HomeMy Public PortalAboutPRR 17-2460RECORDS REQUEST (the "Request")
Date of Request: 01/03/2017
Requestor's Request ID#: 1374
REQUESTEE: Custodian of Records Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas
Custodian of Records Town of Gulf Stream
REQUESTOR: Martin E. O'Boyle
REQUESTOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION: E -Mail: records@commerce-group.com
Fax: 954-360-0807 or Contact Records Custodian at records(a,commerce-group.com:
Phone: 954-360-7713; Address: 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
REQUEST: Please provide a cOVV of all Bar Complaints alleged to have been made by Martin O'Boyle
against Robert Sweetapple as written on Pages 9 and 10 (see clouded paragraph) of the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (the "Motion") which Motion is attached hereto. This Request is for the period
beginning on January 1, 2013 through the date of the Motion (November 30, 2016).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST: The term "Town of Gulf Stream" shall
mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream. its Commissioners, its Manager, its emvloyees, its
officers, its staff. its Police Department, its Police Officers; including, without limitation. the
attorneys, employees and partners of the following law firms: Sweetavole, Broeker & Varkas.
THIS REQUEST IS MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 24 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CHAPTER 119,
FLORIDA STATUTES
IF THE PUBLIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT ARE MAINTAINED BY YOUR AGENCY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT PLEASE
PRODUCE THE RECORDS IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FORMAT IN WHICH THEY WERE CREATED OR RECEIVED.
SEE 5119.01(2)(F). FLORIDA STATUTES. IF NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS
RECORDS REQUEST BE FULFILLED ON I1 X 17 PAPER NOTE: IN ALL CASES (UNLESS IMPOSSIBLE) THE COPIES
SHOULD BE TWO SIDED AND SHOULD BE BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Section 119.07(4) (a) (2)
ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF §I 19.07(I)(H) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. WHICH PROVIDES THAT -IF A CIVIL ACTION
IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THE 0.0 -DAV PERIOD TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECTTO
THE REQUESTED RECORD, THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE RECORD EXCEPT BY
ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED PARTIES."
ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES ARE REQUESTED TO BE SENT BY E-MAIL DELIVERY,
PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE COSTS (IF ANY) TO FULFILL THIS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IN ADVANCE.
It will be required that the Requestor approve of any costs, asserted by the Agency (as defined in Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01
(Definitions)), in advance of any costs Imposed to the Requestor by the Agency.
"BY FULFILLING THIS RECORDS REQUEST, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS
ARE "PUBLIC RECORDS" AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES".
I/P/NP/FLRR
i1H1E104QT.
Filing # 50322530 E -Filed 12/20/2016 01:40:16 PM
ATTACHMENT RECORDS REQUEST #1374
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
WEST PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, CASE NO.: 502014CA004474XXXXMB-AG
Counter -Plaintiff
V.
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, an individual, et al.
Counter -Defendants
MOTION TO ALLOW SCHEDULING OF ONE HOUR SPECIALLY SET HEARING
ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIALLY SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM ("TOWN"), by and through its undersigned
counsel, hereby moves for this Court for an Order allowing undersigned counsel to schedule its
Motion Partial Summary Judgment and says:
1. Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on November 30, 2016. (Attached
as Exhibit "A".)
2. Defendant requested Plaintiffs counsel's availability for a thirty (30) minute specially set
hearing on this matter. Counsel for Plaintiff, Ms. Elaine Johnson James, advised that she
felt a one hour specially set hearing would be required for this hearing.
3. Pursuant to this Court's divisional instructions, requests for a specially set hearing over
thirty (30) minutes a motion must be filed and scheduled for hearing during the Uniform
Motion Calendar.
4. Based on Plaintiff's request for a one hour hearing, undersigned counsel files the within
motion based on the Court's divisional instructions.
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
WHEREFORE, Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM, requests this Court enter an
order scheduling Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on November
30, 2016 (Exhibit "A") for a one hour specially set hearing.
Respectfully Submitted,
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL
Attorneys for Defendants
20 SE 3m Street
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 392-1230
Email: pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com
By: /S/ Robert A. Sweetanole
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
Florida Bar No. 0296988
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the E -
Filing Portal this 201h day of December, 2016 to: Elaine Johnson James, Esquire, Elaine Johnson
James, P.A., P.O. Box 31512, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 (Telephone:561-245-1144;E-
Mail:ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com); Nick Taylor, Esquire, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C.,
1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone:954-574-6885;E-
mail:oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com;ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com); Joanne O'Connor,
Esquire., Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm
Beach, Florida 33402 (Telephone:561-659-3000; Email:joconnor@jones£oster.com; and Edward
C. Nazzaro, Esquire, Town of Gulf Stream, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
(tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org).
By: /S/ Robert A. Sweetanole
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
Florida Bar No. 0296988
2
Filing # 49456209 E -Filed 11/30/2016 03:27:58 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
WEST PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, CASE NO.: 502014CA004474XXXXMB-AG
Counter -Plaintiff
V.
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, an individual, et al.
Counter -Defendants
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant TOWN OF GULF STREAM ("TOWN'), by and through its undersigned
counsel, hereby moves for Partial Summary Judgment in response to the Motion of Plaintiff Martin
O'Boyle ("O'BOYLE") for Reasonable Costs of Enforcement, Including Reasonable Attorneys'
Fees (hereafter, "Plaintiff s Motion"), filed October 27, 2016. The Court should adhere to existing
law and define "the reasonable costs of enforcement including reasonable attorneys' fees" under
Fla. Stat. § 119.12 as the time during which Plaintiff sought to enforce access to the requested
records, and not after access was provided.
