Company's customer lists produced to state agency are trade secrets exempt from disclosure under public records law.  [Added 8/4/10]

    Company produced documents to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs, Office of the Attorney General ("the AG"), in response to an investigative subpoena.  Law Firm, "a self-described investigative law firm specializing in consumer protection issues," filed a public records request under Fla.Stat. sec. 119.07 (2009) seeking access to the documents.  Company filed a court action seeking declaratory relief and an injunction to prevent the disclosure, asserting that the documents were exempt from public records disclosure as "trade secrets."  Agreeing with Company, the court ruled that the documents were exempt as trade secrets under Fla.Stat. sec. 815.045 (2009), even though the documents were now in the hands of the AG.  Law Firm appealed.

    The First DCA affirmed in part and reversed in part.  The fact that Company had designated the documents as confidential before turning them over to the AG was immaterial; the court noted that "[a] private party cannot render public records exempt from disclosure merely by designating material it turns over to a governmental agency confidential."  All of the documents except for customer complaints to Company and Company's responses, however, were "trade secrets" and so were exempt from disclosure as public records.  The fact that customer lists "are bought and sold proves their commercial value – not the contrary – and suggests the lack of ready public availability.  We affirm the trial court’s ruling on this point, as well as its ruling that [Company]’s contracts, reports and communications with and from its suppliers and other vendors constitute trade secrets."

    The court did conclude that "treating customer complaints and responses as nothing more than partial customer lists was legal error" and reversed the trial court on this point.  These documents were not exempt as trade secrets because Company "has no proprietary claim to the complaints or to the written responses it sends disgruntled customers."  James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Smiljanich, & Yanchunis, P.A. v. Rodale, Inc., __ So.3d ___, 35 Fla.L.Weekly D1709 (Fla. 1st DCA, No. 1D09-6493, 7/30/2010), 2010 WL 2976932.

Florida Supreme Court amends rules governing public access to judicial branch records.  [Added 3/22/10]

    After extensive study and input from interested committees and groups, the Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to various rules governing public access to records of the judicial branch of state government.  The Court stated that the amendments "address procedures for the clerks [of court] to identify a narrow set of records as confidential, procedures for sealing and unsealing records, specific procedures targeted at criminal cases, and related appellate procedures."

    The first set of amendments "provide a mechanism to protect confidential information in court records from public view."  The Court considered this necessary because of its "ongoing concern that we not sacrifice the important goal of protecting those records that are confidential" while broadening its efforts to provide the public with electronic access to court records.

    The second set of amendments "deal specifically with the issue of sealing and unsealing court records both in criminal and civil cases.  The proposals [for amendments] refine the procedures developed in 2007 for sealing and unsealing noncriminal trial court records and specifically include procedures targeted at criminal and appellate court records.  In conjunction with these proposals, the Court also considers related amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which clarify that requests to seal appellate court records are governed by [Judicial Administration] rule 2.420 and provide for review of court orders granting access to judicial branch records and proceedings, in addition to orders denying access."

The adoption of new Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.420(d), "Procedures for Determining Confidentiality of Court Records," becomes effective on October 1, 2010.  The remainder of the amendments became effective upon release of the Court's opinion.  In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 31 So.3d 756 (Fla. 2010).

Per First DCA, open meetings law gives citizens right to attend but not to speak at public meetings.  [Added 3/14/10]

    Citizens filed suit seeking the right to speak at meetings of a not-for-profit corporation ("CMPA") that was charged by a Florida city with overseeing the development of certain waterfront property.  Both parties agreed that CMPA is subject to the Sunshine Law, F.S. 286.011(1).  The trial court granted summary judgment for CMPA, ruling that the Sunshine Law gave Citizens "the right to be present but not to speak at CMPA meetings."  Citizens appealed.

    The First DCA affirmed.  The court stated that the issue presented "is not whether CMPA should give citizens an opportunity to speak and provide input at its meetings, but rather whether the Sunshine Law provides citizens the right to speak at public meetings."  (Emphasis by court.)  The appellate court concluded:  "[Citizens] have failed to point to any case construing the phrase 'open to the public' [in the Sunshine Law] to grant the public the right to speak, and in light of the clear and unambiguous language in [Wood v.] Marston [442 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1983)] (albeit dicta), we are not inclined to broadly construe the phrase as granting such a right here.  Rather, we agree with the trial court that the remedy [Citizens] are seeking in this case is more appropriately left to the legislative process or the local public officials to whom the CMPA board members are accountable."  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]

    During discovery in a criminal prosecution of nightclub dancers, the state disclosed unredacted copies of undercover surveillance video recordings that showed the faces of undercover law enforcement personnel.  Related administrative charges were filed against the entity where the dancers worked ("the Club").  After the criminal and administrative cases were concluded, the Club filed a public records request with the Sheriff seeking unredacted copies of the video.  The Sheriff offered to provide copies that were redacted to obscure the faces of the undercover personnel.  The Club objected and filed suit.

    Both the Club and the Sheriff moved for summary judgment.  Sheriff conceded that the recordings were public records but arguing that several exemptions applied that would permit production only if the recordings were redacted to conceal the identities.  The Club contended that because "unredacted tapes had been released to the defendant dancers during discovery in the criminal proceedings, the exemptions no longer applied."  The trial court "granted summary final judgment in favor of the Sheriff, concluding that the Sheriff was authorized to 'obscure the faces' of all the undercover MBI officers prior to producing the recordings pursuant to the exemptions contained in section 119.071(4)(c) [exempts any "information revealing undercover personnel of any criminal justice agency"] and (4)(d) [exempts ". . . photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel"]."  The Club appealed.

    The Fifth DCA affirmed, finding support in Salcines v. Tampa Television, 454 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Christy v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 698 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).  "[T]he defendant dancers may have been entitled to unredacted versions of the surveillance recordings in preparing their defenses under [Fla.R.Crim.P.] 3.220.  However, we see no reason why such forced disclosure should transform otherwise exempt material into public information when the specific exemptions contained in section 119.071 are considered.  . . .  To conclude otherwise would effectively allow the rules of criminal procedure, which are enacted to govern criminal discovery, to trump legislatively approved exemptions from disclosure under the Public Records Act [F.S. Ch. 119].  Such a result would impinge on the Legislature’s prerogatives."  (Citation and footnote omitted.)  The court concluded:  "We hold that the disclosure to a criminal defendant during discovery of unredacted versions of undercover police surveillance recordings does not destroy, in a public records context, the exemptions contained in section 119.071 for information relating to the identity of undercover law enforcement personnel."  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]

    On the night of a City Commission election (April 11, 2006), the Board of Canvassers met to canvass the election.  A City employee prepared minutes of that meeting.  Two citizens ("Requesters") attended the meeting and "observed what they perceived to be improprieties."  The City set a regular City Commission meeting for May 15, and the "Consent Agenda" for the May 15 meeting included approval of the April 11 meeting minutes.  Requesters made a public records request for a copy of the April 11 meeting minutes.  It was denied.  Other requests for the minutes before the May 15 meeting also were fruitless.

    Nine months after their initial public records request, Requesters brought an action alleging, inter alia, that City's failure to provide the requested minutes before the May 15 meeting violated F.S. sec. 119.07 and Fla.Constit. Art. I, Sec. 24(a).  Requesters "sought judgment against the City in the nature of an order declaring a violation of constitutional and statutory rights, enjoining the City either to grant requests for public records or to provide written reasons for its denials, and granting attorney’s fees and costs."  The trial court "concluded that public records law, chapter 119, Florida Statutes, cannot be used to compel production of a document already provided to the requesting party before filing the lawsuit.  In other words, the court determined the public records claim was moot by the time appellants filed the initial complaint.  The court denied any relief to [Requesters] on this claim."

    The First DCA reversed.  The minutes of the April 11 meeting were a public record, as a "final work product of the Board" rather than "a preliminary draft or note."  The City had a duty to produce the minutes after receiving the public records request, and the City's "unjustified refusal denied any realistic access for the only purpose appellants sought to achieve – review of the Minutes before the Commission meeting."  In the appellate court's view, production of the minutes later did not cure the City's error.  "Accordingly, [Requesters'] receipt of a copy of the Minutes –months after their requests and clearly after their primary need passed – did not moot the issue of the City’s unlawful refusal to fulfill its duty to allow reasonable inspection and copying."

    The court explained the reasoning behind its decision:  "A holding otherwise would allow a covered body to delay meaningful access to public records, only to disclose them belatedly and after the utility of such records had faded.  In that instance, an assertion of mootness because the violation had been 'cured' once the requesting party gained access to the records would disguise a breach of public records law.  The express language in the statutes and Florida Constitution demonstrates the City failed to comply with public records law, and the damage to appellants was not mooted."

    Requesters also alleged two violations of the open meetings law, F.S. 286.011(2).  The appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of one count, but reversed on the second count.  "As may be inferred from the foregoing 'public records' analysis, the City violated both the language and the purpose of section 286.011(2) by denying public access to its Minutes until after approval, or, stated flatly, after the Minutes would have been useful to those seeking inspection."  Because prejudice is presumed in such situations, the appeals court "declare[d] the City's approval of those Minutes null and void ab initio."  (Citing Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So.2d 473, 477 (Fla. 1974).  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).