Jeffrey A. Siegmeister, State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida v. L. J. Johnson , 240 So. 3d 70 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D17-992
    _____________________________
    JEFFREY A. SIEGMEISTER, State
    Attorney for the Third Judicial
    Circuit of Florida,
    Appellant,
    v.
    L.J. JOHNSON,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.
    Wesley R. Douglas, Judge.
    February 20, 2018
    OSTERHAUS, J.
    Jeffrey A. Siegmeister, the State Attorney for the Third
    Judicial Circuit of Florida, appeals the final judgment entered for
    L.J. Johnson in a public records case. Mr. Johnson’s attorney
    submitted a public records request to see and copy the state
    attorney’s case file in a closed matter involving Mr. Johnson.
    Former State Attorney Robert L. “Skip” Jarvis, Jr., reviewed the
    file and acceded to the request within a week. He offered to make
    the records available at his main office in Live Oak where he had
    reviewed them. But his letter acceding to the request took another
    week to be delivered to Mr. Johnson’s attorney in Lake City. Due
    to the delay, Mr. Johnson promptly sued State Attorney Jarvis
    claiming an unlawful refusal to provide the records under the
    Public Records Act, chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2010).
    The trial court ultimately held an evidentiary hearing and
    agreed with Mr. Johnson and awarded costs and attorneys’ fees.
    The court based its finding of an unlawful delay principally upon
    the fact that State Attorney Jarvis’s letter required Mr. Johnson’s
    attorney to travel twenty-five miles to Live Oak to inspect and copy
    the records, instead of offering to make the records available at his
    local courthouse in Lake City. State Attorney Siegmeister, who
    succeeded Mr. Jarvis, appealed. We reverse and conclude that
    State Attorney Jarvis did not violate Florida’s public records law
    by making the requested records available for inspection and
    copying at the main office of the State Attorney for the Third
    Judicial Circuit, instead of at an office closer to the requester’s
    home.
    I.
    This appeal follows an earlier remand in Johnson v. Jarvis, 
    74 So. 3d 168
    (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). There, we reversed the trial court’s
    dismissal of Johnson’s chapter 119, public records complaint and
    remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether there
    was an unreasonable delay in producing the requested records. 
    Id. at 170-71.
    After remand, Kevin K. Carson, Mr. Johnson’s attorney,
    testified at the hearing that he met with an Assistant State
    Attorney in Lake City, Florida, on January 26, 2011, to learn
    whether Mr. Johnson would be criminally charged as a result of an
    incident in which his firearm discharged at a local store. Mr.
    Carson was told at the meeting that the State wouldn’t be filing
    charges, whereupon Mr. Carson made a public records request to
    inspect and copy the State Attorney’s investigative file. The ASA
    responded by recommending that Mr. Carson write out his specific
    request, which he did, in his own name. He addressed the request
    to the “Records Custodian, State Attorney, Third Judicial
    [Circuit],” stating: “Please make available for inspection and
    copying all public records relating to [Johnson case]. This should
    include all information requested in my discovery request.”
    2
    The ASA told Mr. Carson that his request would be forwarded
    to State Attorney Jarvis in Live Oak. State Attorney Jarvis’s job
    included being the public records custodian for the office. The
    office’s public records policy provided that public records matters
    would be handled in the main State Attorney’s office for the Third
    Judicial Circuit in Live Oak:
    All requests to inspect or copy case files, active or
    inactive, shall be directed to the State Attorney. The
    State Attorney shall promptly review the case file to
    [e]nsure that there is no disclosure of active criminal
    intelligence information or criminal investigative
    information as defined in [c]hapter 119, Florida
    Statu[t]es, or other exempted documents such as autopsy
    reports or work product. Such information and
    documents shall be placed in a separate envelope, sealed,
    and marked as “exempt documents.” In order to [e]nsure
    that exempt materials and documents are protected and
    that the State Attorney’s obligations under the statute
    have been met, all public record requests shall be complied
    with at the main office of the State Attorney located at 100
    S.E. Court Street in Live Oak, Florida.
    (Emphasis added).
    After making the request, Mr. Carson stated that he checked
    his mail every day thereafter, but didn’t receive a response from
    State Attorney Jarvis until two weeks later, on February 9, 2011.
    The letter, dated February 2, 2011, informed Mr. Carson that the
    file would be made available at his convenience at the State
    Attorney’s office in Live Oak. Upon receiving the letter, Mr. Carson
    did not make arrangements to inspect the file, but a week later his
    client Mr. Johnson filed a public records lawsuit. 1
    1  An earlier motion to dismiss raised the issue of whether Mr.
    Johnson could file a public records lawsuit arising from a request
    filed solely in the name of Mr. Carson. This issue has evidently
    vanished from the case, though it isn’t completely clear why Mr.
    Johnson, instead of Mr. Carson, filed this lawsuit.
    3
    Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued final
    judgment for Mr. Johnson on the basis of an unjustified delay in
    State Attorney Jarvis’s response to Mr. Carson’s public records
    request. The court noted that it didn’t decide the issue based on
    the delayed delivery of the letter, which it considered de minimis
    and reasonable. But, instead, the unjustified delay arose from the
    State Attorney’s decision to make the records available for
    inspection and copying in Live Oak, instead of in Lake City. The
    court awarded Mr. Johnson his attorneys’ fees and costs under
    § 119.12, Florida Statutes, including a 1.5 fee multiplier
    corresponding to the hours spent by Mr. Carson and another
    attorney litigating the case. The current State Attorney for the
    Third Judicial Circuit, Mr. Siegmeister, then appealed.
    II.
    The issue in this appeal is whether the State Attorney
    unreasonably delayed producing the records requested by Mr.
    Carson. The parties don’t dispute the material facts involving the
    time it took the State Attorney’s response to be delivered to Mr.
    Carson, nor do they dispute that the response made the records
    available in Live Oak, instead of Lake City. We review de novo the
    trial court’s conclusion that these circumstances amounted to an
    unlawful refusal to provide the records under Florida’s Public
    Records Act. § 119.12, Fla. Stat. (2010); Althouse v. Palm Beach
    Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 
    92 So. 3d 899
    , 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012),
    disapproved on other grounds, Bd. of Trs., Jacksonville Police &
    Fire Pension Fund v. Lee, 
    189 So. 3d 120
    , 123 (Fla. 2016).
    The Florida Constitution provides to every person “the right
    to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection
    with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of
    the state,” except with respect to certain exempted records. Art. I,
    § 24(a), Fla. Const. This right is codified in chapter 119, Florida
    Statutes, the “Public Records Act.” The Public Records Act
    describes Florida’s policy that all state, county, and municipal
    records are open for personal inspection and copying by any
    person. § 119.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). Accordingly, “[p]roviding
    access to public records is a duty of each agency.” 
    Id. Every person
    with custody of a public record must allow the record “to be
    inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any
    4
    reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under
    supervision by the custodian of the public records.” § 119.07(1)(a),
    Fla. Stat. (2010). “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.”
    § 119.07(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). Section 119.12, Florida Statutes
    (2010), provides for reasonable costs and attorney fees if a court
    determines that an agency “unlawfully refused” to permit a public
    record to be inspected or copied.
    Violations of the Public Records Act encompass “not only
    affirmative refusal to produce records, but also unjustified delay in
    producing them.” Lilker v. Suwannee Valley Transit Auth., 
    133 So. 3d
    654, 655-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Promenade D’Iberville, LLC v.
    Sundy, 
    145 So. 3d 980
    , 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). But “a delay does
    not in and of itself create liability under section 119.12.” Consumer
    Rights, LLC v. Union Cty, Fla., 
    159 So. 3d 882
    , 885 (Fla. 1st DCA
    2015). “[R]easonable” delay is allowed. See 
    Johnson, 74 So. 3d at 170-71
    (remanding to determine “whether the delay was
    reasonable under the facts of this case”). Once a request to inspect
    public records is made, records custodians must respond promptly
    and in good faith, see § 119.07(1), determining, for instance, if they
    possess the records, retrieving the records, assessing whether
    exemptions apply, deleting those portions of the record believed to
    be exempt, notifying the requester, and making the non-exempt
    records available. See Tribune Co. v. Cannella, 
    458 So. 2d 1075
    ,
    1078 (Fla. 1984) (stating that the Public Records Act
    “contemplates . . . the reasonable custodial delay necessary to
    retrieve a record and review and excise exempt material”). Where
    the delays aren’t justified, however, the Public Records Act holds
    officials accountable.
    Turning to this case, we agree with the trial court that the
    two-week period it took for a letter to be delivered from State
    Attorney Jarvis in response to Mr. Carson’s request did not by
    itself breach the requirement to respond promptly and in good
    faith. The evidence indicated that only one week passed from the
    day Mr. Carson requested to inspect and copy the state attorney’s
    file in Lake City to the day State Attorney Jarvis approved the
    request. During that week, the relevant file was sent from the
    assistant state attorney (ASA) in Lake City to the State Attorney’s
    5
    main office in Live Oak. State Attorney Jarvis then had to review
    the file for exemptions. The ASA couldn’t have, for instance, simply
    handed over the records on the spot when Mr. Carson requested
    them in Lake City. 
    Id. at 1077
    (noting that “[t]o literally place the
    records on the table would be unrealistic”). The Act and office
    policy required that it be reviewed for exempt information by the
    public records custodian (who also was responsible for supervising
    the record inspection and copying process). See § 119.07(1)(a).
    Within a week of receiving the request, State Attorney Jarvis
    drafted a letter on February 2, 2011, approving Mr. Carson’s
    request and making the records available to him. After drafting
    the approval letter, an administrative snafu or postal service delay
    caused the approval letter’s delivery to be delayed for a few days.
    Mr. Carson didn’t receive the approval letter in his mailbox until
    five business days after State Attorney Jarvis drafted it, on
    February 9, 2011.
    These circumstances don’t violate the Public Records Act. The
    Act demands prompt attention and a reasonable response time, not
    the quickest-possible response. A few business days’ delay in the
    delivery of mail is unremarkable. See, e.g., Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(e)
    (adding 5 days to the prescribed period for service by mail). There
    is no indication here that State Attorney Jarvis intentionally or
    unjustifiably delayed responding for these days. See 
    Cannella, 458 So. 2d at 1078-79
    (finding an intentional policy to delay public
    records responses to be impermissible under the Act). And even if
    optimal delivery efficiency had been achieved, it would have saved
    just a few days, which the trial court rightly found to be “de
    minimis and reasonable” under the circumstances. See Molter v.
    State, 
    892 So. 2d 1115
    , 1119 (2d DCA 2004) (noting that the law
    does not concern itself with trifles); see also Walton Cty. v. Stop the
    Beach Renourishment, Inc., 
    998 So. 2d 1102
    , 1118 (Fla. 2008)
    (same). 2
    2 The delivery delay here didn’t come close to approaching the
    length of delay of cases where courts have found an unlawful
    refusal to provide public records. See, e.g., Promenade 
    D’Iberville, 145 So. 3d at 982-83
    (sixty-three days); Office of State Att’y for
    Thirteenth Jud. Cir. of Fla. v. Gonzalez, 
    953 So. 2d 759
    , 765 (Fla.
    2d DCA 2007) (more than ninety days). Also, unlike in Grapski v.
    6
    Where our analysis diverges from the judgment below is in its
    conclusion that the State Attorney violated the Public Records Act
    by making the records available at the main Third Judicial Circuit
    State Attorney’s office in Live Oak, instead of in Lake City. The
    trial court concluded that making Mr. Carson drive twenty-five
    miles from Lake City to Live Oak to inspect and copy the records
    amounted to an unjustifiable delay in violation of the Public
    Records Act. The Act requires “[e]very person who has custody of
    a public record [to] permit the record to be inspected and copied at
    any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under
    supervision by the custodian of the public records.” § 119.07(1)(a),
    Fla. Stat. The Act does not define “reasonable” as requiring
    government officials to move records from where they are being
    maintained to a different place convenient to the requester. Nor do
    other cases support this argument. See Roesch v. State, 
    633 So. 2d 1
    , 2 (Fla. 1993) (holding that it would be unreasonable to require
    state attorneys to send their original files to prisons throughout
    the state every time an indigent defendant demanded it, and that
    a prisoner was in the “same position as anyone else seeking public
    records . . . who cannot afford the trip to personally examine the
    records”); Campbell v. State, 
    593 So. 2d 1148
    , 1149-50 (Fla. 1st
    DCA 1992) (same). By making the records available at his main
    office in Live Oak, where they had been reviewed for exemptions
    pending Mr. Carson’s inspection, State Attorney Jarvis satisfied
    his legal obligation. His office was a reasonable place to make the
    State Attorney’s records available in the Third Circuit, even if Mr.
    Carson had to drive some twenty-five miles to view them. 3
    City of Alachua, 
    31 So. 3d 193
    (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), there is no
    evidence that the state attorney’s response was delayed for
    strategic reasons. This case also does not involve a situation like
    in Hewlings v. Orange County, 
    87 So. 3d 839
    , 841 (Fla. 5th DCA
    2012), where an official responded quickly in writing that they
    would comply with a request, but then delayed in actually
    complying with the request for forty-five days.
    3 The Third Judicial Circuit encompasses seven counties, with
    Live Oak, located in Suwannee County, situated close to the center
    of the circuit.
    7
    Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that State
    Attorney Jarvis violated the Public Records Act, or unlawfully
    refused to permit a public record to be inspected or copied under
    the Act. 4
    III.
    For these reasons, the final judgment, as well as the order
    awarding Appellee’s costs and attorneys’ fees, are reversed.
    REVERSED.
    WOLF and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Arthur I. Jacobs, Richard J. Scholz, and Douglas A. Wyler of
    Jacobs Scholz & Assoc., LLC, Fernandina Beach, for Appellant.
    Kevin K. Carson, Lake City, and Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, for
    Appellee.
    4  We note that Mr. Carson had another avenue for receiving
    copies of the documents more quickly. He could have had the State
    Attorney’s office copy and mail the records pursuant to their policy,
    instead of asking to inspect them in person. But, according to the
    final judgment, “Mr. Carson made no effort (1) to contact the Office
    of the State Attorney to inspect the records, (2) to request that the
    records be sent via mail to him directly, or (3) to request that the
    records be transported to the Lake City office for inspection.”
    8