Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutFwd_ O'Boyle v_ Gulf STream_ Case No_ 502014CA000834 IPM.Note Fwd: O'Boyle v. Gulf STream, Case No. 502014CA000834 Fwd: Bill Thrasher Bill Thrasher Bill Thrasher EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BTHRASHER O'Boyle v. Gulf STream, Case No. 502014CA000834 EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BTHRASHER EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BTHRASHER X-Vipre-Scanned: 0FD144EA01363C0FD14637 Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 19:46:56 -0400 Subject: Fwd: O'Boyle v. Gulf STream, Case No. 502014CA000834 Message-ID: <33r3rnm68y36ucij6tof08n6.1475452012792@email.android.com> Importance: normal From: bthrasher@gulf-stream.org To: Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--_com.android.email_1834304684422870" Bill Thrasher EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BTHRASHER Rita Taylor EMPLOYEES - TEMP O'Boyle v. Gulf STream, Case No. 502014CA000834 Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "OConnor, Joanne M." <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Date: 10/2/16 6:09 PM (GMT-05:00) To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com, Bill Thrasher <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org> Cc: Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>, "Macfarlane, Mary" <MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com> Subject: FW: O'Boyle v. Gulf STream, Case No. 502014CA000834 Attached is the proposed Final Judgment and our transmission to the Court regarding the sign-in sheet case. Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com <mailto:joconnor@jonesfoster.com> Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com <http://www.jonesfoster.com/> Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: OConnor, Joanne M. Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 4:54 PM To: 'CAD-DivisionAH@pbcgov.org' Cc: Macfarlane, Mary (MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com); Robert Sweetapple; Cynthia Miller (cmiller@sweetapplelaw.com); Nick Taylor; Kristina Russell (krussell@oboylelawfirm.com) Subject: FW: O'Boyle v. Gulf STream, Case No. 502014CA000834 Dear Judge Small, Pursuant to the Court’s directive at the conclusion of the September 20, 2016 non-jury trial in this matter, attached please find Defendant, Town of Gulf Stream’s Proposed Final Judgment with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. For the Court’s convenience, we have also attached the trial transcript, the joint trial exhibits and the unpublished decision of Lang v. Reedy Creek cited in our proposed judgment. Regards, Joanne O’Connor Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com <mailto:joconnor@jonesfoster.com> Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com <http://www.jonesfoster.com/> Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. <33r3rnm68y36ucij6tof08n6.1475452012792@email.android.com> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "OConnor, Joanne M." <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Date: 10/2/16 6:09 PM (GMT-05:00) To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com, Bill Thrasher <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org> Cc: R Bill Thrasher Bill Thrasher EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=CC9578126D55499EA8C1E79B43F844AE-BILL THRASH EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=CC9578126D55499EA8C1E79B43F844AE-BILL THRASH BTHRASHER BTHRASHER BTHRASHER BTHRASHER Bill Thrasher Bill Thrasher II=[CID=f8a49318-da81-438b-80aa-900f600a35b3;IDXHEAD=01D21D0741;IDXCOUNT=1];SBT=13;S2=<aa5b45ba4a944438acf213245deec1c7@JFJSEXCH01.jones-foster.com>;Version=Version 15.0 (Build 1130.0), Stage=H9 en  4 0FD144EA01363C0FD14637 Rita Taylor EX /o=GULFSTREAMTH/ou=first administrative group/cn=Recipients/cn=RTaylor RTaylor@gulf-stream.org RTaylor Rita Taylor Rita Taylor image001.jpg .jpg image001.jpg image001.jpg image/jpeg image001.jpg@01D21CD7.DF38BE70 EnUs image003.jpg .jpg image003.jpg image003.jpg image/jpeg image003.jpg@01D21B3A.EFF37A50 EnUs 1QM3746-findings fact conclusions law.DOCX IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 502014CA000834XXXXMB AH MARTIN E. O’BOYLE, Plaintiff, vs. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. ___________________________/ DEFENDANT TOWN OF GULF STREAM’S PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Defendant, Town of Gulfstream (“the Town”), by and through its undersigned counsel, submits its Proposed Final Judgment, with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as directed by this Honorable Court at the conclusion of the non-jury trial held on September 20, 2016 and states: THIS CAUSE came before the Court for a non-jury trial on September 20, 2016. The issue tried by the Court was whether the Town violated the Public Records Act, Ch. 119, Fla. Stat. The Court having heard argument of counsel, considered the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence presented and been otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FACTS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES AND ACCEPTED BY THE COURT The Court accepts the following stipulated facts agreed to by the parties, as set forth in their Joint Pretrial Stipulation, and finds all such facts to be true: The Town of Gulf Stream is an “agency” subject to the Public Records Act. Martin E. O’Boyle is a resident of Gulf Stream On January 21, 2014, at 12:18 p.m., Mr. O’Boyle submitted the following public records request to the Town by facsimile: A copy of the sign in sheet on the desk in the front lobby of the Gulf Stream Town Hall as it existed at 11:00 a.m. on January 21, 2014. Later on January 21, 2014 the Town drafted and sent a letter to Mr. O’Boyle that stated, in part, as follows: Dear Mr. O’Boyle [mail to: mailto:records@commerce-group.comrecords@commerce-group.com], The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated January 21, 2014. If your request was received in writing, then the first page of that request is attached to this cover letter. If your request was verbal, then the description of your public records request is set forth in the space below. Our staff will review your request within the next three business days, and we will promptly send you the appropriate response or an estimated cost to respond. Mr. O’Boyle filed suit on January 22, 2014. The Town produced to Mr. O’Boyle the record responsive to his January 21, 2014 request on January 23, 2014. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL The Town of Gulf Stream The Town of Gulf Stream is an extremely small municipality, with just under one thousand residents. (Transcript of September 20, 2016 Non-Jury Trial (“Tr.”) at 138: 14-16). At the time the public records request at issue (referred to herein as the “Sign-In Sheet Request”) was made in January 2014, the Town had just four employees working in Town Hall. (See id. at 138:17-21). This included the Town Clerk, Rita Taylor, the Town Manager and two assistant clerks (one of whom served as an accountant). (See id. at 138:22-139:3). Ms. Taylor has served as Town Clerk for some 24-25 years. (See id. at 137: 18-23). The Town’s Prior Experience With Records Requests and Lawsuits and Procedures Implemented to Process Verbal and Written Requests. In 2013, after Mr. O’Boyle had been denied a development approval for his home and at least six months prior to the Sign-In Request (Tr. at 40:20-23), Mr. O’Boyle had begun making hundreds of public records requests to the Town. (See id. at 141:23-143:6). The unusually high number of requests, which included 320 requests made in just one day, overwhelmed the Town Clerk. (See id. at 142:3, 143:1-2). Mr. O’Boyle thereafter filed quite a few public records lawsuits arising out of those hundreds of public records requests. (See id. at 143:7-13). Ultimately, after the Town settled with Mr. O’Boyle, the unusually high number of records requests came to a stop. (See id. at 143:14-22). That lull did not last long, however, and after a few weeks or months, the Town experienced a new wave of records requests in August 2013 (See id. at 146:3-6; Joint Ex. 2). From August 27, 2013 through the end of 2013, the Town had received 465 public records requests– an average of more than 115 records requests per month for four months straight. (See id. at 146:7-17 & Joint Ex. 2). This time the barrage of records requests did not originate with Mr. O’Boyle but another Town resident, Christopher O’Hare. (Tr. at 148:19-149:11; Joint Ex. 2). To deal with the hundreds of public records requests coming in, the Town invested in personnel, processes and services. (Tr. 146:18-24). A considerable amount of money was spent to buy new equipment, computer servers and a Laserfiche system that allowed it to make Town records electronically available on its website. (See id.; Tr. 147:2-24). The two assistants to the Town Clerk were given certain duties, a part-time temporary worker was hired to scan records onto Laserfiche, and the Town enlisted support from its counsel and the assistance of a law student to advise it on public records. (See id. at 147:2-148:4-18; 150:25-151:5). As had Mr. O’Boyle in the spring and summer of 2013, Mr. O’Hare began to file lawsuits against the Town over its responses to his records requests. (See id. at 149:13-17). From October 2013 to January 22, 2014, the day after Mr. O’Boyle had submitted the Sign-In Sheet Request to the Town on January 21, 2014, Mr. O’Hare had filed 15 lawsuits against the Town, which lawsuits further inundated the Town Clerk and her office. (See id. at 190:24-191:2) (taking judicial notice of Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice dated 9/19/16, filing no. 46633199). Mindful of the potential for