Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi
Appellate Alert
__________________________________________________________________
Date issued: 02/03/2015
Editor: Betsy Stupski
Clicking the icon following the number of each case cited below will link you directly to the cited opinion. In addition, full texts of recent slip opinions are available by clicking "VIEW" at the top of your screen, then "SLIP OPINIONS." AGOs are available in the separate AGO database.
Appellate Alert 2015-2
February 3, 2015
Fifth District Court of Appeal
Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority v. post-Newsweek Stations 5D14-360
1/30/15
Camera footage from central Florida bus service was exempt from disclosure as a public record.
A media outlet sued to get access to public bus camera footage. Lynx, the central Florida bus service provider refused, arguing that the footage was part of a security system and, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Florida public records law. The trial court issued a declaratory judgment in favor of the news station, saying that the videos did not fall within the exemption.
The Fifth District reversed stating, “We reverse and remand on the first count, holding the security footage is not subject to inspection under the Public Records Act.”
5D14-2360
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia
Eastern District of Virginia
Turton v. Virginia Department of Education 14-446
1/16/15
Rule 11 sanctions were awarded against Plaintiff who, without legal or factual basis, included Defendants’ attorney as a Defendant.
Attorney's public comments were used to infer that she had filed the case for improper purposes.
The Plaintiffs sued the Department of Education and county public schools, alleging various incidents of discrimination against black and special educations students in a number of districts. Plaintiffs also included some of the county attorneys as Defendants because they had attended IEP meetings for students. Some of the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Court then granted the motion as to all the Defendants. Andriano, one of the attorneys, filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. He alleged that the claims against him lacked legal basis, lacked factual basis and were filed for improper purposes. In its review of the motion, the Court said that Plaintiff’s counsel had not shown that any prefiling legal research was undertaken in an effort to find legal support for specified assertions in the complaint. The Court said, “On this record then, the Court finds that there was no prefiling inquiry into the law that applies to the special relationship assertions in the Amended Complaint.” The Court also found that the Plaintiff had not conducted a proper investigation as to the facts surrounding Andriano’s participation. After noting Plaintiffs public comments regarding the case, the Court determined that it was filed for improper purposes. The Court concluded by saying, “ Given the findings that there was a lack of legal inquiry into, the special relationship theory that lies at the core of claims against Adriano, and considering the public statements of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the court concludes that sanctions are appropriate.”
Professional Ethics of the Florida Bar
Proposed Advisory Opinion 14-1
1/23/15
The Florida Bar issued a proposed advisory opinion stating that an attorney may advise their client to change the privacy settings on the client’s social media pages so that they are not publicly accessible. In addition an attorney may advise their client to remove material from their social media pages as long as an appropriate record of the social media data is preserved.