Schweickert v. Citrus County Florida Board
193 So. 3d 1075
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- In June 2014 County Administrator Brad Thorpe sent a formal complaint alleging Commissioner Scott Adams created a hostile work environment; supporting documents were attached.
- The Board hired private investigator Dorothy F. Green to investigate the complaint; publisher Robert A. Schweickert, Jr. (Groundhog News) requested Green’s investigation-related records in September 2014.
- Green initially refused, citing exemption §119.071(2)(g)1. (investigatory records relating to certain discrimination complaints), but said she would provide notes after the investigation finished.
- Schweickert filed a public-records enforcement action in October 2014 seeking production and attorney’s fees; Green provided her report after suit was filed but before an amended complaint.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice as moot; the Fifth DCA reversed and remanded for determination and award of reasonable fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after production of records | Schweickert: production after suit does not moot fee claim | Board: production moots the action, dismissal proper | Production did not moot fee claim; remand to determine fees |
| Entitlement to attorney's fees under §119.12 | Schweickert: delay/unlawful refusal entitles him to fees | Board: no unlawful refusal because exemption justified delay | Court held fees may be awarded; remand for determination |
| Applicability of §119.071(2)(g)1. exemption | Schweickert: Thorpe’s complaint did not allege protected-class discrimination, so exemption inapplicable | Board: investigation could generate discrimination-related records so delay was justified | Exemption does not apply here; delay was unlawful |
| Use of “tipsy coachman” to affirm dismissal | Board: alternative legal basis (exemption applies) supports dismissal | Schweickert: exemption inapplicable; dismissal improper | Court rejected tipsy coachman argument because exemption does not fit facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992) (mootness doctrine and exceptions where collateral consequences or recurring issues exist)
- Mazer v. Orange County, 811 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (post-suit production does not moot fee claim; remand to determine entitlement to §119.12 fees)
- Barfield v. Town of Eatonville, 675 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (purpose of §119.12 is to encourage voluntary agency compliance; unjustified delay can be an unlawful refusal)
- Seminole County v. Wood, 512 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (public-records exemptions construed narrowly; Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure)