Report of Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records

825 So. 2d 889, 2002 WL 351500
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 12, 2002
DocketSC01-897
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 825 So. 2d 889 (Report of Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Report of Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records, 825 So. 2d 889, 2002 WL 351500 (Fla. 2002).

Opinion

825 So.2d 889 (2002)

REPORT OF THE SUPREME COURT WORKGROUP ON PUBLIC RECORDS.

No. SC01-897.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 7, 2002.
Revised on Grant of Clarification September 12, 2002.

The Honorable Charles J. Kahn, Jr., Chair, Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records, The Honorable James R. Wolf, Chair, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, FL; and The Honorable Robert L. Shevin, Chair of the Supreme Court Jury Innovations Committee, Miami, FL, Petitioner.

The Honorable John C. Lenderman, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, St. Petersburg, FL; Gregg D. Thomas and Rachel E. Fugate of Holland & Knight LLP, Tampa, FL, and David S. Bralow, Senior Counsel, Tribune Company, Orlando, FL, for The Orlando Sentinel; B. Lynn Rawls, Operations and Management Consultant II, Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services, Tallahassee, FL; and Patricia A. Hargraves, Records Management Director, Hernando County Clerk's Office, Brooksville, FL, Responding.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records petitions this Court to consider amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. We have jurisdiction. See art. I, § 24, art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. Having reviewed the petition and considered the comments and the oral arguments, we adopt all of the Workgroup's proposals. The rules amendments and the retention schedule are set forth in the appendix; proposals that do not pertain to rules amendments will be addressed administratively. We have edited the rules and retention schedule for style and grammar.

By administrative order No. AOSC00-31, dated September 18, 2000, the Chief Justice created the Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records. The Workgroup was given the assignment of reviewing issues concerning judicial branch public records and making recommendations to the Court to amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration or adopt Supreme Court policies. The Workgroup held several meetings over the course of seven months and identified the following areas for review: (1) access to judicial branch records; (2) retention of judicial branch records; (3) fees for copies of administrative records; (4) exemptions from access to public records; (5) education and training of judges and court personnel on public records issues; (6) copyrighting of records; and (7) changing technology and access.

*890 The Workgroup proposes amendments to address the seven categories, including amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.030, 2.040, 2.051, and 2.075, the adoption of new rule 2.076, and a Judicial Branch Retention Schedule for Administrative Records. Many of the proposals concern administrative records of the judicial branch, which is a category of records not currently covered by the rules. The proposals were published and comments were received. The Workgroup considered all of the comments and filed its response.

The Honorable Robert L. Shevin, Chair of the Supreme Court Jury Innovations Committee, suggested adding to the Judicial Branch Retention Schedule for Administrative Records a subsection on juror notes. The Honorable James R. Wolf, Chair of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, suggested adding to the Retention Schedule a subsection on judicial financial disclosure forms and judicial complaints. The Workgroup agreed with these suggestions, and we adopt them as proposed.

In response to concerns relative to access to public records expressed by the publisher of The Orlando Sentinel, we note that the requirement that all requests for access to judicial records be in writing is intended to facilitate access to public records rather than to impede it. The Workgroup proposed this amendment to assist both the records custodian and the requestor so that both sides would clearly understand what records are being requested. The writing requirement is not intended to be a procedural obstacle, drowning the requestor in excessive formalities and deterring individuals from seeking access to judicial records. Records custodians must not place form over substance, and as long as the custodian can identify the record requested, the custodian must produce the record. To reinforce that the intent of the writing requirement is to facilitate access, and not to exclude or bar anyone from such access, we have amended the commentary to new rule 2.051 to clarify that persons having difficulty writing their requests for judicial branch records may seek assistance from the records custodians in meeting the writing requirement set forth in rule 2.051(e)(1). Further, records custodians should take any other reasonable steps to ensure that individuals obtain access to the judicial records they seek.

We wish to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the members of the Workgroup and the commentators for their time and effort in undertaking the task of addressing judicial branch public records issues.

Accordingly, we amend the Rules of Judicial Administration and adopt the Judicial Branch Retention Schedule for Administrative Records as provided in the appendix. In approving these amendments, we express no opinion as to their constitutionality. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments and schedule shall take effect on the filing of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 2.030 THE SUPREME COURT

(a) Internal Government.

(1) Exercise of Powers and Jurisdiction. The supreme court shall exercise its powers and jurisdiction en banc. Five justices shall constitute a quorum and the concurrence of 4 shall be necessary to a decision. In cases requiring only a panel of 5, if 4 of *891 the 5 justices who consider the case do not concur, it shall be submitted to the other 2 justices.

(2) Chief Justice.

(A) The chief justice shall be chosen by majority vote of the justices for a term commencing on July 1 of even-numbered years. If a vacancy occurs, a successor shall be chosen promptly to serve the balance of the unexpired term.

(B) The chief justice shall have the following administrative powers and duties. The chief justice shall:

(i) be the administrative officer of the court and shall be responsible for the dispatch of its business;

(ii) have the power to act on requests for stays during the pendency of proceedings, to order the consolidation of cases, to determine all procedural motions and petitions relating to the time for filing and size of briefs and other papers provided for under the rules of this court, to advance or continue cases, and to rule on other procedural matters relating to any proceeding or process in the court;

(iii) have the power to assign active or retired county, circuit, or appellate judges or justices to judicial service in this state, in accordance with subdivisions (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this rule;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420
124 So. 3d 819 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2013)
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.430
973 So. 2d 437 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)
State v. City of Clearwater
863 So. 2d 149 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Med. Gen. Con., Inc. v. Chief Judge of Thir. Jud. Circuit
840 So. 2d 1008 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Times Publishing Co. v. City of Clearwater
830 So. 2d 844 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
825 So. 2d 889, 2002 WL 351500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/report-of-supreme-court-workgroup-on-public-records-fla-2002.