Judge Rules Manatee County Violated Public Records Law

MANATEE COUNTY – Last week, a Manatee County judge entered a final order awarding the plaintiff in a civil case brought against the Manatee County Government reimbursement of his court costs. The order follows a previous April order by the presiding judge, Edward Nicholas, that Manatee County had violated Florida’s Public Records Law, Chapter 119.

The plaintiff, Mr. David Daniels, had filed the civil suit "Pro Se," meaning he did not hire the counsel of an attorney but represented himself. Manatee County was represented by Manatee County Assistant Attorney, Douglas Polk Jr., Esquire.

Daniels brought the suit following a years-long legal battle that begin in December of 2020. In the United States District Court case, Daniels vs Manatee County, Daniels alleged the county had violated his First Amendment right to free speech when it terminated his volunteer role with Manatee County Animal Services due to posts he made on social media.

While the federal complaint has since concluded in a settlement, the civil matter initiated by Daniels in late 2021 related to public records he requested from the county but did not receive.

Based on court filings in the case, in an effort to collect documentation and evidence relevant to the 2020 federal complaint, Daniels requested the county produce numerous public records. Judge Nicholas found, that while the county did produce "thousands" of records requested by Daniels, some 40 emails were not initially produced responsive to his requests.

Manatee County Records Custodian, Deborah Scaccianoce, initially stated that there were no additional records and that the county had provided copies of all records responsive to his request. However, Daniels, who was in possession of emails via a third party that would have been responsive to his request, challenged the county’s response. Seven months after his original request for the public records, the county produced 40 emails that it had not previously provided to Daniels.

Judge Nicholas’ April order in the civil case included that the requested records "should have been provided" and that the county violated Chapter 119.

In her testimony to the court, Scaccianoce explained the county’s failure to produce the records was due to changes in the county’s procedures for the production of public records. Scaccianoce told the judge that during her time serving as the county’s records custodian she previously had access to conduct searches for emails in the county’s system and had been doing so for 10 years. But, in the Fall of 2021, said Scaccianoce, that suddenly changed when the duty was outsourced to the county’s IT Department.

Scaccianoce alleged the IT Department had overlooked and failed to produce the emails which were located in an archive folder, but were later able to locate them when directed to conduct an updated search at Scaccianoce’s request.

In the April order, Judge Nicholas included that it was the court’s opinion that Ms. Scaccianoce was experienced and well-credentialed, and likely would have not failed to produce the emails that IT was unable to locate.

Despite the order including the court's perspective of the failure as "unintentional," Judge Nicholas wrote that the county’s delay in the production of the records was not "reasonable" and was not "justified," writing, "This is not a close call."

Following Judge Nicholas' April ruling which asked, "...what sanction is appropriate for such a clear and unequivocal violation?" Nicholas issued the final judgmenton May 9, awarding Daniels the fees he incurred having brought forward the case against Manatee County.

TBT reached out to Mr. Daniels via email to inquire how he felt about having won the civil case.

"For months and despite my attempts to convince her otherwise, Records Manager Scaccianoce incorrectly insisted that records deemed 'part of litigation' were exempt from release," Daniels wrote in an email. "I decided to seek the Court’s opinion after she replied to me that 'There is no further need to debate this issue'É“

The total reimbursement of fees was lessened by Daniels representing himself, and having no attorney's fees. The total awarded may seem inconsequential to some, just over $700 dollars for process and filing expenses, but for Daniels, it was never about a monetary award.

In his email to TBT, Daniels stated his position that there were more than the 40 emails referenced in the court filings that were not produced by the county per his requests. He further contended that Scaccianoce’s defense that the county’s failure to produce the public records requested was–in his opinion–more than simply an "unintentional error."

"While I am content that I won, I am disappointed that the court’s order completely ignored the substantial, record-based evidence of intentional noncompliance with the law," Daniels included in his emailed response to TBT. "Instead, the court accepted as fact the verbal statement of records manager Scaccianoce that the county’s noncompliance was an unintentional process error. She blamed IT employees for overlooking 65 pages of emails."

Daniels said he believes the county’s records custodian should be made independent of county administration or IT Department. He suggested that perhaps more effective oversight may come from placing the Public Records Division under the Clerk of the Court. Daniels believes doing so could help protect the public’s legal right of access to public records under the law, and possibly avoid another citizen needing to bring such a case against the county.

Manatee County had no comment on the case or the judge’s orders.