DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JACOBS KEELEY, PLLC,

Petitioner,

v.

CHIEF JUDGE OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

Respondent.

No. 4D14-4162

[June 17, 2015]

Petition for writ of mandamus to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Chief Judge Peter M. Weinstein.

Roy D. Wasson of Wasson & Associates, Chartered, Miami, Margery 

Golant of Golant & Golant, P.A., Boca Raton, and Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs 

Keeley PLLC, Miami, for petitioner.

Mihaela Cabulea, Senior Trial Court Staff Attorney, Broward County 

Courthouse, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

GROSS, J.

Jacobs Keeley, PLLC, a law firm, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel 

the chief judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit to comply with its 

request for public records regarding reassignment of cases following 

judicial disqualification in the circuit’s foreclosure division. We deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus in part and order production of certain emails claimed to be privileged.

The law firm filed a broad records request in October 2014. The general 

counsel of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit responded that an e-mail 

search of the time period requested had resulted in location of 41,691 emails. The Circuit proposed to charge $227 for securing the e-mails and 

$36,782 for review, determination, redaction, and printing of the records 

requested; the Circuit sought a cost deposit of $25,000. The scope of the 

e-mail search was tailored to mirror the broad initial request.

The Circuit provided the law firm with its search criteria and asked if 

the firm could suggest different search criteria. The law firm declined to 
- 2 -

do so, stating that it was unreasonable to “force” it to advise the court how 

to design queries on the Circuit’s database. 

The Circuit narrowed the search to the chief judge and his judicial 

assistants; 223 e-mails were identified, with only $219.73 in related 

charges. The law firm was unhappy with the narrow scope of this request. 

The Circuit provided records responsive to this narrow request except for 

14 e-mails determined to be confidential. On the morning of October 31, 

2014, the Circuit proposed four different query options which led to the 

identification of 752 to 4,258 e-mails, with related charges. 

The law firm filed its petition for mandamus at 6:41 p.m. on October 

31, 2014; the petition did not advise this Court of the Circuit’s response 

from earlier that morning. After the petition was filed, based on e-mails 

from the law firm, the Circuit designed a different search parameter that 

identified 544 e-mails. Ultimately, the law firm picked up 82 emails based 

upon one of the search requests.

Mandamus lies to compel a lower official to perform a clear ministerial 

duty. See Pleus v. Crist, 14 So. 3d 941, 945 (Fla. 2009). “A party 

petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to 

performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no 

adequate remedy at law.” Chandler v. City of Greenacres, 140 So. 3d 1080, 

1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814, 815 

(Fla. 2d DCA 1997)).

The law firm has not established that the Circuit failed to perform a 

clear legal duty. Although it complains about the failure to use certain 

search terms, the law firm refused to participate in the search process 

below by suggesting any search terms or setting parameters for the search

or requesting a hearing on the scope of the search or the reasonableness 

of the proposed charges. This record does not demonstrate that the Circuit 

acted unreasonably in response to the record request so as to trigger the 

obligation to perform a clear ministerial duty. Insofar as it is directed to 

the adequacy of the Circuit’s response, the petition for writ of mandamus 

is denied.

Withheld Records

The Circuit withheld production of 14 e-mails, citing Florida Rules of 

Judicial Administration 2.420(c)(1) and 2.420(c)(7), and section 90.502, 

Florida Statutes (2014) pertaining to the attorney-client privilege.
- 3 -

The e-mails in question qualify as “administrative records” within 

the meaning of Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(b)(1)(B). 

Rule 2.420(c) provides for confidentiality of certain judicial branch 

records. There are two provisions that might be relevant here:

(1) Trial and appellate court memoranda, drafts of 

opinions and orders, court conference records, notes, and 

other written materials of a similar nature prepared by judges 

or court staff acting on behalf of or at the direction of the court 

as part of the court’s judicial decision-making process utilized 

in disposing of cases and controversies before Florida courts 

unless filed as a part of the court record; 

(2) Memoranda or advisory opinions that relate to the 

administration of the court and that require confidentiality to 

protect a compelling governmental interest, including, but not 

limited to, maintaining court security, facilitating a criminal 

investigation, or protecting public safety, which cannot be 

adequately protected by less restrictive measures. The degree, 

duration, and manner of confidentiality imposed shall be no 

broader than necessary to protect the compelling 

governmental interest involved, and a finding shall be made 

that no less restrictive measures are available to protect this 

interest. The decision that confidentiality is required with 

respect to such administrative memorandum or written 

advisory opinion shall be made by the chief judge;

Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(1) & (2).

We disagree with the law firm’s narrow interpretation of Rule 2.420(c)(1) 

that would limit the rule to records relevant to disposing of a particular

case. Judges or court staff often exchange ideas about legal issues that 

frequently arise. Such ongoing discussions are part of a “court’s judicial 

decision-making process utilized in disposing of cases and controversies 

before Florida courts,” even if the discussions are not tied to a particular 

case. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(1).

E-mails exchanged within a Circuit concerning the adoption of a 

proposed administrative order “relate to the administration of the court” 

within the meaning of Rule 2.420(c)(2) and may be kept confidential only 

“to protect a compelling governmental interest.” The Circuit does not rely 

upon a subsection (2) claim of confidentiality as a basis for non-disclosure.
- 4 -

We have examined the e-mails provided and conclude that one e-mail 

pertains to the Circuit’s decision making process—the April 11, 2014 email from a staff attorney to the chief judge transmitting a proposed order 

making a ruling in a particular case. The remainder of the e-mails are 

subject to disclosure. We have examined the e-mails and conclude that 

the attorney-client privilege does not disqualify the remaining e-mails from 

public records disclosure.

WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.