FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0149 

_____________________________

J. DOE,

Appellant,

v.

GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS, in 

his official capacity as custodian 

of public records, and THE 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE 

GOVERNOR,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

June 12, 2024

ROBERTS, J.

Appellant, J. Doe, seeks review of a circuit court order denying 

mandamus and declaratory relief related to a public records 

request. Appellant raises five issues on appeal, two of which merit 

discussion. We affirm for the reasons below.

I.

In an August 2022 interview, Governor DeSantis referenced a 

group of “six or seven pretty big legal conservative heavyweights” 
2

who were trusted advisors for his judicial appointments to the 

Florida Supreme Court.

In October 2022, Appellant emailed an anonymous public 

records request to the Governor’s Office. The request asked for:

Any and all materials, on official devices or personal 

devices used for official business, in whatever form, 

including but not limited to call logs, emails, or texts, 

between or among Governor Ron DeSantis, Casey 

DeSantis, the governor’s chief of staff, his executive or 

personal assistants or aides, his general counsel or 

anyone within the general counsel’s office, the director of 

appointments or anyone within the director of

appointment’s office, and the “six or seven pretty big legal 

conservative heavyweights” described by the governor in 

an interview with Hugh Hewitt on August 25, 2002 [sic].

The Governor’s Office acknowledged that the request was in 

the queue along with a high volume of other requests. Over the 

next twenty days, Appellant attempted to have the Governor’s 

Office expedite a response. On October 26, Appellant conveyed 

intent to file suit and suggested the Governor’s Office just provide 

the names of the “heavyweights” to resolve the request.

The next day, Appellant, “J. Doe, anonymously and 

individually, a/k/a ‘FloridaSupremeCourtPRR@protonmail.com’” 

filed a petition for writ of mandamus, a complaint to enforce the 

Public Records Act, and an ex parte motion for alternative writ of 

mandamus in the circuit court. After a hearing, the circuit court 

denied the petition, dismissed the complaint to enforce the Public 

Records Act without prejudice, and denied declaratory relief. Of 

relevance here, the court concluded a writ of mandamus was not 

available to an anonymous petitioner and even if it was, Appellant 

failed to state a claim for mandamus relief.

We review the circuit court’s decision on the petition for writ 

of mandamus for an abuse of discretion. Fla. Agency for Health 

Care Admin. v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, 221 So. 3d 1260, 1263 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2017). 
3

II.

Appellant sought mandamus relief in the circuit court under 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630, which requires a petition to 

be filed in the name of the petitioner and not on the relation of the 

state. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(b)(3). Because the petition was filed

anonymously, the circuit court concluded it failed to meet the rule 

requirements and denied mandamus. 

Appellant argues the rule does not prohibit anonymous filings 

and should not be read to do so particularly in the public records 

context. We disagree that Appellant justified maintaining

anonymity in the circuit court. 

Along with rule 1.630, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 

1.100(c)(1) requires every pleading to have a caption containing 

the name of all the parties. The 2016 committee notes to rule 

1.100(c) note its similarity to Federal Rule of Procedure 10(a), 

which requires the title of the complaint to name all parties.

Federal case law is instructive here. See City of Jacksonville v. 

Rodriguez, 851 So. 2d 280, 283 n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Federal case law recognizes rule 10(a) is not just for

administrative convenience, but also serves to protect “‘the public’s 

legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including 

the identities of the parties.’” In re: Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 965 

F.3d 1238, 1247 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Plaintiff B v. Francis, 

631 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011)). There is a strong 

presumption in favor of parties proceeding under their own names. 

Farmworker Assoc. of Fla., Inc. v. DeSantis, case no. 23-cv-22655, 

2024 WL 517954, at *2 (S.D. Fla. February 9, 2024) (quoting 

Plaintiff B, 631 F.3d at 1315). But certain exceptional 

circumstances may justify anonymity. Farmworker Assoc. of Fla., 

Inc., 2024 WL 517954, at *2 (citing Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 

(11th Cir. 1992)).

To proceed anonymously in federal court, a party typically 

files a motion, which is subject to appellate review under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Chiquita, 965 F.3d at 1246. Federal courts

apply a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether the

party has a substantial privacy right that outweighs the 
4

“customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of 

openness in judicial proceedings.” Frank, 951 F.2d at 323 (quoting 

Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981)).

Florida recognizes a strong presumption of openness for all 

court proceedings. See Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 

531 So. 2d 113, 117–18 (Fla. 1988). While anonymous filings are 

not prohibited in Florida, they should be reserved for those 

exceptional circumstances that outweigh the public interest in 

open proceedings. Appellant did not seek leave to file anonymously 

by filing a motion in circuit court. Even after the court mentioned 

the issue at the hearing, Appellant did not pursue the issue. 

Appellant vaguely referenced a need to prevent a chilling effect on 

public records requests and a need to protect Appellant’s 

livelihood, reasons that may or may not be found exceptional were 

they properly presented to the court. We agree that Appellant’s

petition failed to comply with rule 1.630 and affirm the denial of 

mandamus relief on this ground. See Major v. Hallandale Beach 

Police Dep’t, 219 So. 3d 856, 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming 

denial of petition for writ of mandamus that did not comply with 

rule 1.630).

III.

Even if Appellant’s petition were facially valid, the circuit 

court properly determined Appellant failed to demonstrate a claim 

for mandamus. To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a petitioner 

must demonstrate a clear legal right to the performance of a clear 

legal duty by a public officer and have no other legal remedies 

available. Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Santa Fe Coll., 109 So. 3d 

851, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 

Appellant failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to have the 

Governor’s Office fulfill his request as submitted. Appellant 

broadly requested records between many people during an 

unspecified period of time. While the records custodian could 

possibly intuit some contextual parameters, the core information 

Appellant sought was a list of names Governor DeSantis 

referenced in a particular interview. Fulfilling such a request 

would require the records custodian to consult with the Governor 

to determine exactly who he was referencing in this interview. This 
5

is akin to an interrogatory seeking information, not a request to 

produce public records. See Bivens v. Tony, 368 So. 3d 16, 17 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2023) (“Nothing in the plain language of [section 119.01, 

Florida Statutes] or the Florida Constitution requires agencies to 

pore through their own records to answer specific questions.”).

Appellant and some amici argue there is no specificity 

requirement in chapter 119. Nonetheless, a public records request 

must be specific enough for the records custodian to perform the 

requested action. See Wootton v. Cook, 590 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 

1st DCA 1991) (“If a requestor identifies a record with sufficient 

specificity to permit appellee to identify it and forwards the 

appropriate fee, appellee must furnish by mail a copy of the 

record.”). Had Appellant drafted his request in a more tailored or 

specific manner, our inquiry could be different. Appellant’s 

petition failed to demonstrate a legally sufficient claim for 

mandamus because his request could not be fulfilled as submitted.

IV.

We affirm the portions of the order denying mandamus relief 

for the reasons above. Because Appellant did not prevail in 

showing an unlawful refusal, we affirm the portion of the order 

denying attorney’s fees. We also affirm the portion of the order 

denying declaratory relief because Appellant has not challenged 

that ruling on appeal. 

That leaves one portion of the order unresolved. After denying

the petition for procedural reasons, the court unnecessarily 

considered the merits of the petition and ruled the identities of the 

legal conservative heavyweights are protected by executive 

privilege. We expressly decline to rule on the propriety of this 

ruling as it was irrelevant and unnecessary. Cf. Bond v. United 

States, 572 U.S. 844, 855 (2014) (“[I]t is ‘a well-established 

principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court’s 

jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a 

constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which 

to dispose of the case.’”) (quoting Escambia Cnty. v. McMillan, 466 

U.S. 48, 51 (1984))). We AFFIRM the order without addressing this 

constitutional question.
6

RAY and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Justin Hemlepp, Ashland, KY; Steven L. Brannock and Philip J. 

Padovano of Brannock Berman & Seider, Tampa, for Appellant.

Mark R. Caramanica and Linda R. Norbut of Thomas & LoCicero 

PL, Tampa; Rachel E. Fugate and Minch Minchin of Shullman 

Fugate PLLC, Tampa, for Amici Curiae The Associated Press, 

Cable News Network, Inc., CMG Media Corp. d/b/a Cox Media 

Group, the First Amendment Foundation, Gannett Co., Inc., 

Graham Media Group, Inc., The McClatchy Co. LLC d/b/a the 

Miami Herald, The New York Times Co., Nexstar Media Group, 

Inc., Orlando Sentinel Media Group, The E.W. Scripps Co., Sun 

Sentinel Media Group, Times Publishing Co., and NBC Universal 

Media, LLC

James S. Benjamin of Benjamin, Aaronson, Edinger & Patanzo, 

P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Amici Curiae Florida Center for 

Government Accountability, Inc., Integrity Florida Institute, Inc., 

League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc., League of Women Voters 

of Florida Education Fund, Inc., and American Oversight.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Ryan Newman, 

General Counsel, and Nicholas John Peter Meros, Deputy General 

Counsel, Tallahassee; Henry C. Whitaker, Solicitor General, 

Daniel W. Bell, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Nathan Forrester, 

Senior Deputy Solicitor General, and Darrick Monson, Assistant 

Solicitor General, Tallahassee; Christopher B. Lunny and M. Drew 

Parker of Radey Law Firm, Tallahassee; Laura M. Dennis, Florida 

State University College of Law, Tallahassee, for Appellees.