lawsuits arising out of the records requests, the Town developed procedures and processes to ensure that the requests were processed timely and in accordance with the law. (See id. at 149:18-22). Beginning on or about August 27, 2013, these procedures included maintaining a detailed written log of public records requests received by the Town by date received, requestor and nature of the public records requested. (See id. at 144:9-145:6; 151:9-13; Joint Exs. 2, 3). The Town logged requests regardless of how they were received, whether verbally or in writing. (See id. at 164:16-19). If a request were made verbally, that was noted on the log with a reference to “in person”. (See id. 164:4-8; Joint Ex. 3 at Nos. 641, 653, 767-69). The log maintained by the Town reflects several instances in which the Town logged verbal public records requests, including from Mr. O’Boyle, with a notation to that effect. (Tr. at 164:9-25; Joint Ex. 3 at Nos. 641, 653, 767-69). By January 2014, the Town had also developed a procedure for acknowledging both verbal and written requests. (Tr. at 158:12-16). The Town would send an acknowledgement letter like that sent to Mr. O’Boyle in response to the Sign-In Sheet Request to each requestor. (See id. at 157:2-15). When requests were made in writing, the Town attached the first page of the request to the acknowledgement letter. (See id. at 158: 17-20). In order to avoid any confusion, when requests were made verbally, the Town restated the request on the same page as the acknowledgement. (See id. at 158:21-159:4). The Town sent a separate acknowledgement letter for each public records request it received because objections had been raised when it previously tried to aggregate responses. (See id. at 159:5-19). < Ms. Taylor testified that the Town did not refuse to accept verbal public records requests and did not dictate to requestors how a public records request had to be made; instead, the Town accepted all manners of submission. (See id. at 145:10-22). The Circumstances of the January 21, 2014 Sign-In Sheet Request By January 2014, the Town Clerk was spending 40-50% of her time processing public records requests while another Town employee, Freda DeFosse spent almost 100% of her time working on public records requests. (Tr. at 152:9-18). From January 1 to 19, 2014, the Town received 94 public records requests, 86 of which were received in the five-day period from January 14-19, 2014. (Joint Ex. 3 at pp.1-10). This included some 15 records requests made on January 14, 2014 and another 60 on January 16, 2014. (See id. at pp. 2-9). The requests that the Town was receiving, and had to process, in the days, weeks and months prior to the Sign-In Sheet Request were very often not requests for specific records. The following complex request was typical of the 60 requests made on January 16, 2014, just five (5) days before the Sign-In Sheet Request: Any and all documents, files, photos, folders or other material in digital form that can be reasonably considered a public record which is located on any and all computers in the personal possession of, or the personal control of, Scott Morgan. (Joint Ex. 3 at No. 525). (Tr. at 154:2-155:19). The Sign-In Sheet Request was the last of nine (9) written public records requests sent by Mr. O’Boyle to the Town by facsimile during the fifteen (15) – minute period from 12:03 p.m. to 12:18 p.m. on January 21, 2014. (Joint Ex. 5). Those requests are listed by their time and subject matter as follows: 12:03 p.m. - Provide a copy of all applications for work permits to the Town of Gulf Stream including, without limitation, all insurance certificates, permits from other jurisdictions and the work permit itself together with any communications relative to any of the foregoing and together with any billings and/or invoices related to any of the foregoing and including any payments made in connection with any of the foregoing for the period beginning January 1, 2012 through the date of this Request. 12:04 p.m. - Provide a copy of all applications for work permits to the Town of Gulf Stream including, without limitation, all insurance certificates, permits from other jurisdictions and the work permit itself together with any communications relative to any of the foregoing and together with any billings and/or invoices related to any of the foregoing and including any payments made in connection with any of the foregoing, all of which are applicable to the Town Commissioners; employees of the Town of Gulf Stream; and the Gulf Stream Police Department. 12:05 p.m. - Provide a copy of all communications where Mark Marsh was the recipient and the sender during the period of January 1, 2012 through the date of this Request. 12:12 p.m. - Provide a copy of all applications for development wherein Mark Marsh was the applicant, signed for the applicant or was designated as the architect for the period beginning July 1, 2012 through the date of this Request. 12:13 p.m. - Please provide copies of all invoices received by the Town of Gulf Stream for John C. Randolph, Esquire of Jones Forster Johnson & Stubbs, P.A., Attorneys At Law, from April 23, 2013 through the date of this Request. 12:13 p.m. - Please provide copies of all bills from the Special Magistrate, Glenn Torcivia or the law firm in which he works including, without limitation, the Law Office of Glenn J. Torcivia and Associates. 12:14 p.m. - Provides copies of all communications between any of the Town Commissioners, Marty Minor, Rita Taylor and William Thrasher where the name "O'Boyle" or "Boyle" is used therein during the period of January 1, 2013 through the date of this Request. 12:17 p.m. - Provide a copy of all notes, memoranda and journals made by William Thrasher, which include the name "O'Boyle" or "Boyle during the period of January 1, 2013 through the date of this Request. 12:18 p.m. - Provide a copy of the sign in sheet on the desk in the front lobby of the Gulf Stream Town Hall as it existed at 11:00 a.m. on January 21, 2014. (Joint Ex. 5) (emphasis added). The Town logged six (6) other public records requests on January 21, 2014, three (3) requests from Louis Roeder, Esq. made before the Sign-In Sheet Request and three (3) requests from Mr. O’Hare. (Joint Ex. 3 at Nos. 560, 562-63 572-74). The Town Acknowledged the Sign-In Sheet Request Before Suit was Filed At 3:21 p.m. on January 21, 2014, the Town Clerk sent Mr. O’Boyle written correspondence acknowledging the Sign-In Sheet Request (“the Acknowledgment Letter”). (Joint Ex. 7). The Town attached the first page of Mr. O’Boyle’s Sign-In Sheet Request to its Acknowledgement Letter. It did not set forth the description of a verbal public records request in its Acknowledgment Letter. (Joint Ex. 7). The Acknowledgement Letter clearly indicated that the Town intended to respond to the Sign-In Sheet request. Mr. O’Boyle’s January 22, 2014 Verified Complaint On January 22, 2014, one (1) day after the Sign-In Sheet Request was made, Mr. O’Boyle filed his Verified Complaint to Enforce Florida’s Public Records Act and for Declaratory, Injunctive and Monetary Relief (Filing #9447796) through counsel. Although Mr. O’Boyle testified that he generally told his attorney that his verbal request had been denied (Tr. at 65:4-9), the Verified Complaint makes no mention of a verbal request. Instead, by the Verified Complaint, Mr. O’Boyle averred that he had submitted a public records request “via e-mail” to the Town. (Joint Ex. 1, Verified Compl. at ¶ 16). He attached the same written public records request that he had faxed to the Town at 12:18 p.m., along with the Town’s 3:21 p.m. e-mail which had sent him the Acknowledgement Letter. (See id., Verified Compl. Ex. A; Joint Ex. 7). The written request faxed by Mr. O’Boyle to the Town at 12:18 p.m. had requested that responsive records be produced to him in electronic form and e-mailed to mailto:records@commerce-group.comrecords@commerce-group.com. (Joint Ex. 4). Consistent with that request, the January 22, 2014 Verified Complaint avers at paragraph 26: Martin E. O’Boyle requested the responsive documents be provided in electronic form and provided an E-Mail address to whom the response was to be sent. (Joint Ex. 1). The Verified Complaint raised two counts: Count I asserted an unreasonable delay of more than one day in producing public records and Count II complained that in sending the Acknowledgement Letter and advising Mr. O’Boyle that his request would be reviewed within three business days, the Town had imposed an impermissible “automatic delay.” (Joint Ex. 1). Mr. O’Boyle was clearly frustrated by the fact that his Sign-In Sheet Request was not met with an instantaneous response but, in accordance with the Town’s newly developed procedures to deal with the hundreds of requests it was receiving, an Acknowledgement Letter. (Tr. at 42:4-18; Joint Ex. 1, Verified Compl. at ¶¶ 33-36). While the Acknowledgement Letter advised Mr. O’Boyle that the Town would need three (3) days to review his request, the Town produced the record approximately 48 hours later. (Joint Ex. 8). As previously noted, the parties stipulated that the Town complied with the Sign-In Sheet Request and produced the responsive document to Mr. O’Boyle on January 23, 2014. That response was sent by both e-mail to mailto:records@commerce-group.comrecords@commerce-group.com, the address provided by Mr. O’Boyle on his request faxed at 12:18 p.m. on January 21, 2014, and by facsimile to Mr. O’Boyle. (Joint Ex. 8). The Claim of a Verbal Public Records Request At trial, the parties presented competing testimony as to whether Mr. O’Boyle had made a verbal public records request for the sign-in sheet to the Town Clerk approximately one hour before he reduced the request to writing and faxed it to the Town