UF/Brechner Freedom of Information Project

Date

2026-03-10

Actor

Eighth Judicial Circuit administration

Institution

8th Cir. Alachua Co. (01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

the circuit's administrative-reassignment order was rewritten to drop both of its own prior limitations; neither version provides notice to parties of a moved case

What the law required

Stated criteria govern administrative case reassignment. AO 9.16 (effective 6/4/2024) keyed reassignment to a trigger, 'Should the draw for the civil divisions become imbalanced,' and to 'the most recently filed cases with the least amount of judicial activity.' AO 9.17 (effective 3/10/2026) reads 'filed cases with the least amount of judicial activity,' with no trigger clause.

What happened

Effective March 10, 2026, the Eighth Circuit's administrative order on case reassignment, AO 9.17, replaced the 2024 order AO 9.16. The 2024 order carried two limits the circuit had set for itself: an imbalance trigger ('Should the draw for the civil divisions become imbalanced') and selection from 'the most recently filed cases with the least amount of judicial activity.' The 2026 order drops the trigger and the most-recently-filed limit and keeps 'filed cases with the least amount of judicial activity,' assigned at random by the Office of the Court Administrator. Its recital states the reason: 'the balance in the case draw percentages must be maintained with the creation of Circuit Civil Division CA4.' Neither order provides for notice to the parties of a moved case. This is a structural observation about the mechanism now in force. No claim is made that any case was moved under it. The August 27, 2026 records request to Court Administration drew a September 2 answer: the order set produced, one item referred to the Clerk of Court, two items answered 'We have no records responsive to your request,' and a $25 prepayment demanded before any email search. [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

The baseline is the circuit's own 2024 order. The imbalance trigger and the most-recently-filed limit are both gone from the 2026 order; the least-judicial-activity criterion stays. Neither order provides for notice to the parties of a moved case.

Receipt

• AO 9.16 v1 (effective 6/4/2024, signed Mark W. Moseley, Chief Judge), retrieved 8/25/2026; section 1 quoted.
• AO 9.17 v1 (effective 3/10/2026, signed William E. Davis, Chief Judge), retrieved 8/25/2026; recital and section 1 quoted.
• Court Administration's 9/2/2026 4:45 PM reply to the 8/27/2026 request (items 4 and 6: no records; item 3: Clerk of Court; items 5 and 8: $25 prepayment).

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-04-23

Actor

John Hines, Director of Public Records; Amy B. Quillen, Associate Counsel, Office of the General Counsel

Institution

University of Florida

Mechanism

the University of Florida held a records request twenty-eight days and gave no reason of any kind; it answered only after Husband followed up, and then, the next day, in a single sentence saying the request was under legal review, a line its own lawyer wrote for the custodian that same day

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution presumes every state record open and puts the burden of justifying any withholding on the agency. Chapter 119 permits delay only for the limited reasonable time the custodian needs to retrieve the record and delete the portions it asserts are exempt (Tribune Co. v. Cannella), and section 119.07(1)(c) requires a prompt, good-faith acknowledgment and response. Section 119.07(1)(e) and (f) require any withholding to be stated with its statutory basis, in writing and with particularity on request.

What happened

Husband's request went to UF on March 26, 2026. Twenty-eight days passed with no reason of any kind before he followed up. UF's entire reply was one sentence, written inside its Office of the General Counsel minutes earlier when Associate Counsel Amy Quillen instructed the records custodian: "You can let him know that his request is undergoing the legal review." Three weeks earlier the same lawyer had written internally, "I think very little of this may be responsive, so no invoice for now." Production followed thirty-nine days after the request: fifty-three pages, entirely correspondence between Husband and UF representatives (N-096). No reason has ever been given for the twenty-eight days. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

The burden of justifying any withholding is UF's. The only delay the records law allows is the limited time it takes to retrieve records and remove exempt portions, and UF's own file shows 340 pages in hand within four days. UF had two honest answers available in April: say it was still searching, or name an exemption. It gave neither for four weeks, then one sentence its lawyer wrote for the custodian. A legal review is a label, and a label gives a requester nothing to test.

Receipt

• Request 3/26/26 (petition App. 8)
• Husband's 4/22 9:52 AM follow-up
• UF's 4/23 12:39:01 PM reply (petition App. 11, petition para. 16), whose page image has not been checked
• Quillen to Hines, 4/23 12:25:18 PM, emails_1 p. 68, the top-level original
• Quillen 4/3 9:15:05 AM, emails_1 p. 60
• Day counts machine-computed at build: 3/26 to 4/23 is 28 days; 3/26 to 5/4 is 39
• The 7/30/26 public filing of the withheld set is at N-144
• The 5/4 production and its contents are at N-096

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-04-23

Actor

UF Office of the General Counsel (Quillen); the records portal; the records custodian (Hines)

Institution

UF

Mechanism

a records request was told it was undergoing legal review for weeks, the University's records custodian later testified under oath that the review creates no record and that attorneys, not he, handle it, and when its product finally reached the public docket months later it left unredacted personal information of third parties

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution makes the records open and puts the exemption burden on the custodian. Section 119.07(1)(c) requires a good-faith, prompt response, and sections 119.07(1)(e)-(f) require a stated exemption basis with citation for anything withheld or redacted. A review invoked to justify delay or withholding should be describable by the agency that invokes it.

What happened

Four weeks after the request, with the pages already gathered, the University's portal told the petitioner his request was 'undergoing the legal review.' No one has ever defined what that review is. Under oath at the September 2 hearing, the University's own records custodian testified that 'The attorneys handle the legal review of public records request, I'm not an attorney,' that it creates no record ('Records are not created'), and, asked why, 'It's the law, a record is not to be created.' He does not perform the searches, does not watch them, and does not decide what is produced ('Not me'). Sorting the records the University ultimately produced into what belongs to the petitioner and what belongs to unrelated people sharing his last name does not take weeks by any account given under oath. When that sorted set finally reached the public docket in July, after months of the review it invoked in April, it still carried unredacted personal information of third parties, though footnote 4 of that filing said the category (2) records 'have been redacted' under three statutes. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A review invoked to justify delay should be describable by the agency that invokes it, and it should protect the private information it claims to have screened. Neither held here: no witness could describe what the review does or point to a record it left behind, and the filing the review is said to have cleared still exposed third parties' personal information to the public.

Receipt

• The April 23, 2026 portal message and the University's internal instruction to the custodian the same day.
• The custodian's September 2, 2026 sworn testimony that the review creates no record and that he does not perform, watch, or decide it.
• The University's July 30, 2026 filing, its footnote claiming redaction under three statutes, and the unredacted personal information described in the disqualification motion.

Spawned by: N-096, N-144

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-04-24 -> 2026-07-30

Actor

University of Florida: the records custodian, the Office of the General Counsel, and UF Information Technology

Institution

University of Florida (W018463-032626; 8th Cir. 01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

UF's own file counted the pages it found, batch by batch, and in the same messages asked whether to prepare an invoice; the requester was told the request was complete at fifty-three pages and was given no count of what had been located until 103 days later, after he sued

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution presumes the records open and puts the burden of justifying any withholding on the agency. Section 119.07(1)(c) requires a good-faith response, and section 119.07(1)(e) and (f) require a custodian who withholds a located record to identify the basis, in writing and with particularity on request. A custodian whose own file counts the pages it located can state that count to the requester.

What happened

UF's May 4 production was fifty-three pages, and UF told Husband: "This completes the public records request" (N-096). It gave no count of anything it had located, then or in the two months that followed.

