Hanson v. University of Florida Board of Trustees: the granular ledgers
Section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes: "Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records." On May 4, 2026, the University of Florida's custodian wrote Christopher Hanson: "This completes the public records request." Its own IT department had reported, four hours and forty-two minutes earlier, that the search "stalled" and had identified 17 more responsive messages that "should have been included previously." Its own processing file, produced later, logs four deliveries totaling 1,158 pages under this request's own reference number. Fifty-three pages were produced.
What this page is. Three ledgers checking the University's statements against its own file, page by page, plus the September 18, 2026 final order marked against what it does not address. Every row carries a page. Case No. 01-2026-CA-001794, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Alachua County. Full docket and filings: the UF records docket.
Verification status. Centerpiece quotes were checked against the rendered page image published beside each row, not against an OCR or text-layer extraction alone. The Appendix to the Verified Petition is an image scan with no text layer; its quoted pages were read by eye against the rendered page image. Rule and statute text in Ledger C was checked against current official published text wherever cited in this pass; confirm any not yet re-checked against the official text before use in a filing. Two pages of UF's Exhibit D that carry unredacted third-party personal data are described but not reproduced, consistent with the redaction practice on the main docket page. Personal contact information belonging to the Petitioner (a personal email address, a personal phone number) has been redacted from the page images reproduced here; it was not part of any party's substantive argument.
- The September 18, 2026 order, marked against what it does not address
- Ledger A: the University's statements, checked against its own file (16 rows)
- Ledger B: Petitioner's arguments and the order's treatment of each (15 rows, plus the relief table)
- Ledger C: the statutory and procedural requirements in play (28 rows, three parts)
The order, marked against what it does not address
The September 18, 2026 final order, page by page, and what it does not address. Built 2026-09-20 on Computer 2 from the filed record. Every "not addressed" row points to the ledger row where the argument and its source page live.
Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Filing 257408968, signed by Judge David P. Kreider 09/18/2026 03:28:12 PM, e-filed 3:47 PM. Three pages.
What the order says (its operative text, verbatim)
- Recital: "On September 2, 2026, Respondents produced 538 pages to the Court via email for in-camera inspection."
- Standard: "A writ of mandamus will issue when the petitioner demonstrates a clear legal right to the requested relief, and that respondent is required by law to perform that ministerial duty. Plymel v. Moore, 770 So. 2d 242, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)."
- Definition: Bent v. State, 46 So. 3d 1047, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); section 119.011(12).
- The finding: "Having conducted an in-camera review of the materials generated by the search terms provided to Respondents by Petitioner, the Court finds that all materials requested by Petitioner that meet the definition of a public record were produced to Petitioner prior to the filing of this action. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal [sic] to the relief requested and extraordinary relief is inappropriate."
What the order does not address
| # | Matter the order is silent on | Where Petitioner put it before the Court | Ledger row |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The Order to Show Cause of June 12, 2026 (Filing 250268011) found the petition facially sufficient and placed the burden on Respondents to "come forth with facts." The order never mentions the OSC and applies only the petitioner's-burden formulation. | Closing brief paras. 3, 32 to 34; Combined Motion (8/31) Parts II and IV; Protocol motion paras. 37 and 38 | B1 |
| 2 | Sections 119.07(1)(e) and (1)(f): the custodian's duty to state the basis of any exemption with statutory citation and, on request, in writing and with particularity. Requested March 26, May 4, July 13, September 3, September 7. No written statement ever made. | Closing brief Part II, paras. 35 to 43 | B2 |
| 3 | The four deliveries UF's own processing file records: 340 pages (3/30), 621 pages (4/24), 109 pages plus 17 messages (5/4), 88 pages (5/7). Total 1,158. The order says "538 pages" and nothing else. | Closing brief paras. 15 and 16, Ex. A chronology | B3 |
| 4 | The 621 pages logged "received from UFIT on 04/24/26" inside this request's file, absent from the submission by counsel's own inventory. | Notice of Objection para. 5; Protocol motion paras. 17 to 20; Closing brief para. 45 | B4 |
| 5 | The 88-page extraction Associate General Counsel Quillen ordered on May 7 for the search terms "13th Circuit, 2025-CA-002469, 25-CA-10255, Judge Kelly Ayers, Judge Matthew Felix, and surveillance video," copied to a drive "to be reviewed by the General Counsel," never produced. | Closing brief para. 29; Protocol motion para. 19 | B5 |
| 6 | The 426 located pages UF filed on the public docket July 30 (Filing 253616687, Ex. D) and never produced to Petitioner, under a footnote saying they "have been redacted." | Closing brief paras. 7, 28, 29 | B3, A8 |
| 7 | The custodian's testimony that he does not perform searches, does not watch them, does not decide what is produced, does not see the legal review, and does not know what became of the 340 pages. | Closing brief paras. 11, 16, 17, 25, 51 | B6 |
| 8 | The subpoenaed IT witness (Quiros) who ran the searches and did not appear; the motion to reopen for his testimony. The companion order denying that motion states no reason. | Quiros motion (Filing 256949636); Closing brief paras. 17, 18, 54 | B6 |
| 9 | UF's four inconsistent accounts of exempt content (May 5: none withheld or redacted; under oath: no exemptions; July 30: redacted under three statutes; Sept. 2: "contain some exempt information"). | Closing brief para. 26; DQ motion para. 6 | B7, A2 |
| 10 | The Notice of Objection to the submission as delivered (Filing 256489625) and the Motion for Entry of Written Orders and a protocol (Filing 256513029): no index, no custodian certification, no chain of custody, 621 pages missing. Neither was ruled on; the order rests on the submission anyway. | Objection paras. 5 to 8; Protocol motion paras. 16 to 24, 39 to 41 | B8 |
| 11 | Discovery served July 13 and never answered; depositions noticed for August 3 and not attended by the witnesses or counsel; no order excusing either; Rule 1.380(d) expenses reserved. | Cross-Motion paras. 91, 92, 96; DQ motion para. 7; Closing brief paras. 8, 56 | B9, C-Part 2 |
| 12 | Petitioner's reservations: that the disqualification motion be decided before the merits; the right to complete the examinations and to testify; objection to any compliance finding resting on the submission as delivered. | Closing brief paras. 53 to 55 | B10 |
| 13 | Production in native format with metadata (asked September 3). | Closing brief para. 57 | B11 |
| 14 | Section 119.12(1) fees and costs (notice given May 4) and Respondents' own request for a section 119.12(3) improper-purpose finding, which the statute says the court "shall determine." Neither is determined. | Closing brief para. 58; UF closing brief pp. 17 to 21 | B12, B14 |
| 15 | The unredacted third-party home address and travel records UF placed on the public docket, and the request that those pages be sealed. | Combined Motion (8/31) paras. 81 and 82 | B13 |
| 16 | What the 538 pages are. The order does not say; UF's brief says four tranches of 340, 109, 88 and 1 (p. 8); UF's transmittal said six files of 10, 330, 106, 3, 88 and 1 (Protocol motion para. 16). The order adopts neither and reconciles nothing. | Protocol motion para. 16; Closing brief para. 46 | A9 |
The two companion orders the same afternoon
Order Granting Motion for Protective Order, Filing 257389224, 1:34:50 PM, on a hearing held August 24 before Judge Keim: 
Order Denying Verified Motion for Order to Show Cause (Quiros), Filing 257408736, 3:28:12 PM, no reason stated: 
And the order the final order never mentions, the Order to Show Cause of June 12, 2026 (Filing 250268011), which found the petition facially sufficient and required Respondents to show cause in writing why a peremptory writ should not issue: 
Ledger A. The University's statements, checked against its own file
LEDGER A. The University of Florida's misrepresentations, in granular detail. Built 2026-09-20 on Computer 2. Each row: the statement, verbatim, with the page it sits on; then what UF's own documents or sworn testimony show, verbatim, with the page. Source images are in images\. Quotations from born-digital filings were checked against the text layer; the appendix pages (image scans) were read by eye for rows A1, A2 and A11. Nothing here is characterization; the columns are the documents.
