Michigan’s 48th Circuit Court Judge Margaret Zuzich Bakker is presiding over Hill & Sanner v. Ottawa County, a significant Freedom of Information Act case. That assignment raises a disqualification question that has not been publicly addressed: a 2020 FOIA request previously exposed Judge Bakker’s undisclosed ex parte email communications with then-Prosecutor Myrene Koch during an active criminal trial. Those communications — private, undisclosed to the parties, and concerning the conduct of a trial witness — were brought to light specifically because FOIA transparency mechanisms worked as intended. A judge whose prior judicial misconduct was exposed through the FOIA process now presiding over a major FOIA case creates an appearance-of-impartiality problem that Michigan’s disqualification standards require courts to examine seriously.
The Assignment and Why It Raises a Disqualification Question
Enforcing government transparency requires not only fair adjudication but the visible appearance of fair adjudication. When Michigan’s government transparency laws are litigated in front of a judge with a documented history of conduct that FOIA mechanisms were specifically designed to expose, that appearance requirement is directly implicated.
Judge Margaret Zuzich Bakker of Michigan’s 48th Circuit Court is presiding over Hill & Sanner v. Ottawa County — a significant FOIA case with implications for how broadly open records obligations extend in Michigan. Prior Clutch Justice coverage has documented Bakker’s involvement with the case. The disqualification question that coverage raises is grounded in a documented record, not in speculation.
The 2020 FOIA and What It Revealed
In 2020, a FOIA request produced email communications between Judge Bakker and then-Prosecutor Myrene Koch that had not been disclosed to the parties during an active criminal trial. The communications discussed Michigan State Police Trooper Eric Desch and his ability to conduct investigations — private, undisclosed exchanges between a judge and a prosecutor about trial evidence and witness conduct, occurring outside the presence of defense counsel, while the trial was proceeding.
The Michigan Supreme Court brief in subsequent appellate proceedings documented the ex parte email exchanges between Judge Bakker and then-Prosecutor Koch. The communications are not disputed as to their existence — they were produced in response to a FOIA request and entered into the appellate record. What they represent — undisclosed communications between a sitting judge and a prosecutor about the substance of a pending trial — is a violation of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct’s prohibition on ex parte communications with one party concerning a matter pending before the court.
The same legal mechanism that is now before Judge Bakker for adjudication — FOIA — is the mechanism that produced the documented record of her prior misconduct. A FOIA request is what made the ex parte emails accessible to the parties, to the public, and to the appellate court. If Judge Bakker harbors any disposition toward narrow interpretations of FOIA’s reach — any view that government communications conducted outside official channels should not be subject to transparency requirements — that disposition would have benefited her personally in 2020 and did not. The question of whether she can approach FOIA cases with the impartiality that the law requires, given this history, is precisely what Michigan’s disqualification standard is designed to evaluate.
The Personal Device Skepticism and Why It Matters
One of the contested questions in Michigan FOIA litigation is whether public business conducted on personal devices falls within the scope of FOIA disclosure obligations. Judge Bakker’s documented skepticism toward broad readings of this question — reflected in prior FOIA-adjacent rulings — is significant in this context because of what the 2020 disclosure established: that communications conducted through email accounts, whether official or personal, between a judge and a prosecutor about pending litigation are precisely the kind of communications that FOIA’s transparency obligations are designed to make accessible.
Michigan Court Rule 2.003 does not require proof that a judge is actually biased. It requires that a reasonable person with knowledge of all relevant circumstances would not question the judge’s impartiality. The relevant circumstances here include: a documented history of ex parte communications with a prosecutor during a pending criminal trial; the exposure of that conduct through the FOIA mechanism; and a current assignment to decide how broadly FOIA obligations extend to government officials. A reasonable person — particularly a person who had standing to invoke FOIA to obtain government records — would have legitimate questions about whether those circumstances compromise the impartiality the standard requires. That is the appearance-of-impropriety test. It is satisfied here on the documented facts.
Why Recusal Matters for Michigan’s Open Records Framework
FOIA cases are not abstract legal disputes. They determine whether citizens can access the government records to which they are legally entitled, and whether government officials who conduct public business through channels designed to obscure that business can shield it from transparency requirements. The outcomes of FOIA cases shape the practical functioning of Michigan’s open government framework — who can see what, and under what conditions.
A judge with a documented history of using communication channels that FOIA exposure showed were not private presiding over cases about what FOIA reaches is not a neutral fact about judicial assignment. It is a structural conflict that Michigan’s disqualification standard exists to address. Recusal in FOIA cases involving the kinds of conduct the 2020 FOIA exposed is not an extraordinary remedy. It is what the disqualification standard, applied to the documented facts, requires.
Sources and Case Record
Rita Williams, Judge Margaret Bakker and FOIA Cases: Why Disqualification Should Be Considered, Clutch Justice (June 15, 2025), https://clutchjustice.com/2025/06/15/judge-margaret-bakker-foia-disqualification/.
Williams, R. (2025, June 15). Judge Margaret Bakker and FOIA cases: Why disqualification should be considered. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/06/15/judge-margaret-bakker-foia-disqualification/
Williams, Rita. “Judge Margaret Bakker and FOIA Cases: Why Disqualification Should Be Considered.” Clutch Justice, 15 June 2025, clutchjustice.com/2025/06/15/judge-margaret-bakker-foia-disqualification/.
Williams, Rita. “Judge Margaret Bakker and FOIA Cases: Why Disqualification Should Be Considered.” Clutch Justice, June 15, 2025. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/06/15/judge-margaret-bakker-foia-disqualification/.
