Lorenzo v. City of Venice

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This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information.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.

Lorenzo v. City of Venice was a transparency lawsuit before the Florida 12th Circuit Court in Florida in 2008. Judge Robert B. Bennett, Jr. was the presiding judge.

Important precedents[edit]

This case established that communication performed through private emails by public officials concerning public business was in violation of the Florida Sunshine Law and the Florida Open Meetings Law.

Background[edit]

On May 20, 2008, attorney Andrea Flynn Mogensen sent a letter to Venice City Clerk Lori Stelzer, requesting "email communications to and from council members, including non-city account emails utilized by council members, for the period beginning November 14, 2007, through the date of receipt of this letter, including all email attachments."Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many A second request was made on June 12, 2008, and directed to members of the Venice Airport Advisory Board after it was revealed from an email dated May 31, 2008, that a board member had "deleted electronic public records in his custody and control."Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

The suit alleged that 9 current and former city officials violated state open meetings laws by conducting official city business over their personal emails. The plaintiffs that filed suit were activist Anthony Lorenzo and Citizens for Sunshine, Inc., a nonprofit devoted to promoting awareness and compliance with open government laws.

Injunction of council's computers[edit]

Early in the case, Circuit Judge Robert B. Bennett, Jr. issued an injunction authorizing the seizure of the personal home computers of the mayor, vice-mayor and a council member. The personal computers were subjected to a forensic examination. During discovery, numerous depositions of elected and appointed officials were conducted. Subpoenas were also served on citizens accused of being liaisons, including third-party subpoenas directed to internet service providers. From that discovery, plaintiffs learned that a secret code had been developed to refer to the council members in case their emails were intercepted. The code used characters from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag

Ruling of the court[edit]

Settlement[edit]

On March 10, 2009, the Venice City Council voted 3-1 to approve the settlement agreement. The settlement imposed broad remedial requirements on the city to ensure the preservation of public records. City officials were expressly prohibited from using private email accounts to conduct official business. The agreement also required mandatory annual training for all elected and appointed officials on the requirements of the Public Records and Government-in-the-Sunshine Law and called for the establishment of an official policy that strongly discouraged the exchange of position papers or memoranda in advance of a meeting. The settlement required the city to pay substantial attorneys fees, as mandated by the Public Records and Sunshine Laws. The estimated cost to the taxpayers was well over $1 million dollars.^[1]

Plaintiffs were represented by attorney Andrea Flynn Mogensen, based in Sarasota, Florida, and attorneys Matthew Leish and Amy Leigh Carstensen of Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida. Michael Barfield served as a consultant to the legal team.

Final Judgment[edit]

On April 1, 2009, Robert B. Bennett, Jr. entered a final judgment finding that the city violated both the Sunshine Law and the Public Records Act. The court reserved jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and set a two-day evidentiary hearing for September 14, 2009, to assess attorneys fees and costs against the city. In early June 2009, the city council ordered that taxpayers pay the legal fees of their private attorneys, a cost of more than $250,000.^[2] On June 25, 2009, plaintiffs' attorneys filed a fee application seeking attorney fees and costs.^[3]

In October 2009, Judge Bennett entered an order awarding $755,458.42, plus pre-judgment interest, in attorneys fees.

Associated cases[edit]

• McCarthy v. Town of Windermere

See also[edit]

• Florida Sunshine Law

External links[edit]

• Herald-Tribune, "Judge refuses to exclude some e-mails in Sunshine Law case," February 12, 2009
• CIty of Venice, "Emergency Motion to Preserve Evidence," accessed June 4, 2015
• CIty of Venice, Order granting the Emergency Motion to Preserve Evidence," accessed June 4, 2015
• SarasotaCriminalLawyer.com, "Fourth Amended Complaint," accessed June 4, 2015
• Herald-Tribune, "Sunshine lawsuit e-mail exam turns up little," December 30, 2008
• Herald-Tribune, "Nation watches open-records case," June 14, 2008
• MySunCoast.com, "Why Sarasota citizen is suing City of Venice," June 13, 2008
• Herald-Tribune, "Judge: City officials must hand over home PCs," June 12, 2008
• Courtroom View Network, "Lorenzo v. City of Venice," accessed June 4, 2015
• SarasotaCriminalLawyer.com, "Settlement Stipulation," accessed June 4, 2015

Footnotes[edit]

	v • e State of Florida Tallahassee (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy