HEATHER MORRIS
v.
CITY OF MIAMI

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-12-18
No. 2023-1127
Logue, C.J., Emas, J., Scales, J., Fajardo Orshan, J.
2024 FL 14141 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

A trial court must adjudicate whether a public entity has complied with its Public Records Act obligations before entering final judgment, as this threshold determination is necessary to determine whether further discovery is warranted.

Headnotes

[1] In a public records action under chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes, a trial court must adjudicate whether the public entity has complied with its obligation to produce…

[2] The threshold issue of compliance with Public Records Act obligations is necessary to determine whether further discovery is warranted and must be resolved before a trial…

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Key Quotes

“This threshold determination is crucial. If, indeed, the City has complied, then further discovery is obviously unnecessary, and the final judgment was properly entered. If the City has not complied, then the trial court must exercise its discretion in determining whether the requested or other discovery is warranted.”

Establishes that adjudication of compliance with the Public Records Act is a prerequisite to determining the appropriateness of further discovery and entry of final judgment.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Morris, a former deputy police chief, submitted a public records request to the City of Miami on November 17, 2021, seeking twenty-three sets of emplo…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1127 Lower Tribunal No. 22-1981 ________________

Heather Morris, Appellant,

vs.

City of Miami, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge.

Dhillon Law Group, Inc., and Matthew Seth Sarelson and Zachary Stoner (West Palm Beach), for appellant.

George K. Wysong, III, City Attorney, and Eric J. Eves, Senior Appellate Counsel, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

SCALES, J.

2

In this public records case, appellant Heather Morris appeals a final judgment in her favor, entered by the trial court after appellee City of Miami conceded it had unreasonably delayed responding to Morris’s public records request. We reverse the final judgment because the trial court has yet to adjudicate the issue of whether the City has complied with its obligations under the Public Records Act, chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes, by producing the public records requested by Morris.

I.

Relevant Background On November 17, 2021, Morris, a former deputy police chief of the City, sent a public records request to the City seeking twenty-three sets of records related to her employment with the City. Her public records request sought production of, among other things, her personnel file, the City’s public records policies and procedures, minutes of City Commission meetings, as well as phone logs and emails of City Commissioners. Alleging that the City had not complied with its obligations under chapter 119, Morris, on February2, 2022, filed a single-count complaint seeking an order from the trial court requiring the City to produce the documents which Morris alleged the City had not produced. Morris also

3 moved for an accelerated hearing pursuant to section 119.11 of the Florida Statutes.1 During the litigation, Morris unilaterally set for deposition the City’s records custodian. The City filed a motion for protective order (which was not adjudicated) while Morris filed a motion to compel the deposition. On July 25, 2022, the City filed a notice of stipulation admitting liability for an unreasonable delay in responding to Morris’s public records request. The City stipulated that Morris was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 119.12(1) of the Florida Statutes, but the City did not stipulate to an amount of fees. On September 8, 2022, the City moved for entry of final judgment in favor of Morris, requesting the trial court to enter judgment in Morris’s favor, and reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount of statutory fees to which Morris was entitled. On April 10, 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing on both Morris’s motion to compel the records custodian deposition and the City’s motion for entry of final judgment. Morris opposed the City’s motion, arguing that entry of final judgment would be premature because the City

II.

Analysis In her appeal, Morris asserts that the City’s concession to liability and the trial court’s final judgment effectively blocked her attempts to depose the City’s records custodian, and thus the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to compel.2 Akerman LLP, 320 So. 3d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Footnotes
1 In relevant part, section 119.11 provides as follows: “Whenever an action is filed to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the court shall set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases.” § 119.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2022).
2 Our review, though, is stymied because it appears the trial court has not adjudicated the issue of whether the City produced the public records requested by Morris. While at oral argument, the 2 The standard of review of a discovery order is abuse of discretion. Tien v.
4 had not produced the requested records and that she was entitled to ascertain through the deposition the policies and procedures of the City in order to understand whether the City was properly preserving public records. The City argued that it had complied with Morris’s public records request, making the records custodian deposition unnecessary. The trial court denied Morris’s motion to compel, observing that, at this stage of the litigation, Morris seemed to be on a “fishing expedition.” On May 24, 2023, the trial court entered a final judgment in Morris’s favor and later affixed fees at $29,227.89. Morris appeals both the final judgment and the trial court’s interlocutory order denying her motion to compel the deposition of the City’s records custodian.
5 parties disagreed as to whether the City had complied with its chapter 119 obligations, the parties agreed that the trial court never adjudicated this issue, and nowhere in the record does it appear that this issue was adjudicated. This threshold determination is crucial. If, indeed, the City has complied, then further discovery is obviously unnecessary, and the final judgment was properly entered. If the City has not complied, then the trial court must exercise its discretion in determining whether the requested or other discovery is warranted. Thus, we do not reach the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying Morris’s motion to compel. And we decline the parties’ invitation to adjudicate the compliance issue in the first instance and express no opinion as to whether the City has complied with chapter 119. We reverse the challenged final judgment and remand with instructions for the trial court to undertake whatever proceedings it deems necessary to adjudicate the issue of whether the City has complied with its obligations under chapter 119, and then to conduct whatever subsequent proceedings the trial court deems appropriate, depending on the result of such adjudication. See Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that the trial court erred in dismissing a mandamus action to
6 compel the production of public records before resolving whether the public records existed). Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw