State Appeals in Battle Over COVID-19 Data
The Florida Department of Health contends that a state rule gives it authority to determine whether confidential epidemiological data should be released.
February 07, 2022 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
The Florida Department of Health has gone to an appeals court in a battle about whether it should provide daily COVID-19 data, as it seeks to be shielded from explaining officials' decision-making about releasing the information.
Attorneys for the department filed a petition late Wednesday at the 1st District Court of Appeal as part of a lawsuit filed in August by the Florida Center for Government Accountability and state Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando, and later joined by several media organizations.
The underlying lawsuit alleges the Department of Health violated public-records laws by turning down requests for daily COVID-19 data. The data, in part, would have provided county and demographic information about COVID-19 cases.
But the two sides have tangled for months about depositions of department officials and the plaintiffs' attempts to get information about why the department decided against releasing daily COVID-19 data. The department issued daily reports until June but then shifted to posting weekly information that is far less detailed.
The appeal this week stemmed from an order that Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper issued Jan. 3. That order rejected a department request for a protective order to prevent a deposition of a department representative about details of the agency's decision-making.
The department contends that a state rule gives it authority to determine whether confidential epidemiological data should be released. As a result, it argues that the plaintiffs should be required to challenge the rule in an administrative proceeding, rather than seeking the information in circuit court.
"(The rule) provides, unambiguously, that the department has the authority to determine when the exception to the public records exemption at issue should be applied, i.e., when otherwise confidential epidemiological information may be released as necessary for public health," the 46-page petition said. "There can be no serious question that by arguing that the trial court, not the department, should determine what otherwise confidential epidemiological data must be disseminated in the interest of public health, respondents (the plaintiffs in circuit court) seek to interject a quintessential challenge to administrative action that is subject to administrative exhaustion requirements."
But Cooper, in his Jan. 3 order, rejected such arguments and pointed to part of the Florida Constitution that guarantees access to public records.
"Only the Legislature can create statutory exemptions from disclosure under the Public Records Act," Cooper wrote. "It is well established that a court may not create or expand a statutory exemption from disclosure. It follows that an agency may not redefine a statutory exemption from disclosure through an administrative rule."
In the petition, the department also argued that requiring it to provide information about the decision-making would violate the constitutional separation of powers.
"Respondents seek information not only about the thoughts and actions of the department's high-ranking officials, but also all verbal communications between the department, its sister agencies and the office of the governor concerning discretionary acts," the department's attorneys wrote. "Unambiguous First District (Court of Appeal) precedent makes clear that this level of inquiry into the rationale underpinning the thoughts and actions of high-ranking executive branch officials would also violate separation of powers principles."
Anticipating the appeal, Cooper placed a stay on the underlying case until the issues about the department's decision-making are resolved.
Smith and the non-profit Florida Center for Government Accountability made public-records requests in July and August seeking daily information about COVID-19 cases, positivity rates, hospitalizations, deaths and vaccinations. They filed the lawsuit after the department denied the requests.
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 AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Attorneys Battle PPP Loan-Forgiveness Woes for Hotel Clients
Returning to Court in a Post-COVID Era: The Pros and Cons of a Virtual Court System
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
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