INTRODUCTION
On March 6, 2014, O'BOYLE submitted a public records request to the TOWN.
See Final Judgment at 1 $ IE.
2. On April 15, 2014, O'BOYLE filed a Complaint against the TOWN pursuant to
Florida's Public Records Act, Chapter 119 alleging that the TOWN had failed to produce all public
records responsive to the request. See Final Judgment at 2 111.
Exhibit "A"
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
3. By June 17, 2014, all public records responsive to the request, specifically radio
transmissions by the Town's Police Department (hereafter, "Requested Records"), had been
produced to O'Boyle. See Final Judgment at 2 ¶ 1K -L.
4. On September 28, 2016, nearly two years after all records responsive to the request
were provided to O'BOYLE, the Court entered Final Judgment in favor of O'BOYLE, holding
that "[b]ecause the Court has found that the Town violated the Act by unjustifiably failing to
produce the radio transmissions in a timely fashion, O'BOYLE is entitled to recover statutory
attorneys' fees under section 119.12, Fla. Stat. for a time period and in an amount later to be
determined by the Court." See Final Judgment at 5 ¶ G (citing Bd. of Trs.. Jacksonville Police &
Fire Pension Fund v. Lee. 189 So.3d 120, 122 (F1a.2016)).
5. Plaintiffs Motion requests relief that exceeds what is permitted under § 119.12 of
the Public Records Act and case law. To the extent O'BOYLE is permitted to recover fees under
§ 119.12, those fees are limited through the date of complete production of Requested Records on
June 17, 2014.
6. Invoices from The O'Boyle Law Firm, Berger Singerman LLP, DeSouza Law, and The
James Law Firm all include fees incurred after June 17, 2014, and therefore were not incurred in
enforcing access to public records, but were for the purpose of seeking the statutory fee under §
119.12, or otherwise not related to enforcing access to the Requested Records.
7. The O'Boyle Law Firm's invoices are the only invoices included in O'BOYLE's
Motion detailing any attorney's fees and costsnp for to the date of complete production of the
Requested Records.
8. The other law firm invoices relate entirely to fees that post-date complete
production of Requested Records and are not related to enforcing access to public records. For
2
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 5020I4CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
instance, O'BOYLE seeks fees for seeking fees under § 119.12, appellate fees, fees related to
litigating a counterclaim, fees spent attempting to disqualify Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L.,
and fees incurred while responding to a Bar complaint.
9. Any award of fees should be limited to services related to the enforcement of access
to the Requested Records, through the date of complete production on June 17, 2014. As a matter
of law, O'BOYLE is not entitled to fees after he was provided access to the Requested Records.
LEGALSTANDARD
A. Summary Judgment
Partial summary judgment is appropriate when there are no issues of material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Connell v. Sledge, 306 So.2d 194,
196 (Fla. I st 1975). A material fact is one that is essential to the resolution of the case. See Wells
v. Wilkerson, 391 So.2d 266 (Fla 4th DCA 1980). The moving party has the burden to establish
the non-existence of disputed material facts. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). In order
to meet this burden, the moving party may use "affidavits, answers to interrogatories, admissions,
depositions, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence[.]" Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c).
The Court, however, should not deny Defendant's motion if Plaintiff merely raises paper issues
masquerading as disputed material facts. See Williams v. Garden City Claims, Inc., of New York.
Totura & Co.. Inc., 796 So. 2d 586, 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Rather, the Court should grant the
motion for partial summary judgment in order to avoid an unnecessary trial. See Jones v.
Stoutenburgh, 91 So.2d 299, 302 (Fla. 1956).
91
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
B. The Reasonable Costs of Enforcement Under Chapter 119
Section 119.12 allows for the recovery of "the reasonable costs of enforcement including
reasonable attorneys' fees" in actions brought under the Public Records Act. See Fla. Stat. §
119.12. "If the trial court concludes that [agency's] delay violated a provision of the Public
Records Act, it shall award [requestor] the reasonable costs incurred in enforcing access to public
records." Cookston v. Office of Pub. Def., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1634, 2016 WL 3769055 *3 (Fla.
5th DCA July 15, 2016) (citing Lee, 189 So.3d at 122) (emphasis added).
"[S]ection 119.12 has the dual role of both deterring agencies from wrongfully denying
access to public records and encouraging individuals to continue pursuing their right to access
public records." Lee, 189 So. 3d at 125. Florida's public policy behind the Public Records Act
encourages "prompt disclosure of the public records." Office of State Attorney for Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit of Florida v. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d 759, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The Public
Records Act should not be applied in a way that encourages manufacturing litigation for attorney's
fees. See Citizens Awareness Found.. Inc. v. Wantman Group, Inc., 195 So. 3d 396, 399 (Fla. 4th
DCA May 25, 2016).
The Public Records Act concerns itself with access to public records, and uses litigation as
a tool of enforcement in the event of a refusal to provide records. Once records are provided, the
only issue to be litigated relates to attorney's fees. The "only logical reason" to pursue a judicial
determination that there was an unlawful refusal to provide public records "after the documents
have been handed over is to provide an avenue for an award of attorneys fees to the public record
claimant." Mazer v. Orange County, 811 So. 2d 857, 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
"No fee is authorized for efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee." Downs v. Austin,
559 So. 2d 246,248 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 16, 1990). Additionally, costs must be reasonably incurred
4
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
in the course of the litigation, given the peculiar facts of each case. Weeks v. Golden 846 So. 2d
1247, 1249-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
In City of Winterearden, the Fifth District thus found that a reasonable award under §
119.12 was limited to `reasonable attorney's fees for necessary legal services performed leading
to the full production... of all relevant public records in the possession of the city and should not
include payment for legal services rendered thereafter in the trial court or on appeal." City of
Winter Garden v. Norflor Const. Corp., 396 So. 2d 865, 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (emphasis
added). See also Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Abate and to Set Hearing for Attorney's
Fees, Jeff Gray v. United Group Programs. Inc.. Case No. 502014CA004858 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct.
Jul. 22, 2014) (Cox, J.) ("§ 119.12 refers to reasonable cost of enforcement including reasonable
attorney's fee, it is not a prevailing party standard and it is only those fees incurred in obtaining
inspection and/or copying of documents which were unlawfully refused. Fees incurred seeking
other relief are not awardable under § 119.12. Fees incurred after receiving unlawfully refused
public records are not recoverable.").
._ul ►vG➢
A. O'BOYLE is Not Entitled to Any Fees Invoiced After the Date of Complete
Production of the Requested Records: June 17, 2014.
O'BOYLE's entitlement to attorney's fees must be limited through the date of complete
production of Requested Records, June 17, 2014. All fees incurred after June 17, 2014 were for
the purpose of seeking fees under § 119.12, or to generate fees unreasonably. However, O'BOYLE
seeks more than $300,000 in fees invoiced after this date.
All of the invoices from the law firms Berger Singerman LLP, DeSouza Law, and The
James Law Firth are for fees incurred after June 17, 2014, and therefore were not related to the
E
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Bi
Case No. 502014CA004474XXYXMB
Palm Beach
enforcement of access to the Requested Records as required for an award under § 119.12.1 See
Lee 189 So. 3d at 125 (stating that the role of § 119.12 is to "encourage[e] individuals to continue
pursuing their right to access public records.") (emphasis added);'- Mazer. 811 So. 2d at 860
("only logical reason" to seek a judicial determination that public records were unlawfully
withheld "after the documents have been handed over is to provide an avenue for an award of
attomey[']s fees to the public record claimant."); Downs. 559 So. 2d at 248 ("No fee is authorized
for efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee."); City of Winter Garden. 396 So. 2d at 867
(finding a reasonable award under the Public Records Act was limited to "reasonable attorney's
fees for necessary legal services performed leading to the full production... of all relevant public
records in the possession of the city and should not include payment for legal services rendered
thereafter in the trial court or on appeal").
Therefore, O'BOYLE's attorney's fees should be limited to those reasonably incurred prior
to June 17, 2014, to seek access to the Requested Records.
B. Attorney's Fees to Enforce Access to the Requested Records Prior to June 17, 2014
1. Permitted Fees incurred prior to Ame 17, 2014: seeking to enforce access to public
records
Any award of attorney's fees to O'BOYLE pursuant to § 119.12 should be limited through
the date of complete production of Requested Records, which occurred on June 17, 2014. See Lee,
189 So. 3d at 125; Mazer. 811 So. 2d at 860; City of Winter Garden 396 So. 2d at 867. The
purpose of 119.12 is to encourage voluntary compliance with Florida's public records law. See
Wamman Grout) . 195 So. 3d at 399. Plaintiff's reading of the statute would provide no incentive
' The O'Boyle Law Firm is the only firm listed in Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Costs of Enforcement
that incurred fees prior to this date.
Z The court should note that the Florida Supreme Court in Lee did not award the requesting party
appellate fees at the district court of Florida Supreme Court level.
r
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
for an agency to provide a requestor with records until ordered by the court, going against the
public policy encouraging prompt disclosure. Gonzalez 953 So. 2d at 765.
The only fees to which O'BOYLE can ever argue entitlement are the following fees of the
O'Boyle Law Firm, listed in Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Jonathan O'Boyle, and are subject to
Plaintiffs objections and proof of reasonableness, and which total $2,385.00:
Date
Description
User
Hours
Rate
Total
4/8/2014
Draft
Marrett
1
$350.00
$350.00
Complaint
Hanna
for law clerk
to review;
email to law
clerk and RW
4/8/2014
Finalize draft
Marrett
2.1
$350.00
$735.00
of Complaint
Hanna
with law
clerk
4/9/2014
Conference
Marrett
.5
$350.00
$175.00
w/ fact
Hanna
witness re:
additional
info for
Complaint
4/9/2014
Completed
Nick Taylor
.8
$250.00
$200.00
Complaint
4/9/2014
Reviewing
Nick Taylor
.7
$250.00
$175.00
and revising
complaint
5/7/2014
Received and
Nick Taylor
.4
$250.00
$100.00
reviewed
answer from
defendant
5/12/2014
Began
Nick Taylor
1.2
$250.00
$300.00
drafting rogs
and requests
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
O'BOYLE may also be entitled to costs in the amount of $468.07 for the following
costs/expenses:
Date
for
admissions
Amount
4/15/2014
Filing Fee
$414.00
5/13/2014
Completed
Nick Taylor
1.2
$250.00
$300.00
6/3/2014
drafting
$6.69
6/3/2014
Certified Mail
$6.69
discovery,
gave to Beth
for service
6/12/2014
Received
Nick Taylor
.2
$250.00
$50.00
email from
Sweetapple.
Read and
forwarded to
Ryan and law
clerk.
O'BOYLE may also be entitled to costs in the amount of $468.07 for the following
costs/expenses:
Date
Note
Amount
4/15/2014
Filing Fee
$414.00
4/17/2014
Service of Process
$40.00
5/14/2014
Postage
$0.69
6/3/2014
Certified Mail
$6.69
6/3/2014
Certified Mail
$6.69
2. Prohibited Fees incurred prior to June 17, 2014: litigating the Motion to Disqualify
Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L.
There are other fees invoiced by the O'Boyle Law Firm pre -date the date of complete
production of the Requested Records, June 17, 2014, that are still not recoverable as a matter of
law because they relate to the Plaintiff's action to disqualify Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L.,
and were not an effort to seek access to the requested public records. Further, this motion was
K
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
ultimately withdrawn by Plaintiff. See Reply in Support of Plaintiff Martin E. O'Boyle's Verified
Motion to Disqualify Defendant's Counsel for Soliciting Privileged Information and Using it for
a Civil Advantage, Dec. 12, 2014 (withdrawing motion), Filing #21581757.
3. Prohibited Fees incurred prior to June 17, 2014: litigatingforfees
Other fees of the O'Boyle Law Firm that pre -date the date of complete production of the
Requested Records, June 17, 2014, but are not recoverable because they relate to litigation for fees,
or were not undertaken in an effort to seek access to the requested public records. See Downs 559
So. 2d at 248 (holding no fee is authorized for efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee under
Section 119.12).
CAlternahv`ely,—O'BOYLE-is Not Entitled to -Any Fees related to Appeals, -and other -
Fees Unrelated to Enforcing his Access to the Requested Records.
Even if the Court were to determine that O'BOYLE can claim some a portion of fees that
post-date the June 17, 2014 full production of Requested Records, the majority of fees sought are
wholly unrelated to enforcement of the Public Records Act. Not only were these fees incurred
after June 17, 2014, but also many of these fees were an attempt by O'BOYLE to generate fees or
undertaken solely at the behest of Plaintiff, including but not limited to: appellate fees and fees
related to an unsuccessful attempt to get an immediate hearing after Plaintiff had been provided
full access to Requested Records; fees spent unsuccessfully attempting to disqualify Sweetapple,
Broeker & Varkas, P.L., a motion which was subsequently withdrawn on December 12, 2014;
O'BOYLE's Motion for Clarification of Order dated February 2, 2015, which was denied on
February 12, 2015;3 O'BOYLE's Motion for Immediate Hearing, denied by the Court on May 8,
3 In denying the Motion, Judge Peter Blanc warned Plaintiff that "[i]n the event of future similar conduct
by Plaintiff and its counsel, the court will entertain a motion for award of Attorney's fees as a sanction"
See Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Clarification, Feb. 12, 2015.
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
2015; O'BOYLE's Motion for Rehearing En Banc and Issuance of a Written Opinion, which was
denied on September 18, 2015;^ O'BOYLE's Motion to Amend Counterclaim, which was denied
on November 9, 2015; and O'BOYLE's Bar complaint against Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq., which
was dismissed.
In addition to the many fruitless effo s o complicate this Public Records Act case, other
fees included on the invoices are related to litigating a counterclaim and fees incurred while
responding to a Bar complaint. None of these fees relate to the enforcement of access to public
records.
Aside from the fact that these fees all post-date June 17, 2014, and therefore do not relate
tc enforcement-asis-required-under-Fia.-Stat.-§-1-19-12-O'BOYL-E-is-not entitled -to -any -appellate— .--------
fees because O'BOYLE did not follow appellate procedure and seek fees in the appellate court.
See Respiratory Care Servs. Inc. v. Murray D. Shear, P.A., 715 So. 2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA
1998) (holding the party seeking attorney's fees must timely file a motion, pursuant to Florida Rule
of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b), in the appellate court, and absent a mandate, the trial court has
no jurisdiction to award appellate attorney's fees); Downs, 559 So. 2d at 247-48 (denying award
of appellate fees under Section 119.12 where no fee was sought in accordance with appellate rules).
O'BOYLE is not entitled to any fees related to attempting to schedule an immediate hearing or
fees litigating his motion for fees. See Downs, 559 So. 2d at 248 (holding no fee is authorized for
efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee under Section 119.12).
D. Conclusion
To the extent O'BOYLE is permitted to recover fees under Fla. Stat. § 119.12, those fees
are limited through the date of complete production of Requested Records, June 17, 2014. See
See O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 41315-2161 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 18, 2015).
10
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
Mazer, 811 So. 2d at 860; Downs, 559 So. 2d at 248; City of Winter Garden. 396 So. 2d at 867.
O'BOYLE is not entitled to fees unreasonably incurred in seeking access to the Requested
Records, or any attorney's fees incurred after June 17, 2014, as those fees were unrelated to an
effort to enforce access to the Requested Records, for the purpose of seeking fees under § 119.12,
or to generate fees unreasonably.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM, prays this Court enter an order
declaring that any fee award to MARTIN O'BOYLE is limited to those fees incurred through the
date of complete production of Requested Records, June 17, 2014, excluding those fees not related
to the enforcement of access to the Requested Records under the Public Records Act pursuant to
Fla. Stat. § 119.12.
Respectfully Submitted,
S WEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL
Attorneys for Defendants
20 SE 3`a Street
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 392-1230
EMail: pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com
By: /S/ Robert A. Sweetaoale
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
Florida Bar No. 0296988
and
Edward C. Nazzaro
Florida BarNo.: 113705
tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
561-276-5116
561-737-0188 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Town of Gulf Stream
11
Town of Gulf Stream v. Martin E. O'Boyle
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the E -
Filing Portal this 301h day of November, 2016 to: Elaine Johnson James, Esquire, Elaine Johnson
James, P.A., P.O. Box 31512, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 (Telephone:561-245-1144;E-
Mail:ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com); Nick Taylor, Esquire, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C.,
1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone:954-574-6885;E-
mail:oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com;ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com); and Joanne
O'Connor, Esquire., Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100,
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (Telephone: 561-659-3000; Email.joconnor@jonesfoster.com).
SWEETAPPLE,BROEKER & VARKAS,PL
Attorneys for Defendants
20 SE 3'd Street
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 392-1230
Entail: pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com
By: /S/ Robert A. Sweetaoole
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
Florida Bar No. 0296988
'-J
Edward C. Nazzaro
Florida Bar No.: 113705
tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
561-276-5116
561-737-0188 (facsimile)
Attorney for Town of Gulf Stream
12
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
January 4, 2016
Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: records@,commerce-eroup.coml
Re: GS #2460 (PRR 1374)
Please provide a copy of all Bar Complaints alleged to have been made by Martin
O'Boyle against Robert Sweeiapple as written on Pages 9 and 10 (see clouded
paragraph) of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the "Motion') which Motion
is attached hereto. This Request is for the period beginning on January 1, 2013 through
the date of the Motion (November 30, 2016).
Dear Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: recordsacommerce-¢roup.coml:
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated January 3, 2017. The
original public records request can be found at the following link:
htto://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/O/doc/104242/Pa eg l.asnx
Please be advised that the Town of Gulf Stream is currently working on a large number of
incoming public records requests. The Town will use its very best efforts to respond to you in a
reasonable amount of time with the appropriate response or an estimated cost to respond.
Sincerely, D A
R" fInW" pl�cc
As requested by Rita Taylor
Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
February 28, 2017
Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: records@commerce-group.com]
Re: GS #2460 (PRR 1374)
Please provide a copy of all Bar Complaints alleged to have been made by Martin
O’Boyle against Robert Sweetapple as written on Pages 9 and 10 (see clouded
paragraph) of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) which Motion is
attached hereto. This Request is for the period beginning on January 1, 2013 through the
date of the Motion (November 30, 2016).
Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: records@commerce-group.com]:
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated January 3, 2017. The
original public records request can be found at the following link:
http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/104242/Page1.aspx
It has come to our attention that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, referred to in your
request, has been updated to state that Plaintiff cannot recover for representation before the
Florida Bar as set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting affidavits. A copy of the amended
motion is attached for your convenience.
Now that the referenced motion does not refer to “Bar Complaints alleged to have been made by
Martin O’Boyle against Robert Sweetapple”, the Town is unable to respond to your request in
good faith because there is no longer an allegation that any Bar Complaints were made. If you
wish to clarify your request based on this new information, please let us know and we will use
our very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of
time.
If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request
closed.
Sincerely,
Reneé Rowan Basel
As requested by Rita Taylor
Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARTIN E. O’BOYLE, CASE NO.: 502014CA004474XXXXMB
DIVISION: AG
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendant.
__________________________/
DEFENDANT, TOWN OF GULF STREAM’S, AMENDED MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF, MARTIN O’BOYLE’S,
MOTION FOR REASONABLE COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING
REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES FILED OCTOBER 27, 2016
(Corrected as to the Florida Bar reference on page 10)
Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM (“TOWN”), by and through its undersigned
counsel, hereby moves for Partial Summary Judgment in response to the Motion of Plaintiff Martin
O’Boyle (“O’BOYLE”) for Reasonable Costs of Enforcement, Including Reasonable Attorneys’
Fees (hereafter, “Plaintiff’s Motion”), filed October 27, 2016. The Court should adhere to existing
law and define “the reasonable costs of enforcement including reasonable attorneys’ fees” under
Fla. Stat. § 119.12 as the time during which Plaintiff sought to enforce access to the requested
records, and not after access was provided.
INTRODUCTION
1. On March 6, 2014, O’BOYLE submitted a public records request to the TOWN.
See Final Judgment at 1 ¶ 1E.
2. On April 15, 2014, O’BOYLE filed a Complaint against the TOWN pursuant to
Florida’s Public Records Act, Chapter 119 alleging that the TOWN had failed to produce all public
records responsive to the request. See Final Judgment at 2 ¶ 1I.
Filing # 52971951 E-Filed 02/24/2017 04:35:17 PM
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
2
3. By June 17, 2014, all public records responsive to the request, specifically radio
transmissions by the Town’s Police Department (hereafter, “Requested Records”), had been
produced to O’Boyle. See Final Judgment at 2 ¶ 1K-L.
