[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff made a specific request for public records;
2. the agency from which the records were requested is a public agency as defined in Section 119.011(2);
3. the agency has custody of the requested records;
4. the requested records are not exempt under Section 119.07; and
5. the agency failed or refused to comply with the request or caused an unjustified delay in providing the requested records.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff made a specific request for public records;
2. the agency from which the records were requested is a public agency as defined in Section 119.011(2);
3. the agency has custody of the requested records;
4. the requested records are not exempt under Section 119.07; and
5. the agency failed or refused to comply with the request or caused an unjustified delay in providing the requested records.

Fla. Stat. §§ 119.01, 119.011(2), 119.07; generally, Fla. Stat. Ch. 119.

To recover attorney’s fees, the plaintiff must also show that the plaintiff provided written notice identifying the public record request to the agency’s custodian of public records, separate from the initial records request, at least five business days before filing the civil action, except as provided under § 119.12(2).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Bd. of Trs. v. Lee, 189 So. 3d 120, 123–24 (Fla. 2016); State v. City of Clearwater, 863 So. 2d 149, 151–52 (Fla. 2003); Tribune Co. v. Canella, 458 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 1984).

First District: Executive Office of Governor v. Florida Ctr. for Gov't Accountability, Inc., 408 So. 3d 839, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025); Siegmeister v. Johnson, 240 So. 3d 70, 73–74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Promenade D’Iberville, LLC v. Sundy, 145 So. 3d 980, 983–84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Consumer Rights, LLC v. Bradford Cnty., 153 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Second District: Howard v. State, 378 So. 3d 684, 685–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); Off. of State Att’y for Thirteenth Jud. Cir. of Fla. v. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d 759, 762–63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007);  Times Publ’g Co. v. City of Clearwater, 830 So. 2d 844, 846–47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Third District: City of Miami Beach v. Miami New Times, LLC, 314 So. 3d 562, 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Stern v. City of Miami Beach, 359 So. 3d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

Fourth District: Moeller v. Se. Florida Behavioral Health Network, Inc., 392 So. 3d 579, 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024); Jackson v. City of S. Bay, Fla., 358 So. 3d 18, 21–22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); Roldan v. City of Hallandale Beach, 361 So. 3d 348, 352–54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); O’Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, 257 So. 3d 1036, 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Fifth District: Cookston v. Off. of Pub. Def., 204 So. 3d 480, 482–83 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Hewlings v. Orange Cnty., 87 So. 3d 839, 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Rameses, Inc. v. Demings, 29 So. 3d 418, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream, 942 F.3d 1277, 1282–83 (11th Cir. 2019).

Southern District: Kinsey v. Aledda, 2016 WL 11743154, at *11–12 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2016).

Middle District: Sovereign Health of Fla, Inc. v. City of Fort Myers, 2016 WL 5870213, at *12–13 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2016); Huggins v. Sch. Dist. of Manatee Cnty., 2022 WL 4095065, at *23–24 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2022).

Northern District: Bear v. Escambia Cnty. Bd., 2023 WL 2632103, at *10–14 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2023); Bear v. Escambia Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2021 WL 8267532, at *21–22 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2021); Folta v. New York Times Co., 2019 WL 1486776, at *7–8 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2019).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Public Records Act

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(e), (o) (four years).

(3) Production of the records after a lawsuit is filed does not moot the issues raised in the complaint. Puls v. City of Port St. Lucie, 678 So. 2d 514, 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

(4) The Public Records Act contemplates “only the reasonable custodial delay necessary to retrieve a record and review and excise exempt material” and does not demand the quickest possible response time. Tribune Co. v. Canella, 458 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 1984); Executive Office of Governor v. Florida Ctr. for Gov't Accountability, Inc., 408 So. 3d 839, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)(citing Siegmeister v. Johnson, 240 So. 3d 70, 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)).

(a) Because the statute does not provide a time limit to respond to records requests, the court must determine whether the delay was justified under the facts of the particular case. Citizens Awareness Found., Inc. v. Wantman Grp., Inc., 195 So. 3d 396, 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

(b) Courts frequently determine that unjustified delays exceeding six weeks violate the Act. See, e.g., Hewlings v. Orange Cnty., 87 So. 3d 839, 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (finding that a 45-day delay was unlawful); Promenade D’Iberville, LLC v. Sundy, 145 So. 3d 980, 982–83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (finding that a 63-day delay was unlawful); Off. of State Att’y for Thirteenth Jud. Cir. of Fla. v. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d 759, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (finding that an over 90-day delay was unlawful).

(c) Unjustifiable delay to the point of forcing a requester to file an enforcement action is by itself tantamount to an unlawful refusal to provide public records in violation of the Act. Promenade D’Iberville, LLC v. Sundy, 145 So. 3d 980, 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

(d) Section 119.07(1)(c) requires custodians of public records to promptly acknowledge requests to inspect records. However, acknowledgment without release of the requested records does not constitute compliance with the statute. See Hewlings v. Orange Cnty., 87 So. 3d 839, 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

(5) Entitlement to fees requires a finding (1) that the agency unlawfully refused to permit a public record to be inspected or copied and (2) that the complainant provided written notice five days prior to filing a civil action, except as provided under § 119.12(2). Roldan v. City of Hallandale Beach, 361 So. 3d 348, 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

(a) The plaintiff is not required to provide written notice of the public record request to the agency’s custodian of public records if the agency does not prominently post the contact information for the agency’s custodian of public records in the agency’s primary administrative building in which public records are routinely created, sent, received, maintained, and requested and on the agency’s website, if the agency has a website. Fla. Stat. § 119.12(2).

(b) There is no additional requirement that the public agency did not act in good faith, acted in bad faith, or acted unreasonably, before awarding attorney’s fees under the statute. Bd. of Trs. v. Lee, 189 So. 3d 120, 122 (Fla. 2016).

(6) Section 119.11 provides for an accelerated court hearing for actions filed to enforce the provisions of Section 119.07. E.g., Stern v. City of Miami Beach, 359 So. 3d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

(7) The Public Records Act conditions the production of records upon the payment of fees. Florida Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, 221 So. 3d 1260, 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

(8) If a custodian contends that all or part of the requested record is exempt from inspection and copying, Section 119.07(1)(e) requires them to state the basis of the exemption and provide a statutory citation if such exemption is created or afforded by statute. E.g., Jones v. Miami Herald Media Co., 198 So. 3d 1143, 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

(9) The term custodian under the Act refers to all agency personnel who have it within their power to release or communicate public records. Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683, 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

(10) In order to have custody, one must have supervision and control over the document or have legal responsibility for its care, keeping or guardianship. Mintus v. City of W. Palm Beach, 711 So. 2d 1359, 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

(11) Whether a custodian responds to public records requests in good faith as required by the statute is “necessarily a question for the court to decide based on the circumstances of a case.” Consumer Rights, LLC v. Union Cnty., Fla., 159 So. 3d 882, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

(12) A governmental agency may not avoid public records requests by transferring custody of its records to another agency. Chandler v. City of Sanford, 121 So. 3d 657, 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

[/MM_Access_Decision]