Complaint that facially states cause of action for violation of public records law requires evidentiary hearing.  [Added 11/23/11]

    Plaintiff brought an action against State Attorney under the public records law, Fla.Stat. Ch. 119.  Plaintiff contended that State Attorney's failure to produce the subject records at his Lake City office, as Plaintiff requested and where the records ordinarily were used, rather than at the Live Oak location.  The trial court granted State Attorney's motion to dismiss, "finding that there had been no refusal to provide the requested records and 'the place, time, and conditions for compliance (providing the records) [was not] unreasonable.'"  (Emphasis by court.)  Plaintiff appealed.

    The First DCA reversed.  "[Plaintiff]’s complaint alleged instances of refusal and facially stated a cause of action under chapter 119.  Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing the complaint and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the merits.  [Citations omitted.]  On remand, the trial court must determine whether there was a delay to produce the requested records and, if so, whether the delay was reasonable under the facts of this case.  The reasonableness of [State Attorney]’s policy itself is not the subject of the inquiry.  Rather, the inquiry centers on whether the application of the policy resulted in an unjustified delay that amounted to an unlawful refusal to comply with chapter 119."  Johnson v. Jarvis, 74 So.3d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Fourth DCA concludes that an email sent by a city official is not a public record, focusing on whether it was prepared in connection with official business.  [Added 7/22/11]

    Mayor of City sent an email from her personal computer using her personal email account.  The brief email contained 3 articles that Mayor wrote as a contributor to a local newspaper.  Mayor has been a weekly columnist for the newspaper for more than 4 years.  The email also included 3 attachments:  "(1) a transcript of the 2009 State of the City Address; (2) a transcript of Part Two of the State of the City Address; and (3) an article about tax questions raised at prior commission meetings."  A citizen made a public records request for the names and email addresses of the recipients.  City filed a declaratory judgment action.  The trial court ruled that the requestor was not entitled to the requested information.  The requestor appealed.

    The Fourth DCA affirmed, and in its opinion the court discussed the public records law (Fla.Stat. Ch. 119 (2009)) as it applies to email communications.  The court noted that the Florida Supreme Court has "emphasized that the mere placement of an e-mail on a government network is not controlling in determining whether it is public record, but rather, whether the e-mail is prepared in connection with the official business of an agency and is 'intended to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type'.”  State v. City of Clearwater, 863 So.2d 149, 154 (Fla. 2003) (quoting Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Assocs., Inc., 379 So.2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980).  The court further observed:  "Just as the supreme court concluded that the mere fact that the email was a product of the City’s computer network did not automatically make it a public record, the City concedes that the mere fact that Cooper’s email was sent from her private email on her own personal computer is not the determining factor as to whether the email was a public record.  Once again, it is whether the email was prepared in connection with official agency business a n d intended to perpetuate, communicate, and formalize knowledge of some kind."

    In the instant case, the City had no role in the Mayor's email and it was "not intended to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize the City’s business; it was simply to provide a copy of the articles to [Mayor]’s friends and supporters.  The email was not made pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of official business by the City, or [Mayor] in her capacity as Mayor."  Consequently, the email was not a public record under Chapter 119.  Butler v. City of Hallandale Beach, 68 So.3d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Florida Supreme Court rules that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.852 and F.S. 27.7081 did not unconstitutionally restrict death-penalty defendant's access to public records.  [Added 7/19/11]

    Defendant, a prisoner under a death sentence, appealed denial of his motions for postconviction relief.  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed.

    One of Defendant's contentions was that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.852 and Fla.Stat. sec. 27.7081 (2006) unconstitutionally restricted his access to public records "because both provisions impermissibly mandate that his demand for public records not be 'overly broad or unduly burdensome' and that he make his own search for records."  Defendant cited no case law to support his argument.  The Court rejected Defendant's contention.

