Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
 |
This Open Records and Transparency Project article is a sprout. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates was a case before the Florida Supreme Court in 1980.
Background
- Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) hired the consulting firm Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates to conduct an investigation into candidates that would be qualified to fill the managing director position with JEA.
- JEA informed the consulting firm that their final report and candidate recommendations would be public records, subject to release under the Florida Sunshine Law.
- During the course of the investigation the consulting firm assembled numerous documents including notes on interviews, resumes and application forms. Candidates were assured of confidentiality.
- Before the final report was released, a local TV producer, Schellenberg, requested the documents in question. Upon denial, Schellenberg and the Attorney General filed suit in court to compel the release of the documents. Those documents that remained were sealed pending a trial.
Ruling of the court
The circuit court ruled in favor of Schellenberg and the Attorney General, determining that the documents were in fact public records.
The decision was appealed to the First District Court of Appeal where the court upheld the decision of the trial court but determined that a full release of the documents did not guarantee the constitutional rights of privacy of the applicants. The court ordered the names removed from the documents and invited candidates to submit requests for removal under pseudonyms. Based on the new documents submitted, the court ruled that JEA was in fact a public body and the documents in question were in fact public records because the fulfilled an essential public purpose. However, the court determined that a release of any of the documents would violate the applicants right to privacy and ordered the documents sealed.