Its own processing file had been counting all along: 621 pages logged on April 24, 109 rerun pages plus seventeen recovered messages on May 4 (N-097), and 88 extraction pages on May 7 (N-099).

A larger figure reached Husband only after he sued. On July 7, 2026, 103 days after the request, UF's court response put the number at over 470 pages gathered. On July 30 UF filed papers stating 479 gathered and 426 withheld, with the withheld set attached as a public exhibit (N-144). UF has identified no individual record as withheld and has produced no privilege log. The 621-page batch appears in no production, affidavit, motion, exhibit, or in camera submission UF has made in this case; the 109 rerun pages and the 88-page extraction went to the judge on September 2, 2026, described by counsel in his own inventory, and not to the requester.

Baseline deviation

The Florida Constitution presumes the records open and puts the burden of justifying a withholding on the agency. A custodian whose file carries a page count can tell the requester what it counted. UF stated counts internally in the same weeks it stated none outward, and told the requester the request was complete. Every figure UF has since stated came after suit, and none has been reconciled to the batches its own file logged.

Receipt

• emails_1.pdf p. 119 (Wood 5/4 11:11 AM, 109 rerun pages plus 17 messages) and pp. 267-268 (the 621-page 4/24 batch and the 88-page 5/7 extraction)
• Production email 5/4 3:22 PM (petition App. 13-15)
• UF Response, Filing 251907242, p. 3 and the custodian's affidavit para. 6 (over 470)
• Doc 006 para. 24 and Exhibit D; Combined Response, Filing 253756192 (479/53/426, per the 8/8 correction recorded on N-144)
• Day counts computed from UF's own dates: 3/26 to 7/7 is 103 days; 5/4 to 7/7 is 64 days

Spawned by: N-093, N-096

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-100

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-096

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-05 -> 2026-07-30

Actor

UF records office (5/5/26 portal closure message) and UF counsel (7/30/26 Doc 006 fn. 4)

Institution

UF

Mechanism

the University told the requester in writing that nothing was withheld or redacted from the records responsive to his request, then told the court that 426 of the 479 gathered pages were not produced and that 249 of them were redacted under three exemption authorities; the word carrying the difference is 'responsive,' a call made in a review the custodian swore creates no record

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution puts the exemption burden on the custodian. Sections 119.07(1)(e)-(f): a custodian who redacts or withholds states the exemption claimed, with citation, to the requester, and on request the reasons in writing with particularity.

What happened

On May 5, 2026 the University's portal wrote to the requester: 'No exempt information was withheld or redacted from the records responsive to your request, and consequently, no statutory exemptions were cited in UF's response.' Three days later it wrote that it 'did locate public records that contain the search term "Hanson," which relate to individuals who are not you.' On July 30, 2026 the University filed the 479 pages it had gathered as Exhibit D to its protective-order motion, in three categories: (1) pages 1-53, the pages produced; (2) pages 54-302; and (3) pages 303-479. Footnote 4 states that the category (2) records 'have been redacted pursuant to' FERPA, section 1006.52, and section 119.071(5)(b). Footnote 5 dates the requester's 'first request' for categories (2) and (3) to July 13, 2026. So the University's position is that the May 5 sentence was true of the 53 pages it called responsive, and that the 426 pages it gathered and kept, 249 of them later redacted were not responsive. The determination that made them not responsive was the 'legal review' the custodian testified creates no record (NEW-0913-U13). Under oath on September 2 the custodian answered 'No' to whether the University asserted any exemptions; the next afternoon its counsel wrote that the in camera records 'contain some exempt information.' As of September 26, 2026 no exemption statement with a citation has been sent to the requester, and the University's two written replies to the August 26 letter answered none of its questions (NEW-0826-5). [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

The University's May 5 statement is the baseline: 'No exempt information was withheld or redacted from the records responsive to your request, and consequently, no statutory exemptions were cited.' The deviation is the July 30 filing: 479 pages gathered, 53 produced, categories (2) and (3) held back, and category (2) 'redacted pursuant to' FERPA, section 1006.52, and section 119.071(5)(b). The University's reconciliation is the word 'responsive.' The statute's exemption statement runs to the requester, and none has been sent.

Receipt

• The 5/5/2026 4:18 PM portal message (Respondents' exhibit composite, Filing 256089009, p. 123; also quoted at App. 76).
• The 5/8/2026 1:07 PM portal message quoted at App. 74 ('relate to individuals who are not you').
• Doc 006 (Filing 253616687) p. 7: paragraph 24 (categories and page ranges), footnote 4 (category (2) redactions), footnote 5 (July 13 'first request').
• Certified 9/2/2026 transcript, Tr. 121:17-19 ('assert any exemptions? A No.') and Tr. 109:12 ('Records are not created.').
• Counsel's 9/3/2026 4:32 PM email and its 9/2 transmittal: 'These records contain some exempt information.'
• The 8/26/2026 letter and the University's 8/26 and 8/28 replies (NEW-0826-5).

Spawned by: N-096, N-120, N-144

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-096

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-08

Actor

UF records office

Institution

University of Florida (W018463-032626)

Mechanism

UF said it had found records and was keeping them because they concerned other people named Hanson, a ground that exists nowhere in the records law; its file shows hits on both case numbers, judges' names, and surveillance video, none of which is a surname

What the law required

Chapter 119 requires an agency to produce the record or cite a statutory exemption. No exemption exists for a shared surname.

What happened

On May 4, 2026 UF declared the request complete after producing fifty-three pages, entirely correspondence between Husband and UF representatives (N-096). On May 8, UF said it had located records responsive to the Hanson search and was withholding them as records of other Hansons.

UF's processing file, produced July 17, 2026, shows a three-category parse, a 177-page bucket never mentioned, and keyword hits on 13th Circuit, both judges' names, both case numbers, and surveillance video, none of which is a surname.

UF has since made the position explicit: no exemption was needed because "Petitioner did not ask for them and said he did not want them." That has to meet UF's own keyword chart, which records hits on terms Husband did ask for. A second set of 426 pages drew the position that "No exemptions apply to such materials, because public records exemptions only apply to public records." [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Exemptions in Florida are created by law, not by a case team. The Constitution presumes the record open and puts the burden of proving an exemption on the agency. Article I, section 24(a) and (c). An agency has two lawful moves with a located record: produce it, or name the statute that lets it keep it, in writing. A shared surname is not a statute. UF's contemporaneous file, produced later, contradicts the ground UF gave.

Receipt

• Petition Exs. D-G (the petition text layer is ciphered; visual reads required)
• W018964 production, emails_1 pp. 190, 268 (keyword chart and the Cuillier 5/6 email placing "a few dozen" non-Hanson surveillance-video emails in his own mailbox); both pages held from the production text layer, page images not separately checked
• Doc 006 paras. 12-15, fn. 5 (p. 7), Ex. B App. 74-76
• Response from UF (Filing 251907242, 7/7/26, Kirkconnell), p. 6 and p. 7: "The University did not cite an exemption for these records, because no exemption is necessary for records that are not responsive to a request."; the "Petitioner did not ask for them" sentence sits on the same p. 6; the italic emphasis inside UF's statutory quotation on p. 7 is UF's own
• A footnote to UF's July 30, 2026 motion dates the first request for those two categories to July 13, 2026; UF's own Exhibit B to that motion contains the May 8, 2026 demand
• The 479 / 53 / 426 figures are N-144's
• Related decision points: N-120.