    Upon issuance of the Court's mandate in a postconviction proceeding, records relating to a capital defendant's case are automatically required to be delivered to a postconviction repository.  If an additional request is made by the defendant, the postconviction court conducts a hearing.  The defendant must "plead with specifically the outstanding public records he seeks to obtain."  (Quoting from Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1273 (Fla. 2005).)  "Requiring that a capital defendant‘s additional request be timely made after a diligent search and that this request not be overly broad or unduly burdensome places a reasonable restriction on access to these records.  . . .  This is because a capital defendant‘s additional request follows the State agencies‘ initial delivery to the repository.  We conclude the requirement that a defendant make a diligent search through records already produced and narrow his or her request to provide adequate notice to the agency from which he or she seeks information is reasonable in the context of capital postconviction claims."  Wyatt v. State, 71 So.3d 86 (Fla. 2011).

Florida Supreme Court rules that Sarasota County did not violate Sunshine Law during negotiations to relocate Baltimore Orioles spring training.  [Added 10/29/10]

    The City of Sarasota and Sarasota County successfully negotiated with the Baltimore Orioles baseball team, resulting in an agreement to move the Orioles' spring training activities to Sarasota.  A group ("Citizens") sued the City and the County, alleging violations of the Sunshine Law (Fla.Stat. Ch. 286) and contesting the validity of bonds proposed for issuance by the City and the County in furtherance of their agreement with the Orioles.  After an adverse ruling in the trial court, Citizens appealed the judgment concerning alleged Sunshine Law violations by the County.

    The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, addressing and finding no merit in three arguments advanced by Citizens.

    Negotiation team.  Deputy County Administrator Bullock was the point person for City and County negotiations with the Orioles.  In this role, he consulted with various individuals (the "negotiations team").  Citizens argued that the negotiations team was a board or commission subject to the Sunshine Law.  The trial court ruled otherwise, and the Supreme Court affirmed.  The Sunshine Law applies to committees subordinate to governmental authorities when decision-making authority has been delegated to them.  "In contrast, a committee is not subject to the Sunshine Law if the committee has only been delegated information-gathering or fact-finding authority and only conducts such activities."  (Citations omitted.)  The trial court found that the negotiations team did not have decision-making authority.  The Supreme Court agreed.  "Because the individuals consulted by Bullock served an informational role, the so-called negotiations team did not constitute an advisory committee subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Law.  As explained above, only advisory committees acting pursuant to a delegation of decision-making authority by the governmental entity are subject to the open meetings requirement of section 286.011.  Advisory committees functioning as fact-finders or information gatherers are not subject to section 286.011."

    One-on-one staff briefings of county commissioners.  The Court also rejected Citizens' argument that private one-on-one staff briefings of members of the board of county commissioners violated the Sunshine Law.  Bullock, by himself and assisted by other County staff, held one-on-one informational briefings with board members prior to the board's discussion at its public meeting.  Although formal or informal meetings between 2 or more board members where the members deal with board matters would violate the Sunshine Law, "public officials may call upon staff members for factual information and advice without being subject to the Sunshine Law's requirements."  Accordingly, there was no Sunshine Law violation.

    Email discussions among commissioners.  Citizens also asserted "that the trial court erred by ruling that any violations committed in e-mail discussions between board members were cured by the Board's public meetings that were held up to and including July 22, 2009."  Again, the Court disagreed and affirmed.  "Based upon the fact that, subsequent to the last possibly violative e-mail, multiple proposals were discussed and rejected before one was finally approved, it is clear the Board took independent, final action in the sunshine regarding Orioles spring training in Sarasota.  This simply is not the case of a 'ceremonial acceptance of secret actions [or] merely a perfunctory ratification of secret decisions at a later meeting open to the public.'  Tolar [v. School Board of Liberty County], 398 So.2d [427 (Fla. 1981)] at 429.  Therefore, any possible e-mail violations were cured."  Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Sarasota, 48 So.3d 755 (Fla. 2010).

Audio recordings of high-profile defendants' phone calls made by sheriff's office are not public records subject to disclosure.  [Added 9/30/10]  --  Bent v. State, 46 So.3d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

First DCA rules that Department of Health's confidential investigative records are not subject to discovery administrative or court proceedings.  [Added 9/27/10]  --  Florida Dept. of Health v. Kenneth D. Poss, D.P.M., 45 So.3d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

State Attorney's trial notes not subject to disclosure as public records, rules Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 9/20/10]  --  Geralds v. State, __ So.3d ___, 35 Fla.L.Weekly S503 (Fla., Nos. SC06-761, SC07-716, 9/16/2010), 2010 WL 3582955.

