KAREN KLINE , Appellant,

v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4216

_____________________________/ Opinion filed October 4, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Robert E. Roundtree, Jr. , Ju dge

. Marcy Lahart of Marcy I. Lahart, PA, Gainesville , for Appellant. John A. Devault, III and Courtney K. Grimm of Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe, P.A., Jacksonville , for Appellee.

ROWE, J

. Appellant, Karen Kline , sought public records from the University of Florida, specifically images of animals, veterinary records, and research protocols relating to two studies conducted by researchers at the University. The University responded to Kline’s request, claiming an exemption from disclosure for the research protocols, denying the existence of any images of animals, and not addressing the request for2 veterinary records. Kline filed a petition to c ompel disclosure of the records and requested an immediate hearing. T he trial court order ed the University to show cause as to why the records should not be produced. In response, the University requested an in

- camera inspection, and produced for the court’s review the research protocols and sealed explanatory affidavits b y the researchers involved in the studies. After reviewing the documents, the trial court denied Kline’s petition. Kline appeals, raising several issues including the trial court’s failure to conduct a hearing on the petition . Because the trial court p rematurely ruled on the petition without the benefit of a hearing, we decline to reach the remaining issues. Section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides: “W henever an action is filed to enforce the provisions of [the Public Records Act], the court shall set an immediate hearing, giving the case pri ority over other pending cases.” The purpose of this hearing is to allow the court to hear argument from the parties and resolve any dispute as to whether there are public records responsive to the reque st and whether an exemption from disclosure applies in whole or in part to the requested records. See Holley v. Bradford Cn ty

. Sheriff's Dep ’t , 171 So. 3d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing and, if necessary, an in

camera inspection, to determine whether the Sheriff’s Department possessed the requested records, whether the records were exempt from disclosure, and whether they could be re dac ted and produced in part); see also Clay C nty . Educ. Ass'n v.3 Clay C nty

. Sch. Bd. , 144 So. 3d 708, 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing and remanding dismissal of mandamus petition for an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact).
T he plain lan guage of section 119.11(1) requires the trial court to conduct a hearing on actions seeking to enforce the right to access public records under chapter 119. A bsent waiver, an order issued without the statutorily

- required hearing is premature. See Grace v . Jenne , 855 So. 2d 262, 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) . For this reason, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Kline’s petition. We direct the court on remand to conduct a hearing as required by section 119.11(1), and to resolve any dispute between the parties as to whether there are records responsive to Kline’s requests and whether such records are partially or wholly exempt from disclosure. REVERSED and REMANDED. MAKAR and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.