Key: "App." = Appendix to the Verified Petition (Filing 250752293), cited by its own page stamp. "Ex. K" = UF's 741-page processing file (Filing 255904665), by its page. "packet" = Respondents' Exhibit List with exhibits (Filing 256089009), by its page. "Tr." = 9/2/2026 transcript. "Aff." = Hines affidavit (Filing 251907242, Ex. A). "Response" = UF's 7/7 Response. "MPO" = UF's 7/30 Motion for Protective Order (Filing 253616687). "UF Br." = UF's 9/17 closing brief (Filing 257319768).
A1. "This completes the public records request." (May 4, 2026, 3:22 PM)
The statement. UF portal to Petitioner, May 4, 2026: "The University has reviewed its files and has located responsive records to your request. These records have been included in this correspondence. This completes the public records request." App. 14-15. Produced: 53 pages, all Petitioner's own correspondence (a 50-page Petitioner-Cuillier chain and Petitioner's 3-page March 25 email to Bambauer). UF's own Response repeats the statement at p. 3-4.
What UF's own file shows.
- Four hours and forty-two minutes earlier, at 10:39 AM the same day, UFIT wrote to Hines, Wood and Quillen: "it appears that our search tool stalled before completing the search of Professor Bambauer's mailbox. After March 9th, 2026, no further emails were identified in her mailbox ... When locating this message, the tool also identified 17 other messages that matched the criteria and should have been included previously." Ex. K at 129; packet p. 109. 
- At 11:11 AM Wood logged "109 rerun PAGES" from UFIT, "copied ... to Amy Q's PRR U: Drive to be reviewed by the General Counsel and for approval to be released." packet p. 109. Those 109 pages and 17 messages were not in the 3:22 PM production.
- On March 30, four days after the request, UFIT had delivered "103 message(s), which resulted in 330 page(s)," and Wood logged 340 pages to the same U: drive "to be reviewed by the General Counsel and for approval to be released." packet p. 90. 
None of those pages was in the May 4 production. Asked under oath what happened to them: "I don't know." Tr. 99:3-5. "I did not read the 340 pages." Tr. 100:5-6. 
A2. "No exempt information was withheld or redacted from the records responsive to your request, and consequently, no statutory exemptions were cited." (May 5, 2026)
The statement. UF to Petitioner, May 5, 2026, App. 76, quoted in full by UF at Response p. 4 and again at UF Br. p. 13. Under oath, September 2: "Q Did the University of Florida assert any exemptions? A No." Tr. 121:17-19. "Q Were any documents withheld from him? A No, there were not." Tr. 121:12-13.
What UF said when it filed the located pages. July 30, 2026, MPO para. 24 n.4: "The records in category (2) have been redacted pursuant to 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g, as well as s. 1006.52, Fla. Stat. (FERPA protected student educational information), and s. 119.071(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (bank account information)." 
What UF said when it sent the pages to chambers. September 2 transmittal, quoted in Protocol motion para. 5: "These records contain some exempt information and are intended for an in camera review only; therefore, Mr. Hanson has not been included on this correspondence." September 3, Kirkconnell to Petitioner: "You were not copied on this correspondence because you are not entitled to view the unredacted documents." 
And in UF's closing brief, n.10: "Those non-responsive records did contain exempt material, as asserted in UF's Motion for Protective Order, and UF redacted them before filing." UF Br. p. 16 n.10. 
Four positions on one question. Section 119.07(1)(e) requires the basis and citation for any exemption to be stated to the requester; (1)(f) requires it in writing with particularity on request. Petitioner asked in the request itself (App. 4-5: "you must state the basis for the exemption in writing, citing the specific statutory exemption. For any withheld record, please provide a log"). 
No such statement has ever been served.
The sharper contrast: what UF called the same harvest, 34 days apart. A full-text search of all 510 pages of the July 30 filing for "seal," "sealed," and "sealing," and for a Rule 2.420(d)(2) Notice of Confidential Information, returns zero UF-authored hits. No motion to seal. No confidentiality notice. UF's own paragraph 25 asks the Court to "examine the attached documents," an ordinary-public-filing request. Thirty-four days later, September 2, the same lawyer transmitted overlapping material to the judge's assistant: "These records contain some exempt information and are intended for an in camera review only; therefore, Mr. Hanson has not been included on this correspondence." One filing treated the harvest as public. The other, 34 days later, treated overlapping material as too sensitive for the requester to see. No order, motion, or rule changed in between.
A3. "All of the records responsive to Petitioner's request were produced in their entirety." (July 7, 2026, to the Court)
The statement. Response p. 9. Also p. 1: "Petitioner asked for public records about himself, and the University produced the requested records to Petitioner." Also p. 14: "produced the public records responsive to Petitioner's request without redaction."
What the same filing swears. Hines Aff. para. 6: "UFIT, using the terms identified in Petitioner's request, gathered over 470 pages of documents, including Petitioner's correspondence with UF faculty." Para. 7: "Of these, some records did not meet the definition of public records, while others concerned individuals having the surname Hanson, but with no relation to the Petitioner." Para. 8: "On May 4, 2026, I delivered the responsive public records to Petitioner." 
What UF's processing file shows was gathered. 340 pages (3/30, packet p. 90); 621 pages "received from UFIT on 04/24/26" (Ex. K at 273); 109 rerun pages and 17 messages (5/4, packet p. 109); 88 pages (5/7, Ex. K at 273). 
Produced: 53. The affidavit's "over 470" gives the Court no breakdown reconciling it to the 1,158 the file records, the 479 UF later filed, or the 538 it later sent to chambers.
A4. The affidavit's two categories, and the third one it does not mention
The statement. Aff. para. 7 (sworn): the pages not produced "did not meet the definition of public records" or "concerned individuals having the surname Hanson, but with no relation to the Petitioner." MPO para. 11 (July 30): three categories, "(1) responsive public records, (2) non-responsive public records, and (3) documents which were not public records," with (2) defined at para. 12 as records that "relate to individuals who are not you, but have the same last name."
What the file shows. On May 7, 2026 at 9:16 AM, Associate General Counsel Quillen wrote to UFIT: "can you pull out the results with the search terms 13th Circuit, 2025-CA-002469, 25-CA-10255, Judge Kelly Ayers, Judge Matthew Felix, and surveillance video? If yes, please provide those results as a separate pdf." UFIT returned 88 pages at 10:10 AM ("ISS-444193-W018463-032626-16-88-opt-SpecificKeywords.pdf"). Ex. K at 238. Wood copied it to the U: drive "to be reviewed by the General Counsel and for approval to be released." Ex. K at 273. UFIT's keyword chart for the original search: 13th Circuit 27 messages; 2025-CA-002469, 25-CA-10255, Judge Kelly Ayers, Judge Matthew Felix, surveillance video, 2 messages each. Ex. K at 653.
Records hitting on Petitioner's case numbers and his judges' names are, by the request's own terms (Categories B and C, App. 4), what was asked for. They are not "individuals having the surname Hanson." They are not described in the affidavit. They were never produced. Asked under oath: "So, these 88 pages are somewhere on the U-Drive? A Yes." Tr. 108:20-22. 
A5. "Having completed the review and identified responsive documents ... Director Hines delivered the documents." (Response p. 3)
The statement. Response p. 3: "Director Hines worked with UFIT and the University's legal department to parse through the 470+ pages ... Having completed the review and identified responsive documents, on May 4, 2026, Director Hines delivered the documents to Petitioner." Aff. para. 7: "I worked with UFIT and UF's legal department to parse through the 470+ pages."
What the affiant said under oath. "Is it you that makes the decision of whether to include documents of the public records or that's the attorneys? A Not me." Tr. 130:3-6. "Sir, do you make the decisions on what to produce versus what not to produce? A No." Tr. 130:16-18. He does not perform searches or watch them performed. Tr. 129:19-20; 130:23-24. "The attorneys handle the legal review of public records request, I'm not an attorney." Tr. 99:7-8. On the 340 pages: "I don't know." Tr. 99:3-5. "I did not read the 340 pages." Tr. 100:5-6. How does he know the search was complete: "It's IT's job to complete searches." Tr. 131:8-10.
The affidavit was offered as "competent substantial evidence" made "on his own personal knowledge." MPO para. 16. 
A6. "I think very little of this may be responsive, so no invoice for now." (April 3, 2026)
The record. April 3, 2026, 9:07 AM, Hines to Quillen: "Did you want me to provide the chart below to the requestor or did you want to invoice for the 340 pages?" 9:15 AM, Quillen: "I think very little of this may be responsive, so no invoice for now." packet p. 94. April 22, Petitioner asked for status; April 23, Quillen to Hines: "You can let him know that his request is undergoing the legal review." Same page. The portal told Petitioner the same words. App. 11.
What this is. The only recorded decision about the 340 pages in the entire file, made by counsel, four days after the pages were in hand, identifying none of them. Four weeks of "legal review" followed, of which no record exists: "Records are not created." Tr. 109:8-15 (DQ motion para. 6(i)).
A7. "The University ... gathered and produced the responsive public records requested by Petitioner. See s. 119.07(1)(c)." (MPO para. 15) and the 479 pages filed on the public docket
The statement. MPO para. 24: Exhibit D contains "the documents falling into categories (1) (pages 1-53), (2) (pages 54-302), and (3) (pages 303-479) that the University gathered using Petitioner's search criteria." Para. 24 also: "The inclusion of these documents also effectively responds to the lone discovery request from Petitioner that is relevant to the issue before the Court." Footnote 4: category (2) "have been redacted."
What the record shows.
- The affidavit gave the Court one figure, "over 470" (Aff. para. 6), and no breakdown. UF's own file records 1,158 pages across four deliveries; Exhibit D is 479; the September 2 submission to chambers is 538; Petitioner received 53. No document reconciles any of these figures to any other.
- UF says it "responds to" Petitioner's Request to Produce No. 2 by filing the pages on the public docket rather than producing them to him; it produced nothing to him, and n.6 "reserves the right to object" to discovery to which it never served an objection.
- Pages inside Exhibit D carry a professor's full home street address and a third party's full name and travel records unredacted (Ex. D at PDF pp. 186, 221, identified in Filing 256010098 paras. 81-82 and DQ motion para. 6(c); not reproduced here and not to be published), under the footnote stating the records "have been redacted." Rule 2.425 governs sensitive information in court filings. UF filed these pages on the public docket under a footnote stating the category had been redacted, and the pages carry the data unredacted. They remain on the docket.
- A non-party's home street address, telephone number, and date of birth sit together in plain text on Exhibit D page 160 (PDF p. 191), stamped "Category 2," the exact category footnote 4 says was redacted. UF applied 247 redaction bars across 86 other pages in that same category, including to financial-account numbers, so this is not a capability gap. Not reproduced here.
A8. "four tranches of documents numbering 340 pages, 109 pages, 88 pages, and 1 page" (UF Br. p. 8) versus six files totaling 538 (UF's transmittal) versus 621 (UF's file)
The statements. UF Br. p. 8: "These reasonable efforts by Mr. Hines resulted in four tranches of documents numbering 340 pages, 109 pages, 88 pages, and 1 page, respectively." n.7: "The University has submitted these unredacted files to the Court for an in camera inspection." UF's own September 2 transmittal, by counsel: six files of 10, 330, 106, 3, 88 and 1 pages, total 538. Protocol motion para. 16.
What the file shows. Wood, May 7, 10:28 AM: "In addition to the 621 pages received from UFIT on 04/24/26, I am in receipt of additional potentially responsive records (88 PAGES) from UFIT (05/07/26) regarding the PRR from W018463-032626?." Ex. K at 273 (and 652). The 621 appear in neither the "four tranches" nor the six files.
The category stamps on Exhibit D contradict UF's own paragraph 24. UF's motion assigns Exhibit D pages 303 through 479 to category (3), "documents which were not public records." But 98 of those pages (Ex. D pp. 303-400) carry their own printed "Category 2" stamp, the category footnote 4 says was redacted for statutory exemptions. Ex. D page 302, which paragraph 24 places inside category (2), carries no stamp at all.
And 78 of the 426 "withheld" pages are one email, duplicated. Of the 177 pages UF's paragraph 24 assigns to category (3), 78 are a single stranger's 39-page unsolicited mass email, printed twice in full (Ex. D pp. 401-439, then again 440-478). That is against the Court's own in-camera instruction: "all redundancy, every page accounted for."
A9. "a scrivener's error" (UF Br. p. 9): the 621 pages belong to a different request
The statement. UF Br. p. 9: "Petitioner fixates on a scrivener's error in Exhibit Z, where Barabara Wood ... explains that a 621-page tranche of documents was incorrectly attributed to Petitioner's request reference number. Mr. Hines testified that ... Ms. Wood had inadvertently transposed reference numbers and subsequently corrected her mistake. (Ex. Z, pg. 157)." Hines, Tr. 105:25-106:2: "the 621 pages resulted from an IT search conducted for a different request, W018643."
What Exhibit Z (packet p. 157) actually corrects. Wood, May 7, 2:11 PM: "Sorry, I accidently put them in W018643. I figured it out from the pathname highlighted below in the original message below. They are now in W018463 at: W018463-032626\Fr UFIT 05-07-26\ISS-444193-W018463-032626-16-88-opt-SpecificKeywords.pdf." packet p. 157. 
That email corrects the folder path of the 88-page keyword file. It says nothing about the 621 pages. The sentence "In addition to the 621 pages received from UFIT on 04/24/26 ... regarding the PRR from W018463-032626" (Ex. K at 273) stands uncorrected in the file. No document in the record identifies request W018643, its requester, its search, or its 621 pages. The only evidence that the 621 belong elsewhere is the custodian's statement, and the custodian does not perform or watch searches (Tr. 129-130). The final order does not mention the 621 at all.
A10. "Petitioner expressly disclaimed records that did not relate to him" (UF Br. pp. 10-11, 14): the "most consequential admission"
The statement. UF Br. p. 14: Petitioner's May 6 email "is the most consequential admission in this case. It shows that when the University delivered only the records that were related to Petitioner, it fully satisfied its obligations." Response p. 5: "Petitioner Declined the Records he Now Seeks through Mandamus."
What the May 6 email says, on the page UF cites. App. 75: "The answer is no - I don't want all UF communications that contain 'Hanson.' My March 26, 2026 request was not a request for every record at the University of Florida containing the word 'Hanson.' It was a structured request defining three specific categories: (A) my own name and personal information; (B) enumerated case numbers tied to my pending litigation; and (C) a targeted list of keywords, individuals, and subjects connected to those cases. I am seeking records responsive to those categories. I am not seeking records about unrelated third parties who happen to share my surname." The same page: "There is no exemption under Chapter 119 ... that authorizes a public agency to withhold non-exempt records based on the agency's internal judgment of relevance nor 'relation.' If the University believes such authority exists, please identify the specific statutory basis in writing." And: "please confirm whether the University has any records responsive to my public records request even if the University finds that they 'relate' to someone else. This must include Internal University communications, memoranda, notes, or drafts referencing the case numbers, individuals, or keywords I identified and produce a privilege log identifying each such record."
UF's brief quotes three sentences from this email, with its own "" marking an omission between them: the "no" and the "not a request for every record" sentences, then, after the mark, "I am not seeking records about unrelated third parties who happen to share my surname." What the "" omits is the sentence explaining the request was "a structured request defining three specific categories," including Category B (case numbers) and Category C (keywords, individuals, and subjects). The disclaimer quoted is of other Hansons. Four paragraphs later in the same email, Petitioner renews the request: "please confirm whether the University has any records responsive to my public records request even if the University finds that they 'relate' to someone else." UF's own May 7 extraction (row A4) shows it had 88 pages hitting exactly Categories B and C and produced none.
A11. "the search was now done correctly with the additional pages" (UF Br. p. 9, quoting Tr. 117:7-8)
The statement. UF Br. p. 9: "that follow-up search corrected the issue: 'the search was now done correctly with the additional pages.'" n.8: "This 109 page tranche of records, containing 17 emails, is the same one submitted to Court for its in camera inspection."
What the record shows. The May 4 10:39 AM UFIT email (Ex. K at 129) reports the stalled search and 17 additional messages. The May 4 3:22 PM production consisted of the 50-page Cuillier chain and Petitioner's 3-page March 25 email (App. 12-65; MPO Ex. D category (1), pages 1-53). The 109 rerun pages were logged to the U: drive "to be reviewed by the General Counsel" (packet p. 109). Nothing in the record shows any of the 17 messages or 109 pages reaching Petitioner. "Done correctly" describes the search; it does not describe production, and the witness who ran it (Quiros) was subpoenaed and did not appear.
A12. Discovery: "an undue burden on the University" (8/24 Tr. 36:1-3), stated after UF had already not answered and not appeared
The statements. MPO para. 5: "Petitioner's discovery is therefore abusive and imposes an undue burden and expense on the University." 8/24 Tr. 36:1-6 (Kirkconnell): "the discovery is an undue burden on the University. And we respectfully request that the Court issue a protective order pending the outcome of the immediate hearing that we've already discussed." UF Br. p. 18: Petitioner "Insisted on unwarranted and abusive discovery."
What the record shows. Discovery was served July 13 (image below). Responses were due August 12 (Rule 1.340(a), 1.350(b), 1.370(a)). Depositions were noticed July 24 for August 3. No motion for protective order was filed until July 30 and none was heard until August 24. No order suspended any deadline. On August 3 neither witness nor counsel appeared; the court reporter certified both nonappearances under penalty of perjury. On August 12 nothing was served. See Ledger C, Part 2.
A13. "The University does not agree to accept service of process for any other witness for the Hearing." (August 26, 2026)
The statement. Kirkconnell to Petitioner, August 26, 2:26 PM: "The University will present the testimony of its Records Custodian, John Hines, at the Hearing. The University does not agree to accept service of process for any other witness for the Hearing." 
What followed. Petitioner personally served Daniel Quiros, the UFIT engineer who ran every search in the file (Ex. K at 68, 129, 238), with a hearing subpoena on September 1. He did not appear. UF's September 17 response says he was "on standby." The custodian who did appear testified he does not perform or watch searches (Tr. 129-130). The order denying the motion to reopen for Quiros gives no reason.
A14. "any document requests from you must be treated as public records requests" (September 3, 2026)
The statement. Kirkconnell, September 3, 4:32 PM: "I will remind you that the Court has issued a protective order as to further discovery. As long as that order is in effect, any document requests from you must be treated as public records requests." Same email: "The University will not agree to any continuance or reconvening of the hearing for additional testimony or for any other reason." And: "I will not engage in telephone conversation with you."
What this does. The written statement of exemptions under sections 119.07(1)(e) and (1)(f), and the custodian's certification and index Petitioner asked for on September 3, are not discovery; they are the custodian's statutory duties and the Court's own inspection function (Protocol motion paras. 25 to 36). UF's position converts every statutory duty into a new portal request, to be answered by the same office that wrote "No exempt information was withheld" (row A2). No written protective order existed on September 3; the first one was signed September 18 by a judge who did not hear the motion.
A15. "The University then searched for, located, reviewed, and delivered those records—all of them—to the Petitioner." (UF Br. p. 1)
The statement. UF Br. p. 1, first paragraph. 
What the same brief concedes on p. 8 and p. 16. Four tranches totaling 538 pages exist and were sent to the Court, not to Petitioner (p. 8, n.7). The 426 non-produced pages "did contain exempt material" and "UF redacted them before filing" (p. 16 n.10). Petitioner received 53 pages. The same brief that opens by saying "all of them" were delivered to Petitioner elsewhere states the true count as 53.
A16. The request UF says it fulfilled, in its own words (Response p. 2, quoting App. 4)
UF's Response reproduces the request at p. 2: "records maintained by, sent to, or received by employees within the UF College of Journalism and Communications, specifically including but not limited to the Brechner Freedom of Information Project, Dr. David Cuillier, and Professor Jane Bambauer," for "all written communications ... that contain any of the following names, email addresses, case numbers, or keywords," Categories A, B and C. 
UF's own IT search instruction of March 30 (Ex. K at 68) ran exactly those terms against two mailboxes only, Cuillier and Bambauer, with "The person did not ask for attachments." 
The request asked for attachments in native format (App. 14: "Please produce all records electronically in their native format or as PDFs"), for personal devices and private accounts used for University business, and for text and Signal/WhatsApp messages. The Brechner Center's third member (Sunne) was searched only later (UF Br. p. 8 n.6). UF's closing brief states that "Mr. Hines's search included these employees' personal devices," citing Ex. F p. 78 and Ex. H p. 86 (UF Br. p. 8 n.5). Neither page is among the images rendered for this ledger, and no search of a device, a text message, or a Signal or WhatsApp account appears anywhere in the portions of the 741-page processing file cited here.
Ledger B. Petitioner's arguments and the order's treatment of each
LEDGER B. Petitioner's arguments, in granular detail: what was argued, where, on what authority, on what record, and what the September 18 order did with it. Built 2026-09-20 on Computer 2 from the filed record. Images in images\.
Filings: Verified Petition (6/4, Filing 249635041); Reply (7/14, 252419965); Combined Response and Cross-Motion (7/31, 253756192); Combined Motion (8/31, 256010098); Hearing Memorandum (8/31, 256049173); Notice of Objection (9/4, 256489625); Motion for Entry of Written Orders (9/7, 256513029); Verified Motion to Disqualify (9/13, 256936128); Closing Argument (9/14, 257004764); Quiros show-cause motion (9/14, 256949636).
| # | The argument | Where made | Authority | Record it rests on | What the 9/18 order did with it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | The burden is on the custodian. Once the Court found the petition facially sufficient and ordered Respondents to show cause (6/12), "the burden is on the respondent to come forth with facts upon which it refused to perform its legal duty." The return "becomes in all respects the complaint," and if it does not carry the burden "no trial is necessary." A custodian must "come forward with exact facts." The burden of justifying nondisclosure is the custodian's. | Closing paras. 3, 32-34, 40, 51; Combined Motion Parts II and IV; Protocol paras. 37-38 | Chandler v. City of Greenacres, 140 So. 3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Holcomb v. Dep't of Corr., 609 So. 2d 751, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Bal Harbour Village v. State ex rel. Giblin, 299 So. 2d 611, 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Art. I, s. 24(a), (c) | OSC, Filing 250268011 (image: ORDER_0612_show_cause_p01) | Not mentioned. The order applies Plymel ("petitioner demonstrates a clear legal right") and finds Petitioner "has not demonstrated." The OSC, the alternative-writ posture, and every burden case are absent. UF's reply authority (EOG v. FCGA, 408 So. 3d 839) is not cited either; the order simply adopts the petitioner-burden result. |
| B2 | Sections 119.07(1)(e) and (1)(f) require a written, record-by-record statement of any exemption with statutory citation, and on request, the reasons "in writing and with particularity." Petitioner requested it five times (3/26, 5/4, 7/13, 9/3, 9/7). Jones holds that (1)(e) "plainly requires ... record-by-record ... identification." Where a response fails to identify the basis with specificity, the remedy is an amended response that does (Weeks). | Closing Part II, paras. 30-43 ("The one ask"); Protocol paras. 25-33; Petition paras. 23, 27; Reply para. 34 | ss. 119.07(1)(e), (1)(f), (1)(g); Jones v. Miami Herald Media Co., 198 So. 3d 1143, 1146-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Weeks at 634-35; Bent v. State, 46 So. 3d 1047, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (public-record status is a question of law, case by case) | App. 4-5 (the request); App. 67-71 (5/4 letter); 7/13 email; Filings 256318669, 256513029 | Not mentioned. The order cites Bent for the definition of a public record and makes a global finding without identifying a single record. It does not say whether (1)(e)/(1)(f) were complied with, or whether UF ever asserted an exemption. |
| B3 | UF's own file records four deliveries totaling 1,158 pages; 53 were produced; 426 more were filed on the docket, never produced. March 30: 330 + 10; April 24: 621; May 4: 109 + 17 messages; May 7: 88. The affidavit says "over 470"; Exhibit D has 479; the submission has 538. Nothing reconciles the figures. | Closing paras. 4-7, 15-16, 20, 28-29, Ex. A chronology; Combined Motion Part III; DQ motion para. 6 | s. 119.07(1)(a), (1)(c) | packet pp. 90, 94, 109; Ex. K at 129, 238, 273; Aff. paras. 6-8; MPO para. 24 | "538 pages." No finding on any delivery, any figure, or the 426. |
| B4 | The 621 pages are logged inside this request's file and are not in the submission. UF's only answer is the custodian's statement that they belong to W018643; the "correction" UF cites (packet p. 157) corrects the 88-page file's folder, not the 621. Petitioner asked that the submission "line up with the files that are created and documented in the exhibits" (Tr. 135:14-18) and objected in writing the same day and on 9/4. | Objection para. 5; Protocol paras. 17-20; Closing paras. 15, 45; Tr. 135:14-18 | s. 119.11(1) (compliance determination); Walton; Environmental Turf | Ex. K at 273, 652; packet p. 157; Tr. 105:25-106:2 | Not mentioned. |
| B5 | Counsel segregated the records about Petitioner's cases and judges into an 88-page file and produced none of them. Quillen's 5/7 instruction; the file copied "to be reviewed by the General Counsel"; Hines: "somewhere on the U-Drive? A Yes." | Closing para. 29; Protocol para. 19; DQ motion para. 6(f) | ss. 119.07(1)(e), (1)(f); Art. I, s. 24 | Ex. K at 238, 273, 653; Tr. 108:20-22 | Not mentioned. |
| B6 | The custodian cannot carry the burden because he has no knowledge of it, and the witness who does was subpoenaed and did not appear. Hines does not perform searches, does not watch them, does not decide what is produced, does not see the legal review, does not know what became of the 340 pages. Quiros ran every search in the file, was personally served 9/1, did not appear; UF had refused to accept service for anyone but Hines. Motion to reopen for his testimony. | Closing paras. 11, 16-18, 25, 51, 54; Quiros motion paras. 1-6, 12-19; DQ motion para. 19 | Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410(e); Tape v. State / Mella (UF's answer, waiver) addressed in the motion | Tr. 99:3-8; 100:5-6; 129:19-20; 130:3-6, 16-18, 23-24; 131:8-10; return of service (Quiros motion Ex. C); 8/26 email (DQ Ex. H) | Final order silent. Companion order denying the Quiros motion states no reason. |
| B7 | UF has given four inconsistent accounts of exempt content (5/5: none withheld or redacted; under oath: no exemptions; 7/30: redacted under three statutes; 9/2: "contain some exempt information") and has never explained the differences. | Closing para. 26; DQ motion para. 6(e), (h), (i), (j) | s. 119.07(1)(e) | App. 76; Tr. 121:17-19; MPO para. 24 n.4; Protocol para. 5 | Not mentioned. |
