LEGAL
Finally, Public Agency Does Not Have to Pay Media’s Attorneys’ Fee under Florida Public Records Act By: Leonard Dietzen and Leslie Lagomasino Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell
In State Attorney’s Office of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, et al., v. Cable News Network, Inc., et al.,i the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the School Board of Broward County is not required to pay the Media Parties’ attorneys’ fees and costs for withholding video footage of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.ii Although the Court upheld the trial court’s decision requiring the Board to release the footage, it explained that the Board’s refusal was required by statute and therefore its actions were not unlawful such that it should be required to pay the Media Parties’ fees.
In order to evaluate law enforcement’s response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the Media Parties requested copies of certain portions of the High School’s exterior video surveillance re- cordings under Chapter 119, Florida Public Records Act. The Broward Sheriff’s Office, the School Board of Broward County, and the State Attorney’s Office refused, arguing that the footage was exempt from dis- closure.
As a result, the Media Parties sued the Board alleging that “good cause” existed in the form of “extreme public interest” in the “response of law enforcement officers during the shooting and immediately there- after” justifying disclosure. The Board argued that the footage was exempt from disclosure under the “security plan exemption,” Section 119.071(3)(a), Florida Statutes, because it could reveal information related to the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the school’s security systems, imperiling the safety of its students and employees. After several evidentiary hearings, the trial court ruled that the video recordings were public records, and that the “public’s right to be informed” constituted “good cause” for disclosure, outweighing the harm caused by the release of minimal information about the school’s security system. The Board complied with the trial court’s initial order to release certain footage, but appealed the court’s second order requiring the release of additional footage.
On appeal, the Board argued that the video surveillance of the High School directly related to the school’s security systems and plan, exempting it from disclosure under Section 119.071. Further, the Board main- tained that while the Florida Public Records Act does not define “good cause,” analogous case law provides guidance on the “good cause exception” to the security plan exemption, and, under that frame- work, more is required to meet the good cause standard than a mere showing of the public’s need for the information.
In response, the Media Parties contended that because the trial court found that the footage revealed only minimal information about the school’s security system, the “security plan exemption” did not apply. Moreover, even if it did apply, the Media Parties pointed to the trial court’s review of witness testimony, documentary evidence, and the video footage itself as sufficiently supporting a finding that the good cause exception to the exemption applied. The Media Parties further argued that because the Board’s refusal to disclose the videos was therefore unlawful, they were entitled to attorneys’ fees under Section 119.12(1) (a), Florida Statutes.
10
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32
