Asked three times what recorded the April 4, 2025 hearing video, Court Administrator Gina Justice answered once, by repeating her security-camera exemption word for word. The Circuit's own counsel later called it "the April 4, 2025 hearing-room video recording," and the Circuit has never supported the exemption with a single fact.
Art. I, s. 24(a) puts the burden on the custodian, and Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires it to decide whether the record is exempt and state the basis in writing. The exemption invoked, s. 119.071(3)(a) through Rule 2.420(c)(8), covers security-system records, so the basis is a fact: which system made this recording. Ms. Justice had to name that system.
- Aug. 21, 2025: "A video record does exist" for the April 4, 2025 hearing, withheld as "surveillance video footage from security cameras." For the seven other hearings requested, the same letter said there were no records. N-053, FNEW-A2
- Aug. 31 to Sept. 12, 2025: Husband asked: "Are there separate recording systems - for hearings vs. for security?" The Sept. 8 letter repeated the Aug. 21 exemption paragraph word for word, answered nothing he asked, and closed: "the court's position to your follow-up request has not changed." He asked again on Sept. 9 and Sept. 12. FNEW-A2Asked three times in writing: which system recorded the April 4, 2025 hearing, and why does it hold video of only one of the eight hearings requested?Read them: Justice letter, Sept. 8, 2025 (records case Doc 6, p. 44) (link pending redacted copy)
- May 15 to Sept. 28, 2026: asked whether anyone weighed the public interest or tried redaction, the Circuit's counsel answered "Admit. No analysis was needed," because the video is confidential. Aug. 17: "We didn't need to attach an affidavit, because the documents Mr. Hanson produced proved our point." Sept. 28, Judge Coleman found good cause and ordered the defendants to "invoice and arrange with Plaintiff the exchange" of the video. N-053, NEW-P11, N-157
Gina Justice, Court Administrator (the Aug. 21 and Sept. 8, 2025 letters). Jessica Schwieterman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, counsel for the Circuit (admissions, hearing, Sept. 2 filing). One recording, one exemption, one set of written questions. Every duty here arises from Article I, section 24 and Rule 2.420 on this request alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. opens judicial-branch records to every person, and "The governmental agency claiming the benefit of an exemption bears the burden of proving its entitlement to the exemption" (Barfield v. Sch. Bd. of Manatee Cnty., 135 So. 3d 560, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)). Rule 2.420(m)(2): "If the request is denied, the custodian must state in writing the basis for the denial." Whether this recording came from a security system is the custodian's fact to state and prove.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
On August 31, 2025 Husband asked in writing which camera system captured the April 4, 2025 hearing, whether the courtroom microphones connect to it, what the video captures, and why routine surveillance video exists for exactly one hearing of the eight requested. A letter dated September 8, 2025, received by mail, re-asserted the security exemption in the same words as the office's August 21, 2025 response, citing the judicial-branch rule, the security-system statute, and a 2015 attorney general opinion. It engaged none of the four questions, and it stated: "the court's position to your follow-up request has not changed." The August 21 letter had opened: "Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, does not apply to records of the judicial branch of government." Months later, in court discovery, the same defendants admitted in writing that no court order determines the video confidential (N-053), and their one-word denial that nobody had viewed the footage before this denial named no viewer, no date, and no authority (N-103). At the August 17, 2026 hearing their counsel said: "We didn't need to attach an affidavit" (NEW-P11). No affidavit or other sworn statement appears in any defense filing in this case as swept through September 17, 2026. [IGNORED]
The exemption invoked here reaches only records that actually are security-system information. That is a factual predicate, and it can be tested. Article I, section 24(a) presumes the record open and puts the burden of proving the predicate on the custodian asserting it. Each of the four questions on file had a short answer if the predicate is true. Stating that answer was the office's burden, and the letter left it unstated.
the security exemption was re-asserted by letter over a recording that no sworn statement in the record, as swept, identifies as security-camera footage, while the four questions built to test that sat eight days old and unanswered
The September 8 letter: 10255 exhibit DIN 6 p. 44 (170 pages). Husband's September 12 reply attaching it: DIN 6 pp. 21-22. The August 21, 2025 letter, pp. 1-2, in the matter's correspondence file; the September 8 letter repeats its exemption paragraph word for word, although it dates its antecedent to "August 26, 2025." The May 15, 2026 responses to requests for admission, Nos. 2, 4 and 6. The August 17, 2026 certified transcript, 16:4-7. Affidavit sweep, September 26, 2026: eighteen defense documents, 117 pages (Docs 013, 038, 040, 053, 054, 055, 056, 063, 065, 070, 072, 075, 077, 083, 094, 098, the September 17, 2026 First Amended Response, Filing 257283141, and the May 15, 2026 responses). Zero affidavits, declarations under penalty, sworn statements, notarizations, jurats or custodian certifications. Every "affidavit" hit sits inside the reproduced Radford block quote or a summary-judgment rule recital.
Full card on the map · Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit page