The Attorney General's office told the court in May 2026 that "the only portion of Plaintiff's request that was withheld was the security video," nine months after the custodian had withheld five emails on Judge DePaul's recusal. Ordered to list them, it called them "confidential under judicial immunity," then relabeled all five under Rule 2.420(c)(1) a week later.
Art. I, s. 24(a) puts the burden on the custodian: it identifies every record it withholds and the specific rule that exempts it, the first time, and what its counsel tells the court about withheld records is complete and true. The office wrote that duty itself in each of its first three responses: the custodian must "provide the grounds for the exemption and include the statutory cite for the exemption."
- Aug. 22, 2025 to May 26, 2026: Court Administrator Gina Justice withheld four pages: "The records identified as confidential are correspondence between Judge DePaul and our Assistant General Counsel regarding an Order of Recusal in case #24-DR-001150" (Doc 98, Ex. A). Nine months later the office told the court: "the only portion of Plaintiff's request that was withheld was the security video" (Doc 83, p. 7). NEW-AG1Read them: Doc 83, Defendants' Response, May 26, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
- Aug. 27 to Sept. 10, 2026: ordered to state the "specific constitutional, statutory, or rule-based basis" for each withheld record, the office listed "four (4) pages withheld": five emails dated April 28, 2025, subject "judicial recusal," each marked "This document is confidential under judicial immunity." NEW-AG1, N-048Read them: Doc 98, Response to Confidentiality, Sept. 10, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
- Sept. 17 to 28, 2026: an amended response marked the same five "confidential under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(1)," a rule the office called "very closely related to judicial immunity." Judge Coleman then ordered a certification "sworn under penalty of perjury" stating whether the list of withheld records "is complete as to every record responsive to Plaintiff's requests." NEW-AG1Read them: First Amended Response, Sept. 17, 2026 (link pending redacted copy) · Order on Notice of Noncompliance, Sept. 28, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
Jessica Schwieterman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, under Attorney General James Uthmeier (every filing, as counsel for the Thirteenth Circuit and its judges). Judge Sherwood Coleman (the August 27 and September 28 orders). One records lawsuit, one list of withheld records. Every duty here arises from Article I, section 24 and Rule 2.420 on this lawsuit alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. presumes judicial-branch records open, and the custodian asserting an exemption carries the burden of showing it applies. Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the basis for any denial in writing, and Rule 2.420(l) makes mandamus the remedy. The office's own April 1, 2026 motion says judicial immunity "protects judges from liability for damages for acts performed in the course of their judicial capacities." This suit seeks records.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
Five emails withheld as "confidential under judicial immunity" in a records lawsuit that seeks no damages.
The Office of the Attorney General appeared for the judicial defendants in the records mandamus (N-071) and asserted judicial immunity as a ground for withholding judicial records. It first appears in Doc 040, filed January 8, 2026: "With respect to the Court's mental impressions which may, or may not have been expressed in the records, they are protected by judicial immunity, their personal impressions are protected and not subject to disclosure." It broadens on February 2 in Doc 055: "For the records to which the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is the custodian of records, Judicial immunity would apply to many of the requested records," and, on page 6, "those are not available for release based on judicial immunity, if such records exist." Doc 065 repeats both on March 4. On April 1 the motion to stay all of Husband's discovery carried it into discovery: "With respect to the Court's mental impressions involved in this litigation, they are protected by judicial immunity and not subject to discovery." That motion produced the stay (FNEW-A4, N-081). Counsel argued it aloud on April 13. It is absent from the May 15 admissions and from Doc 083 of May 26. The August 27 order then required a record-by-record statement of the "specific constitutional, statutory, or rule-based basis" for each withheld record. On September 10 the office listed five withheld emails and wrote beside each: "This document is confidential under judicial immunity." On September 17 an amended response replaced each of those five labels with Rule 2.420(c)(1), which it called "very closely related to judicial immunity," and kept the immunity memorandum. As of September 26, 2026, no order rules on the position. [PENDING]
The office's own April 1, 2026 motion describes judicial immunity as a doctrine that "protects judges from liability for damages for acts performed in the course of their judicial capacities." This petition seeks records, not damages. In each of its first three responses, the office wrote the custodian's duty to "provide the grounds for the exemption and include the statutory cite for the exemption" in the paragraph just before the immunity assertion, and supported the assertion with case law alone. As of September 26, 2026, no order rules on the position.
the lawsuit asks for records, not damages; the Attorney General's office answered with judicial immunity, a doctrine its own filing describes as protection "from liability for damages"; applied to records, the argument makes judges immune from their constitutional duty to open them. The office carried it from its first response to a September 10, 2026 filing that labeled five withheld records "confidential under judicial immunity"; a week later it relabeled the same five under Rule 2.420(c)(1), a rule it called "very closely related to judicial immunity"
Doc 040 pp. 4, 6 (e-filed 1/8/26 4:40 PM); Doc 055 pp. 4, 6 (Filing # 240817260, e-filed 2/2/26 5:17 PM); Doc 065 pp. 5, 7 (e-filed 3/4/26 5:46 PM); Doc 072 pp. 4-5 (Filing # 245071283, e-filed 4/1/26 12:33 PM), including the Limehouse "liability for damages" sentence; 4/13/26 certified transcript (Lexitas 446278) 21:19-22; Doc 095 (8/27/26) p. 4, para. II(d); Doc 098 (Filing 256803151, e-filed 9/10/26 3:52 PM) p. 4; First Amended Response (Filing 257283141, e-filed 9/17/26) pp. 2-4 and footnote 1 ("Amended to include previously omitted paragraph and corrected authority and case law"). Absence: the 5/15/26 admissions, 4 pages, read in full; Doc 083, 26 pages, keyword scan. The immunity paragraphs cite Parrotino, Johnson v. Harris, Forrester v. White, Kalmanson, Mireles, Berry, Fong, Richman, Limehouse, State v. Lewis and DHSMV v. Marks. Signer on every filing: Jessica Schwieterman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, under Attorney General James Uthmeier.