Fourteen days after Husband served discovery on the withheld video, the Attorney General's office moved to stay all of it, telling the court the documents were filed "or are confidential and have not been provided." The stay issued; the interrogatories and document requests stand unanswered.
Art. I, s. 24(a) puts the burden on the custodian, so in a records case the custodian brings its proof forward, and a protective order needs good cause shown by the party asking for it. The office's own motion described documents that "are confidential and have not been provided." The expected output was to list each one with its basis and let discovery test the video exemption.
- March 18 to April 17, 2026: Husband served seven requests for admission, six interrogatories, and five document requests, all aimed at the withholding of the April 4, 2025 video. On April 1 the office moved to stay all discovery. The April 17 deadline passed with nothing answered. N-081
- April 1, 2026: the motion: discovery is improper "as the documents subject to the litigation have been filed with the Court as part of the initial filing or are confidential and have not been provided in accordance with the Florida Statutes." FNEW-A4Read them: Motion for Protective Order (Doc 72), pp. 4-5 (link pending redacted copy)
- April 28 to Sept. 10, 2026: Judge Coleman stayed "all discovery, except for Plaintiff's Request for Admission," and directed that a final evidentiary hearing be set; as of Oct. 4, 2026, none has been held. Fifty-five days after the motion, the office told the court "the only portion of Plaintiff's request that was withheld was the security video." On Sept. 10 it listed four pages withheld since Aug. 22, 2025: five emails on Judge DePaul's recusal. N-081, NEW-AG1, N-058Which documents "are confidential and have not been provided," and when was each first identified to Husband?Read them: Stay order, April 28, 2026 (Doc 80), p. 2 (link pending redacted copy)
Jessica Schwieterman, Senior Assistant Attorney General under Attorney General James Uthmeier, signed the motion as counsel for the Thirteenth Circuit, Court Administrator Gina Justice, Chief Judge Sabella, Judge Ayers and Judge Felix. Judge Sherwood Coleman (the April 28 stay, kept Aug. 27, 2026). One motion, one stay, one set of unanswered discovery. Every duty here arises from Article I, section 24 and the good-cause rule on this motion alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. presumes judicial-branch records open, and the custodian claiming an exemption "bears the burden of proving its entitlement" to it (Barfield, 135 So. 3d at 562). Under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280, which the motion invoked, "The burden of showing good cause is on the party seeking the protective order," and Florida courts "have disapproved ... orders providing for lengthy postponements of discovery" (Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 136, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
On April 1, 2026 the Office of the Attorney General, defending the Thirteenth Circuit and its judges in the records mandamus, filed a Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery. On the discovery question the motion says: "discovery is improper for a mandamus proceeding as the documents subject to the litigation have been filed with the Court as part of the initial filing or are confidential and have not been provided in accordance with the Florida Statutes." The sentence gives the litigation's documents two possible states, filed with the court, or confidential and not provided in accordance with the Florida Statutes. On judicial records it says: "With respect to the Court's mental impressions involved in this litigation, they are protected by judicial immunity and not subject to discovery." The motion was the noticed matter at the April 13, 2026 hearing. On April 28, 2026 Judge Coleman stayed all of Husband's discovery except requests for admission, depositions included (N-081). The August 27, 2026 order kept the stay in place. [DENIED]
Article I, section 24(a) puts the burden of justifying a withholding on the custodian, and section 119.11(1), which the defendants invoke, gives a records case priority. A protective order requires good cause. The motion was filed while the defendants' own thirty-day discovery deadline was running, and that deadline expired with nothing answered and nothing objected to (N-081). The same motion carried the judicial-immunity position from disclosure into discovery (NEW-AG1). The one channel the stay left open, requests for admission, later produced the written admission that no court order makes the video confidential (N-053).
in a records case the defendants themselves litigate under chapter 119, whose section 119.11(1) requires the court to "set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases," the office moved to stop all discovery into who watched the withheld video and who decided to withhold it, and the court stopped all of it except requests for admission
Doc 072, Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery, 25-CA-010255, "Filing # 245071283, e-filed 04/01/2026 12:33:22 PM," six pages; the quoted "or" clause at p. 5 and the immunity sentence at p. 4 (page images). Signed "/s/ Jessica Schwieterman," Senior Assistant Attorney General, Florida Bar No. 116460, under "JAMES UTHMEIER, ATTORNEY GENERAL," certificate of service April 1, 2026. The stay order is Doc 080, signed 4/28/26 (N-081); Doc 095 p. 5, para. III(a), keeps it. The served discovery and its expired deadline are at N-081 (Filing #244103616). The defendants' own invocation of chapter 119: Doc 094 p. 1 and Doc 098 p. 1. Section 119.11(1) is quoted from the 2026 Florida Statutes.