4. On September 28, 2016, nearly two years after all records responsive to the request
were provided to O’BOYLE, the Court entered Final Judgment in favor of O’BOYLE, holding
that “[b]ecause the Court has found that the Town violated the Act by unjustifiably failing to
produce the radio transmissions in a timely fashion, O’BOYLE is entitled to recover statutory
attorneys’ fees under section 119.12, Fla. Stat. for a time period and in an amount later to be
determined by the Court.” See Final Judgment at 5 ¶ G (citing Bd. of Trs., Jacksonville Police &
Fire Pension Fund v. Lee, 189 So.3d 120, 122 (Fla.2016)).
5. Plaintiff’s Motion requests relief that exceeds what is permitted under § 119.12 of
the Public Records Act and case law. To the extent O’BOYLE is permitted to recover fees under
§ 119.12, those fees are limited through the date of complete production of Requested Records on
June 17, 2014.
6. Invoices from The O’Boyle Law Firm, Berger Singerman LLP, DeSouza Law, and The
James Law Firm all include fees incurred after June 17, 2014, and therefore were not incurred in
enforcing access to public records, but were for the purpose of seeking the statutory fee under §
119.12, or otherwise not related to enforcing access to the Requested Records.
7. The O’Boyle Law Firm’s invoices are the only invoices included in O’BOYLE’s
Motion detailing any attorney’s fees and costs prior to the date of complete production of the
Requested Records.
8. The other law firm invoices relate entirely to fees that post-date complete
production of Requested Records and are not related to enforcing access to public records. For
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
3
instance, O’BOYLE seeks fees for seeking fees under § 119.12, appellate fees, fees related to
litigating a counterclaim, fees spent attempting to disqualify Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L.,
and fees incurred while responding to a Bar complaint.
9. Any award of fees should be limited to services related to the enforcement of access
to the Requested Records, through the date of complete production on June 17, 2014. As a matter
of law, O’BOYLE is not entitled to fees after he was provided access to the Requested Records.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Summary Judgment
Partial summary judgment is appropriate when there are no issues of material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Connell v. Sledge, 306 So.2d 194,
196 (Fla. 1st 1975). A material fact is one that is essential to the resolution of the case. See Wells
v. Wilkerson, 391 So.2d 266 (Fla 4th DCA 1980). The moving party has the burden to establish
the non-existence of disputed material facts. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). In order
to meet this burden, the moving party may use “affidavits, answers to interrogatories, admissions,
depositions, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence[.]” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c).
The Court, however, should not deny Defendant’s motion if Plaintiff merely raises paper issues
masquerading as disputed material facts. See Williams v. Garden City Claims, Inc., of New York,
Totura & Co., Inc., 796 So. 2d 586, 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Rather, the Court should grant the
motion for partial summary judgment in order to avoid an unnecessary trial. See Jones v.
Stoutenburgh, 91 So.2d 299, 302 (Fla. 1956).
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
4
B. The Reasonable Costs of Enforcement Under Chapter 119
Section 119.12 allows for the recovery of “the reasonable costs of enforcement including
reasonable attorneys’ fees” in actions brought under the Public Records Act. See Fla. Stat. §
119.12. “If the trial court concludes that [agency’s] delay violated a provision of the Public
Records Act, it shall award [requestor] the reasonable costs incurred in enforcing access to public
records.” Cookston v. Office of Pub. Def., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1634, 2016 WL 3769055 *3 (Fla.
5th DCA July 15, 2016) (citing Lee, 189 So.3d at 122) (emphasis added).
“[S]ection 119.12 has the dual role of both deterring agencies from wrongfully denying
access to public records and encouraging individuals to continue pursuing their right to access
public records.” Lee, 189 So. 3d at 125. Florida’s public policy behind the Public Records Act
encourages “prompt disclosure of the public records.” Office of State Attorney for Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit of Florida v. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d 759, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The Public
Records Act should not be applied in a way that encourages manufacturing litigation for attorney’s
fees. See Citizens Awareness Found., Inc. v. Wantman Group, Inc., 195 So. 3d 396, 399 (Fla. 4th
DCA May 25, 2016).
The Public Records Act concerns itself with access to public records, and uses litigation as
a tool of enforcement in the event of a refusal to provide records. Once records are provided, the
only issue to be litigated relates to attorney’s fees. The “only logical reason” to pursue a judicial
determination that there was an unlawful refusal to provide public records “after the documents
have been handed over is to provide an avenue for an award of attorneys fees to the public record
claimant.” Mazer v. Orange County, 811 So. 2d 857, 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
“No fee is authorized for efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee.” Downs v. Austin,
559 So. 2d 246, 248 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 16, 1990). Additionally, costs must be reasonably incurred
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
5
in the course of the litigation, given the peculiar facts of each case. Weeks v. Golden, 846 So. 2d
1247, 1249–50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
In City of Wintergarden, the Fifth District thus found that a reasonable award under §
119.12 was limited to “reasonable attorney’s fees for necessary legal services performed leading
to the full production…of all relevant public records in the possession of the city and should not
include payment for legal services rendered thereafter in the trial court or on appeal.” City of
Winter Garden v. Norflor Const. Corp., 396 So. 2d 865, 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (emphasis
added). See also Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Abate and to Set Hearing for Attorney’s
Fees, Jeff Gray v. United Group Programs, Inc., Case No. 502014CA004858 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct.
Jul. 22, 2014) (Cox, J.) (Ҥ 119.12 refers to reasonable cost of enforcement including reasonable
attorney’s fee, it is not a prevailing party standard and it is only those fees incurred in obtaining
inspection and/or copying of documents which were unlawfully refused. Fees incurred seeking
other relief are not awardable under §119.12. Fees incurred after receiving unlawfully refused
public records are not recoverable.”).
ARGUMENT
A. O’BOYLE is Not Entitled to Any Fees Invoiced After the Date of Complete
Production of the Requested Records: June 17, 2014.
O’BOYLE’s entitlement to attorney’s fees must be limited through the date of complete
production of Requested Records, June 17, 2014. All fees incurred after June 17, 2014 were for
the purpose of seeking fees under § 119.12, or to generate fees unreasonably. However, O’BOYLE
seeks more than $300,000 in fees invoiced after this date.
All of the invoices from the law firms Berger Singerman LLP, DeSouza Law, and The
James Law Firm are for fees incurred after June 17, 2014, and therefore were not related to the
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
6
enforcement of access to the Requested Records as required for an award under § 119.12.1 See
Lee, 189 So. 3d at 125 (stating that the role of § 119.12 is to “encourage[e] individuals to continue
pursuing their right to access public records.”)(emphasis added);2 Mazer, 811 So. 2d at 860 (“only
logical reason” to seek a judicial determination that public records were unlawfully withheld “after
the documents have been handed over is to provide an avenue for an award of attorney[’]s fees to
the public record claimant.”); Downs, 559 So. 2d at 248 (“No fee is authorized for efforts expended
to obtain the statutory fee.”); City of Winter Garden, 396 So. 2d at 867 (finding a reasonable award
under the Public Records Act was limited to “reasonable attorney’s fees for necessary legal
services performed leading to the full production…of all relevant public records in the possession
of the city and should not include payment for legal services rendered thereafter in the trial court
or on appeal”).
Therefore, O’BOYLE’s attorney’s fees should be limited to those reasonably incurred prior
to June 17, 2014, to seek access to the Requested Records.
B. Attorney’s Fees to Enforce Access to the Requested Records Prior to June 17, 2014
1. Permitted Fees incurred prior to June 17, 2014: seeking to enforce access to public
records
Any award of attorney’s fees to O’BOYLE pursuant to § 119.12 should be limited through
the date of complete production of Requested Records, which occurred on June 17, 2014. See Lee,
189 So. 3d at 125; Mazer, 811 So. 2d at 860; City of Winter Garden, 396 So. 2d at 867. The
purpose of 119.12 is to encourage voluntary compliance with Florida’s public records law. See
Wantman Group, 195 So. 3d at 399. Plaintiff’s reading of the statute would provide no incentive
1 The O’Boyle Law Firm is the only firm listed in Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Costs of Enforcement
that incurred fees prior to this date.
2 The court should note that the Florida Supreme Court in Lee did not award the requesting party
appellate fees at the district court of Florida Supreme Court level.
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
7
for an agency to provide a requestor with records until ordered by the court, going against the
public policy encouraging prompt disclosure. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d at 765.
The only fees to which O’BOYLE can ever argue entitlement are the following fees of the
O’Boyle Law Firm, listed in Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Jonathan O’Boyle, and are subject to
Plaintiff’s objections and proof of reasonableness, and which total $2,385.00:
Date Description User Hours Rate Total
4/8/2014 Draft
Complaint
for law clerk
to review;
email to law
clerk and RW
Marrett
Hanna
1 $350.00 $350.00
4/8/2014 Finalize draft
of Complaint
with law
clerk
Marrett
Hanna
2.1 $350.00 $735.00
4/9/2014 Conference
w/ fact
witness re:
additional
info for
Complaint
Marrett
Hanna
.5 $350.00 $175.00
4/9/2014 Completed
Complaint
Nick Taylor .8 $250.00 $200.00
4/9/2014 Reviewing
and revising
complaint
Nick Taylor .7 $250.00 $175.00
5/7/2014 Received and
reviewed
answer from
defendant
Nick Taylor .4 $250.00 $100.00
5/12/2014 Began
drafting rogs
and requests
Nick Taylor 1.2 $250.00 $300.00
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
8
for
admissions
5/13/2014 Completed
drafting
discovery,
gave to Beth
for service
Nick Taylor 1.2 $250.00 $300.00
6/12/2014 Received
email from
Sweetapple.
Read and
forwarded to
Ryan and law
clerk.
Nick Taylor .2 $250.00 $50.00
O’BOYLE may also be entitled to costs in the amount of $468.07 for the following
costs/expenses:
Date Note Amount
4/15/2014 Filing Fee $414.00
4/17/2014 Service of Process $40.00
5/14/2014 Postage $0.69
6/3/2014 Certified Mail $6.69
6/3/2014 Certified Mail $6.69
2. Prohibited Fees incurred prior to June 17, 2014: litigating the Motion to Disqualify
Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L.
There are other fees invoiced by the O’Boyle Law Firm pre-date the date of complete
production of the Requested Records, June 17, 2014, that are still not recoverable as a matter of
law because they relate to the Plaintiff’s action to disqualify Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L.,
and were not an effort to seek access to the requested public records. Further, this motion was
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
9
ultimately withdrawn by Plaintiff. See Reply in Support of Plaintiff Martin E. O’Boyle’s Verified
Motion to Disqualify Defendant’s Counsel for Soliciting Privileged Information and Using it for
a Civil Advantage, Dec. 12, 2014 (withdrawing motion), Filing #21581757.
3. Prohibited Fees incurred prior to June 17, 2014: litigating for fees
Other fees of the O’Boyle Law Firm that pre-date the date of complete production of the
Requested Records, June 17, 2014, but are not recoverable because they relate to litigation for fees,
or were not undertaken in an effort to seek access to the requested public records. See Downs, 559
So. 2d at 248 (holding no fee is authorized for efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee under
Section 119.12).
C. Alternatively, O’BOYLE is Not Entitled to Any Fees related to Appeals, and other
Fees Unrelated to Enforcing his Access to the Requested Records.
Even if the Court were to determine that O’BOYLE can claim some a portion of fees that
post-date the June 17, 2014 full production of Requested Records, the majority of fees sought are
wholly unrelated to enforcement of the Public Records Act. Not only were these fees incurred
after June 17, 2014, but also many of these fees were an attempt by O’BOYLE to generate fees or
undertaken solely at the behest of Plaintiff, including but not limited to: appellate fees and fees
related to an unsuccessful attempt to get an immediate hearing after Plaintiff had been provided
full access to Requested Records; fees spent unsuccessfully attempting to disqualify Sweetapple,
Broeker & Varkas, P.L., a motion which was subsequently withdrawn on December 12, 2014;
O’BOYLE’s Motion for Clarification of Order dated February 2, 2015, which was denied on
February 12, 2015;3 O’BOYLE’s Motion for Immediate Hearing, denied by the Court on May 8,
3 In denying the Motion, Judge Peter Blanc warned Plaintiff that “[i]n the event of future similar conduct
by Plaintiff and its counsel, the court will entertain a motion for award of Attorney’s fees as a sanction.”
See Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, Feb. 12, 2015.
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
10
2015; O’BOYLE’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc and Issuance of a Written Opinion, which was
denied on September 18, 2015;4 O’BOYLE’s Motion to Amend Counterclaim, which was denied
on November 9, 2015; and Plaintiff cannot recover for representation before the Florida Bar as set
forth in Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting affidavits.
In addition to the many fruitless efforts to complicate this Public Records Act case, other
fees included on the invoices are related to litigating a counterclaim and fees incurred while
responding to a Bar complaint. None of these fees relate to the enforcement of access to public
records.
Aside from the fact that these fees all post-date June 17, 2014, and therefore do not relate
to enforcement as is required under Fla. Stat. § 119.12, O’BOYLE is not entitled to any appellate
fees because O’BOYLE did not follow appellate procedure and seek fees in the appellate court.
See Respiratory Care Servs., Inc. v. Murray D. Shear, P.A., 715 So. 2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA
1998) (holding the party seeking attorney's fees must timely file a motion, pursuant to Florida Rule
of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b), in the appellate court, and absent a mandate, the trial court has
no jurisdiction to award appellate attorney’s fees); Downs, 559 So. 2d at 247–48 (denying award
of appellate fees under Section 119.12 where no fee was sought in accordance with appellate rules).
O’BOYLE is not entitled to any fees related to attempting to schedule an immediate hearing or
fees litigating his motion for fees. See Downs, 559 So. 2d at 248 (holding no fee is authorized for
efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee under Section 119.12).
D. Conclusion
To the extent O’BOYLE is permitted to recover fees under Fla. Stat. § 119.12, those fees
are limited through the date of complete production of Requested Records, June 17, 2014. See
4 See O’Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 4D15-2161 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 18, 2015).
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
11
Mazer, 811 So. 2d at 860; Downs, 559 So. 2d at 248; City of Winter Garden, 396 So. 2d at 867.
O’BOYLE is not entitled to fees unreasonably incurred in seeking access to the Requested
Records, or any attorney’s fees incurred after June 17, 2014, as those fees were unrelated to an
effort to enforce access to the Requested Records, for the purpose of seeking fees under § 119.12,
or to generate fees unreasonably.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM, prays this Court enter an order
declaring that any fee award to MARTIN O’BOYLE is limited to those fees incurred through the
date of complete production of Requested Records, June 17, 2014, excluding those fees not related
to the enforcement of access to the Requested Records under the Public Records Act pursuant to
Fla. Stat. § 119.12.
Respectfully Submitted,
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL
Attorneys for Defendants
20 SE 3rd Street
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 392-1230
EMail: pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com
By: /S/ Robert A. Sweetapple
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
Florida Bar No. 0296988
and
Edward C. Nazzaro
Florida Bar No.: 113705
tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
561-276-5116
561-737-0188 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Town of Gulf Stream
Martin E. O’Boyle V. Town of Gulf Stream
Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB(AG); Palm Beach County
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the E-
Filing Portal this 24th day of February, 2017 to: Elaine Johnson James, Esquire, Elaine Johnson
James, P.A., P.O. Box 31512, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420 (Telephone:561-245-1144; E-
Mail:ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com); Giovani Mesa, Esquire, The O’Boyle Law Firm, P.C.,
1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone:954-574-6885; E-
mail:oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com; gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com); Joanne O’Connor,
Esquire., Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm
Beach, Florida 33402 (Telephone:561-659-3000; Email:joconnor@jonesfoster.com); and Edward
C. Nazzaro, Esquire, Town of Gulf Stream, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
(tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org).
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL
Attorneys for Defendants
20 SE 3rd Street
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 392-1230
EMail: pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com
By: /S/ Robert A. Sweetapple
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
Florida Bar No. 0296988
and
Edward C. Nazzaro
Florida Bar No.: 113705
tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
561-276-5116
561-737-0188 (facsimile)
Attorney for Town of Gulf Stream