Is a settlement demand letter sent to a Florida city a public record?

Plain-English summary

This is a short, informal response from the Attorney General's office, not a formal numbered opinion. The Town Attorney for Miami Lakes asked whether a settlement demand that plaintiff Michael A. Pizzi sent to the town was a public record subject to disclosure under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Rather than issue a formal ruling, Assistant Attorney General Ellen B. Gwynn pointed the town to the discussion of settlement records in the 2015 Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual and quoted the relevant passage.

The quoted Manual passage describes cases about draft settlement agreements, other records related to settlements, and the end of a litigation exemption after settlement. None addresses whether the demand letter sent to Miami Lakes was a public record. The response did not answer that question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the letter covered

City and town officials

The response did not decide whether the demand sent to Miami Lakes was public. It directed the town to the Sunshine Manual's collection of cases about different settlement-related records.

Records custodians and city attorneys

The quoted cases addressed draft agreements supplied to an agency under a confidentiality promise, records in a private contractor's possession, and litigation materials after a settlement. The letter did not apply those decisions to the town's demand letter.

Common questions

Q: Did the Attorney General formally rule that the demand letter was public?
A: No. This was an informal response that referred the town to the Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual rather than a formal Attorney General opinion.

Q: What did the cited cases say about settlement records?
A: The quoted Manual passage says draft settlement agreements given to a state agency were public despite a confidentiality promise. It also cites a case requiring a private contractor to release records related to its settlement with an inmate, and a case where a litigation exemption ended after the state settled with one company. The letter does not say these rulings decide the demand-letter question.

Q: Can a confidentiality agreement keep a settlement secret under Florida law?
A: The quoted Manual passage says a circuit court treated draft settlement agreements furnished to a state agency as public despite the department's confidentiality agreement with the federal agency that supplied them. The letter did not address a confidentiality agreement covering Miami Lakes' demand letter.

Background and statutory framework

The town asked whether its settlement demand letter was subject to disclosure under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. The AG's office quoted a passage from the 2015 Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual about settlement agreements and related records. The passage supplied context but no ruling on the specific demand letter.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/public-records-settlement-demand
• Official print view: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1528

Original opinion text

Mr. Raul Gastesi, Jr.

Town Attorney

Gastesi & Associates, P.A.

8105 Northwest 155th Street

Miami Lakes, Florida 33016

Dear Mr. Gastesi:

Thank you for your letter of August 20, 2015, regarding whether the settlement demand that plaintiff Michael A. Pizzi sent to the Town of Miami Lakes is a public record subject to disclosure under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. As we discussed with Assistant Town Attorney Haydee Sera in our telephone conversation on August 26, 2015, we refer you to the material discussing settlement records in the 2015 Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, which provides:

"A circuit court held that draft settlement agreements furnished to a state agency by a federal agency were public records despite the department’s agreement with the federal agency to keep such documents confidential. Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. September 20, 1991), per curiam affirmed, 606 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). And see Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, No. 91-4218 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. June 5, 1992) (technical documents or data which were not prepared for the purpose of carrying litigation forward but rather were jointly authored among adversaries to promote settlement are not exempted as attorney work product). Cf. Prison Health Services, Inc. v. Lakeland Ledger Publishing Company, 718 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1999) (private company under contract with sheriff to provide medical services for inmates at county jail must release records relating to a settlement agreement with an inmate because all of its records that would normally be subject to the Public Records Act if in the possession of the public agency, are likewise covered by that law, even though in the possession of the private corporation).

In addition, if the state settles a claim against one company accused of conspiracy to fix prices, the state has concluded the litigation against that company. Thus, the records prepared in anticipation of litigation against that company are no longer exempt from disclosure even though the state has commenced litigation against the alleged co-conspirator. State v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 582 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). And see Tribune Company v. Hardee Memorial Hospital, No. CA-91-370 (Fla. 10th Cir. Ct. August 19, 1991) (settlement agreement not exempt as attorney work product even though another related case was pending, and agency attorneys feared disclosure of their assessment of the merits of the settled case and their litigation strategy would have a detrimental effect upon the agency’s position in the related case)."

We hope that we have been of help. Thank you for contacting the Office of the Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Ellen B. Gwynn

Assistant Attorney General

EBG/tsh