Pub. Rec/Appellate Court Clerks
HB 373 expands Florida’s public-records exemptions for judicial personnel by adding current appellate court clerks to the list of protected officials whose personal identifying and location information is exempt from disclosure. The bill shields the home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and photographs of current appellate court clerks, and also protects similar identifying information for their spouses and children, including names, places of employment, and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by their children. The bill defines “appellate court” as the Florida Supreme Court or a district court of appeal and makes conforming changes to related statutes.
The bill also updates existing public-records procedures tied to these exemptions. It requires custodial agencies to maintain exempt status only upon receipt of a written, notarized request from the protected person or employing agency, and it preserves rules governing removal of exempt information from property records, release of information upon request, and disclosure to certain title and legal professionals. In addition, the bill amends a cross-reference in the guardianship statute to reflect the updated telephone-number definition.
The bill’s impact on state law is narrow but significant for public-records administration: it adds a new category of protected court personnel to section 119.071, Florida Statutes, and extends constitutional public-records exemptions to their family members’ identifying information. It also applies retroactively to information held before, on, or after the effective date, meaning agencies must treat covered information as exempt regardless of when it was collected. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, and the new appellate court clerk exemption is subject to future legislative review and repeal under the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
The general sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. In the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee, the bill passed unanimously, 15-0, suggesting broad agreement that the privacy and safety concerns for appellate court clerks justify the exemption. The legislative necessity statement emphasizes the risk of retaliation from disgruntled litigants and associates, framing the measure as a security protection rather than a broad expansion of secrecy.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the usual tension between public access to government records and privacy/safety protections for public employees and their families. The bill extends exemptions to spouses and children, which can raise open-government concerns because it limits access to information about people who are not themselves public officials. However, the bill’s findings argue that the risk of revenge or harassment outweighs the public disclosure interest, and the unanimous subcommittee vote indicates no visible opposition in the available record.
HB 373 amends section 119.071, Florida Statutes, to create a new public-records exemption for current appellate court clerks and their immediate family members’ identifying and location information, and it makes a conforming cross-reference change in section 744.21031. The bill also specifies that the exemption applies retroactively to covered information held by agencies before, on, or after the effective date, and it subjects the new exemption to future sunset review and possible repeal. Agencies that maintain the relevant records must follow the bill’s notarized-request procedures for maintaining or releasing exempt information, and the measure preserves limited disclosure pathways for certain title and legal professionals.
The available legislative history suggests favorable sentiment toward the bill. It passed the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee unanimously, 15-0, and there are no committee transcripts indicating opposition or significant debate. The bill’s stated purpose is to protect appellate court clerks and their families from potential retaliation or harassment, which appears to have been accepted as a sufficient public necessity by the committee members who voted on it.
The principal issue is the balance between transparency under Florida’s broad public-records laws and the privacy and safety of court personnel. Supporters of the bill rely on the argument that appellate court clerks, because of their role in issuing orders, maintaining dockets, and interacting with litigants, may face ill will and retaliation, justifying an exemption for their personal and family information. Any potential concern would likely come from open-government advocates or those wary of expanding exemptions to spouses and children, but no recorded opposition appears in the available vote history.