Public Records Requests During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Florida's Public Records Act requires public records custodians to "acknowledge requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such requests in good faith."
April 24, 2020 at 11:26 AM
5 minute read
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused nations and organizations across the world to take emergency action to safeguard public health. Courts, public schools and colleges, municipalities, and other agencies throughout Florida, and across the nation, have temporarily closed office buildings, suspended or reduced operations, and instituted work from home policies. Federal, state, and local governments have requested that residents practice social distancing, and some states have even implemented "stay-at-home" orders.
Notwithstanding these unprecedented times, agencies continue to have an obligation to acknowledge and respond to public records requests. Florida's Public Records Act requires public records custodians to "acknowledge requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such requests in good faith." Fla. Stat. Section 119.07. A delay in responding to a public records request can amount to a violation of the Public Records Act if it is "unjustified." Notably, a delay "does not in and of itself create liability" under the Public Records Act, reasonable delay is permissible. See Siegmeister v. Johnson, 240 So. 3d 70, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), reh'g denied (Mar. 28, 2018), review denied, No. SC18-637, (Fla. July 5, 2018). Where delay is at issue, courts determine whether the delay in responding to public records requests was justified by analyzing the facts of the particular case. In analyzing the delay, courts often look to the amount of time between the receipt of the request and production of public records and the reason for the delay.
Agencies subject to Florida's Public Records Act should continue to promptly acknowledge public records requests as they receive them, and should advise requestors of any anticipated delays in searching for or providing responsive public records due to limited information technology "IT) or clerical staff, remote employees, or restricted access to paper records as a result of the agency's COVID-19 precautions. During these extraordinary times, agencies should review all written or online publications identifying their designated custodian of public records. Agencies that receive public records via regular mail should consider temporarily modifying their procedures so that all public records requests are directed to a designated email account or online database. Alternatively, agencies should direct that public records requests sent by mail be sent to an address that is accessible to the agency during the pandemic. This is particularly important for agencies that do not have access to their office buildings during the pandemic, as well as agencies that have implemented remote policies in response to the pandemic. Such measures are necessary to ensure the agency fulfills its obligation to "acknowledge requests to inspect or copy records promptly."
Agencies should also continue to work towards fulfilling public records requests to the extent possible. The Public Records Act requires that agencies permit records "to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of public records." Fla. Stat. Section 119.07(1)(a). This obligation may prove particularly challenging if the agency's office is closed, as the custodian may not be able to enter the office building. Moreover, federal, state, and local governments may implement orders urging (and even requiring) residents to stay home. Even if the agency could overcome these obstacles, the agency must consider safety and health risks to the custodian supervising the inspection of public records. Agencies that have closed their offices in response to a pandemic may rely on the Public Records Act's "reasonableness" standard if they are unable to promptly provide access to responsive public records as a result of the pandemic. However, agencies should still notify requests of the anticipated delay and reasons for the delay, and should contact requestors once the records are accessible.
For public records requests seeking electronic public records, such as emails, agencies should, to the extent possible, follow their standard procedures with respect to informing their IT department of the request. Notably, even if the agency's IT department is able to conduct the search remotely, that is often just the first stage of the process. The agency may be entitled to collect a special service charge before providing the records to the requestor. The agency may also be required to review the records to determine whether an exemption applies and redact any information that is exempt from disclosure. This process may cause a lengthier response time than would otherwise be required absent the agency's COVID-19 protocols.
Once agencies resume normal operations, it is imperative that they fulfill any outstanding public records requests, and promptly advise requestors of the times when inspection of public records will be permitted.
Given the multitude of legal and practical issues facing agencies that receive public records request during a pandemic, agencies subject to Florida's Public Records Act should consult with legal counsel to formulate clear and concise policies for acknowledging and responding to public records requests in a remote environment.
Jose Ferrer is a partner and Desiree Fernandez is an attorney with Bilzin Sumberg in Miami.
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
© 2024 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 AllFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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