MICHAEL BARFIELD
v.
JOHN DOE,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court granted a petition for writ of certiorari, quashing a lower court's order that had determined the names of parties in a dismissed eviction action to be confidential. The court emphasized the public's right to access court records, finding that the parties' desire for privacy did not outweigh this fundamental right.
No, the desire of parties to shield their names from public disclosure due to potential defamation or creditworthiness concerns does not justify making their names confidential in court records. Litigants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding matters inherent to their civil proceedings, and the agreement of all litigants cannot justify shielding a judicial record from public view.
[1] Court records are presumed to be open to the public, and any exceptions must be specifically provided by law or constitution.
[2] A court may shield a proceeding or record from the public only when confidentiality is required to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There is a presumption that court files are open to the public and “[e]very person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body . . . except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution.””
Establishes the fundamental right to access public court records.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA non-party sought a writ of certiorari to challenge a county court's amended order that declared the names of parties in a dismissed eviction action …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidentiality Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
KUNTZ, J.
Michael Barfield, a non-party to a county court eviction action, petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the county court’s amended order determining confidentiality of court records. In the amended order, the court found the names of the parties to a dismissed eviction action confidential.1 We grant the petition and quash the amended order. Background
The litigants in the eviction proceeding sought to shield an entire court file from public disclosure. They argued a landlord filed an eviction action after agreeing not to do so and that the landlord received the rental payments before the action was filed. So the litigants argued that public
disclosure of the eviction action was potentially defamatory and would affect the tenants’ creditworthiness. Citing Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration Rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi) (2022), the county court accepted these reasons as a basis to seal portions of the court file.
Analysis
There is a presumption that court files are open to the public and “[e]very person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body . . . except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution.” Art. I, § 24, Fla. Const. The judicial branch is “specifically include[d]” in this provision, id., and Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. Rule 2.420(a) provides that “[t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except” as provided in Rule 2.420.
Of course, the rule has exceptions, and Rule 2.420(c) provides for limited situations when judicial records may be shielded from the public. See id. at 2.420(c)(1)-(10). Relevant here is Rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi).
Rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi) allows a court to shield a proceeding or record from the public when confidentiality is required to “avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed.” Id.
But “litigants cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to matters that are inherent to their civil proceedings.” Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So. 2d 1310, 1312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Nor can the agreement of all litigants justify shielding a judicial record from public view. Rocket Grp., LLC v. Jatib, 114 So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citations omitted).
In this case, the names of litigants are matters inherent to the civil proceeding. The understandable desire of those litigants to shield their names from public disclosure cannot justify doing so. As a result, and absent some other valid basis to shield the information from disclosure, the names cannot be hidden from public view.
Conclusion
We grant the petition and quash the county court’s amended order determining confidentiality of court records.
Petition granted; order quashed.
WARNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Rocket Grp., LLC v. Jatib, 114 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)