Rule 2.420(l) requires that review of a court records denial be "expedited." With the Circuit defendants' response already on file, the court gave them twenty more days, and Judge Frayman said: "I'll take full responsibility for the delay." When Husband moved to vacate the parts of that writ that dismissed his claims, the court vacated all of it and set a new return date thirty days after their second response. Their last response came 71 to 75 days after service.
Art. I, s. 24(a) puts the burden on the custodian, and Rule 2.420(l) makes review "expedited." On that docket each discretionary choice favors speed: the response already filed moves the case forward, and a defect is cut out rather than the whole writ.
- Jan. 8 to 13, 2026: the Circuit defendants filed their first response 20 days after Dec. 19, 2025, the service date they state. At the Jan. 13 conference Judge Frayman said, "even though they did file a response in opposition, technically I can't consider that," and "I got to give them the twenty days." Husband: "they've had a lot more than twenty days since they've been formally served." The court: "I'll take full responsibility for the delay." NEW-P3Read them: Transcript, Jan. 13, 2026 (Doc 51), pp. 14-15 (link pending redacted copy)
- Feb. 2 to 17, 2026: the second response came exactly 20 days after the Jan. 13 writ. At the Feb. 6 hearing on his Jan. 27 motion, Husband told Judge Coleman, "You can vacate the order in parts." The court vacated the Jan. 13 writ in full and reissued it with a March 4 return date, 30 days after that second response. An unopposed extension sought by the Clerk, a separate defendant, ran to the same date. NEW-P3, N-075Read them: Transcript, Feb. 6, 2026 (Doc 66), p. 33 (link pending redacted copy) · Order, Doc 61, pp. 2-3 (link pending redacted copy)
- March 4 to 23, 2026: the third response arrived on the deadline day. Husband moved to strike the second as untimely; the court denied it because the third "supersedes the February 2, 2026 'Response in Opposition.'" The first response never cited the security-system statute invoked in August 2025; that ground first appeared in the second. NEW-P3Read them: Order, March 23, 2026 (Doc 73), p. 2 (link pending redacted copy)
Judge Evan G. Frayman, specially assigned (the Jan. 13 reset). Judge Sherwood Coleman (the vacatur, the reissued writ, the supersession ruling). Jessica Schwieterman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for the Circuit defendants (all three responses). One amended petition, three responses from the same defendants, 75 days. Every duty here arises from Article I, section 24 and Rule 2.420(l) on this docket alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. opens judicial-branch records and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian. Rule 2.420(l): "Expedited review of denials of access to administrative records of the judicial branch must be provided through an action for mandamus or other appropriate relief." The defendants themselves litigate under chapter 119, and s. 119.11(1) says the court "shall set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases."
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
Four filings met one amended petition. Only the first was compelled by service; each later window was opened by a court act.
At the January 13 conference the court reset the clock although a response was already on file: "even though they did file a response in opposition, technically I can't consider that," it said. Husband objected that he had already had far more than twenty days since service. The court took responsibility for the delay and reset the clock anyway.
The successor judge then vacated that writ and reissued it with a March 4 return date. The third response arrived on the deadline day; when Husband moved to strike the second as untimely, the ruling was that the third "supersedes the February 2, 2026 Response in Opposition."
The first response, the only one compelled by service, raised none of the exemption grounds the video dispute now turns on. Husband's alternative, to vacate in part, was declined. [IGNORED]
Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution grants the right of access to records and puts the burden of any exemption on the state actor asserting it, and the judicial-branch rule makes review of a denial expedited. A defense left out of the first response is waived. The first response, the only one compelled by service, raised none of the exemption grounds the video dispute now runs on; those grounds arrived in windows opened by court acts, and the last permitted response came seventy-one to seventy-five days after service.
one amended petition drew four responsive filings; each extra chance for the answering defendants came from a court act rather than any motion they filed, and the first response, the only one compelled by service, raised none of the exemption grounds the video dispute now runs on
- Doc 40 p. 1 stamp (first response, 1/8/26, at 20 days from claimed 12/19/25 service; the Clerk's counsel gives 12/23/25, discrepancy preserved)
- Doc 51 Tr. 14:4-7, 14:18-15:6, 15:7-12 (the "I got to give them the twenty days" continuation, and Husband's on-record objection, "they've had a lot more than twenty days since they've been formally served")
- Doc 55 p. 1 stamp and title (2/2/26, again at 20 days)
- Doc 61 p. 3 n.3 (the court's own delay footnote; compares the reset only against a partial vacatur and does not address enforcement of a writ already answered)
- Doc 62 p. 2 para. 3 (the 3/4/26 return)
- Doc 65 p. 1 stamp and title (3/4/26, deadline day)
- Doc 73 p. 2 (the supersession ruling)
- Doc 66 Tr. 31:16-33:1, 33:2-9, 45:9-11, 70:5-18 (the vacate-and-restart origin and Husband's on-record alternative, "You can vacate the order in parts," declined; N-075)
- Doc 40 read in full, all ten pages, for the grounds negative
- Doc 054, the Clerk's unopposed motion for extension of time (e-filed 1/30/26 11:28 AM), and Doc 059, the order extending "Defendants" to March 4, 2026, "noting Plaintiffs consent"; the AG-represented answering defendants filed no extension motion
- Total responses by all defendants: four, including the Clerk's
- Arithmetic, both service dates: from 12/19/25, 12 + 31 + 28 + 4 = 75; from 12/23/25, 8 + 31 + 28 + 4 = 71; 26 + 4 = 30
- Service-date conflict inside the defense's own papers: Doc 040 para. 3 states "On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff served," and Doc 054 para. 2 states that "Plaintiff appears to have effected service of process for several other defendants in this case on December 23, 2025."
Full card on the map · Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit page