader tensions over transparency regarding athletic department conduct.
The university has spent approximately $12 million in legal fees concerning the athletic department investigation. Meanwhile, the school denied records requests citing ongoing investigation exemptions and privacy concerns.
The players
Paige Shiver
She is a former employee of the University of Michigan football department who served in the organization from 2021 to 2025.
Sherrone Moore
He is a football figure who received an 18-month probation sentence in April for misdemeanor trespassing and telecommunications misuse.
Warde Manuel
He is the athletic director at the University of Michigan whose correspondence was the subject of a denied Freedom of Information Act request.
The details
Shiver, who worked in the university's football department from 2021 to 2025, submitted five Freedom of Information Act requests that were subsequently denied. University attorneys have moved for summary disposition, asserting that the state-governed institution is exempt from the jurisdiction of county courts.
Timeline
Shiver was employed in the football department from 2021 to 2025.
The Washtenaw County Circuit Court dismissed the original lawsuit on September 9, 2026.
The new lawsuit was filed in the appellate court on September 10, 2026.
Season Trajectory
This ongoing legal battle regarding internal transparency efforts marks a significant continuation of the scrutiny surrounding the university's athletic department operations. The persistent litigation keeps the focus on departmental culture rather than the current football season's competitive performance.
The university's continued spending of $12 million on legal fees remains a point of contention for stakeholders monitoring the allocation of departmental resources. The ongoing litigation ensures that the investigative files involving senior staff remain inaccessible to the public.
The takeaway
The case highlights the complex intersection between state government transparency laws and the legal autonomy claimed by large public universities. Monitoring court rulings on jurisdictional claims will be essential for understanding future access to institutional records.
Further reading
For more information on the program, visit Football.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Mlive.