| B8 | An in camera inspection answers what is in a submission; it cannot answer what is missing from it. The Court's own standard was "all redundancy, every page accounted for." The submission arrived on Respondents' terms, by email, without copying Petitioner, described only by counsel, with no index, no certification, no chain of custody. The inspection requires the Court to know which document it is examining and on what ground it is withheld (Walton, Environmental Turf, Garrison). Certification and index are the custodian's duty and the Court's inspection function, not discovery. | Closing paras. 12, 42-50, 55; Protocol paras. 1-24, 29-36, 39-41 and proposed order (Filing 256318669); Objection paras. 3-8 | Walton v. Dugger, 634 So. 2d 1059, 1061-62 (Fla. 1993); Environmental Turf, Inc. v. UF Bd. of Trs., 83 So. 3d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Garrison v. Bailey, 4 So. 3d 683, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Tribune Co. v. Public Records, 493 So. 2d 480, 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Kline v. Univ. of Fla., 200 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (same respondent) | Tr. 134:14-21; 135:10-21; Protocol Ex. 1 (the 9/2 emails); Filing 256318669 | The order rests on the submission ("Having conducted an in-camera review of the materials generated by the search terms provided to Respondents by Petitioner") and never rules on the Objection or the Protocol motion. |
| B9 | Discovery was served, fell due, and was ignored; depositions were noticed and not attended; no order excused any of it. Interrogatories, RFAs and RTP served 7/13, due 8/12; RFAs deemed admitted under Rule 1.370(a) absent response; depositions of Hines (managing agent, no subpoena needed) and Bambauer (subpoena) noticed 7/24 for 8/3; certificates of nonappearance; a pending motion for protective order does not suspend deadlines absent an order. Costs of the missed deposition reserved under Rule 1.380(d). | Cross-Motion paras. 91-92, 96; DQ motion paras. 7-8, 32-34; Closing paras. 8, 56 | Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d), 1.310(b), 1.340(a), 1.350(b), 1.370(a), 1.380(d), 1.410 | 7/13 email and attachments (MPO Ex. A pp. 9-24); 7/24 notices; CNAs 8/3; 8/24 Tr. 37:15-21 | The 9/18 protective order recites the 8/24 hearing and grants the motion; it says nothing about the missed depositions, the unanswered discovery, or the cross-motion noticed for the same hearing. The final order is silent. |
| B10 | Reservations: decide the disqualification motion before the merits (Rule 2.330(h)); the right to complete the examinations, to testify, and to enforce the Quiros subpoena; participation in closing is not acquiescence in the submission as delivered; objection to any compliance finding resting on it. | Closing paras. 53-55 | Rule 2.330(h); due process and compulsory process | Tr. 61:19-20; 107:9-10; 133:19-20; 88:8-12 | The disqualification motion was granted 9/16; the merits were then decided 9/18 by a successor judge who held no hearing, on the submission objected to. |
| B11 | Compliance includes production in the form kept, with system metadata, asked 9/3; the submission and Exhibit D are flattened renderings. | Closing para. 57; Protocol Ex. 1 | s. 119.07(1)(a); s. 119.01(2)(f) (electronic records) | 9/3 email | Not mentioned. |
| B12 | Fees and costs under s. 119.12(1): written notice to the custodian given 5/4, more than five business days before suit; costs of enforcement to be assessed now, fee entitlement reserved. | Closing para. 58 and Part V(b); Petition paras. 18, 32 | s. 119.12(1)(a), (b) | App. 67-68 | Not mentioned, in either direction. |
| B13 | UF placed unredacted third-party personal data on the public docket (a home street address; a name with travel records) under a footnote asserting redaction; Petitioner asked that the pages be sealed. | Combined Motion paras. 81-82; DQ motion para. 6(c); Closing para. 29 | Rule 2.425; s. 119.071(4)(d) (agency personnel home addresses) | MPO Ex. D at PDF pp. 186, 221 (not reproduced) | Not mentioned. The pages remain on the public docket. |
| B14 | UF's request for a s. 119.12(3) improper-purpose finding. The statute says the court "shall determine." Petitioner reserved his response. | UF Br. pp. 17-21; Closing para. 58 | s. 119.12(3) | Tr. 55-57, 128-129, 134 (UF's quotations) | Not determined. Left open. |
| B15 | Kline: the First District has already held, against this same respondent, that UF's sealed submissions do not substitute for the process the statute requires. | Not yet filed; planned for the rehearing motion | Kline v. Univ. of Fla., 200 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) | To be raised on rehearing. |
The relief Petitioner asked for and the order's treatment of each item (Closing Part V)
| Relief requested (Closing para. V(a)) | Order |
|---|---|
| (1) Every page of every delivery the file records (330+10, 621, 109+17, 88) delivered for inspection, "with no page excluded on the ground that the University considers it not a public record, not responsive to this request, or gathered for another request" | Not addressed; inspection limited to what UF chose to send |
| (2) Custodian's certification under s. 92.525 that every page of each delivery is before the Court, by file name and page range | Not addressed |
| (3) An index of every page (date, author, recipients, subject, delivery and batch), and where the 53 produced pages and the two witnesses' forwards sit in the submission | Not addressed |
| (4) Record-by-record identification under ss. 119.07(1)(e), (1)(f) of every located record withheld, with citation and reasons, and of every other located page not produced with the ground stated | Not addressed |
| Supplemental five-page submissions after service of the statement | Not addressed |
| (b) In the alternative: find Respondents did not carry their burden; order production of every located record not shown exempt; find an unlawful refusal under s. 119.12(1); award costs; reserve fees | Denied in one sentence, without a finding on any located record, the burden, the refusal, costs, or fees |
Images of the closing brief's relief section: 
Ledger C. The statutory and procedural requirements in play
LEDGER C. The requirements the University of Florida failed: statute, rules of procedure, and rules of professional conduct. Built 2026-09-20 on Computer 2. Each row: the requirement in its own words; what UF did, dated, with the page; the source image. Part 3 states Petitioner's contentions against the rule text; no tribunal has made any finding under those rules, and whether to present them to the Bar is Petitioner's decision.
Rule and statute texts below are quoted for accuracy against the current published versions as of 9/21/2026 wherever cited; s. 119.07(1)(a) and (1)(a)'s full clause were confirmed against the Florida Senate's official statute text this pass. Confirm the remainder against the official text before any filing quotes them.
PART 1. Chapter 119 and Article I, section 24
| # | Requirement | What UF did | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const.: "Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body ... except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution." Self-executing, s. 24(c). | Located 1,158 pages by its own log; produced 53, all Petitioner's own emails; stated no exemption; never identified a withheld record. | packet pp. 90, 109; Ex. K at 273; App. 14-15 |
| S2 | s. 119.07(1)(a): "Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records." | The 340 pages delivered March 30 were never permitted to be inspected. The custodian: "I don't know" what happened to them; "I did not read the 340 pages." | Tr. 99:3-5; 100:5-6 (images TR_0902_p099, p100) |
| S3 | s. 119.07(1)(c): "A custodian of public records and his or her designee must acknowledge requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such requests in good faith. A good faith response includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be accessed." | On May 4 at 3:22 PM the custodian wrote "This completes the public records request" four hours and forty-two minutes after UFIT reported the search had "stalled" and 17 messages "should have been included previously," and after 109 rerun pages had been logged for legal review. Four weeks of undescribed "legal review" (Apr. 3 to May 4) of which "Records are not created." | Ex. K at 129; packet pp. 94, 109; App. 14-15; Tr. 109:8-15 |
| S4 | s. 119.07(1)(d): "A person who has custody of a public record who asserts that an exemption applies to a part of such record shall redact that portion of the record to which an exemption has been asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainder of such record for inspection and copying." | UF asserts (7/30, n.4; 9/17, n.10) that 426 located pages contained exempt material and were redacted. It never produced the redacted remainder to Petitioner. It filed them on the court docket instead. | MPO para. 24 n.4 (UF_MPO_0730_p07); UF Br. p. 16 n.10 |
| S5 | s. 119.07(1)(e): "If the person who has custody of a public record contends that all or part of the record is exempt from inspection and copying, he or she shall state the basis of the exemption that he or she contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to an exemption created or afforded by statute." | Contended exemptions on 7/30 ("redacted pursuant to" three statutes) and 9/2 ("contain some exempt information"). Never stated, to Petitioner, which record, or which statute applies to which record. Told Petitioner on 5/5 that no exemption was withheld or cited, and swore on 9/2 that none was asserted. | App. 76; Tr. 121:17-19; MPO n.4; Protocol para. 5 |
| S6 | s. 119.07(1)(f): "If the person who has custody of a public record contends that the record or part of the record is exempt from inspection and copying, he or she shall state in writing and with particularity the reasons for the conclusion that the record is exempt or confidential" upon request. | Requested in writing on 3/26 (App. 4-5), 5/4 (App. 67-71), 7/13, 9/3, 9/7. Never provided. UF's stated position (9/3): "any document requests from you must be treated as public records requests." | App. 4, 5; 7/13 email; 9/3 email (EMAIL_0903_Kirkconnell_p001) |
| S8 | s. 119.11(1): "Whenever an action is filed to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the court shall set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases." The accelerated hearing exists for the requester. | UF used it as the ground for barring all discovery (MPO paras. 6-9) and refusing any continuance (8/26, 9/3), then obtained a final order on a submission it alone described. Petitioner's point: the priority is the citizen's, not a device for closing the record before the custodian states what he withheld. | MPO pp. 3-4; 8/26 and 9/3 emails; Closing para. 48 |
| S9 | s. 119.12(1)(b): written notice of the request to the custodian at least five business days before suit, as the condition of a fee award. | Given May 4, 2026 (App. 67-68); UF's own Response concedes Petitioner "provid[ed] written notice ... pursuant to Section 119.12(1)(b)" (Response p. 13). Suit filed June 4. | App. 67-68; Response p. 13 |
| S10 | s. 119.12(3): the court "shall determine" improper purpose. | Requested by UF (Br. pp. 17-21); not determined by the order. Left open against Petitioner. | UF Br. pp. 17-21 |
| S11 | s. 119.071(4)(d) (home addresses of specified agency personnel) and Rule 2.425 (minimization of sensitive information in court filings). | UF filed a professor's full home street address and a third party's full name and travel records, unredacted, on the public docket on July 30, under a footnote asserting the records "have been redacted." Petitioner asked that the pages be sealed (8/31, paras. 81-82). Not addressed. Not reproduced here. | MPO Ex. D at PDF pp. 186, 221, not reproduced here; Filing 256010098 paras. 81-82 |
PART 2. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: the discovery UF ignored
What was served, and when. July 13, 2026, 1:57 PM, by email to Kirkconnell (and by portal): Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories (8 interrogatories, Rule 1.340), First Requests for Admission (Rule 1.370), First Request to Produce (Rule 1.350), with a cover letter demanding production of the located pages and asking for deposition dates for Hines, a Rule 1.310(b)(6) designee, and Cuillier. Responses due 30 days later: August 12, 2026. July 24, 2026: Notice of Taking Deposition of John Hines (August 3, 3:00 PM, Zoom; managing agent, no subpoena required), Notice of Taking Deposition of Jane Bambauer (August 3, 1:00 PM) with a Rule 1.410 subpoena, served on Kirkconnell and LoGiurato.
What UF did. July 30: filed a motion for protective order (heard August 24), with footnote 6: "The University reserves the right to object to Petitioner's discovery requests." August 3: neither witness nor counsel appeared at either deposition; the court reporter certified both nonappearances under penalty of perjury. August 12: nothing served. August 24: the court announced a protective order "outside the scope" (8/24 Tr. 36:9-11); no written order until September 18. UF never served an answer, an objection, or a response of any kind to any of the three discovery instruments, and never moved to excuse the August 3 nonappearances.
| # | Rule | Text (current, secondary source) | What UF did |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Rule 1.340(a) (interrogatories) | "The party to whom the interrogatories are directed must serve the answers and any objections within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories." | No answers, no objections, ever. Due 8/12. |
| R2 | Rule 1.350(b) (production) | "The party to whom the request is directed must serve a written response within 30 days after service of the request ... For each item or category the response must state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection must be stated." | No response, no objection, ever. Due 8/12. UF's only statement: that filing 479 pages on the court docket "effectively responds to" Request No. 2 (MPO para. 24). Filing on the docket is not production to the requesting party, and Requests 1, 3, 4 and 5 (search outputs, the May 4 delivery package, search-term records, the processing file) were never answered. |
| R3 | Rule 1.370(a) (admissions) | "The matter is admitted unless the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter within 30 days after service of the request." | No answer, no objection. By the rule's own terms each request was admitted on August 12, 2026, including: No. 1 (UFIT gathered over 470 pages); No. 3-4 (the May 4 production was two attachments totaling 53 pages); No. 5 (no records produced beyond those 53); No. 6 (the 53 pages are entirely Petitioner's own correspondence); No. 7 (no statutory exemption asserted as to any located record). Petitioner raised the deemed admissions on 7/31 (Cross-Motion paras. 91-92) and asked only that the deadlines be honored or expressly modified. No order ever modified them. The 9/18 protective order does not address them. |
| R4 | Rule 1.280(d) (protective orders) | "On motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make any order to protect a party ..." A motion is not an order. | UF filed 7/30, was heard 8/24, obtained a written order 9/18. Between 7/13 and 8/24 no order relieved UF of any deadline. It let the depositions and the 8/12 deadline pass on the strength of its own motion. (Cross-Motion para. 91: "A pending motion for protective order does not suspend these deadlines absent an order.") |
| R5 | Rule 1.310(b)(1), (b)(6) (depositions; managing agent) | Reasonable notice in writing; a party's officer, director or managing agent attends on notice without subpoena. | Hines, UF's Director of Public Records, records custodian, and affiant, noticed 7/24 for 8/3 at 3:00 PM. Did not appear. Counsel did not appear. No motion to quash, no objection, no protective order in place. |
| R6 | Rule 1.410 (subpoena) | A subpoena for deposition commands attendance; failure to obey may be deemed contempt (1.410(e)). | Bambauer subpoenaed for 8/3 at 1:00 PM (UF asked whether counsel would accept service, 7/24 email; the subpoena was served). Did not appear. Counsel did not appear. Quiros, personally served with a hearing subpoena 9/1 for the 9/2 hearing, did not appear; UF's response: he was "on standby." |
| R7 | Rule 1.380(d) (failure of party to attend own deposition or serve answers) | "If a party ... fails (1) to appear before the officer who is to take the deposition after being served with a proper notice, (2) to serve answers or objections to interrogatories ... after proper service, or (3) to serve a written response to a request for inspection ... after proper service, the court ... may take any action authorized under paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) ... Instead of any order or in addition to it, the court shall require the party failing to act to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the failure, which may include attorneys' fees, unless the court finds that the failure was justified." | All three failures occurred (8/3 nonappearance; no interrogatory answers; no RTP response). Petitioner reserved the reporter's charges and expenses for the 8/3 deposition (Closing para. 56). No order has addressed them; the 9/18 protective order excuses nothing retroactively and says nothing about 8/3 or 8/12. |
| R8 | Rule 1.380(b)(2)(A)-(C) (sanctions available) | Facts may be taken as established; the disobedient party may be prohibited from supporting designated defenses or introducing designated matters in evidence; pleadings may be stricken. | UF's defense at the 9/2 hearing was the very search process it refused to answer a single question about in discovery. The Court sustained 16 of 17 objections to questions about UF's own documents and search (DQ motion Ex. F; Closing para. 21). |
| R9 | AO 3.09 (8th Cir.), App. A para. 11 (conferral) | Good faith conference before filing a motion. | UF's MPO certificate: conferred by telephone 7/24. UF's later position (9/3): "I will not engage in telephone conversation with you." UF has stated no position on any of Petitioner's motions since. |
PART 3. Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Chapter 4): Petitioner's contentions against the rule text
These rows state where, in Petitioner's contention, counsel's conduct meets the text of a rule. No finding has been made by any tribunal. The conduct column is the record; the rule column is the rule.
