16 decision points, in order
Select any row to open its full card, with the receipt. The Spawned by line names the earlier decision point this one grew out of, and it is a link. Cards listed on more than one institution page say so on their face.
N-0482025-04-28Thirteenth Circuit administrationthe judge who inherited the case signed an order of recusal the same day, stating no reason, and that order was left out of the circuit's records production and refused entry into the appellate recordDENIED
- Date
- 2025-04-28
- Actor
- Judge Wendy J. DePaul (recusal); 13th Cir. Admin (non-production)
- Institution
- 13th Cir. Div. C
- Mechanism
- the judge who inherited the case signed an order of recusal the same day, stating no reason, and that order was left out of the circuit's records production and refused entry into the appellate record
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) presumes judicial-branch records open and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian; Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires a denial of access to state its basis in writing. Rule 2.330(k) lets a judge enter an order of recusal on her own initiative.
- What happened
- On April 28, 2025, the day Judge Ayers was disqualified (N-047), the case went to Judge Wendy J. DePaul. She entered a case management conference order setting an August 13 hearing, then recused on her own motion the same day, on an order carrying an electronic stamp of 5:37:56 PM, stating no reason, and routed reassignment to Judge Felix under a standing administrative order. The order of recusal states no reason for declining a file inherited that same day. It was not produced in response to Husband's records request to the 13th Circuit, and on April 6, 2026 the Second District declined to allow it into the appellate record. [DENIED]
- Baseline deviation
- A rule lets a judge step away from a case and say nothing about why. Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution presumes judicial-branch records open and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian, so the document still has to appear in a public-records production or be denied in writing on a stated ground. Only the second duty was missed. The evidentiary weight sits on the non-production, not the recusal.
- Receipt
- Docs 186 and 187 chronology (Order of Recusal, 4/28/25, electronic stamp 5:37:56 PM).
- Administrative Order S-2025-013 for the reassignment.
- The appellate denial at Doc 282 (4/6/26).
- The 9/23/25 supplement motion in 2D2025-1936.
Spawned by: N-047
This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.
FNEW-A12025-07-28 -> 2025-09-15Thirteenth Circuit administrationfifteen days after four specific written questions were sent testing whether the withheld video is really security footage, the office's entire response was to acknowledge receipt again and promise an answer "in a reasonable manner"IGNORED
- Date
- 2025-07-28 -> 2025-09-15
- Actor
- Mike Moore, Public Information Officer, 13th Judicial Circuit
- Institution
- 13th Cir. Administrative Office of the Courts
- Mechanism
- fifteen days after four specific written questions were sent testing whether the withheld video is really security footage, the office's entire response was to acknowledge receipt again and promise an answer "in a reasonable manner"
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution gives every person the right to inspect or copy judicial-branch records, and the custodian carries the burden of justifying any withholding. Rule 2.420(m) requires that responses to records requests "be made in a reasonable manner" and that a denial state its basis in writing. The Circuit's own August 21, 2025 letter processed these requests under Rule 2.420 and Article I, section 24.
- What happened
- Husband sent three records requests to the 13th Circuit in July 2025. On July 28 the public information officer acknowledged them: "This email response serves as acknowledgment of your public records request. At this time, please note that our office does not need anything further from you, and a response to your three (3) requests will be made in a reasonable manner." On August 31 Husband put the four questions in writing. On September 15, after two further follow-ups, the office's entire response was the same formula: "This email response also serves to acknowledge receipt of your prior requests as well as any new requests. Please note that responses to your requests will be made in a reasonable manner." Neither email answered any pending question. The exhibit record filed with the petition shows no substantive response from the office between September 15 and October 14, 2025, when Husband filed the mandamus petition (N-058). The one letter that did engage, dated September 8, restated the exemption without stating its factual basis (FNEW-A2). [IGNORED]
- Baseline deviation
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution grants the right of access to records and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian asserting it. A custodian owes a prompt, good-faith response to the request actually made. The second acknowledgment is the measurable act, and the questions are what make it measurable: each of them has a one-sentence answer if the exemption's factual basis is true. Which camera system recorded the hearing. Whether the courtroom microphones connect to it. What the video shows. Why routine surveillance video exists for one hearing out of eight requested. Routine security footage would have had routine answers to those questions. The first acknowledgment was a receipt, and a substantive letter followed within four weeks (N-053).