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-12

Actor

Judge Donna M. Keim

Institution

8th Cir. Alachua Co. (01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

a judge outside the case read the petition and ordered UF to show cause; UF answered by denying that either duty exists, under a heading of its own writing: "Florida Law Does Not Require Certification of Diligent Search or a Privilege Log"

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) and (c) of the Florida Constitution make the right of access self-executing and put the burden of justifying nondisclosure on the custodian (Weeks v. Golden). Once the court finds a petition facially sufficient and orders the agency to show cause, the burden is on the respondent to come forth with the facts on which it refused to perform its duty (Chandler v. City of Greenacres), and section 119.07(1)(e) and (f) require record-by-record identification of anything withheld, in writing and with particularity on request (Jones v. Miami Herald Media Co.).

What happened

On June 12, 2026, Judge Donna M. Keim, a third judge outside the family case, found Husband's petition facially sufficient and ordered UF to show cause within twenty days. UF answered on time, standing on having already produced everything, under a heading declaring neither is required: "Nowhere does Chapter 119 require that a state agency certify to a requestor that it has made a diligent search for records, nor is there any requirement that a state agency produce a privilege log."

UF carried the position into its later protective-order motion, describing a privilege log and sworn certifications as things Husband has no right to. It claimed no exemption for anything it declined to produce, while asserting FERPA and section 119.071(5)(b) redactions, and asked for denial without a hearing. This is the third outside-judge facial-sufficiency finding; the first two produced writs never enforced (N-070, N-080).

On September 16, 2026, Judge Keim granted Husband's motion to disqualify. On September 18, 2026, the reassigned judge, David P. Kreider, denied the petition. After an in camera review of the 538 pages UF submitted, the order found that "all materials requested by Petitioner that meet the definition of a public record were produced to Petitioner prior to the filing of this action." It does not address whether UF owed a certification of its search or a log of what it withheld, and it does not mention the 621 pages logged in the request's own file. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

The Constitution presumes the record open and puts the burden of justifying withholding on UF; an order to show cause moves that burden onto the record, where UF must come forth with facts. Two ordinary instruments carry it: a sworn account of the search, and a record-by-record statement of what is withheld and why. The September 18 denial rests on production before suit and does not reach whether UF owed either instrument, or the 621 pages its own file logged.

Receipt

• Order to show cause, Filing #250268011, plus the 6/17 verified return; the case number and OSC stamp are on the face of the filing.
• UF Response, Filing #251907242, e-filed 7/7/26 12:32:51 PM, signed /s/ James W. Kirkconnell: p. 8, Section IV heading and second paragraph; the same position restated at pp. 2, 9, 10, and 14.
• Attribution pin: the paragraph-21 sentence is from the protective-order motion, Doc 006 (Filing 253616687) p. 6, attorney argument, not from the custodian's affidavit, which is two pages, eight numbered paragraphs, and has no paragraph 21.
• Doc 006 paras. 17 and 19 at pp. 5-6, stating "the burden shifts back to the Petitioner" and "Petitioner's inference is not enough." The motion asks for denial without a hearing.
• FERPA and section 119.071(5)(b) redaction assertions are Doc 006 fn. 4, p. 7; that footnote also cites section 1006.52.
• UF's Response was read in full.
• First two facial-sufficiency findings and their unenforced writs: N-070 (Doc 047, alternative writ, 1/13/26, Judge Frayman found "an, albeit inartful, prima facie case") and N-080 (Doc 062, alternative writ signed 2/10/26 by Judge Coleman, return date 3/4/26). Unruled motion to enforce both is N-089.
• The 7/30 motions are N-144; the 8/3 non-appearance is N-145.
• Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Filing 257408968, e-filed September 18, 2026 (Judge Kreider); order granting disqualification, Filing 257189440 (September 16, 2026)

Spawned by: N-100

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-13 -> 2026-09-11

Actor

Kirkconnell and UF OGC on the demand fork. UF Board of Trustees on the sec.57.105 fork

Institution

8th Cir. 01-2026-CA-001794 (Judge Keim)

Mechanism

the one demand that costs UF nothing to answer, written confirmation it is preserving the search outputs and logs, was put to UF in writing on July 13, 15, 16, and 18 and again on August 26, 27, and September 11; UF's counsel answered the August 26 letter the same afternoon without mentioning it, and no answer to it has been found

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution presumes the records open and puts the burden of justifying any withholding on the custodian. Section 119.07(1)(h) bars disposing of a requested record for thirty days after the request even where the custodian asserts it is not a public record, and section 119.11(4) carries that preservation duty through a pending enforcement action regardless of any claimed exemption or non-record assertion.

What happened

Husband asked UF's counsel in writing on July 13, 15, 16, and 18, 2026 to confirm that UF was preserving the search outputs, hit lists and logs for his request, and specific batches (N-094, N-097, N-099). The demand was renewed on August 26 with an itemized schedule. UF's counsel replied that afternoon on scheduling and the records portal and did not mention preservation. The demand was renewed again on August 27 and September 11. On September 18, 2026 the court granted UF's protective-order motion and denied the petition; neither order addresses preservation. No written preservation confirmation has been found. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Confirming that records still exist costs an agency nothing, so a refusal to confirm cannot be explained by burden. The Constitution puts that burden on UF, so a free question is one its position must survive.

Receipt

• Husband's written demands of July 13, 15, 16, and 18, 2026 (as sent).
• The August 26, 2026 letter, preservation schedule (as sent), and Mr. Kirkconnell's same-day 2:26 PM reply.
• The August 27 and September 11, 2026 renewals (as sent).
• The September 18, 2026 orders granting the protective order and denying the petition.
• The transmittal of the seventeen recovered messages (N-097); the extraction placed for approval to be released (N-099); the April 24 batch (N-094); the mailboxes and devices searched.

Spawned by: N-145

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-13 -> ongoing

Actor

Hines (custodian; request forwarded to him 7/14) with counsel Kirkconnell as the transmission channel

Institution

UF

Mechanism

a second records request, asking how the first one was searched, drew a same-day acknowledgment, then a message 23 days later that pointed back to an earlier production and asked a clarifying question, and, 75 days on, none of the search records it asked for

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution puts the burden on the custodian. Section 119.07(1)(c) requires a prompt, good-faith response, including reasonable efforts to determine whether a record exists and where it can be accessed. No exemption has been asserted and no log produced; the duty in play is the response duty.

What happened

On July 13, 2026 a second records request went to the University: six items about how the first request was searched and processed. The portal acknowledged it at 2:36 PM the same day, tracking number W019186-071326. The next day the University's counsel wrote that it was 'forwarded to Mr. Hines and will be processed in due course.' The University's own request log, produced September 21, shows what happened next: automated reminders to the custodian on July 16, 20 and 22; then, on August 5, a status change to 'Requested Clarification' and a staff message logged as sent to the requester's address, blind-copied to two University lawyers, a legal assistant, and the custodian. That message refers parts 1 to 3 to the July 17 production made under a different request number, asks what 'delivery package' means in part 4, and answers part 5 with 'the University does not have public records responsive.' The requester reports never receiving it; the log records a send, not a delivery. He answered the clarification through the portal on September 4. On September 10 the custodian set the request back to 'Forwarded Request for Processing.' As of September 26, 2026, 75 days after the request, no search output, hit list, export, run date, or index has been produced. The first request produced a lawsuit about what a diligent search requires; the second asks for the records of that search. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

The University's own baseline is its handling of the first request: same-day acknowledgment, internal batch counts, dated productions. The second request asked for the search outputs, the per-term run data, and any index of the gathered pages. The University's system logged three automated reminders to its custodian before the first staff action, a clarification request on part 4 and a referral to an earlier production for parts 1 to 3. A prompt-response statute has no carve-out for requests about the agency's own process.

