113 So. 3d 117
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- The Florida Legislature petitioned for certiorari review of a trial court order allowing depositions of legislators and staff and requiring production of draft reapportionment maps for in camera review.
- The plan at issue, CS/SB 1174, established new Congressional districts based on the 2010 Census and was challenged as violating Art. III, §20 of the Florida Constitution by favoring Republicans/incumbents and diluting minority influence.
- Respondents sought discovery of legislators’ intent and actions in the reapportionment process, including subjective communications and unfiled draft maps and supporting documents.
- The trial court adopted a subjective/objective information dichotomy and conditioned production of documents on this standard, with an in camera review to resolve disputes.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari, quashed the depositions and the application of the dichotomy to draft maps, and remanded for in camera review consistent with the opinion and public records law.
- The court held that, on remand, any documents not exempt by statute must be produced, and that the scope of any exemptions should be determined via in camera review before production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certiorari review is appropriate | Respondents seek to prevent irreparable harm from privileged discovery. | The order is reviewable under certiorari to prevent improper discovery of privileged material. | Certiorari review granted to quash the order. |
| Whether the trial court departed from essential requirements by permitting depositions under legislative privilege | Questioning legislators is necessary to evaluate intent under Amendment 6. | Legislative privilege protects internal deliberations and intent; deposition of legislators is improper. | Yes; the order departed from essential requirements by allowing deposition of legislators and staff on matters within the privilege. |
| Whether the draft maps and supporting documents fall within the public records exemption | Drafts and related materials are exempt from disclosure and discovery under §11.0431(2)(e). | Documents related to the reapportionment process should be produced unless exempt, and exemption scope is unclear. | Remanded for in camera review to determine exemption scope; production may be required if not exempt. |
| Whether the court's use of an objective/subjective dichotomy is workable or permissible | The dichotomy is necessary to balance privilege with the legislature’s constitutional duties. | Dichotomy is unworkable and inconsistent with Expedia's broad protection of the legislative privilege. | Quashed; rejected as workable; privilege applies broadly to both subjective and objective information. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida House of Representatives v. Expedia, Inc., 85 So.3d 517 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (legislative privilege applies to essential legislative processes)
- Advisory Op. re Legislative Boundaries, 2 So.3d 175 (Fla.2009) (amendment aims to prohibit partisan/incumbent favoritism while respecting geographic considerations)
- In re Apportionment Law—March 2012, 83 So.3d 597 (Fla.2012) (identical language governs legislative apportionment standard; intent considerations explored)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (legislative history considered but testimony on motivations often privileged)
- United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1980) (recognizes limits of legislative privilege in nonlegislative contexts)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408 (D.C.Cir.1995) (documentary evidence can reveal acts or communications within privilege scope)
- National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (U.S. 2012) (certiorari considerations and limits on relief)