- Receipt
- Both emails are in the record of the mandamus case, filed October 15, 2025 as a 170-page exhibit (25-CA-010255, DIN 6): the July 28 email at page 23 and the September 15 email at pages 20-21. Both quotes were checked against the page images on September 26, 2026. Fifteen days runs from the August 31 questions to the September 15 acknowledgment. The office's own August 21, 2025 letter placed these requests under Rule 2.420 and Article I, section 24.
This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.
N-0532025-08-21Thirteenth Circuit administrationCourt administration withheld the April 4, 2025 hearing video as security footage without ever stating a fact that makes it one.DENIED
Read the source document: 10255 Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions (5/15/2026), No. 4 at p. 2 (no court order determines the video confidential)
This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.
NEW-P12025-08-21Thirteenth Circuit administrationthe circuit certified twice in writing that the records existed, counted them, took the copying fee, and handed over a paper box that did not contain the judge-level communications the certification covered. The August 31, 2025 request for an explanation was unanswered a year later.PARTIAL
- Date
- 2025-08-21
- Actor
- Gina Justice, Court Administrator (letter signed by her, cc Judge Ayers and JA Heyward); Mike Moore, PIO (acknowledgments)
- Institution
- 13th Judicial Circuit, Administrative Office of the Courts
- Mechanism
- the circuit certified twice in writing that the records existed, counted them, took the copying fee, and handed over a paper box that did not contain the judge-level communications the certification covered. The August 31, 2025 request for an explanation was unanswered a year later.
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution gives every person the right to inspect or copy any public record, expressly including the judicial branch, and puts the burden of any exemption on the withholder; Rule 2.420 implements that right for judicial-branch records (Times Publishing Co. v. Ake, 660 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1995)). The Circuit's own letter conceded the framework: “we are treating your public records request as a request for administrative records of the judicial branch in accordance with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 and article 1, section 24 of the Florida Constitution.” Rule 2.420(m)(2) then makes the custodian determine the form in which the record is provided and, for anything denied, state the basis in writing.
- What happened
- Between July 24 and 25, 2025 Husband emailed three requests: communications about scheduling for two hearings, and recordings of eight hearings. The August 21, 2025 letter certified twice: "Records do exist that satisfy this request." It counted them at 226 pages and demanded prepayment for pickup. Husband paid and picked up paper. His August 31, 2025 email itemized what the box did not contain: no records showing the judge directing or being informed of the emergency scheduling, nothing on the after-hours decisions, and no indication the judge knew opposing counsel would not attend. It also reported that "Many pages are unreadable due to low ink," while the box included unrequested pages. Follow-ups went out through October 9, 2025; after September 8 the circuit's only response was a form acknowledgment. No explanation of the gap has issued through August 20, 2026. Forty-four days later, the mandamus was filed (N-058). [PARTIAL]
- Baseline deviation
- When a custodian certifies in writing that records exist and takes the copying fee, the requester gets those records, or a written statement of what was withheld and why. The state constitution puts that burden on the custodian, including the judicial branch, and the circuit's own letter concedes the framework applies. The requests asked for electronic records. What came back was a mailed letter, a prepaid paper box, and no electronic files even after the unreadable pages were reported.
- Receipt
- Exhibit 006 pp. 13-15 (8/21/25 letter: both certifications, 226-page count, both fee figures, cc line).
- 006 pp. 4, 6 (electronic-format request: "Please provide the records in electronic format if available.").
- 006 p. 23 (8/31/25 omissions email, native e-filed text layer).
- 006 p. 20 (9/15/25 acknowledgment: "responses to your requests will be made in a reasonable manner").
- Doc 012 paras. 17-21, 23, 26 (text layer); exhibit 010, the scanned 377-page production, interior not read.
- Fee arithmetic recomputes from 226 pages at the stated per-page rate. Interval 8/31/25 to 10/14/25 is 44 days.
- Exact paper-pickup date is not yet confirmed.
- Follow-ups: 8/26, 8/31, 9/9, 9/12, 9/24, 10/9/25.
- Scope note: production did include some December 2024 scheduling traffic among judicial assistants and counsel, so the claim is the narrower one: nothing showed the judge's own involvement, the after-hours decisions, or the non-attendance exchange.
Spawned by: N-053
This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.
FNEW-A22025-09-08Thirteenth Circuit administrationthe security exemption was re-asserted by letter over a recording that no sworn statement in the record, as swept, identifies as security-camera footage, while the four questions built to test that sat eight days old and unansweredIGNORED
Spawned by: N-053
This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.
N-0582025-10-14Thirteenth Circuit administrationthe court rule requires expedited review when judicial-branch administrative records are withheld; this case waited 91 days for its first substantive look and, 345 days after filing (as of September 24, 2026), has had no final hearingIGNORED
- Date
- 2025-10-14
- Actor
- 13th Cir. respondents; assigned judges Wolfe (Div. B), then Frayman (FSC Assignment Order 2026-40), then Coleman (FSC Assignment Order 2026-63)
- Institution
- 25-CA-010255
- Mechanism
- the court rule requires expedited review when judicial-branch administrative records are withheld; this case waited 91 days for its first substantive look and, 345 days after filing (as of September 24, 2026), has had no final hearing
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) grants the right of access to judicial-branch records and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian. Rule 2.420(l) requires that review of a denial of access to judicial-branch administrative records be expedited, through an action for mandamus; Times Publishing Co. v. Ake, 660 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1995), routes judicial-branch records through the rule rather than chapter 119.
- What happened
- The petition was filed October 14, 2025 and amended November 13, 2025. The first assigned judge's opening act was a next-day order transferring the case for lack of jurisdiction, vacated one day later as "entered in error." No judicial act appears for the next 48 days. The petition's first substantive review came 91 days after filing, from a specially assigned outside judge. Hearings or arguments were held January 13, February 6, March 11, April 13, July 24 and August 17, 2026. No final hearing has been held as of September 24, 2026. The court's rulings on the peremptory writ are separate decision points (N-086, N-089). [IGNORED: the expedited review has reached no final hearing.]
- Baseline deviation
- Article I, section 24(a) grants the right of access to judicial-branch records and puts the burden of any exemption on the state actor asserting it. Rule 2.420(l) requires "[e]xpedited review" of a denial, through an action for mandamus. This case exists because a recording and administrative records were withheld on an exemption whose factual basis was never stated (N-053). A final hearing would put the withholding, and the reason for it, on a court record. None has been held.
- Receipt
- Docs 003 and 012 (filing and amendment); Docs 005 and 008 (transfer order and its next-day vacatur).
- Doc 016 (first order of specially assigned judge, 12/3/25).
- Doc 040 p.1 stamp (first defense response, 1/8/26, at exactly 20 days from claimed 12/19/25 service; Clerk's counsel gives 12/23/25, discrepancy preserved at Doc 54 para. 2).
- Day counts: 10/16 to 12/3 is 48; 10/14/25 to 1/13/26 is 91.
- The same day the petition was filed, three further records requests went out; the answer, 64 days later, was a set of fee letters.
- Amended petition re-grounds the case on the state constitution's records right and judicial-branch rule first, statute as an argued extension.
Spawned by: N-053
This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.
N-0682025-11-24Thirteenth Circuit administrationthe circuit put a price on the records while the lawsuit over those same records was pending, and the records stayed behind the priceONLY-FOR-A-PRICE
- Date
- 2025-11-24
- Actor
- Richard T. Melendi, signer, with K. Angela Smith, Interim Court Administrator, cc'd on all three letters
- Institution
- 13th Cir. AOC
- Mechanism
- the circuit put a price on the records while the lawsuit over those same records was pending, and the records stayed behind the price
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution gives every person the right to inspect or copy judicial-branch records, and the custodian carries the burden of justifying any barrier to access. Rule 2.420(l) makes mandamus the remedy for a denial of access. The Circuit's own fee letters placed these requests under Rule 2.420 and Article I, section 24, stating that Chapter 119 does not apply.
- What happened
- Husband sent three records requests on October 14, 2025, the day he filed the mandamus petition: communications involving Judge Felix, Judge Ayers's disqualification records, and the handling of his correspondence with Chief Judge Sabella's office. On November 13 his amended petition asked the court to order those records produced. Eleven days later the Circuit's chief deputy court administrator began answering with deposit demands, each letter copied to the interim court administrator: $348.14 for the Felix communications (768 emails; the deposit sentence reads $348.41) on November 24, and $7,746.15 for the Ayers records (20,192 emails) on November 25. After Husband narrowed the Ayers and Felix requests, letters dated December 17 asked $236.02 (432 emails) and $973.39 (2,154 emails), and a December 18 letter asked $512.20 for the Sabella request (1,122 emails; table total $512.19). Every letter required the deposit before any review began. As of September 26, 2026, no records answering the three requests appear in the records file. The defendants' September 17, 2026 filing in the mandamus states: "All other documents were provided." The two accounts are in dispute. [ONLY-FOR-A-PRICE]
- Baseline deviation
- Article I, section 24(a) opens judicial-branch records to every person and puts the burden of justifying any barrier on the custodian. By the time the Circuit priced these requests, they were already part of the pending mandamus: Husband's amended petition of November 13, 2025 asked the court to order production of the records responsive to them. A price set by the defendant, on records already in suit, decides whether those records reach the lawsuit. This belongs to a family visible across forums: the Bar's prepayment demand (N-082) and the Sixth Circuit's half-deposit-before-search condition.
- Receipt
- The five letters, each signed by Richard T. Melendi, Chief Deputy Court Administrator - Operations, with K. Angela Smith, Interim Court Administrator, copied: November 24, 2025, Felix communications (768 emails; table total $348.14, deposit sentence $348.41); November 25, 2025, Ayers disqualification records (20,192 emails; page 1 states $7,746.04, the table and the deposit $7,746.15); December 17, 2025, narrowed Ayers (432 emails, $236.02); December 17, 2025, narrowed Felix (page 1: "2,154 emails have been identified"; page 2 prices "2,164" emails at $973.39); December 18, 2025, Sabella correspondence (1,122 emails; table $512.19, deposit $512.20). Each letter states that Chapter 119 does not apply and treats the request under Rule 2.420 and Article I, section 24. Amended petition, Doc 012 p. 7, para. 24. First Amended Response, Filing 257283141, p. 4.
This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.
NEW-AG12026-01-08 -> ongoingOffice of the Attorney General as Counsel for 13th CircuitFive emails withheld as "confidential under judicial immunity" in a records lawsuit that seeks no damages.PENDING
Read the source document: 10255 Doc 40, Defendants' Response in Opposition to Amended Petition (e-filed 1/8/26), judicial immunity at pp. 4 and 6, 10255 Doc 65, Defendants' Response per 2-17-26 Alternative Writ (e-filed 3/4/26), judicial immunity at pp. 5 and 7, 10255 Doc 72, Motion for Protective Order (e-filed 4/1/26), the Limehouse "liability for damages" sentence at p. 4
This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.
N-0712026-01-15Office of the Attorney General as Oversightthe executive branch was asked to investigate the Thirteenth Circuit, and instead entered an appearance as that circuit's defense counsel; the written demand asking it to explain the conflict has never been answeredIGNORED
- Date
- 2026-01-15
- Actor
- AG Uthmeier / OAG (Sr. AAG Schwieterman appearing)
- Institution
- Office of the Attorney General
- Mechanism
- the executive branch was asked to investigate the Thirteenth Circuit, and instead entered an appearance as that circuit's defense counsel; the written demand asking it to explain the conflict has never been answered
- What the law required
- The Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution guarantee an impartial tribunal, and no one may judge a cause in which he has an interest (In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009); Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016)). An office that appears as counsel for that judge does so only after a conflict analysis, and a written demand to withdraw, disclose the conflict, preserve records and produce witnesses calls for an answer.
- What happened
- In or about January 2026 the Office of the Attorney General appeared as counsel for the judicial defendants in the records mandamus, case 25-CA-010255. Every AG filing since is signed by Jessica Schwieterman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, under the block "JAMES UTHMEIER, ATTORNEY GENERAL," over the designation "Counsel for Defendants 13th Judicial Circuit, Trial Court Administrator Gina Justice, Chief Judge Sabella, Judge Ayers, and Judge Felix." As pleaded, Husband and a State Representative had already asked the executive to investigate that circuit. Husband then demanded in writing that the Attorney General withdraw, issue a corrective disclosure, honor a litigation hold, and produce named deponents. The office did not withdraw, did not cure, and did not answer. The demand stands unanswered. [IGNORED]
- Baseline deviation
- An impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee, and a conflict analysis comes before a representation. As pleaded, Husband and a Florida State Representative asked the executive to investigate the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; the office then appeared for that circuit's judges, one of whom still presides over Husband's family case, and has defended them since (N-058, NEW-AG1). Husband's written demand asked the office to withdraw, issue a corrective disclosure, honor a litigation hold, and produce named deponents. The office has since been asked twice to state its authority; both asks sit unanswered (N-122).
- Receipt
- Requests to investigate pleaded at complaint paras. 80-81, carried as pleaded, not independently verified.
- Appearance: Doc 038 in 25-CA-010255, "Filing # 238833280 E-Filed 01/06/2026 08:54:23 AM" (native e-filed text layer).
- Signature block identical on Docs 055, 065, 072, 083 and the 5/15/26 responses, each signed "/s/ Jessica Schwieterman," Senior Assistant Attorney General.
- Unanswered authority-memo categories: N-122's receipt (5/8/26 cover letter and preserved AGSFT package).
Spawned by: N-058
This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.
FNEW-A32026-03-10Office of the Attorney General as Counsel for 13th Circuitin a lawsuit about withheld records, the defendants' entire document disclosure was the records production the plaintiff himself had already filed with the court 146 days earlierPARTIAL
Spawned by: N-058
This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.
FNEW-A42026-04-01Office of the Attorney General as Counsel for 13th Circuitin a records case the defendants themselves litigate under chapter 119, whose section 119.11(1) requires the court to "set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases," the office moved to stop all discovery into who watched the withheld video and who decided to withhold it, and the court stopped all of it except requests for admissionDENIED
Spawned by: N-081
This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.
N-0812026-04-28Office of the Attorney GeneralDiscovery into who watched the withheld video and who decided to withhold it has been stayed since April 28, 2026, pending a final hearing that has never been set. On August 27 the court kept the stay and denied the writ because "there are factual disputes"; asked for a written order identifying them, it named none.DENIED
- Date
- 2026-04-28
- Actor
- 10255 defendants and Senior Assistant Attorney General Schwieterman (OAG)
- Institution
- 25-CA-010255
- Mechanism
- Discovery into who watched the withheld video and who decided to withhold it has been stayed since April 28, 2026, pending a final hearing that has never been set. On August 27 the court kept the stay and denied the writ because "there are factual disputes"; asked for a written order identifying them, it named none.