Receipt

• The 7/13/26 portal acknowledgment (W019186-071326, 2:36 PM).
• Counsel's 7/14/26 'processed in due course' email.
• The University's own Granicus request log for W019186-071326, produced 9/21/2026 (rows 7/13 through 9/10, including the 8/5/2026 8:16:01 AM staff message and its BCC list).
• The 8/5/2026 portal message headed Requested Clarification, as printed from the portal 9/4/2026.
• The requester's 9/4/2026 portal reply.

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-30

Actor

UF Board of Trustees, by counsel Kirkconnell

Institution

8th Cir. 01-2026-CA-001794 (Judge Keim)

Mechanism

UF put all 479 gathered pages onto the public docket unsealed, including pages it had refused the requester since May; for 98 pages the same filing takes both positions at once, records it need not produce and records it need not log

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution puts the burden of justifying any withholding on the agency, and section 119.07(1)(e) and (f) require the exemption for each record to be identified and, on request, stated in writing with particularity. Section 119.11(1) gives a records action priority and an immediate hearing. Rule 1.280(d) puts the burden of showing good cause for a protective order on the movant, item by item (Deltona Corp. v. Bailey), and an unsworn claim of burden carries none of it (Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins).

What happened

On July 30, 2026, four days before the noticed depositions, UF filed two motions. Doc 006 sought a protective order over all discovery pending a threshold compliance ruling, stating Husband "has not, and cannot, offer any evidence," without mentioning the processing file UF had produced thirteen days earlier. Doc 005 demanded an immediate evidentiary hearing while asking that both motions be heard at the August 24 conference.

The same filing placed all 479 gathered pages on the public docket, unsealed, including 177 pages UF maintains are not public records. For 98 pages UF holds both positions in the same filing on the same day. Exhibit D is not the whole of what UF located: an internal 621-page batch and an 88-page extraction targeting "surveillance video" appear in neither the exhibit nor either motion (N-099). UF has identified no individual record as withheld and has produced no privilege log. [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

A document a university can file on a public docket is one it could always have handed the requester. Article I, section 24(a) presumes records open and puts the burden of justifying withholding on the agency; UF's stated ground for four months was that the pages were not public records at all. Then UF published them. Separately, UF demanded an immediate hearing under the records-priority statute while asking, the same day, that both motions be heard three weeks later.

Receipt

• UF Motion for Protective Order, Doc 006 (Filing 253616687), paras. 5, 9, 11, 18, 21, 24, fn. 4, fn. 5, and Exhibit D; Motion to Dispense, Doc 005 (same filing envelope), paras. 3 and 9.
• Petitioners' Combined Response, Filing 253756192, paras. 28, 30-32, and 38-39.
• Deposition notices at Doc 006 Ex. A.
• Doc 005 para. 9 demands an "immediate evidentiary hearing"; para. 3 asks that both motions be heard at the August 24 conference.
• The 621-page batch and 88-page extraction targeted the case numbers, both judges, and "surveillance video". Husband's Combined Response states in terms that UF took both positions on the same 98 pages.
• Exhibit D category stamps counted across all 479 pages, boundary pages re-checked: Category 1 = 53, Category 2 = 346 stamped plus 1 unstamped, Category 3 = 79, total 479, confirming the 98-page double label.
• The 621-page and 88-page batches at emails_1 pp. 267-268; the 621-page reference is not pinned to a page. The 88-page extraction was built May 7, three days after UF declared the request complete.
• A footnote to Doc 006 dates the first request for those categories to July 13, 2026, which its own Exhibit B contradicts.
• Docketing-lag advisory, from the 8/11/26 message.
• UF's counsel made scheduling commitments on July 14 and 15 and did not perform them; UF's filed position is that no exemption log is owed at all (N-120).
• Related decision points: N-094.

Spawned by: N-096, N-099, N-100, N-120

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-08-03

Actor

UF Board of Trustees, by counsel Kirkconnell. Witnesses John Hines (Director of Public Records, records custodian, sole affiant to UF's response to the order to show cause) and Prof. Jane Bambauer

Institution

8th Cir. 01-2026-CA-001794 (Judge Keim)

Mechanism

the only person who swore to UF's account, its own records custodian, was noticed for deposition with ten days' notice; on the day, no witness and no lawyer for UF appeared at either setting, and no order had ever excused attendance

What the law required

A party or witness noticed for deposition under Rule 1.310 must appear unless the court enters a protective order; the filing of a motion for protective order, without an order, does not stay a noticed deposition (Stables v. Rivers). Rule 1.380(e)(2) (former Rule 1.380(d)) directs the court to require the party that failed to appear to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the failure, absent substantial justification.

What happened

Both settings convened on August 3, 2026 with stenographic and audiovisual coverage arranged: Bambauer at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, Hines at 3:00 p.m. Eastern, by Zoom. No witness appeared at either setting. No counsel for UF appeared at either setting. No order excused attendance, and none has been entered since. UF had conferred by telephone on July 24 on precisely this relief, and its July 30 motion names both depositions expressly, so this is not a case of silence: UF said it wanted the depositions stopped, but never said it would simply not appear if no ruling came. On August 21, 2026 the court reporter confirmed in writing: "I was the court reporter on August 3, 2026 for the depositions that were to be held. The CNAs have been completed." No testimony was taken at either setting, and the non-appearance has drawn no consequence. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A pending motion is an ask, and only an order excuses attendance. UF conferred by telephone on July 24, moved on July 30, and never obtained the order, against a written invitation to bring any such motion promptly so the court could rule before August 3. On the day, UF's sole affiant and records custodian, the one witness who had sworn to UF's account, did not appear, and neither did UF's counsel. The rules put the expense of that choice on the party that made it.

Receipt

• 7/24/26 deposition notices, served on counsel (Doc 006 Ex. A; service email plus the 7/27 chambers reply, held off docket).
• Doc 006 para. 4 (the burden sentence) and the Chandler line in UF's Response, both born-digital text layer.
• Court reporter Valerie Gunning, Vincent M. Lucente & Associates, email of 8/7/26 1:01 PM EDT.
• Ten days' notice recomputed 7/24 to 8/3.
• The 8/3 demand letter is N-146.
• Bambauer's service was never confirmed (the July 24 question about accepting service for her went unanswered), so her absence has an innocent explanation Hines does not share; only Hines, UF's sole affiant and records custodian, carries the compulsion argument (N-096, N-099).

Spawned by: N-144, N-096, N-099, N-100

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-08-24

Actor

Judge Donna M. Keim, Circuit Civil Division W

Institution

8th Cir. Alachua Co. (01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

the University's own notice set three motions for one half hour; the court granted the University's two and never reached the petitioner's, then granted a protective order over all discovery while stating on the record that he was entitled to an immediate hearing

What the law required

Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution secures the right of access, and section 119.11(1) entitles a records enforcement action to an immediate hearing with priority over other pending cases. A motion noticed for hearing is before the court; UF's own 8/14/2026 Notice of Hearing (Filing 254902680) and the petitioner's (Filing 255482392) each set three motions, including 'Petitioner's Cross-Motion to Set an Expedited Evidentiary Schedule.' A protective order requires good cause (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c)).

