AgroSource, Inc. v. Florida Department of Citrus

148 So. 3d 138, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15246, 2014 WL 4851696

Opinions

BLACK, Judge.

AgroSource, Inc., appeals the order denying access to twenty-two emails that were the subject of a public records request, asserting that the trial court did not conduct a proper inspection of these documents. We affirm because the trial court’s determination that the responsive emails¹ were exempt from disclosure is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Bryan v. Butterworth, 692 So.2d 878, 881 (Fla.1997) (holding that where “the record shows that competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings” that the documents were exempt from disclosure, said findings will not be “second guess[ed]”). The trial court considered the testimony of the authoring attorney and performed an in camera inspection of the documents, and there is no indication from the record that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the responsive emails were exempt from disclosure. See id.

MORRIS, J., Concurs. ALTENBERND, J., Concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

Footnotes

1

. The first email predated the time frame of AgroSource’s request, and the trial court found that email to be nonresponsive to the request.