| # | Rule (text) | The conduct, dated | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Rule 4-3.3(a)(1), Candor Toward the Tribunal: a lawyer shall not knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer." | July 7, 2026, to the Court: "All of the records responsive to Petitioner's request were produced in their entirety" and the records were produced "without redaction," while the same filing swore that "over 470 pages" were gathered and 53 were produced, and while UF's own file (produced later, Ex. K) recorded 1,158 pages across four deliveries and an 88-page extraction copied "to be reviewed by the General Counsel." Not corrected after Ex. K was filed 8/28; repeated 9/17 (UF Br. p. 1: "delivered those records—all of them—to the Petitioner"). | Response p. 9; Aff. paras. 6-8; Ex. K at 273; UF Br. p. 1 |
| P2 | Rule 4-3.3(a)(1), second instance | September 17, 2026, to the Court: the 621 pages were a "scrivener's error" that Wood "subsequently corrected," citing Ex. Z at packet p. 157. Packet p. 157 corrects the folder path of the 88-page file and does not mention the 621 pages. | UF Br. p. 9; packet pp. 157-158; Ex. K at 273 |
| P3 | Rule 4-3.3(a)(1), third instance | September 17, 2026, to the Court: Petitioner's May 6 email is an "admission" that he "expressly disclaimed records that did not relate to him," quoting three sentences with UF's own "***" marking an omission between them. What the omission mark cuts is the sentence explaining the request was for three defined categories, including case numbers and keywords. Four paragraphs later in the same email, not the next sentence, Petitioner renews the request and asks UF to "confirm whether the University has any records responsive to my public records request even if the University finds that they 'relate' to someone else." | UF Br. pp. 14-15; App. 75 |
| P4 | Rule 4-3.4(a), Fairness to Opposing Party: a lawyer must not "unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding." | May 7, 2026: with the request pending and litigation threatened in writing (App. 75: "I will treat the University's correspondence to date as a constructive denial and unlawful refusal"), Associate General Counsel Quillen directed UFIT to segregate the results for the case numbers and judges' names into a separate file, which was placed under General Counsel review and never produced or identified. September 2: 538 pages sent to chambers without copying Petitioner, without index or certification, omitting the 621. | Ex. K at 238, 273; Protocol paras. 5, 16-20 |
| P5 | Rule 4-3.4(c): a lawyer must not "knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists." | Discovery due August 12 under Rules 1.340, 1.350, 1.370; depositions noticed for August 3 under Rule 1.310. No answers, no objections, no appearance, no motion to quash, no order. The "reservation of the right to object" (MPO n.6) is not an open refusal based on an asserted absence of obligation; it is a stated intention to respond later that was never performed. | MPO n.6; CNAs; Cross-Motion paras. 91-92 |
| P6 | Rule 4-3.4(d): a lawyer must not "in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party." | The interrogatories, RFAs and RTP were served, proper in form, and directed to the search UF put at issue by its own affidavit. UF complied with none and objected to none. | MPO Ex. A pp. 9-24 |
| P7 | Rule 4-4.1(a), Truthfulness in Statements to Others: in the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly "make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person." | May 5, 2026, to Petitioner (drafted in the General Counsel's office per the 4/23 Quillen instruction and the 5/5 portal statement): "No exempt information was withheld or redacted from the records responsive to your request, and consequently, no statutory exemptions were cited," while 340 pages sat on the U: drive awaiting "approval to be released" and 109 rerun pages had been logged the previous day. July 30: the same office told the Court the located records "have been redacted" under three statutes. | App. 76; packet pp. 90, 94, 109; MPO n.4 |
| P8 | Rule 4-8.4(c): a lawyer shall not "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." 4-8.4(d): conduct "in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." | The cumulative pattern in rows P1 to P7, and: filing 426 located pages on the public docket with a professor's home address and a third party's travel records unredacted under a footnote asserting redaction (S11); refusing to accept service for any witness but the one who "does not" perform, watch, or decide (8/26); characterizing the requester to the Court as "either lying, mistaken, or incapable of reasoned thought" (p. 16), stating that "suspicion and paranoia permeate everything Petitioner writes or says" and that his "cynicism is informed by conspiratorial delusions" (p. 16), and his "deranged conspiracy theories" (p. 20), in a filing that asks the Court to find he acted for an improper purpose. | UF Br. pp. 13, 16, 18-20; 8/26 email |
A note on the last row. UF's closing brief asks for a section 119.12(3) finding and cites Fla. Bar v. Morgan (91-day suspension for calling a judge obnoxious) against Petitioner, citing his statement that "Someone needs to attack you" (Tr. 57:7) as grounds for contempt. The same brief's own footnote 11 states that quote "do[es] not include personal attacks against Judge Keim made during the August 24, 2026, hearing." That statement is on the record at 8/24/26 Tr. 36:12-17, moving to disqualify the judge on the spot: "I think that you're corrupt and you're dishonest and you are trying to protect insiders and I think you should be off of my case." The motion was denied from the bench. The same brief calls the opposing party "deranged" and says his "cynicism is informed by conspiratorial delusions." Both sets of words are in the record and neither has been withdrawn. Whether any is presented to the Bar is a decision for the person against whom the other was written.
Images referenced in this ledger
Discovery served: EMAIL_0713_discovery_served_p01/02, UF_MPO_0730_p09 to p24 (interrogatories, RFAs, RTP, deposition notices as UF itself attached them), EMAIL_0724_dep_notices_served_p01 to p07. Nonappearances: CNA_Hines_0803_p01, CNA_Bambauer_0803_p01. The statutory statements: APP_004, APP_005, APP_011, APP_014, APP_015, APP_067, APP_068, APP_074, APP_075, APP_076, UF_RESPONSE_0707_p03/04/05/09/16/17, UF_MPO_0730_p01 to p08, EXK_processing_file_p068/129/238/273, RESP_EXLIST_0831_p090/094/109/157/165, TR_0902_*, TR_0824_*, EMAIL_0826_Kirkconnell_p001, EMAIL_0903_Kirkconnell_p001-003, UF_CLOSING_0917_*. The orders: ORDER_0612_show_cause_p01, ORDER_0918_final_p01-03, ORDER_0918_protective_p01-02, ORDER_0918_showcause_denied_p01-02.