Four and a half hours after its IT office wrote that the search "stalled before completing the search of Professor Bambauer's mailbox," UF closed Husband's request at fifty-three pages holding not one internal UF email, and the next day called it a "good faith search."
Art. I, s. 24(a) and s. 119.07(1)(a) required UF to produce every non-exempt record Husband's request described. A custodian told at 10:40 AM that its search stalled finishes the search, produces what it finds, and only then writes "complete." UF's legal office had 109 rerun pages in hand by 11:11 AM. Anything kept back gets its statute in writing under s. 119.07(1)(e).
- May 4, 2026, 10:40 AM: UF's IT office: the search tool "stalled before completing the search of Professor Bambauer's mailbox. After March 9th, 2026, no further emails were identified in her mailbox." Seventeen other messages "should have been included previously." N-096, N-097
- May 4, 2026, 3:11 PM to 3:22 PM: the custodian marked the request Completed/Closed, and UF wrote Husband: "This completes the public records request." It produced fifty-three pages, all correspondence between Husband and UF: not one internal UF email. N-096Read them: UF's own emails, May 4, 2026 (production p. 119) (link pending redacted copy) · UF's request log, Completed/Closed at 3:11:24 PM (p. 6) (link pending redacted copy)
- May 5, 2026, 4:18 PM: UF's records center: "The university conducted a good faith search for any public records responsive to your request, including reaching out to the employees you identified and to UF IT to conduct email searches." NEW-0826-3, NEW-0906-U6
- July 7, 2026: after Husband sued, the custodian's affidavit gave May 4 one sentence: "On May 4, 2026, I delivered the responsive public records to Petitioner." It says nothing of the stall, the seventeen messages, or the 109 rerun pages. Husband raised the stall and the seventeen messages with UF's counsel on Sept. 3, 2026; the reply that afternoon addressed neither. N-096, N-097What search had UF finished when it wrote "This completes the public records request," and where does its sworn account of May 4 report the stall?
Daniel Quiros, UF Information Technology (reported the stall). John Hines, Director of Public Records and records custodian (closed the request; signed the affidavit). James W. Kirkconnell, UF counsel (filed the affidavit; sent the Sept. 3 reply). One request, one closure, one sworn account. Every duty here arises from UF's own May 4, 2026 search on this request alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. makes access to public records a constitutional right, presumes records open, and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian. Section 119.07(1)(a), Fla. Stat., requires the custodian to permit inspection of the non-exempt records its search located; s. 119.07(1)(c) requires a good-faith response; s. 119.07(1)(e) requires the statutory basis for anything withheld.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
Husband asked UF for records referencing his case numbers, the judges in those cases, and surveillance video. On May 4, 2026, UF Information Technology wrote to the records custodian that the search "stalled before completing the search of Professor Bambauer's mailbox" and that seventeen messages should have been included previously.
Four and a half hours later the records custodian marked the request complete, and within minutes UF wrote to Husband: "This completes the public records request." What was produced was fifty-three pages, entirely correspondence between Husband and UF representatives, containing no UF-internal email and no record authored by Bambauer.
The custodian's July 7 affidavit presents May 4 as a clean completion. It says nothing about the stalled search, the seventeen missed messages, the 621-page April 24 batch (N-094), or the 88-page extraction built three days later (N-099). The whole sequence surfaced only because Husband filed a second records request. [DENIED]
The Florida Constitution presumes the records open and puts the burden on the agency to justify what it holds back. When a custodian is told its search failed, good faith leaves two doors open: finish the search and respond, or produce what exists and identify the gap. The record shows a third door. At four weeks, the only explanation UF had was the one its lawyer wrote for the custodian that day: the request was "undergoing the legal review" (N-093). At five and a half weeks, its own IT office reported the search had stalled. Four and a half hours after that notice, the request was closed.
UF's own IT office wrote at 10:40 that morning that the search had stalled and that seventeen messages should have been included; four and a half hours later the records office marked the request complete and wrote, "This completes the public records request"
- emails_1.pdf pp. 93, 119, 199 (the 10:40 AM UFIT stall notice at p. 119; a 7:40 AM rendering of the same message also exists, both reported)
- W018964_Granicus.pdf pp. 6-7 (status Completed/Closed 5/4 3:11:24 PM)
- Production email 5/4 3:22 PM (App. 13-15)
- Custodian's affidavit para. 8, sworn to the best of his knowledge and unnotarized; both copies on file are the same two-page, eight-paragraph document (Response Ex. A, PDF pp. 16-17; Doc 006 Ex. C, PDF pp. 30-31)
- Intervals: 10:40 AM to 3:11:24 PM is 4h31m; 3:11:24 PM to 3:22 PM is 10 minutes 36 seconds, which is why the prose says "within minutes" and never "eleven minutes after"; 3/9/26 precedes the 3/26/26 request by 17 days
Full card on the map · UF/Brechner Freedom of Information Project page