at 12:18 p.m. on January 21, 2014. Mr. O’Boyle testified that he was present at Town Hall, asked Ms. Taylor if he could make a copy of the sign-in sheet, and was advised that he had to make his request in writing. (Tr. at 41:17-25). Ms. Taylor testified that she has never told Mr. O’Boyle that the Town would only process a public records request from him if he put it in writing and did not do so in this instance. (Tr. 139:13-20). In determining whether the Town unlawfully withheld public records in response to the Sign-In Sheet Request, the Court finds that it need not reach the credibility issues raised by the competing testimony of Mr. O’Boyle and Ms. Taylor. Even assuming that Mr. O’Boyle had been told to put his public records request in writing, he testified that he voluntarily and immediately went back to his office and faxed the Sign-In Sheet Request to the Town “about an hour later” at 12:18 p.m. (Tr. at 41:25-42:3). At that point the requests merged into one and Mr. O’Boyle waived any right to complain about any response to a verbal records request. By 3:21 p.m. on January 21, 2014, approximately four (4) hours after any verbal request was made and three (3) hours after receipt of the facsimile, the Town had made clear to Mr. O’Boyle by its Acknowledgment Letter that the Town was processing his Sign-In Sheet Request, not unlawfully withholding records. (Joint. Ex. 7). And, in fact, the Town responded and produced the responsive record just two (2) days later. (Joint Ex. 8). SHOULD THE COURT REACH THE ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY, THE TOWN PROPOSES PARAGRAPHS 30-32: The Court finds Ms. Taylor’s testimony to be more credible and persuasive on the issue of whether a verbal records request was made by Mr. O’Boyle to her on January 21, 2014 than Mr. O’Boyle’s testimony. Ms. Taylor’s testimony that she did not refuse any verbal records request made by Mr. O’Boyle on January 21, 2014 is supported by the following facts: prior to January 21, 2014, the Town had implemented procedures by which it logged both verbal and public records requests and noted on its log if a given request was made “in person” and had done this on several occasions including with regard to other requests made verbally by Mr. O’Boyle, yet the Sign-In Sheet Request was not logged as having been made “in person” but by facsimile (Joint Ex. 3 at No. 571); and, prior to January 21, 2014, the Town developed a standard form acknowledgement letter by which it acknowledged both written and verbal requests in distinct manners and the Acknowledgment Letter sent in response to Mr. O’Boyle’s Sign-In Sheet Request attached his request faxed at 12:18 p.m. and otherwise followed the procedure for written requests (Joint Ex. 7). The Court further finds that Ms. Taylor had no motivation to deny a verbal records request by Mr. O’Boyle, had it been made. By January 2014, the Town had had significant experience with public records requests, had enlisted the assistance of outside counsel and was diligently implementing procedures to document and respond to every type of request that it received precisely to avoid lawsuits like this one. The Court further finds that Mr. O’Boyle’s testimony that he made a verbal records request to the Town on January 21, 2014 is inconsistent with and unsupported by the following facts: Mr. O’Boyle testified that he had spoken with his lawyers immediately after returning from Town Hall on January 21, 2014 but could not remember exactly what he told them about an alleged verbal records request except to rather contradictorily state that he had “generally stated” it was denied (Tr. at 65:4-9); the Verified Complaint sworn to by Mr. O’Boyle on January 22, 2014, the day after he purportedly made the verbal records request and told his attorney that the Town had denied that verbal request, makes no mention of a verbal records request but instead complains of an “unreasonable delay” in responding to the written request sent by facsimile and an “automatic delay” occasioned by Mr. O’Boyle’s receipt of the Acknowledgement Letter (Joint Ex. 1); the Verified Complaint sworn to by Mr. O’Boyle on January 22, 2014 attaches and sues on the written Sign-In Sheet Request faxed to the Town at 12:18 p.m., avers that Mr. O’Boyle “requested the responsive documents be provided in electronic form and provided an E-Mail address to whom the response was to be sent” (Joint Ex. 1 at ¶ 26) and makes no mention of a request that Mr. O’Boyle be permitted to photocopy the responsive records while he waited for them at Town Hall, as he testified at trial; Mr. O’Boyle denied using the email address mailto:records@commerce-group.comrecords@commerce-group.com to make records requests (Tr. at 106:13-107:11), testified he was not quite familiar with Commerce Group, which emanates out of his office (Tr. at 108:1-4), and stated that he could not recall whether he had used the e-mail address mailto:records@commerce-group.comrecords@commerce-group.com to make the Sign-In Sheet Request, yet that email address was associated with every public records request made by him to the Town on January 21, 2014 including the Sign-In Sheet Request (Tr. 110:16-111:4, see also Joint Exs. 3, 4); and, while Mr. O’Boyle claimed to now have a specific recollection of making a verbal request to the Town Clerk on January 21, 2014, he could not recall with any particular detail other matters such as the number of non-public records lawsuits he has filed against the Town and whether he had sued its attorneys or not (Tr. at 54:5-59:25). The Court further finds that Mr. O’Boyle had a financial motivation to misstate that he made a prior verbal public records request in order to preserve the statutory fee claim made in this Public Records lawsuit. In sum, the Court finds more believable the testimony of the Town Clerk Rita Taylor that she never refused a verbal public records request and did not do so in response to any request made by Mr. O’Boyle on January 21, 2014. CONCLUSION As to the one-count for unlawful withholding of public records, the Court finds that the Town did not unlawfully withhold public records in response to the Sign-In Sheet Request, regardless of whether it was made in writing or verbally on January 21, 2014. To prevail on his complaint, O’Boyle was required to prove that he made a specific request for public records, the Town received it, the requested public records exist, and the Town improperly refused to produce them in a timely manner. <Grapski v. City of Alachua, 31 So. 3d 193, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Mr. O’Boyle failed to meet his burden of proof. Just hours after the request was made, the Town informed Mr. O’Boyle that it was processing the request and he would hear from the Town within three (3) business days. Thus, before he even filed this suit, Mr. O’Boyle knew that the Town had no intention of refusing to respond to the Sign-In Sheet Request, regardless of whether it had been made verbally and/or in writing. The Town ultimately responded and produced the responsive records just two (2) business days after it was requested. The record is devoid of any evidence that the Town would not have responded to the Sign-In Sheet Request had Mr. O’Boyle not filed suit the very next day. Indeed there is no evidence that the Town was served with or had any knowledge that the suit had been filed before it responded on January 23, 2014.\ Even if the Amended Complaint raised a claim for unreasonable delay in producing responsive records, which it does not, the Court further finds no such delay under the circumstances. Section 119 mandates that “[e]very person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records.” Fla. Stat. § 119.07(1)(a) (emphasis added). However, “[it] does not contain a specific time limit (such as 24 hours or 10 days) for compliance with public records requests.” Government-In-The-Sunshine-Manual (2014 ed.) at p. 141. Whether the custodian has responded to the request in good faith “is necessarily a question for the court to decide based on the circumstances of a case.” Consumer Rights, LLC v. Union Cty., Fla., 159 So. 3d 882, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (emphasis added); see also Lilker v. Suwannee Valley Transit Auth., 133 So. 3d 654, 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that, in situations of delay, “ the court must determine whether the delay was justified under the facts of the particular case” ). In determining whether the time taken by a municipality to respond to a public records request is reasonable, the Court can consider the cumulative impact of requests made by the Plaintiff. See, e.g., Lang v. Reedy Creek Improvement District, No. CJ-5546 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. October 2, 1995), aff’d per curiam, 675 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (rejecting petitioner’s claim that agency should have produced requested records within 10, 20 and 60-day periods). The Town is also permitted such time as necessary to determine whether any statutory exemptions apply. See Tribune Co. v. Cannella, 458 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 1984). Here, the Sign-In Sheet Request was the last of several extremely broad public records requests made by Mr. O’Boyle to the Town during a 15-minute time span on January 21, 2014. Three earlier requests had been made to the Town that same day by Mr. Roeder. And in the weeks prior to this request the Town had been barraged with hundreds of complex requests that it had to process. Ms. Taylor described seemingly innocuous requests, for example for holiday cards, that raised concerns as to whether the requestors sought to elicit exempt information and the Town finds it entirely reasonable that the Town would take time necessary to ensure that (1) the record sought was being provided and (2) that exempt information was not inadvertently disclosed. Finally, Mr. O’Boyle suggests that because he was not the one responsible for this unusually high number of records requests the Town was in receipt of as of January 21, 2014, his request somehow should have been given priority. The Court finds nothing in the Public Records Act or caselaw that would require the Town to prioritize requests from Mr. O’Boyle over those from any other individual or entity or to otherwise act differently than it did here. The Town had implemented detailed procedures to acknowledge and respond to records requests in a chronological and orderly fashion. Its compliance with the Sign-In-Sheet Request less than two (2) business days after it was made was entirely reasonable under the circumstances. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: Final Judgment hereby is entered in favor of Defendant, Town of Gulf Stream and against Plaintiff, Martin O’Boyle. Martin O’Boyle and his counsel shall take nothing by this action and the Town of Gulf Stream shall go hence without day. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Email this 30th day of September, 2016 to: NICK TAYLOR, Esquire, The O’Boyle Law Firm, P.C., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 ( mailto:ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.comntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com; and mailto:oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.comoboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com); ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE, Esquire, Sweetapple Broker & Varkas, PA, 20 S. E. 3rd Street, Boca Raton, Florida 33432 ( mailto:pleadings@sweetapplelaw.compleadings@sweetapplelaw.com). Jones Foster Johnston & Stubbs, PA 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3475Telephone: (561) 659-3000Facsimile: (561) 650-5300mailto:joconnor@jonesfoster.comjoconnor@jonesfoster.com AND Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Florida Bar No: 0296988 Sweetapple Broeker & Varkas, PA 20 S.E. 3rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 561-392-1230 mailto:pleadings@sweetapplelaw.compleadings@sweetapplelaw.com By /s/ Joanne M. O’Connor Joanne M. O’Connor</w: </w:Florida Bar No: 0498807 Attorneys for Defendant Town of Gulf Stream 1 .DOCX 1QM374~1.DOC 1QM3746-findings fact conclusions law.DOCX application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document 39B158970BC8C246BD13653A5D2BCCF8@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QM1917-trial transcript 092016 volume 2_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QM1917-trial transcript 092016 volume 2.PDF File Size 773061 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/wXW7BdTO0R3HnClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QM191~1.eml 1QM1917-trial transcript 092016 volume 2_PDF.eml application/eml 6671D7D98473AD46BFCB16A9077DB7FF@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QM1913-trial transcript 092016 volume 1_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QM1913-trial transcript 092016 volume 1.PDF File Size 475059 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/6RQxBGIVQDrhdClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QM191~1.eml 1QM1913-trial transcript 092016 volume 1_PDF.eml application/eml 194AD30FE6814D439AFEEC917A88DE8D@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QK4331-joint trial exhibit 1_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QK4331-joint trial exhibit 1.PDF File Size 1761847 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Jq62B5tw9aACKClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QK433~1.eml 1QK4331-joint trial exhibit 1_PDF.eml application/eml 0943E99CD737BE4384AC137D1E658EF0@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QK4376-joint trial exhibit 4_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QK4376-joint trial exhibit 4.PDF File Size 440892 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/EJNeBpfWVvmc5Click Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QK437~1.eml 1QK4376-joint trial exhibit 4_PDF.eml application/eml EF354EC816F19D40A28002FBA1AFFFE6@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QK4395-joint trial exhibit 8_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QK4395-joint trial exhibit 8.PDF File Size 629611 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/nKo0BWSdVAYhLClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QK439~1.eml 1QK4395-joint trial exhibit 8_PDF.eml application/eml E843D12C7A34934D81413F27557DE14E@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QK4393-joint trial exhibit 7_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QK4393-joint trial exhibit 7.PDF File Size 363087 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/5JZQBGfgexwcvClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QK439~1.eml 1QK4393-joint trial exhibit 7_PDF.eml application/eml 23075095B244B048A7149610D5D9293A@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QK4477-joint trial exhibit 3_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QK4477-joint trial exhibit 3.PDF File Size 16870233 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ANrLBphXqxYUVClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QK447~1.eml 1QK4477-joint trial exhibit 3_PDF.eml application/eml C0772BB93711344A8B373DFC925C3C69@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QK4473-joint trial exhibit 2_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QK4473-joint trial exhibit 2.PDF File Size 5298813 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/4Qn8BvhqpQWtMClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QK447~1.eml 1QK4473-joint trial exhibit 2_PDF.eml application/eml 1D86554822DB02439970512B93916D02@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QK5028-joint trial exhibit 6_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QK5028-joint trial exhibit 6.PDF File Size 893516 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/8JQOBpfo3XGCZClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QK502~1.eml 1QK5028-joint trial exhibit 6_PDF.eml application/eml 7A9923CF796B3645A04A135EEC1DA064@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1QK5031-joint trial exhibit 5_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1QK5031-joint trial exhibit 5.PDF File Size 1036271 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Md6bBAhQYDbSqClick Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1QK503~1.eml 1QK5031-joint trial exhibit 5_PDF.eml application/eml 9A25FFB6AECB5E429458C5219AF7927F@gulf-stream.org EnUs 1MA8965-final judgment re lang v reedy creek_PDF.emlLinked Attachment Download Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below.   File Name 1MA8965-final judgment re lang v reedy creek.PDF File Size 411376 Bytes https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/lN5eBWhLA59f6Click Here to Download   This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. .eml 1MA896~1.eml 1MA8965-final judgment re lang v reedy creek_PDF.eml application/eml E3EEC09B382AFA43BD12D7C42563AEBF@gulf-stream.org EnUs Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "OConnor, Joanne M." <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Date: 10/2/16 6:09 PM (GMT-05:00) To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com, Bill Thrasher <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org> Cc: Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>, "Macfarlane, Mary" <MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com> Subject: FW: O'Boyle v. Gulf STream, Case No. 502014CA000834 Attached is the proposed Final Judgment and our transmission to the Court regarding the sign-in sheet case.         Joanne M. O’Connor   Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone:  561.650.0498  |  Fax:  561.650.5300  |  HYPERLINK "mailto:joconnor@jonesfoster.com"joconnor@jonesfoster.com   Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000  |  HYPERLINK "http://www.jonesfoster.com/"www.jonesfoster.com    Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt.  This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error.  If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited.  Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.       From: OConnor, Joanne M. Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 4:54 PM To: 'CAD-DivisionAH@pbcgov.org' Cc: Macfarlane, Mary (MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com); Robert Sweetapple; Cynthia Miller (cmiller@sweetapplelaw.com); Nick Taylor; Kristina Russell (krussell@oboylelawfirm.com) Subject: FW: O'Boyle v. Gulf STream, Case No. 502014CA000834   Dear Judge Small,   Pursuant to the Court’s directive at the conclusion of the September 20, 2016 non-jury trial in this matter, attached please find Defendant, Town of Gulf Stream’s Proposed Final Judgment with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. For the Court’s convenience, we have also attached the trial transcript, the joint trial exhibits and the unpublished decision of Lang v. Reedy Creek cited in our proposed judgment.   Regards, Joanne O’Connor         Joanne M. O’Connor   Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone:  561.650.0498  |  Fax:  561.650.5300  |  HYPERLINK "mailto:joconnor@jonesfoster.com"joconnor@jonesfoster.com   Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000  |  HYPERLINK "http://www.jonesfoster.com/"www.jonesfoster.com    Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt.  This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error.  If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited.  Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.