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 sought a court order requiring BDI, an engineering firm, to produce records held by BDI.  B&S contended that the records were subject to inspection under the public records laws because BDI had contracted to perform engineering services for City.  The trial court denied production, ruling that BDI "did not act on behalf of [City] so as to make [any of] the firm's documents public."  B&S appealed.

    The First DCA reversed.  The court concluded that BDI fell within the definition of an "agency" for purposes of disclosure under the public records law.  Fla.Stat. sec. 119.011(2) (2006) "defines 'agency' to include private entities 'acting on behalf of any public agency.'"  The court noted that for at least 15 years City had turned over to BDI various municipal engineering functions.  Consequently, the records in question were subject to Chapter 119.  B & S Utilities, Inc. v. Baskerville-Donovan, Inc., ___ So.2d ___, 33 Fla.L.Weekly D1570 (Fla. 1st DCA, No. 1D07-2918, 6/16/2008), 2008 WL 2403694.

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]

    In response to an "extensive" public records request, County required Requestor to make an advance deposit of the expected labor cost to locate and copy the records.  The labor cost was based on the designated employees salary and benefits multiplied by the expected time needed to complete the task.  See Fla.Stat. sec. 119.07(4).  Requestor responded by filing a public records lawsuit against County.

    The trial court ruled that "County was not allowed to include the cost of employee benefits when calculating the labor cost for the special service charge."  The court further ruled "[b]y implication" that County "was allowed to collect an estimate of the charge in advance."  County appealed the former ruling, and Requestor cross-appealed the latter ruling.

    The Second DCA sided with County on both issues.  "[T]he statute at issue here employs the term 'labor cost,' the plain meaning of which is more inclusive than the words 'wages' or 'salary.'  That benefits may be a significant component of labor costs is widely understood."  Additionally, "the County may collect a deposit before beginning the research, as long as it is reasonable and based on the labor cost that is actually incurred by or attributable to the County."  Board of County Commissioners of Highlands Countyv. 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).