ANDREW HUDSON
v.
RICHARD MCCREA
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.
Lavonne Washington petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel University of South Florida custodians to produce seven months of email records without paying assessed fees. The court denied the petition, finding that USF properly assessed a reasonable special service charge under Florida's public records law and fulfilled its duty to respond to the records request.
The court held that USF properly assessed a reasonable special service charge under Florida Statute § 119.07(4) and fulfilled its duty to respond by promptly providing an initial cost estimate. Mandamus was not appropriate because the custodians were not refusing to perform a ministerial duty, but rather properly calculating and collecting a legally permissible fee.
[1] An agency may charge a special service charge for public records requests that require extensive use of information technology resources or clerical assistance, provided…
[2] When a custodian receives a written request for public records and information regarding copying costs, the custodian has a duty to respond with the fee amount and, upon…
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“If the nature or volume of public records requested . . . is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance . . . the agency may charge . . . a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred . . .”
Establishes the legal basis for charging fees for extensive public records requests under Florida Statute § 119.07(4)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 21, 2024, Washington requested all emails from Richard McCrea, a USF-contracted attorney, from September 2023 onward. USF responded on March …
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 Public Records Request cases and more on FLexlaw
RICHARD McCREA in his capacity as Custodian, and ANDREW HUDSON in his capacity as Custodian,
Respondents. _______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s June 25, 2024 Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 26) seeking a writ to compel Respondent to furnish public records requested by Petitioner on March 21, 2024. Petitioner asserts that Respondents have a ministerial duty to produce public records upon request.
On March 21, 2024, Petitioner submitted a records request to the USF email address designated for public records. Petitioner requested “all of [Respondent McCrea’s] email since September 2023. So it is clear, whatever date you provide the email, [Petitioner] expected to see all of [McCrea’s] communications until that time.” (Doc. 26). In other words, Petitioner requested seven months’ worth of email communications between Respondent McCrea, an attorney contracted to work for USF, and everyone with a USF email address. Petitioner states that an individual responded to Petitioner on behalf of USF on March 28, 2024 and “interpreted the request, putting in charges for IT time . . . .” (Doc. 26). Petitioner alleges that the fees assessed by respondent are an “attempt[ ] to extort money from [her] in hopes of discouraging [her] from obtaining” the requested records.1 (Doc. 26). The initial petition was filed May 5, 2024. On May 12, 2024, the court issued an alternative writ of mandamus ordering Respondents to respond. On May 14 Petitioner filed a motion for an immediate hearing under Fla. Stat. § 119.11, asking that one be set for May 16, 2024. The same day that Petitioner filed her motion for an immediate hearing, counsel for Respondents filed a notice of non-availability between May 14 and May 21, 2024. On June 3, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the first judge assigned to this case. That motion was granted the same day and the case was reassigned. On June 4, 2024, the court granted Petitioner’s request under Fla. Stat. § 119.11 and scheduled a hearing to be held in person on June 5, 2024, based on Petitioner’s assertion that an emergency hearing was required. Petitioner did not appear and requested that the hearing either be telephonic or rescheduled. The court granted Petitioner’s request to reschedule the hearing. Despite multiple communications between the parties and the court attempting to schedule a hearing, Petitioner never agreed upon a hearing date. On June
ORDERED in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on June 25, 2025.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chandler v. The City OF Greenacres, 140 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, 221 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)