What happened

On August 24, 2026 the court heard three motions the University had noticed for a thirty-minute conference. It announced the University's motion to dispense was "well taken" and granted it. It granted the University's motion for protective order over all discovery: "I do believe it's outside the scope." It did not name the petitioner's cross-motion, which the University's own notice had set. The words "cross" and "cross-motion" do not appear anywhere in the certified transcript's thirty-nine pages. The cross-motion asked for an expedited evidentiary schedule, and the next day the court set an evidentiary hearing eight days out. Nothing on the record rules on it, defers it, or names it. The court said the petitioner was entitled to an immediate hearing and said its assistant would reach out about scheduling one. The order setting the hearing issued the next afternoon. No outreach from chambers reached the petitioner before it. The petitioner made an oral motion to disqualify the judge in words the transcript records and this map does not soften; it was denied at once. The protective-order ruling was reduced to writing on September 18, 2026, by the successor judge assigned after the first judge's recusal (Filing 257389224); that order recites the August 24 hearing, grants the motion, and says nothing of the cross-motion. As of September 26, 2026 no written order exists on the motion to dispense or on the cross-motion. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

A motion set for hearing is before the court, and this court counted three. The University's two were decided; the petitioner's was never named. The University was under an order to show cause why a writ should not issue, so the burden was its own. A protective order needs good cause; the court stated a ground for barring discovery going forward and none for the written discovery already served or the depositions already missed. Thirty minutes were reserved. The evidentiary hearing was set the next day.

Receipt

• The University's Notice of Hearing, Filing 254902680 (8/14/2026), and the petitioner's Notice of Hearing, Filing 255482392 (8/24/2026), both listing all three motions.
• Certified transcript of 8/24/2026 (reporter Mary Ann Browne, certified 8/28/2026): rulings at Tr. 3:8-12, 3:24-25, 4:15-20, and 36:9-11; the disqualification denial at Tr. 36:18-19; the court's count at Tr. 11:9-10; the entitlement exchange at Tr. 29:24-30:11 and 36:22-25; the closing exchange at Tr. 37:12-24.
• The oral disqualification motion, in the petitioner's own words: "I think that you're corrupt and you're dishonest and you are trying to protect insiders" (Tr. 36:13-16).
• The absence of any ruling, deferral, or mention of the cross-motion, across all 39 pages.
• The Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing (Filing 255637757), entered the next day.
• The Order Granting Motion for Protective Order, signed 9/18/2026 by Judge Kreider (Filing 257389224): the only written order on any 8/24 ruling as of 9/26/2026.

Spawned by: N-144, N-120, N-145

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-08-25

Actor

Judge Donna M. Keim, order issued on the court's own review ('THIS ACTION came before the Court for review'), e-signed 8/25/2026 1:29:45 PM.

Institution

8th Cir. Alachua Co. (01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

an immediate-hearing statute case sat unset for 81 days, then was set for a 90-minute evidentiary hearing on eight days' notice, the day after the petitioner's oral motion to disqualify was denied on the record

What the law required

Section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes: 'Whenever an action is filed to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the court shall set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases.' Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution secures the right the statute enforces. Scheduling is neutral administration: the timing of a setting follows the statute and the docket, not the litigant's announced motions.

What happened

The petition invoked Florida's immediate-hearing statute for records cases on June 4. Through August 24, no evidentiary hearing was set. On August 25, one day after the petitioner's oral motion to disqualify was denied on the record, the court set the full evidentiary hearing for September 2 at 9:00 AM by Zoom, with '1 1/2 hours reserved'. The same order requires, six days out: all exhibits pre-marked and e-served, a paper copy of everything physically received by the court, and witness lists with driver's license copies. The setting is also the first hearing the statute has produced in this case. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

The records statute commands an immediate hearing with priority over other pending cases. Eighty-one days without a setting, then eight days' notice for the merits with a six-day exhibit deadline, is the deviation.

Receipt

• The 8/25/26 Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing (Filing 255637757), filed in the docket folder, hash-matched to the portal download.
• Its own terms: September 2 hearing, 90 minutes reserved, exhibits, witness lists, and paper copies all due August 31.
• The 6/4/26 petition invoking section 119.11(1) priority (N-120).
• The 8/24/26 conference transcript, the oral disqualification ruling.

Spawned by: N-120, NEW-0826-1

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-08-25 -> 2026-09-13

Actor

Two lanes on one card: UF Office of the General Counsel (Kirkconnell; LoGiurato transmitting) for the draft; Division W chambers (Judge Keim; JA Theresa Hall) for entry

Institution

8th Cir. Alachua Co. (01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

the University was invited to write the court's order the day after the conference and sent one whose filename denies a motion the certified transcript shows the court never reached; the protective order was finally signed twenty-five days later by a different judge, and the cross-motion still has no ruling

What the law required

A proposed order tendered by a party is that party's representation to the court of what the court ruled; An order is rendered when a signed written order is filed (Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)), and review clocks run from rendition, not from an oral announcement. The certified 8/24/2026 transcript records rulings on two motions and none on the third.

What happened

On August 24, 2026 the court granted both of the University's motions from the bench and did not reach the petitioner's cross-motion, which the University's own notice had set for the same half hour. That afternoon the University's legal assistant asked chambers whether the judge would like the University to prepare the orders; the next morning the judicial assistant answered, 'Yes, please prepare the orders from yesterday's hearings and send them to me in word format for review.' The University sent a draft at 12:35 PM whose filename reads "20260825 - Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dispense, Granting MPO & Denying Cross-Motion." The petitioner objected in writing on August 27 that the cross-motion "was not separately ruled upon, and it remains pending." On September 3 the University's counsel wrote that it was 'very unlikely' the University would agree to reconsideration, 'though the University cannot be certain until the written order is entered.' On September 18, 2026, twenty-five days after the conference, the protective-order motion got its written order: signed at 10:19 AM by Judge Kreider, assigned the day before, and e-filed at 1:34 PM (Filing 257389224). It recites the August 24 hearing and the transcript the petitioner filed on September 14, grants the motion, and does not mention the cross-motion or the motion to dispense. As of September 26 neither of those has a written order; the petitioner's September 25 motion states that the cross-motion 'has never been ruled on.' [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

A proposed order is the winning party's account of what the judge said, and the judge decides whether to sign it. The same chambers produced a hearing order in one day. The University's draft would have decided a third motion the transcript shows was never reached. The protective order was signed on September 18 by the successor judge after the first judge's recusal; it grants that motion and names no other. The motion to dispense and the cross-motion have no written order. The petitioner was invited to send a competing draft and did not.

Receipt

• The University's 8/24/2026 2:40 PM request to prepare the orders and the judicial assistant's 8/25/2026 11:42 AM reply, both reproduced in the University's own 9/3/2026 email (p. 7 of the 10-page PDF).
• The attachment list on that 9/3/2026 email (p. 10), naming "20260825 - Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dispense, Granting MPO & Denying Cross-Motion."
• The certified transcript of 8/24/2026: rulings at Tr. 3, Tr. 36; no ruling on the cross-motion anywhere in 39 pages.
• The University's 8/14/2026 Notice of Hearing (Filing 254902680) listing all three motions.
• The Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing (Filing 255637757), signed 8/25/2026, one day after the conference.
• The petitioner's 8/27/2026 objection to the proposed order (Exhibit K to the DQ motion's Notice of Filing).
• The Order Granting Motion for Protective Order, Filing 257389224, signed 9/18/2026 10:19:49 AM by Judge Kreider, e-filed 1:34:50 PM.
• Petitioner's Verified Successive Motion to Disqualify Successor Judge, Filing 257927929 (9/25/2026), paragraphs 12 and 26.

Spawned by: NEW-0826-1, N-144

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-08-26 -> 2026-08-28 (window); response state as of 2026-09-13

Actor

Addressees: Quillen, Kirkconnell, Cuillier, Bambauer; cc LoGiurato, pr-request, three strategic-communications addresses, UF Compliance

Institution

UF

Mechanism

five demands and thirteen one-sentence questions went to the University with an answer date; two replies came back, and neither addressed any demand or question

What the law required

The duties probed are the section 119.07(1) response duties, preservation, and the exemption-statement duty.

What happened

On August 26, 2026 the petitioner sent the University's counsel, its records office, and the two Brechner project principals a letter with five demands and thirteen questions, each answerable in a sentence, with an answer date of August 28 and a stated rule that an unanswered question is the University's answer. Three hours and forty-nine minutes later the University's counsel replied in four sentences: use the portal, no continuance, the custodian will testify, and no service accepted for any other witness. On the answer date he replied again, declining rehearing, declining any effort to remove the judge, and declining further conversation. Neither reply addresses any demand or any question, including the fifth written request that the University confirm it is preserving its search records. Two automatic out-of-office replies came back within minutes of sending. No other addressee has replied, through September 26, 2026. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

The same office answered every scheduling item in the petitioner's next email sentence by sentence. It answered none of the questions about what it found, what it withheld, and why. A preservation confirmation costs a custodian nothing, and this was the fifth time it was asked. The letter copied the University's media office, and the two professors it was addressed to owed the petitioner no answer at all.

Receipt

• The University's 8/26/2026 2:26 PM and 8/28/2026 3:12 PM replies (Gmail PDF exports, both in the matter's correspondence record).
• The 8/26/2026 letter as sent, with Attachment A (the preservation schedule) and Attachment B (the batch table).
• The two automatic replies of 8/26/2026 10:40 AM (records office, medical leave; media office, out until 8/31).
• The absence, through September 26, 2026, of any reply from the records office, the two professors, or the copied offices (Gmail sweep 9/26/2026).

Spawned by: NEW-0826-3, N-094, N-099, N-144

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-08-31

Actor

UF Board of Trustees, by counsel Kirkconnell; the sole listed witness is John Hines, Director of Public Records and records custodian

Institution

UF

Mechanism

the University's own hearing exhibits cover March 30 in five emails and May 7 in six, and skip entirely April 24, the day its own file logs its largest delivery, though the University's own Exhibit Z quotes that delivery by page count

What the law required

The 8/25 order required exhibits pre-marked and served through the e-portal, a paper copy received by the court, and a list of all parties and witnesses expected to participate, all by Monday, August 31, 2026. The duty that runs to the underlying request is in section 119.07(1)(c): a good faith response includes reasonable efforts to determine whether a record exists and where it can be accessed. This entry measures the University’s exhibit selection only against the University’s own other accounts.

What happened

On August 31, 2026, the deadline the court set, the University filed a list of thirty-two exhibits and a witness list naming one person, its records custodian, "c/o James W. Kirkconnell, Esq." The exhibits are dated March 26, March 30, April 23, and May 4 through May 11. None is dated between April 24 and May 3. The University's own processing file records 621 pages "received from UFIT on 04/24/26," and that sentence appears in the University's exhibit set, quoted beneath a later email the University chose as Exhibit Z. Under oath on September 2 the custodian said 'the 621 pages resulted from an IT search conducted for a different request, W018643'; the Exhibit Z email itself, written by the legal assistant who logged the 621, says she 'accidently put them in W018643,' a folder path, and moves only the 88-page file. Both statements stay on this card. The person the University's file identifies as having run the searches is not on its list, was later served with a hearing subpoena, and did not appear. The University twice declined to accept service for any witness but the custodian. The petitioner had told the University in conferral that he had no objection to its witness. His objection was to the witnesses it would not produce, and his own list named seven. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

The comparison here is the University against itself: five exhibits for March 30, six for May 7, none for April 24, the day the University's own file logs 621 pages received, on a list that quotes the 621 pages anyway. It is another of the University's accounts of what it gathered, and another that leaves that day out. The right of access is in Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and chapter 119 puts the burden of justifying nondisclosure on the custodian. The University filed this list under an order to show cause why a writ should not issue.

Receipt

• Respondents' Exhibit List and Witness List, Filing 256089009, e-filed 8/31/2026 4:08:02 PM, pp. 1-2 of each.
• The 621-page sentence at p. 157 of the University's exhibit composite (its Exhibit Z), and at p. 273 of the University's processing file as filed (Filing 255904665).
• The Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing (Filing 255637757) p. 2, setting the 8/31 deadlines.
• Petitioner's Witness List, Filing 256048920, naming seven witnesses, including the engineer later served and not appearing.
• The University's 8/26 and 8/28 emails declining service for any witness but the custodian.

Spawned by: NEW-0826-2, N-144, N-094, N-145

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-09-02

Actor

Judge Donna M. Keim, Circuit Civil Division W

Institution

8th Cir. Alachua Co. (01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

at the merits hearing, 160 days after the request, the court ordered everything the University located sent to the judge within five days, by oral order, with no index, no certification, and nothing to the requester; no written order has been entered

What the law required

Section 119.11(1): an immediate hearing with priority. The order to show cause put the burden on the University to show why a peremptory writ should not issue (N-120). Sections 119.07(1)(e) and (f): a custodian withholding as exempt states the basis with citation, and on request in writing with particularity, to the requester. The requester's 8/31 motion asked, in the alternative, for identification and in camera inspection, and that the court direct delivery of the withheld materials for in camera inspection at or before the hearing (Filing 256010098).

What happened

At the merits hearing on September 2, 2026 the court ordered everything the University had located sent to the judge. By the University's own account that afternoon, the judge ordered its counsel to give her every document the University located, including non-responsive records, for in camera review. The certified transcript records the court's own words: "All redundancy, every page accounted for to the Court for an in-camera inspection within five days of today." In camera delivery of the withheld material was the alternative relief the petitioner's own August 31 motion had asked for. The order gave the petitioner nothing: no index, no certification, no copy. His written request that the delivery be tied to the batches in the University's own file drew a reply about delivery mode and nothing about the batches. The court closed the hearing while he was speaking: "I've made my ruling. I've entered my order. I've given you an hour more than you had. We're out of time." On September 18, 2026 the successor judge, assigned the day before, denied the petition (Filing 257408968). His order recites the oral ruling as an order to produce 'any documents that had been withheld' and records that 'Respondents produced 538 pages to the Court via email,' the University's own count; the transcript's 'every page accounted for' and the University's same-day description, all documents located 'including all non-responsive records,' appear nowhere in it. The in camera ruling itself has no written order as of September 26. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

When this court wanted a usable hearing record, its August 25 order required pre-marked exhibits, a paper set received by a date, witness lists, and identification. The in camera order, as the court's own assistant described it, required a deadline and a delivery mode. The right of access is in Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and section 119.11(1) entitles this case to an immediate hearing. The court's own order to show cause put the burden on the University to show why a writ should not issue, and it has stayed there.

Receipt

• The certified transcript of September 2, 2026 (reporter Diane B. Guldin, certified 9/8/2026), a hearing set for ninety minutes, extended, by Zoom: Tr. 134-136 (the in camera order and its aftermath), Tr. 87-88 (the extension and the petitioner's request to testify).
• The University's 9/2/2026 12:35 PM email describing the oral order, and the judicial assistant's 9/2/2026 2:03 PM email stating the five-day term.
• The petitioner's 9/2/2026 1:34 PM email asking that the delivery be tied to the batches, and the return of service showing the University's engineer was served and did not appear.
• The Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing (Filing 255637757), the court's own requirements for the hearing record.
• The Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Filing 257408968 (9/18/2026), pp. 1-2: the recital of the oral order and of '538 pages.'

Spawned by: NEW-0826-2, N-120, N-144, NEW-0826-1

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-09-02

Actor

James W. Kirkconnell, Assistant Counsel, UF Office of the General Counsel

Institution

UF

Mechanism

the University's counsel transmitted ten files to chambers the same afternoon he was ordered to, six of them described by counsel as the request files, with page counts he listed himself; the one batch the University's own file logs as its largest delivery, 621 pages received April 24, does not appear in counsel's inventory and is not mentioned in it

What the law required

The oral order as UF's own assistant described it: all documents located, including non-responsive records, within five days. Sections 119.07(1)(d) through (f): redact and produce the remainder; state the basis of any exemption with citation to the requester; on request, in writing with particularity. Section 119.11(4): the custodian of records in suit shall not transfer, alter, destroy, or dispose of them until the court directs otherwise; delivery to the court under its order is a directed transfer, and the native forms remain subject to the duty.

What happened

On the afternoon of September 2, 2026 the University's counsel emailed the judge ten files, describing six of them as the files forwarded to the public records office for the request, with a page count each and his own 'Total 538.' The counts and descriptions are counsel's own; no custodian has certified that these are the complete universe of records located. The petitioner was not copied; counsel wrote that the records "contain some exempt information and are intended for an in camera review only." He learned of it from opposing counsel the next afternoon. The University's own file separately records "the 621 pages received from UFIT on 04/24/26," a batch that is not among the counts counsel listed. The sentence appears in the University's processing file and again in its hearing exhibits. The custodian's explanation under oath is that 'the 621 pages resulted from an IT search conducted for a different request, W018643'; the May 7 email of the legal assistant who logged them says she 'accidently put them in W018643,' a folder, and corrects only the 88-page file's location. No filing, affidavit, exhibit, or submission has accounted for the 621 pages themselves, and only the University can say whether they overlap the batches counsel listed. No certification, index, or chain of custody accompanied the delivery. The oral order, as chambers relayed it, required none of the three, and counsel did ask chambers to copy the petitioner on the confirmation of receipt, which chambers did on September 4. The September 18 order denying the petition recites '538 pages,' counsel's total, and does not mention the 621. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

In one afternoon the University's counsel produced the batch-by-batch description the requester had asked for since July: a page count and a file name for each item. The right of access is in Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and chapter 119 puts the burden of justifying nondisclosure on the custodian, not on the person who asked. The University made this delivery under an order to show cause why a writ should not issue. Its own file also logs 621 pages received April 24, which do not appear in counsel's description at all.

Receipt

• The University's 9/2/2026 transmittal to chambers with counsel's own file-by-file table, reproduced in the University's own 9/3/2026 email. Counsel listed the page counts himself: 10 and 330 from March 30, 106 and 3 from May 4, 88 from May 7, and one screenshot. Those are counsel's figures for what counsel says he sent.
• The same email's statement that the records "contain some exempt information" and that the petitioner "has not been included on this correspondence."
• The 621-page sentence at p. 273 of the University's processing file as filed (Filing 255904665) and at p. 157 of the University's own exhibit composite (Filing 256089009).
• The judicial assistant's 9/4/2026 11:54 AM confirmation of receipt.
• Petitioner's Notice of Objection (9/4/2026), paragraphs 3 and 5.

Spawned by: NEW-0906-U4, N-094, N-097, N-099, N-144

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-09-02 -> 2026-09-14

Actor

8th Cir. Alachua Co. Court Reporting Department (George C. Stengel, DCR); 8th Cir. Court Administration (Christy Cain, Communications Coordinator); Division W chambers (judicial assistant Theresa Hall)

Institution

8th Cir. Alachua Co., Court Reporting Department and Court Administration (01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

a videographer arranged for a public hearing was not admitted, and the written requests asking the court who controlled that admission were answered with one redacted log, four answers of “We have no records responsive to your request”, and a bill to be paid before the rest would be searched for

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution reaches judicial-branch records, and Rule 2.420 of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration governs access to them; the custodian carries the burden of any exemption, must determine whether a requested record exists and is exempt, and if it denies must state the basis in writing (Rule 2.420(m)(2)). The duty at issue is the records duty: who controlled admission, and preservation while the request is pending.

What happened

A videographer arranged for the September 2, 2026 hearing logged on and was not admitted. The petitioner asked the court in writing who controlled admission. The Court Reporting Department answered within hours on the recording and said nothing about the logs. Six days and two follow-ups later, Court Administration answered four items "We have no records responsive to your request," and as to the communications, wrote: "We will charge a $50 per-hour fee to retrieve the requested emails and messages," with $25 demanded in advance and a second payment to follow. The same office had sent a near-verbatim version of that paragraph, same one-hour estimate, same $25, on September 2, on an unrelated request. The preservation requests of September 8 and 11 were acknowledged in writing on September 16. The redacted Zoom log the office produced, re-exported on September 16 so the times print, has sixteen rows for eight named participants. The videographer's only row reads: entered the waiting room at 9:04:02 a.m., left at 9:05:36 a.m., reason 'Removed by host,' never admitted. The host field names the judge; the alternative-host and co-host fields are empty. The log records the event and the account, not the hand on the account: who operated the host account, or on what instruction, is not in it. On September 16 the office wrote that it has 'no records responsive' on that question and will run a custom query once search terms and a payment are supplied. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

The duty at issue is narrow: telling a party who controlled admission when he asks in writing, preserving the records while the request is pending, and determining whether a record exists whether or not a charge is paid. Article I, section 24(a) reaches judicial-branch records and puts the exemption burden on the custodian; Rule 2.420 governs access. The court's own log now answers part of the question: the videographer's only row ends 'Removed by host.' Who operated the host account is the part the office says it will search only after payment.

Receipt

• Petitioner's 9/8/2026 written request under Rule 2.420(m)(1), and the Court Reporting Department's reply the same morning: "there is no recording on the requested date in this case."
• Petitioner's renewed requests of 9/8/2026 9:58 p.m. and 9/11/2026 4:49 p.m., the second asking who served as Zoom host, who controlled admission and removal, and that the records be preserved.
• Court Administration's reply of 9/14/2026 10:35 a.m.: a redacted Zoom log produced, four items answered "We have no records responsive to your request," and a $25 advance payment demanded before the communications search would run.
• Court Administration's earlier reply of 9/2/2026 4:45 p.m. on the August 28 request, carrying the same one-hour estimate and the same $25 half-up-front demand.
• Court Administration's reply of 9/16/2026 10:48 a.m.: the log re-exported with the time column expanded, the 9/8 and 9/11 preservation requests acknowledged, and "no records responsive" on the host-control question pending search terms and payment.
• The Zoom log as re-exported 9/16/2026: sixteen rows, host Judge Donna M. Keim, the videographer's row 9:04:02 to 9:05:36 a.m., "Removed by host," "In Waiting Room: Yes"; duration 2:35:53 ending 11:35:02 a.m.; Recording FALSE.

Spawned by: NEW-0826-5, NEW-0826-2

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-09-03

Actor

James W. Kirkconnell, Assistant Counsel, UF Office of the General Counsel

Institution

UF

Mechanism

the day after delivering an in camera submission to the judge without copying the requester, the University's counsel wrote that the requester was not entitled to view the unredacted documents, declined the proposed protocol, a supplemental petition, any reconvening, and any further phone conferral, and said the records contained exempt information, four months after writing that none had been withheld or redacted from the records responsive to the request

What the law required

Good-faith conferral before motions. Sections 119.07(1)(d) through (f): a custodian asserting an exemption redacts and produces the remainder, states the basis with statutory citation to the requester, and on request states the reasons in writing with particularity. UF's own 5/5/2026 statement is the actor's baseline: 'No exempt information was withheld or redacted from the records responsive to your request, and consequently, no statutory exemptions were cited in UF's response.'

What happened

In May 2026 the University told the petitioner in writing: “No exempt information was withheld or redacted from the records responsive to your request, and consequently, no statutory exemptions were cited in UF’s response.” On September 3, 2026 its counsel wrote: "You were not copied on this correspondence because you are not entitled to view the unredacted documents." He declined the proposed in camera order and the protocol motion, declined a supplemental petition, declined any reconvening, said reconsideration was unlikely to be agreed, said he would no longer confer by telephone, and said a separate request was answered August 5. The portal record for that request shows a message posted that day headed Requested Clarification, not a production: it points back to a July 17 production made under a different request number, declines one item, answers no records to another, and is silent on a sixth. The same email says the petitioner "insulted the witnesses, me, and the Court." He committed to process that request through the portal once exempt or confidential information is redacted. Nearly four months after writing that no exempt information was withheld or redacted from the responsive records, the University put in writing that it is holding and redacting material. The May statement was scoped to the records responsive to the request. The September delivery included non-responsive records. The University's position is that the May statement covered only records it deemed responsive; that position is disputed (NEW-0826-3). What the University has not done, either way, is send the petitioner an exemption statement with a citation. [REFUSED]

Baseline deviation

One week earlier the same office conferred by phone and answered each scheduling question in a sentence. The right of access is in Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution. Chapter 119 lets a custodian withhold exempt material, but it puts the burden on the custodian and not on the requester: the custodian must state the basis to the requester, with the statute cited, and on request in writing with particularity. Since the May 5 statement that nothing was exempt, no exemption statement has been sent to the petitioner at all; the exemption claims have gone to the court, to a footnote, and to counsel's email.

Receipt

• The University's 9/3/2026 4:32 PM email (Exhibit D to the disqualification motion's Notice of Filing).
• The University's May 5, 2026 portal statement (Respondents' exhibit composite, Filing 256089009, p. 123).
• The University's 8/28/2026 email recording the telephone conferral.
• The petitioner's 9/2/2026 1:34 PM and 9/3/2026 2:21 PM emails that the 9/3 reply answers only in part: the served engineer's non-appearance, the 621 pages, and the certification question are not addressed.

Spawned by: NEW-0906-U5, NEW-0826-3, NEW-0826-4, NEW-0826-5, N-145

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-09-13

Actor

Christopher A. Hanson, Petitioner, self-represented (movant); Judge Donna M. Keim (legal-sufficiency ruling owed under Rule 2.330(h))

Institution

8th Cir. Alachua Co. (01-2026-CA-001794)

Mechanism

a verified motion to disqualify the trial judge was granted three days after filing; the successor judge decided every pending matter within a day of assignment, with no hearing before him

What the law required

Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee a fair tribunal. A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient where the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial (MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332, 1335 (Fla. 1990)). Disqualification exists to secure that fair hearing, and Rule 2.330(j) lets the successor judge reconsider prior rulings on motion.

What happened

On September 13, 2026 the petitioner filed a verified motion to disqualify the trial judge, timely under Rule 2.330(g) as to both the August 24 and September 2 grounds. The motion rests on three things: a noticed motion that was never reached while the opposing party's two were granted; an in camera process described in writing only by the opposing party, on terms that do not track the hearing transcript; and the cumulative pattern across both hearings. It expressly disclaims any reliance on adverse rulings. The motion also carries the petitioner's own words to the court in full: "I think that you're corrupt and you're dishonest and you are trying to protect insiders and I think you should be off of my case" (Tr. 36:13-17), spoken as an oral motion to disqualify and denied on the record one line later. He states plainly that he does not retreat from them. (Filing 256936128.) On September 16, 2026 the court granted the motion, recused, and referred the case to the Chief Judge for reassignment (Filing 257189440). The one-page order states no finding and says nothing about the words quoted in the motion. The case was reassigned on September 17 to Judge David P. Kreider (Filing 257349132), who by 3:47 PM the next day had signed three orders, each for the University, with no hearing before him. The disqualification was granted; the fresh hearing it was meant to secure did not follow. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

Disqualification is the remedy for a reasonable fear of an unfair proceeding. Its value lies in what follows: a judge who takes up the record fresh and hears the parties. Here the recusal came three days after filing. Within a day of assignment the successor ruled on the petition, a contested protective order and a contempt motion, with no hearing before him.

Receipt

• Verified Motion to Disqualify, Filing 256936128, with the Notice of Filing of Exhibits A through K.
• Rule 2.330(g) timeliness computation on the record of the motion itself.
• Order Granting Motion to Disqualify, Filing 257189440, signed 9/16/2026 12:25 PM, e-filed 12:36 PM: motion 'GRANTED,' judge recuses, case referred to the Chief Judge.
• Order of Reassignment, Filing 257349132, signed 9/17/2026 3:03 PM, e-filed 9/18/2026 8:37 AM.

Spawned by: NEW-0826-1, NEW-0906-U1, NEW-0906-U4, NEW-0906-U5, NEW-0906-U6, NEW-0913-U8

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-09-14

Actor

Christopher A. Hanson, Petitioner (filer); UF Board of Trustees and its custodian and counsel (subjects of the chronology)

Institution

UF

Mechanism

a chronology of the University's own evolving statements about what it located and withheld, drawn from its own written and sworn record, was filed as an exhibit to the closing brief

What the law required

Sections 119.07(1)(e) and (f) require a custodian who withholds to state the exemption and its statutory citation to the person who asked, and on request to state the reasons in writing and with particularity. The question this chronology puts is which of the University’s five accounts is the one the custodian stands behind.

What happened

On September 14, 2026 the petitioner filed a sixteen-row chronology of the University's own statements about the records it located: a portal message with no count, an internal routing email carrying a count that was not sent to the requester at the time, a sworn affidavit with an approximate figure, a court exhibit with an exact figure and named exemptions, and this exchange under oath at the hearing: "Q Did the University of Florida assert any exemptions? A No" (Tr. 121:17-19). Each statement is the University's own, in its own words, to a different audience. Asserting an exemption to a requester under section 119.07(1)(e) and redacting exempt material from records going to a judge are not the same act, and that difference may reconcile some of these. No one at the University has said which reconciliation is the right one, in writing, to the person who asked. Four days later the successor judge denied the petition on 'the materials generated by the search terms,' naming no count, no exemption, and no record (Filing 257408968). As of September 26, 2026 no exemption statement with a citation has reached the requester. (Filing 257004764, Exhibit A.) [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

The right of access is in Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and chapter 119 puts the burden on the custodian and not on the requester: a custodian who withholds or redacts must state the exemption and its citation to the person who asked. The University's account of one production has never held still long enough to test against that duty. What it told the portal, what it told its own lawyers, what it swore in an affidavit, what it filed as a court exhibit, and what it said under oath are five different statements, and none has been reconciled with the others in writing to the person who asked.

Receipt

• The disqualification motion's chronology at P6(a)-(j), with its own citations to the University's portal message, internal emails, sworn affidavit, motion exhibit, and hearing transcript.
• The sworn exchange at Tr. 121:17-19 of the September 2, 2026 certified transcript.
• Exhibit A (Chronology), pages 17 to 19 of Petitioner's Closing Argument and Legal Brief, filed September 14, 2026 (Filing 257004764).

Spawned by: NEW-0826-3

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.