State Appellate Court Backs House in Emeril Subpoena Fight
The House in late 2017 and early 2018 sought information about MAT Media's costs in producing the show "Emeril's Florida," amid a broader probe into Visit Florida contracts.
February 10, 2020 at 10:57 AM
4 minute read
Saying the request "falls squarely within a legitimate legislative investigation," an appeals court backed the Florida House's effort to subpoena information related to contracts for a taxpayer-funded television show hosted by famed chef Emeril Lagasse.
A three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal overturned a circuit judge's ruling that blocked the House from subpoenaing records from MAT Media, LLC, which received more than $10 million through contracts with the state tourism-marketing agency Visit Florida.
The House in late 2017 and early 2018 sought information about MAT Media's costs in producing the show "Emeril's Florida," amid a broader probe into Visit Florida contracts. The firm and its director, Pat Roberts, argued, at least in part, that the disputed information involved private records that were not pertinent to the House investigation.
After conducting what is known as an "in camera" review of the records, then-Leon County Circuit Judge Karen Gievers agreed with MAT Media and Roberts. But the appeals court issued a 10-page ruling Friday that rejected the decision by Gievers, who has retired as a judge.
"MAT Media and Mr. Roberts do not question the authority of the House to investigate the integrity of MAT Media's publicly funded contracts with Visit Florida and the quality of their procurement. Neither did the trial court," said the appeals court ruling, written by Chief Judge Stephanie Ray and joined by judges James Wolf and Timothy Osterhaus. "Rather, based on its in-camera review of the records responsive to the legislative subpoena, the trial court determined that the records would not assist the House with its investigation and that disclosure would improperly invade the privacy interests of MAT Media and Mr. Roberts. In reaching this result, however, the trial court applied an overly narrow relevancy standard and went too far by basing its decision on its in-camera review of the substance of the records responsive to the request."
The contracts for the television show have been part of a controversy during the past few years about Visit Florida's spending and House efforts to eliminate the tourism-marketing agency. The House also has questioned such things as a past promotional contract with the Miami rapper Pitbull and a contract with an auto-racing team known as Visit Florida Racing.
The fate of Visit Florida is a closely watched issue during this year's legislative session, as the agency will be eliminated July 1 unless it is reauthorized. The Senate and Gov. Ron DeSantis support keeping the agency, while House leaders want to end it.
The legal fight, however, has focused on whether the House could use its subpoena power to force MAT Media and Roberts to turn over the disputed financial records. In a brief filed at the appeals court, House attorneys argued the House was seeking the documents "as part of its broad power to investigate the use of public funds and the value returned to the state on those expenditures."
"The House requests that remain at issue are specifically directed to records containing the type of information already provided to the state and relating directly to taxpayer funded contracts," the House brief said. "The House's subpoenas are not far-reaching, sweeping, omnibus, or invasive. The records have already been identified, they are in the possession of MAT Media or Mr. Roberts, and they contain the type of information found in other documents produced (to) the House or provided to the state. On their face, the House's subpoenas are well within both its investigatory authority and the bounds of permissible investigatory subpoenas."
But in a brief filed early last year, attorneys for MAT Media and Roberts disputed the House position. The firm and Visit Florida entered the contracts between 2012 and 2016, according to the brief.
"The Legislature's investigation related solely to the establishment of the contracts at issue, the 'use of taxpayer dollars,' and Visit Florida's return on investment in such contracts," the brief said. "The documents sought via the subpoenas, however, are the private records of a private individual and entity which relate solely to how the private individual and entity spent their income after fulfillment of the contracts. Accordingly, the documents do not provide any relevant information relating to the establishment of the contracts at issue, the 'use of taxpayer dollars,' or Visit Florida's return on investment. The documents sought in the subpoenas, therefore, are not pertinent to a legitimate legislative investigation."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250