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution presumes the record open and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian. Mandamus actions “are governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure” (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(a)); Rules 1.340, 1.350 and 1.370 require a response within 30 days, and a protective order issues only on good cause shown, a burden the party seeking it carries (Rule 1.280).
- What happened
- On March 18, 2026 Husband served one combined set, seven requests for admission, six interrogatories, and five requests for production, all directed at the withholding of the April 4, 2025 video. On April 1 the office moved for a protective order staying all discovery. On April 17 the deadline to respond passed while the stay motion was pending. On April 28 the court signed the stay, leaving only the requests for admission open. Those admissions were answered on May 15 (N-053, N-103). The interrogatories and the requests for production have never been answered; the August 27, 2026 order left the stay in place while requiring the defendants to justify each withheld record first. [DENIED]
- Baseline deviation
- A party served with discovery has thirty days to answer, object, or seek protection, and the party seeking protection carries the burden of showing good cause. The office took the third route on April 1 and let the deadline pass while its motion was pending; the court granted the stay on April 28 and kept it on August 27. The instruments asked who viewed the video, who decided to withhold it, and the basis for the exemption. The office's bare denial says someone viewed it and does not say who (N-103). The custodian's subpoena was quashed and no deposition was taken (N-109).
- Receipt
- Filing #244103616 (the 3/18/26 combined discovery set)
- Doc 072 (Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery, "Filing # 245071283, e-filed 04/01/2026 12:33:22 PM,")
- Doc 080, signed 4/28/26 (N-098); stay kept, Doc 095 p. 5 III(a)
- Doc 095 pp. 3-4: II(a) "there are factual disputes"; II(d) answers Doc 078 prayer (d), the request for a written order identifying the disputed facts, with an exemption statement "other than the Video" and names no disputed fact
- the 5/15/26 responses (N-053, N-103)
- the quashed custodian subpoena at N-109 (Tr. 101-157)
Read the source document: 10255 Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions (5/15/2026, AAG Schwieterman; incl. 'No analysis was needed', Nos. 6-7)
Spawned by: N-058
This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.
N-1032026-05-15Office of the Attorney Generalasked to admit that nobody had watched the video before it was withheld, the office answered in one word, "Denied," disputing that nobody watched it, and the record still does not say whoPENDING
- Date
- 2026-05-15
- Actor
- Same Defendants, by Senior Assistant Attorney General Jessica Schwieterman
- Institution
- Office of the Attorney General, Tampa / 13th Cir. - 25-CA-010255
- Mechanism
- asked to admit that nobody had watched the video before it was withheld, the office answered in one word, "Denied," disputing that nobody watched it, and the record still does not say who
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370(a) requires that a denial “shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission,” and matters admitted are conclusively established (Rule 1.370(b)). A custodian withholding a judicial-branch record must state the basis for the denial in writing (Rule 2.420(m)(2)) and move in writing, with a signed good-faith certification, to have the record determined confidential (Rule 2.420(e)(1)).
- What happened
- Request No. 2 asked the defendants to admit that before the September 8, 2025 denial, no employee, agent, or representative of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit actually viewed the requested video footage. On May 15, 2026 the entire response was: "RESPONSE: Denied." Every other response in the four-page filing carries a stated basis or a volunteered explanatory sentence. No. 2 is the only one-word answer in the document, and the only response asserting a fact about the defendants' own internal handling of the record. Who watched it, when, in what capacity, and under what authority stays open. [PENDING]
- Baseline deviation
- A denial in discovery must meet the substance of what was asked; this one puts the defendants on record disputing that nobody viewed the recording before the September 8, 2025 refusal. It names no viewer, no date, no capacity, no authority. The interrogatories asking this were never answered (N-081), and the custodian's subpoena was quashed (N-109).
