Public Records Litigation

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

R. 2.330(k) allows voluntary recusal with no reason given. R. 2.420 governs access to the recusal document referenced at docket 187.

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. In candor, the recusal itself is lawful. 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); Doc 187 is in the tree.
• 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.

Date

2025-08-21

Actor

Gina Justice / Mike Moore

Institution

13th Cir. AOC

Mechanism

the court confirmed the hearing video exists, then withheld it on an exemption whose factual basis it has never stated, through ten months of litigation

What the law required

R. 2.420(m)(2) requires a written basis stated with particularity. A claimed F.S. 119.071(3)(a) exemption requires its factual predicate.

What happened

On August 21, 2025 the 13th Circuit's administrative office confirmed in writing that "a video record does exist" for the April 4, 2025 hearing, and withheld it as confidential surveillance video without ever stating that the recording is a security-system record, the fact its own exemption requires. The same letter said no records existed for the seven other hearings requested that year. A September 8, 2025 letter restated the exemption in verbatim-identical words while ignoring the questions built to test it. The same defendants later admitted in discovery that no court order determines the video confidential (N-102). The video has never been released. The same records category drew a different ground the next year: for a later set of seven hearing dates the office said the footage had already been overwritten under a 30-day retention schedule (N-057). [DENIED: access refused on an exemption whose factual basis was never given]

Baseline deviation

A court office that withholds a record must state a written basis with particularity. The exemption invoked, section 119.071(3)(a), reaches security-system records, but the office has never stated that this recording is one, a predicate that takes one sworn sentence. In ten months of litigation, no affidavit from court administration or its defense counsel makes that showing. The recording is the one Judge Ayers herself invoked and then declined to pursue (N-042).

Receipt

• Justice letter 8/21/25 (10255 Doc 6 p.14; Doc 083 Exs. D and E).
• Letter 9/8/25 (Doc 6 p.44; exemption paragraph verbatim identical to 8/21/25).
• RFA No. 4 admission that no court order determines confidentiality (N-102).
• 2026 overwriting ground and retention schedule at N-057 (schedule text p. 255 of 258).
• Defense filings swept for the affidavit negative: Doc 013, Doc 038, Doc 040, Doc 053, Doc 054, Doc 055, Doc 056, Doc 063, Doc 065, Doc 070, Doc 072, Doc 075, Doc 077, Doc 083, and the Responses to Request for Admissions served 5/15/26 (101 pages across the set).
• Sweep documented at NEW-P12 and in the 8/20/26 verification memo on the 10255 defense filings; the negative reaches that set and no further.
• Seven other hearings that year drew a "no records" response in the same letter.

Spawned by: N-042

This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.

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

Art. I, sec. 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. Implemented for judicial-branch records by Rule 2.420. The Circuit's own 8/21/25 letter concedes the framework applies: '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' (006 p.13, eye). The lawful path: produce the located records in the electronic format requested, complete as certified, or state in writing with specificity what was withheld and under what exemption. No Rule 2.420(d)/(e) confidentiality determination was ever identified (012 para. 20).

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.
• 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.

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 statute says a public-records case gets an immediate hearing ahead of everything else; this one waited 91 days for its first substantive look and, as of August 20, 2026, ten months after filing, has had no final hearing and no writ entered

What the law required

F.S. 119.11(1) requires an immediate hearing on a priority docket. R. 2.420(l) requires expedited review.

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 were held January 13, February 6, April 13 and July 24, 2026. The writ remained unentered after each, and remains unentered as of August 20, 2026, ten months on. On the June 10 record Husband stated the chain as he sees it: "from Mrs. Hanson to Mr. Davis to Judge Ayers, to yourself, to Judge Frayman, to Judge Sabella, who's been on notice of this, to Judge Coleman currently who's delaying entry of the writ on the expedited mandamus procedures." [IGNORED: the statutory fast track never started.]

Baseline deviation

Article I, section 24(a) grants the right of access to records and puts the burden of any exemption on the state actor asserting it. The public-records statute commands an immediate hearing and gives the case priority over other pending cases. This case exists because a recording and administrative records were withheld on an exemption whose factual basis was never stated (N-053). A 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. Interval to publication: 10/14/25 to 8/20/26 is ten months six days.
• The same day the petition was filed, three further records requests drew no substantive answer (NEW-P2).
• Amended petition re-grounds the case on the state constitution's records right and judicial-branch rule first, statute as an argued extension.
• June 10 transcript Tr. 88:5-11; wording/speaker rest on the transcript text layer, page image not separately checked; reporter mis-tags a speaker elsewhere ("Freeman" is Frayman).
• First judge's departure reason is outside this record.

Spawned by: N-053

This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.

Date

2025-10-14

Actor

13th Judicial Circuit, Administrative Office of the Courts (JA Christina Novia, acknowledgment; legal department, non-response)

Institution

13th Judicial Circuit, Administrative Office of the Courts

Mechanism

the three requests that asked how the chief judge's office handles complaints, what one judge communicated about eight emergency filings, and another judge's disqualification history drew one forwarding sentence and, through the pleaded window, nothing else

What the law required

Art. I, sec. 24(a), Fla. Const., implemented by Rule 2.420: access is the presumption, the custodian carries the burden, and a denial requires a written basis. The lawful path: produce, or state in writing what is withheld and why, or state that no responsive records exist.

What happened

The three requests went out on October 14, 2025, the same day the mandamus petition was filed. The only response ever received came that afternoon: "I have received your public records request. I will be forwarding your email to our legal department for response." Follow-ups went out on October 27 and November 12, 2025. As of November 12, twenty-nine days from the requests, there had been no substantive response, production, timeline, or explanation. The amended petition states the contrast on its face: "This total silence contrasts with partial responses to earlier requests." The earlier requests at least drew letters (NEW-P1). These drew a forwarding sentence. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

A custodian has three lawful moves: produce, deny in writing with a stated basis, or state that no responsive records exist. Silence is none of them, and under the state constitution the burden never shifts to the requester. The requests it answered with formal certifying letters concerned hearing scheduling. The requests that drew nothing concerned oversight: how complaint correspondence was handled, what a judge communicated on emergency filings, and a disqualification history.

Receipt

• Exhibit 011 pp. 1-11 (the three requests, same-day acknowledgment at p. 11, both follow-ups at pp. 8-10; text layer).
• Doc 012 para. 25 (text layer). Doc 003 p. 1 stamp (same-day filing).
• Silence scope: as pleaded through 11/13/25. Every item here is held from the text layer; no page image has been checked.

Spawned by: NEW-P1, N-058

This decision point also appears on: Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, the full ledger.

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

A conflict-of-interest analysis precedes undertaking a representation. A written conflict demand and litigation-hold notice calls for a response.

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

A conflict analysis ordinarily 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 and has defended them at state expense 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.
• Demand letter: F144 in the fact ledger.
• 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.

Date

2026-02-17

Actor

10255 defendants and Senior Assistant Attorney General Schwieterman (OAG)

Institution

25-CA-010255

Mechanism

the deadline to answer seven admissions, six interrogatories, and five document requests came and went with nothing answered and nothing objected to; those requests asked who watched the withheld video and who decided to withhold it, and most have never been answered

What the law required

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340, 1.350, and 1.370 require a response within 30 days. A written demand for deposition dates is answered in the ordinary course.

What happened

On February 17, 2026 Husband asked in writing for deposition dates: "I'd like to start by getting Judge Ayers and her JA, Ms. Heyward." No answer came. On March 18, 2026 he 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 with no answers and no objections filed. On April 28 the court signed the stay, leaving only the requests for admission open. Those admissions were answered on May 15 (N-102, N-103). The interrogatories and the requests for production have never been answered. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A party served with discovery has thirty days and three lawful ways to spend them: answer, object, or seek protection. On the interrogatories and production requests the deadline expired. The instruments asked who viewed the video, who decided to withhold it, and what basis the exemption rests on. The office's bare denial says someone viewed it and does not say who (N-103). Every other route has closed: no deposition was taken, and the custodian's subpoena was quashed (N-109).

Receipt

• F191 through F193, F193 verified page by page 5/16/26
• Filing #244103616 (the 3/18/26 combined discovery set); the 2/17/26 written demand
• 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)
• the 5/15/26 responses (N-102, N-103)
• the quashed custodian subpoena at N-109 (Tr. 101-157)

Read the source document: 10255 Doc 80, Order on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (4/28/2026), 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.

Date

2026-05-15

Actor

Defendants 13th Judicial Circuit Court, trial court administrator Gina Justice, Chief Judge Sabella, Judge Ayers, and Judge Felix, by Senior Assistant Attorney General Jessica Schwieterman (Fla. Bar 116460)

Institution

Office of the Attorney General, Tampa / 13th Cir. - 25-CA-010255

Mechanism

asked to admit that nobody weighed the public interest and nobody considered redaction before the video was refused outright, the office admitted both, giving the same reason twice: "No analysis was needed as the video is confidential"

What the law required

R. 1.370(a) requires a party to answer each request: admit, deny in terms that fairly meet the substance, or state in detail why the party can neither admit nor deny. Objections must be stated with specificity. R. 2.420(m)(2) and sec.119.07(1)(d)-(f) require a particularized, record-specific basis for withholding.

What happened

On May 15, 2026 the defendants answered all seven requests for admission on the merits. They admitted that no existing court order determines the April 4, 2025 video confidential; confidentiality rests only on rule, statute, and a 2015 Attorney General opinion.

Asked whether anyone weighed redaction before the complete denial, they admitted there was none: "No analysis was needed because the entire video is confidential pursuant to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(c)(8)". The same reason was given for the failure to weigh the public interest.

Asked whether Judge Ayers said she could obtain video of the proceedings, they denied it and supplied her words: "The exact quote is 'I will go get the camera footage and do it because I have not rolled my eyes at you.'"

The seventh drew a bare denial (N-103). One instrument out of three, a partial win at most. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

The Florida Constitution presumes records open and puts the burden of any exemption on the state actor asserting it. The law requires a custodian to redact and release non-exempt material. "No analysis was needed" concedes an absence of process, not the merits; the same four pages assert the entire video confidential. Measured against all the discovery Husband served, the deposition demand was ignored and the interrogatories and production requests were never answered (N-081), so this answer cannot be tested.

Receipt

• RFA Responses 5/15/26, all 4 pages read in full
• Full quotes: No. 6 and 7, F258 and F259: "No analysis was needed as the video is confidential pursuant to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(c)(8); Florida Statutes §119.071(3)(a); and Op Att'y Gen. Fla. 2015-06 (2015)."
• Volunteered integrity sentence, F260: "The video has not been altered in any way."
• Demeanor qualifier, F263: "Admit. The video captures at least some of the physical demeanor, however the capture of facial expressions is limited."
• Corrective Ayers quote, F261: "The exact quote is 'I will go get the camera footage and do it because I have not rolled my eyes at you.'"
• Bare denial, F262 (N-103)
• The confidentiality triad first reaches a defense court filing in these responses and in Doc 083 (5/26/26), though it was in the custodian's letters from 8/21/25
• Signature block on the responses: "JAMES UTHMEIER, ATTORNEY GENERAL" over "/s/ Jessica Schwieterman," certificate of service dated May 15, 2026
• The supporting negative, scoped: no affidavit of any kind appears in any of the defense filings in this case as swept. Swept set: fifteen documents, 101 pages: Doc 013, Doc 038, Doc 040, Doc 053, Doc 054, Doc 055, Doc 056, Doc 063, Doc 065, Doc 070, Doc 072, Doc 075, Doc 077, Doc 083, and the 5/15/26 Responses to Request for Admissions. Across that set there is no affidavit, declaration under penalty, sworn statement, notarization, jurat, or custodian certification of any kind (NEW-P12), so within the swept set the confidentiality predicate is unsworn
• Related decision points: N-053, N-098, N-105, N-109, N-142.

Spawned by: N-053, N-098

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

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

R. 1.370(a) requires that a denial 'shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission.' A custodian withholding a record under a claimed exemption must state the basis with particularity (R. 2.420(m)(2); sec.119.07(1)(f)).

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. In candor, a bare denial is procedurally permissible, and an innocent reading exists: the file may have been opened to confirm the record existed. 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 (F262); the companion admissions at Nos. 6 and 7 are F258 and F259 (N-102)
• 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-102, N-053

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

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, and access is the presumption. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.420 implements that right for the judicial branch, and subdivision (m)(2) requires a written basis for a denial. There is no privilege-log rule in the text, but a written basis that identifies nothing does not tell a requester or a court what is being withheld. The burden of establishing an exemption rests on the custodian.

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. In fairness: 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, "6-1-26 FL Supreme Court response (Flemming) to public records request re SB1652.pdf", 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, "7-8-26 Follow-Up and Pre-Suit Notice to Flemming re SB1652 PRR (AS SENT by email 7-8-26).md", 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, as the folder record says in terms
• 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.

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

F.S. 119.07(1) requires an itemized disposition of every category: produce the record, state that none exists, or cite an 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 records law 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. In fairness, two categories drew facially adequate none-located answers. 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.