Court administration confirmed the April 4, 2025 hearing video exists and withheld it as security footage without ever stating a fact that makes it one, stated in writing that scheduling records "do exist," and never answered Husband's written notice that records were missing.
A custodian invoking a security-system exemption for a recording of a court hearing states the fact that puts it inside: what system made it. A custodian that certifies "Records do exist," takes the fee, and is told in writing that records are missing says what was produced and what was held back. Its own letters cite Rule 2.420.
- July 24 to 25, 2025: every request: "Please provide the records in electronic format if available." The answer: a check first, then paper by pickup or $44.85 shipping. No PDF ever came. The readable pages hold no record of how the court handled Davis's notice that he would skip the Jan. 9, 2025 hearing; asked whether Davis was "ever excused by the Court," the judicial assistant replied: "This email shall be used for scheduling purposes only." NEW-P1
- Aug. 21, 2025: "A video record does exist" for the April 4, 2025 hearing, withheld as "surveillance video footage from security cameras." Asked in writing three times whether there are "separate recording systems for hearings versus security," the office's one answer, Sept. 8: "the court's position to your follow-up request has not changed." May 15, 2026 admissions: "No analysis was needed." Sept. 2, 2026, its counsel called it "the April 4, 2025 hearing-room video recording." N-053, N-157Three written asks, zero answers: which system recorded the April 4, 2025 hearing?
- Aug. 22, 2025: four pages of "correspondence between Judge DePaul and our Assistant General Counsel regarding an Order of Recusal" withheld under Rule 2.420(c)(1). Sept. 10, 2026, counsel: "confidential under judicial immunity." Sept. 17, 2026: 2.420(c)(1) again. N-053
- Aug. 31, 2025: Husband: "It's concerning that these documents were not produced in the initial response." The office answered only about the video: "the court will not ignore or intentionally violate the applicable rule of court or statute." Counsel, May 26 and Sept. 10, 2026: "the only portion of Plaintiff's request that was withheld was the security video"; "All other documents were provided." Sept. 28, 2026, 393 days on: Judge Sherwood Coleman ordered a sworn certification of whether those records exist and "the reason they were withheld." NEW-P1, N-053
Gina Justice, Court Administrator (2025 letters). Mike Moore, Public Information Officer (acknowledgments). Jessica Schwieterman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, counsel for the Circuit (admissions, filings, hearing). Judge Sherwood Coleman, from outside the circuit (Sept. 28, 2026 orders). Four requests, one office, one file. Every duty here arises from Rule 2.420 and the office's own letters on this file alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. presumes judicial-branch records open and puts the burden of every exemption on the custodian. Rule 2.420(m)(2): "If the request is denied, the custodian must state in writing the basis for the denial." Section 119.071(3)(a), through Rule 2.420(c)(8), is a security-system exemption; whether this recording belongs to such a system is the custodian's fact to state and prove.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
Court administration withheld the April 4, 2025 hearing video as security footage without ever stating a fact that makes it one.
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 (RFA responses, 5/15/26). 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]
Article I, section 24 presumes the record open and puts the burden on the office that withholds it, which must state a written basis. 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).
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
- 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 (5/15/26 RFA responses).
- 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 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.
Full card on the map · Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit page