Governor DeSantis v. Florida Center for Government Accountability

How fast must a Florida agency answer a public records request? In Executive Office of the Governor v. Florida Center for Government Accountability, Inc., the First District Court of Appeal answered: within a reasonable time — not the quickest possible time. The Center sued Governor DeSantis and his Executive Office over two broad requests about the September 2022 Martha’s Vineyard migrant flights, served days before Hurricane Ian made landfall as a Category 4 storm.

The circuit court found a Chapter 119 violation and ordered full production. The First DCA reversed the finding of unreasonable delay. The requester bears the burden of proof, and a partial production about two weeks after the first public records request, with rolling production to follow, was reasonable given the breadth of the requests (including phone and text logs from personal devices) and the hurricane emergency. The trial court’s ruling on improper redactions stands because the Office did not appeal it.

The opinion is found here: Read the full opinion — First District Court of Appeal (PDF)

Facts

Case. Executive Office of the Governor & Governor Ron DeSantis v. Florida Center for Government Accountability, Inc., No. 1D2022-3507 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 19, 2025) (Nordby, J.; B.L. Thomas and Winokur, JJ., concurring), on appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County (Judge James Lee Marsh). Appellants: the Executive Office of the Governor and Governor DeSantis. Appellee: the Florida Center for Government Accountability, Inc.

The requests. On September 20 and 21, 2022, the Center served two public records requests on the Executive Office concerning Florida’s role in the September 14, 2022 flights that carried migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard. The first sought, for roughly the first two weeks of September, every record sent or received by James Uthmeier (then the Governor’s chief of staff) about the relocation program, his phone and text logs, all records exchanged with charter carrier Vertol Systems Company, and all records exchanged with Texas Governor Greg Abbott or the State of Texas on five related subjects. The second sought any waivers the migrants signed on each leg of the flights.

The response. The Office already had about 150 open records requests. On September 23, the Governor declared a state of emergency for then–Tropical Storm Ian. Two days later, the Center warned it would sue if the requests were not fulfilled by September 30. Ian made landfall near Fort Myers as a Category 4 hurricane on September 28. On October 7 — just over two weeks after the first public records request — the Office made a partial production and advised that rolling productions would follow as records were reviewed and redacted. The Center called the response not in good faith and sued on October 10.

The trial court. The circuit court expedited the case and held a final hearing 35 days after the first request. Ruling from the bench on October 25, it found the Office out of compliance with Chapter 119 because the Office had not proven the steps it took to gather public records on personal devices and had redacted records without a statutory basis. The court ordered the remaining records produced within 20 days, found the Center entitled to attorney’s fees and costs (reserving on the amount), and entered a written final order. The Governor and the Office appealed.

Judgment. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. The First District reversed the finding that the Office unreasonably delayed production; the ruling on improper redactions, which the Office did not appeal, stands.

Issues

1. Jurisdiction. Is a final order enforcing a public records request appealable when it determines entitlement to attorney’s fees but reserves jurisdiction to set the amount?
2. Timeliness. Did the Executive Office violate section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by failing to respond to the Center’s public records request within a reasonable time — and who bears the burden of proving an unreasonable delay?

Holding

1. The order was appealable. An order that ends the judicial labor on the merits of a suit to enforce a public records request is final and appealable even though it reserves jurisdiction over the amount of fees. The rule that a fee-entitlement order cannot be appealed until the amount is fixed applies to orders on collateral matters, not to a final merits order. The Center’s renewed motion to dismiss was denied.

2. No unreasonable delay. The requester bears the burden of proving a specific request, receipt by the agency, that the records exist, and that the agency improperly refused to produce them in a timely manner. The Public Records Act requires prompt attention and a reasonable response time, not the quickest possible response. A partial production about two weeks after the first public records request, with rolling production to follow, was not unreasonable given the breadth of the requests, the need to separate public from private material on personal devices, and a statewide hurricane emergency.

Rationale

Jurisdiction. The cases the Center relied on — Gilligan, Gooding, Batsel & Anderson, P.A. v. Condor Aerial, LLC, 312 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ward, 141 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) — involved orders on collateral matters such as sanctions and fees, not orders resolving the merits. Here, the order concluded all judicial labor on the public records claim and directed production.

Reserving on the amount of an ancillary fee award does not defeat finality. See City of Gainesville v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., Loc. No. 3170, 371 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Lutsch v. Smith, 397 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Even the Center’s own Second District case, Vitale v. Palmetto Charter School, Inc., 378 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), affirmed on the merits while declining to reach fee entitlement.

Standard of review. The Center did not style its complaint to enforce the public records request as mandamus or declaratory relief, but it asked for an alternative writ of mandamus, so the court treated the case as a mandamus petition: the petitioner must show a clear legal right and an indisputable, ministerial duty. Consumer Rights, LLC v. Bradford County, 153 So. 3d 394, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Because the ruling turned on statutory interpretation, review was de novo.

“Reasonable” builds in time for review. Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution and section 119.01(1) guarantee access to public records, and section 119.07(1)(a) requires the custodian to permit inspection and copying “at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions.” That language contemplates the custodial delay needed, once a public records request arrives, to retrieve records and redact exempt material. Tribune Co. v. Canella, 458 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 1984); Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, 221 So. 3d 1260, 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The Act “demands prompt attention and a reasonable response time, not the quickest-possible response.” Siegmeister v. Johnson, 240 So. 3d 70, 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

The trial court shifted the burden. Under Grapski v. City of Alachua, 31 So. 3d 193, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the party suing to enforce a public records request must prove the agency improperly refused to produce records in a timely manner. The circuit court instead faulted the Office for not proving the steps it took to gather records on personal devices — placing the burden on the agency.

The record did not show unreasonable delay. The final hearing came only 35 days after the first public records request. These were not single documents or ready-made files a custodian could pull from a shelf. The Abbott/Texas category alone required the custodian to consult many officials just to determine whether responsive records existed and where they could be accessed (§ 119.07(1)(c), Fla. Stat.), before exemption review could even begin.

The phone and text logs apparently reached Uthmeier’s personal devices, where only communications made or received in connection with official business are public records. § 119.011(12), Fla. Stat.; State v. City of Clearwater, 863 So. 2d 149, 155 (Fla. 2003). Sorting public from private in two weeks of calls and texts “would not be quick.” Given the scope of the requests and the statewide hurricane emergency, the Center’s demand that both requests be completed within about a week was, in the court’s words, “unfeasible and impractical.” The Center therefore failed to make a prima facie case for mandamus relief.

Redactions. The Office did not appeal the ruling that it redacted records produced in response to the public records request without a statutory exemption, so the court reversed only the finding of unreasonable delay.

Practice Points for Any Florida Public Records Request

The decision gives both sides of a public records request a workable framework. Five takeaways:

1. Scope drives the clock. A broad public records request — every record from a custodian, all communications with a third party, phone and text logs that reach personal devices — will reasonably take longer to fulfill. A targeted request by custodian, date range, and subject is harder for an agency to justify sitting on.
2. The requester carries the burden. To prevail in an enforcement action, the requester must prove a specific request, receipt by the agency, that the records exist, and an improper failure to produce them in a timely manner. Document the public records request, the agency’s acknowledgment, every follow-up, and every production.
3. Don’t file too soon. Here, the requester demanded full compliance within about a week and sued roughly three weeks after its first public records request, in the middle of a hurricane emergency. Courts weigh the breadth of the request, the time needed to search and redact, and outside circumstances.
4. Agencies: produce on a rolling basis — and redact only with an exemption. Acknowledging the public records request, producing in tranches, and documenting the search all support reasonableness. But every redaction needs a statutory exemption; the Office did not appeal the ruling that its provisional redactions lacked one.
5. Appeal from the merits order. A final order resolving the merits of a public records request dispute is appealable when rendered, even if the court has reserved on the amount of attorney’s fees. Calendar the appeal from the merits order — not the later fee order.

---

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article or contacting Cox Law, PLLC through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information in this article without first seeking professional legal counsel. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.