- Receipt
- RFA Responses 5/15/26 p.2; the companion admissions are at Nos. 6 and 7 (N-053)
- all four pages read in full; signed "/s/ Jessica Schwieterman," Senior Assistant Attorney General, under "JAMES UTHMEIER, ATTORNEY GENERAL"
- The unanswered interrogatories that asked the same question are Filing #244103616 (N-081)
- the stay is Doc 080, signed 4/28/26 (N-098)
- the quashed custodian subpoena is at N-109
Spawned by: N-053
This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.
N-1112026-06-01FL Supreme Courtthe Florida Supreme Court's records office answered seven of ten categories with a single rule citation that identifies no record, and three categories it never answered at allDENIED
- Date
- 2026-06-01
- Actor
- Paul Flemming, PIO
- Institution
- Florida Supreme Court
- Mechanism
- the Florida Supreme Court's records office answered seven of ten categories with a single rule citation that identifies no record, and three categories it never answered at all
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution gives every person the right to inspect judicial-branch records; access is the presumption and the custodian carries the burden of establishing an exemption. Rule 2.420 implements that right for the judicial branch, and subdivision (m)(2) requires the basis for a denial in writing. Rule 2.420(c) is a list of discrete exemptions, each with its own elements, so a written basis identifies the subdivision and the record withheld.
- What happened
On June 1, 2026 the Florida Supreme Court's public information officer, Paul Flemming, asserted blanket confidentiality under Rule 2.420(c) over seven of the ten categories in a May 30 request about SB 1652 and the Vexatious Litigant Workgroup. He identified no record and cited no sub-provision. Categories 1, 5, and 9 he did not address at all. The file carries a promise: "A response to your request will be given in a reasonable amount of time."
A follow-up and pre-suit letter went by email on July 8, 2026, setting a deadline of "no later than Tuesday, July 15, 2026". That deadline passed with no response in the channels searched, and the request is still open. The June 1 response arrived at the Yahoo address, which has not been swept, so nothing here claims nothing was sent, only that nothing was found where the search ran. [DENIED]
- Baseline deviation
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution gives every person the right to inspect court records. Access is the presumption, and the burden of proving an exemption sits on the custodian. Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the custodian to state in writing the basis for denial. A basis that identifies nothing tells no one what is withheld, so one rule citation across seven categories leaves nothing to test; three of the ten categories drew no answer, not even a refusal.
- Receipt
- Flemming's response of 6/1/26, held as a native PDF; the 6/1/26 text is carried verbatim
- The original request of 5/30/26 as sent and the 6/2/26 reply as sent
- The as-sent follow-up of 7/8/26, an archive built from the Gmail copy, message id 19f41c10b40d43cf; sent 8:42 AM ET as a reply on the existing thread; it is a verbatim text archive rather than an image of the send
- The 7/6/26 files are drafts, not send copies, and a 7/14/26 version was drafted and exported but never sent
- Search scope for the silence: the Florida Supreme Court public-records matter file, which holds no inbound after the 6/1/26 response, and the Gmail account, checked 7/14/26
- The Yahoo mailbox has not been swept, and there is no exported page image of the 7/8 send
This decision point also appears on: The Appellate Courts, the full ledger.
N-1222026-06-17Office of the Attorney General as Oversightthe Attorney General's office called its production complete while answering one of eight categories; the two categories about its own authority remain wholly unansweredDENIED
- Date
- 2026-06-17
- Actor
- Darya Massoudi
- Institution
- Office of the Attorney General
- Mechanism
- the Attorney General's office called its production complete while answering one of eight categories; the two categories about its own authority remain wholly unanswered
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution opens every record of the executive branch and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian. Section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes: “Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so”; a custodian who withholds must state the basis in writing and, on request, “with particularity” (s. 119.07(1)(e)-(f)). Every category of a request gets one of three dispositions: the record, a statement that none exists, or a cited exemption.
- What happened
- The Attorney General's office answered one of the eight categories in Husband's request, under a cover letter stating that its 37-page May 8, 2026 production "will serve to complete" the request. A June 17 production cured one more category and partly answered two others. The two categories asking for the office's own memos on its sections 16.01 and 16.015 authority are still wholly unanswered, and the office has never stated that no such records exist. One further category it declined as too vague. [DENIED]
- Baseline deviation
- The Constitution opens the office's records and puts the burden of any exemption on the office. The records law then requires an itemized disposition of every category: produce the record, state that none exists, or cite an exemption. On the two categories asking for the office's own memos about its authority to act, the office has done none of the three, and it is the office that co-publishes the state's Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual. The core is the silence on the authority memos.
- Receipt
- 5/8/26 cover letter.
- Preserved production package (SHA-256 manifest; Phase B verification completed 7/6/26).
This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.
N-1572026-09-02 -> 2026-09-17Office of the Attorney General as Counsel for 13th Circuitgiven seven days to agree to good cause or explain why the video should not be provided, the defendants filed three statements in September 2026 and none of them states a fact showing the recording is security-camera footage, the ground on which it was withheld more than a year earlierPARTIAL
- Date
- 2026-09-02 -> 2026-09-17
- Actor
- Senior AAG Jessica Schwieterman, Office of the Attorney General, for the Thirteenth Circuit defendants
- Institution
- Office of the Attorney General (counsel for 13th Cir. defendants), 25-CA-010255
- Mechanism
- given seven days to agree to good cause or explain why the video should not be provided, the defendants filed three statements in September 2026 and none of them states a fact showing the recording is security-camera footage, the ground on which it was withheld more than a year earlier
- What the law required
- Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution puts the burden of establishing an exemption on the custodian, and exemptions are construed narrowly (Woolling v. Lamar, 764 So. 2d 765, 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). Rule 2.420 requires a written basis for withholding stated with particularity. The ground the custodian invoked, section 119.071(3)(a), reaches security-system records; a statement relying on it states the fact that this recording is one.
- What happened
- Ordered on August 27, 2026 to state within seven days why there was not good cause for Husband to receive the Video, the defendants filed on September 2 (Doc 94). That filing argues that Husband "has failed to plead any form of good cause" and closes: "Defendants agree that this ultimately a decision for the Court to make as the case law is clear that it is an exercise of discretion and will tender the video to the Court immediately upon such an order." It describes the record as "the April 4, 2025 hearing-room video recording." The words surveillance and camera do not appear in it; the word security appears once, inside its paraphrase of the statute. It attaches no affidavit or exhibit. The September 10 statement (Doc 98) and the September 17 amended statement (DIN 102) address records "other than the Video" and say nothing further about it. Across all three filings, no fact is stated showing that the April 4, 2025 recording is "surveillance video footage from security cameras," the ground on which the custodian withheld it on August 21, 2025. [PARTIAL]
- Baseline deviation
- The custodian carries the burden of proving an exemption, and the burden is met with facts, not labels. The exemption invoked covers security-system records. A statement that this recording is one takes a single sworn sentence naming the system that made it. The court's order invited exactly that statement. Three filings later, the sentence has not been written.
- Receipt
- Doc 095 p. 2 (the seven-day directive: "a statement explaining why there is not good cause and therefore the Video should not be provided to Plaintiff").
- Doc 094 pp. 1-4 (Filing 256242348, e-filed 9/2/26): "has failed to plead any form of good cause" (p. 2); tender sentence (p. 3); "hearing-room video recording" (p. 1); word sweep: surveillance 0, camera 0, security 1 (p. 2, statute paraphrase), affidavit 0, exhibit 0.
- Doc 098 p. 1 and DIN 102 pp. 1-2 (Filings 256803151 and 257283141): scope "(other than the Video)"; word sweep of DIN 102: surveillance 0, camera 0, security 0.
- Doc 006 p. 14 (Justice letter 8/21/25): "surveillance video footage from security cameras located on and within courthouse facilities in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is confidential and exempt."
- RFA responses served 5/15/26, Nos. 6 and 7 ("No analysis was needed"), carried at N-053.
This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.