Company's customer lists produced to state agency are trade secrets exempt from disclosure under public records law.  [Added 8/4/10]  --  James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Smiljanich, & Yanchunis, P.A. v. Rodale, Inc., 41 So.3d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Florida Supreme Court amends rules governing public access to judicial branch records.  [Added 3/22/10]  --  In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 31 So.3d 756 (Fla. 2010).  --  Keesler v. Community Maritime Park Associates, Inc., 32 So.3d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Public Records Act exemptions for undercover police identities not lost merely because they were disclosed to criminal defendant during discovery.  [Added 3/11/10]  --  Rameses, Inc. v. Demings, 29 So.3d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

City's eventual production of meeting minutes months after their request did not moot issue of City's violation of public records law.  [Added 1/25/10]  --  Grapski v. City of Alachua, 31 So.3d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Criminal defendant's filing of pleading in his closed case not appropriate method of filing public records request.  [Added 10/23/09]  --  Harris v. State, 21 So.3d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Audio recording of criminal defendant's sentencing hearing is not a "court record" and therefore is not a public record.  [Added 5/10/09]  --  Media General Operations, Inc. v. State, 12 So.3d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Government lawyer's memo concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise application must be produced in response to public records request.  [Added 2/17/09]  --  Greater Orlando Aviation Authority v. Nejame, Lafay, Jancha, Vara, Barker & Joshi, P.A., 4 So.3d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Internal investigation procedures used by County Sheriff's Office did not violate Sunshine Law.  [Added 1/19/09]  --  McDougall v. Culver, 3 So.2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Portions of personal flight logs of pilots for police department's aviation unit are public records.  [Added 1/19/09]  --  Miami-Dade County v. Professional Law Enforcement Ass'n,  997 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Someone requesting public records from city must pay past-due fees owed before city must comply with new request.  [Added 10/31/08]  --  Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 995 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Private engineering firm that contracted to perform public functions on behalf of city is considered "agency" subject to public records laws.  [Added 7/10/08]  --  B & S Utilities, Inc. v. Baskerville-Donovan, Inc., 988 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Government's charge for labor costs in responding to extensive public records requests may include both salary and employee benefit costs.  [Added 1/29/08]  --  Board of County Commissioners of Highlands County v. Colby, 976 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Memo "to the file" written by county commissioner is public record subject to disclosure under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.  [Added 12/27/2007]  --  Miami Herald Media Co. v. Sarnoff, 971 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Public records law does not require copies be furnished free of charge to convicted defendant pursuing postconviction relief.  [Added 7/10/07]  --  Clowers v. State, 960 So.2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Litigation files of county and its law firm continue to be exempt from public records laws while claimant pursues claims bill in Legislature.  [Added 6/22/07]  --  Wagner v. Orange County, Florida, 960 So.2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Attorney's fees awarded against state attorney's office that did not respond to public records request until after requestor filed suit to require production.  [Added 4/27/07]  --  Office of the State Attorney for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit v. Gonzalez, 953 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Public records laws precluded judge from ordering production of notices of hearing from unemployment appeals.  [Added 3/23/07]  --  Fla. Agency for Workforce Innovation v. Mitchell S. Ritchie, P.A., 951 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Labor unions must pay statutory copying charge for public records sought from public employer with which union is engaged in collective bargaining.  City of Miami Beach v. Public Employees Relations Comm'n, 937 So.2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

City's data identifying persons and businesses cited for security alarm ordinance violations not available as matter of public record.  Critical Intervention Services, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 908 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Police event security plan not "public record" under Fla.Stat. sec. 119 even after event is over.  Timoney v. City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, 917 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Statements made in city commission meeting that arguably were relevant to former employee's suit against city were not improper ex parte communications under Fla.Stat. sec. 286.0115  The City of Hollywood v. Hakanson, 866 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2004).

Personal email messages not considered public records by virtue of placement on government-owned computer system.  State v. City of Clearwater, 863 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2003).