140 So. 3d 1080
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant sought a writ of mandamus to compel production of public records from the City under the Public Records Act.
- Trial court dismissed for lack of standing, noting no identifiable connection between appellant and the email address used to request records.
- Petition attached emails showing requests sent from the same email address, implying ownership or use by appellant.
- City clerk asked creator to fill out a form on the city’s web page to determine costs; no form was filled.
- After petition, the city provided a cost estimate ($0.90) but the petition proceeded; court reviews de novo.
- Court reverses, holding the petition shows standing and that the city cannot condition access on supplying identifying information or a form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant had standing to seek mandamus relief | Appellant’s emails show he sent the requests and thus has standing. | Standing requires an identifiable connection to the requester; no linkage shown. | Yes; petition sufficiently alleged standing. |
| Whether the city could properly condition access on completing its form | Anonymous requester should not be forced to disclose identifying information to inspect records. | Form is a reasonable condition to determine costs and prevent abuse. | City could not properly condition disclosure on filling the form or providing payment information; access should not be chilled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (mandamus and public records context; timing of production)
- Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2006) (standing requires demonstration of likely effect on the litigant)
- Gordon v. Kleinman, 120 So.3d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (consider exhibits attached to complaint as part of four corners of pleading)
- Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (cannot require requester to disclose identifying information to inspect records)
- Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (motive for seeking records irrelevant to access rights)
- Sullivan v. City of New Port Richey, 529 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (failure to complete form does not justify denial of access)
- Wait v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1979) (public records access and reasonable regulations)
- Woodard v. State, 885 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (custodian may demand cost information; duty to respond with cost)
- Wootton v. Cook, 590 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (response timing for cost of records)