# Jones v. Miami Herald Media Co.

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · August 29, 2016 · 198 So. 3d 1143

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4828687

## Case

- **Full name:** Julie L. JONES and The Florida Department of Corrections v. MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, Julie Brown, and Casey Frank
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** August 29, 2016
- **Citations:** 198 So. 3d 1143; 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12994; 2016 WL 4506121
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ray
- **Judges:** Lewis, Ray, Wetherell
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4828687

## Opinion text

RAY, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the decision of this Court that section 119.07(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2014), does not provide a clearly established legal right to a redaction-by-redaction identification of statutory exemptions applicable to a public record. I write only to address Appellees’ argument that this interpretation leads to an absurd or unreasonable result where, as was the case here, the agency produced voluminous documents, with hundreds of redactions, and only provided Appellees with a cover form indicating the agency’s position that the documents, as a whole, contained informa *1147 tion that was subject to one or more of five statutory exemptions. Given that the undisputed purpose of the Public Records Act is to promote government transparency, Appellees’ concern is significant. However, this Court’s opinion should not foreclose a future challenge to an agency’s method of identifying the basis of claimed exemptions in a public records response if it essentially renders the mandates of Florida’s Public Records Act meaningless. An agency is required to provide a, record-by-record identification of claimed exemptions, and, upon request, must state in writing and with particularity the reasons for its conclusion that a record is exempt. §§ 119.07(l)(e) & (f), Fla. Stat. Whether, and to what extent, DOC complied with these requirements in this case and, therefore, fulfilled the purpose of the Public Records Act are not issues currently before us.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4828687. Public record. Not legal advice.