Judge Coleman told Husband that facts were in dispute in his records case. Asked which, he answered that they were "contained and delineated within their response," then: "So, don't ask me to explain those matters to you." His written order then denied the peremptory writ because "there are factual disputes" and named none.
Art. I, s. 24(a) puts the burden on the custodian, and once the alternative writ issues the respondents must come forward with facts. A court that denies the writ because facts are disputed names those facts, so the requester can meet them. The custodian identifies every record it withholds, and the basis for each, in writing, at its first denial, here August 21, 2025, whatever the label: exempt, confidential, not a public record, or judicial immunity.
- Aug. 21, 2025 to Feb. 2, 2026: the circuit withheld the courthouse video in writing, under a security-camera exemption it has never supported with a single fact. Its counsel later wrote that "Judicial immunity would apply to many of the requested records," which are "not available for release based on judicial immunity, if such records exist." N-053, NEW-AG1
- July 24, 2026, day 100 of the April 15 motion for the writ: the court said facts were in dispute. Husband asked which. The court: "Those issues are contained and delineated within their response." Then: "So, don't ask me to explain those matters to you." Neither pending motion was ruled on. N-136, N-089Read them: Certified transcript, July 24, 2026, p. 25 (public copy) (link pending redacted copy)
- Aug. 27, 2026: the written order denied the peremptory writ because "there are factual disputes" and named none. Asked for findings identifying the disputed facts, it ordered instead that "Defendants who claim that any responsive record other than the Video is exempt or confidential must file a written statement that, as to each such record: (1) identifies the record by date, author, recipient(s), and general subject matter". Those words reach only records claimed exempt or confidential. A record the defendants call no public record at all falls outside them. On Sept. 10 the defendants listed five emails, each "confidential under judicial immunity." N-089, NEW-AG1Which facts are in dispute, and where is the list of every record the defendants withhold, including each one they say is no public record at all?Read them: Order, Doc 095, pp. 3-4 (link pending redacted copy)
Judge Sherwood Coleman, the Sixth Circuit judge assigned to 25-CA-010255 (held facts disputed; named none). Jessica L. Schwieterman, Office of the Attorney General, counsel for the Thirteenth Circuit (signed the immunity filings; named no disputed fact). One petition, one writ, one set of withheld records. Every duty here arises from the court's own alternative writ and the records rules on this case alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. makes access to public records a constitutional right and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian. Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the custodian to state in writing the basis for any denial, record by record. Once the alternative writ issues, "the burden is on the respondent to come forth with facts upon which it refused to perform its legal duty" (Chandler v. City of Greenacres, 140 So. 3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), quoting Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814, 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). The sufficiency of the return is decided before trial (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(e), 1.140(d)).
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
Asked to name one disputed fact, the judge answered: "So, don't ask me to explain those matters to you."
At a 37-minute Zoom conference on July 24, 2026, the motion for entry of the peremptory writ and a motion for rehearing on the discovery stay were both pending. Husband asked for entry or a statement of what remained in dispute. Counsel for the circuit asked for a final hearing; she was not asked to identify an issue of fact.
The court stated it had found issues of fact requiring a final hearing. Husband asked directly what those issues were. The court answered: "Those issues are contained and delineated within their response. If you can't comprehend it or you don't agree with it, then the rule regarding summary judgment is the procedural vehicle available to you." It routed Husband to summary judgment and closed with no ruling on either pending motion. The writ-entry motion had been filed 100 days earlier and remained unruled after the hearing. [IGNORED]
A court that holds issues of material fact remain identifies them, because the party has to be able to meet them. Access to public records is a right under Article I, section 24(a), the judicial-branch rule makes review expedited, and the burden of establishing confidentiality sits with the party asserting it, who after the writ must come forward with facts. The sufficiency of the return is decided before any trial; Husband had withdrawn his summary-judgment motion to stand on the motion for the writ.
the court held that facts were still in dispute and, asked three lines later to name one, pointed to a document instead: "Those issues are contained and delineated within their response," and then "don't ask me to explain those matters to you"
- Certified 7/24/26 transcript, Guldin RPR, certified 8/1/26, signed electronic transcript.
- Cites: 4:17-20, 8:5-8, 9:4-21, 9:22-10:3, 10:11-16, 12:15-24, 13:3-5, 15:25-16:9, 20:25-21:12, 23:8-16, 24:13-25:16, 25:19-22, 26:15-21, 27:8-18, 28:17-22, 32:11-14, 33:10-21, 34:8-9.
- Reporter anomaly at 9:7; that clause is not quoted here.
- Husband: "I think that the law is clear that it's time to enter the writ or at least provide some clarification on what the Court sees as a genuine issue of material fact." (9:22-10:3.)
- Husband directly: "What are the issues of material fact based upon any of defendant's responses?" The court's fuller answer included, "So, don't ask me to explain those matters to you."
- Counsel for the circuit, asked whether she meant a final hearing or summary judgment hearing, answered "No, your Honor, a hearing as in a final hearing." She then said "Thank you, your Honor": the whole of the respondents' participation.
- The confidentiality-burden rule Husband raised drew one remark, "And (e)(1) is a matter for the Appellate Court jurisdiction; right?", and was not returned to.
- The court also stated: "You have not had to wait for hearings. You have not had to wait for responses. You have not had to wait for orders." That is testable against the docket, where the writ-entry motion had sat unruled 100 days.
- Docket numbers are as spoken on the record and are not independently confirmed.
- A public redacted version of the transcript is on file. The court agreed to have its assistant coordinate hearing time on the two pending motions and stated Husband could propound discovery with objections ruled on as brought.
- Related decision points: N-080.
Full card on the map · Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit page