Judge Weighs Shielding Lawmakers, DeSantis Administration
The DeSantis administration argues it is shielded by legislative and executive privilege, along with the apex doctrine — arguments that the plaintiffs dispute.
October 21, 2022 at 10:20 AM
3 minute read
State and Local Government
A Leon County circuit judge Thursday heard arguments in disputes about whether state lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration should be shielded from providing testimony and information to groups challenging a congressional redistricting plan.
Judge J. Lee Marsh did not immediately rule after asking numerous questions of attorneys for the Senate, the House, the DeSantis administration and the plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the plan.
The House and Senate are seeking a protective order to prevent depositions of six key lawmakers and five current and former staff members. The DeSantis administration is trying to block release of a wide range of documents sought by the plaintiffs and to prevent a deposition of J. Alex Kelly, a deputy of chief of staff to the governor who helped steer the plan through the Legislature during an April special session.
The plaintiffs contend the plan, which is expected to add as many as four Republicans to the state's congressional delegation, violates a "Fair Districts" constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2010 to set guidelines for redistricting. The case also focuses heavily on how to apply a Florida Supreme Court ruling from litigation after the 2012 redistricting process.
Attorneys for the Senate and House on Thursday argued that lawmakers should be shielded from depositions by the legal concept of legislative privilege and what is known as the "apex doctrine." That doctrine generally prevents depositions of high-ranking officials if information can be obtained in other ways.
"We believe every legislator is a high-level government officer within the meaning of the (apex doctrine) rule," Senate attorney Daniel Nordby told Marsh.
But plaintiffs' attorney Christina Ford pointed to the basic definition of an apex, which is a high point, and disputed that the doctrine would apply to all 40 senators and 120 House members.
"An apex is not 160 people, plus some of their staff," she said.
Marsh indicated that he could see the doctrine applying to House Speaker Chris Sprowls, R-Palm Harbor, and chairmen of legislative committees. But he questioned why it would apply to Senate Reapportionment Chairman Ray Rodrigues, an Estero Republican who sponsored the congressional redistricting bill.
"This is the senator that introduced the legislation," Marsh said.
The DeSantis administration argues it is shielded by legislative and executive privilege, along with the apex doctrine — arguments that the plaintiffs dispute.
The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the congressional redistricting plan after it was proposed by DeSantis. Opponents, including groups such as the League of Women Voters of Florida, filed the lawsuit in April, alleging that the plan violates the Fair Districts amendment.
The case focuses heavily on Congressional District 5, which in recent years stretched from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee and elected U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, a Black Democrat. The plan put District 5 in the Jacksonville area and diminished the chances that it will elect a black candidate. Lawson this year is running in another North Florida district against Republican U.S. Rep. Neal Dunn.
Along with Sprowls and Rodrigues, the plaintiffs are seeking testimony from Sen. Aaron Bean, a Fernandina Beach Republican who is a top lieutenant to Senate President Wilton Simpson; Senate Congressional Reapportionment Chairwoman Jennifer Bradley, R-Fleming Island; House Redistricting Chairman Tom Leek, R-Ormond Beach; and House Congressional Redistricting Chairman Tyler Sirois, R-Merritt Island. Also, they want depositions of current and former legislative staff members including House Chief of Staff Mat Bahl.
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 AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Year-End Tax Planning: How Real Estate Investors Can Leverage Qualified Opportunity Funds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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