Court filing, 2022-01-19

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AG CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST,¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida,¶

Defendants.¶

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT C OMPTROLLER’S NI()FION FOR SANCTIONS AND c fra TO TAX FEES AND COSTS¶

Defendant, Abruzzo, in ”<…,, . offi capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, Palm Beach County y and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of General Practile andl icial Administration 2.420(i) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, in orde erve its right to recover public funds expended in responding to the Plaintiff’s M for S many Judgment, hereby moves for sanctions, fees, and costs against the Plaintiff n Holdings, LW and its counsel Greenberg Traurig, LLP, and in support th¶

1. On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 90-page complaint, inclusive of exhibits, against the Clerk’ and Dave Aronberg as the State Attorney of Palm Beach County (State

A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAI, HISTORY¶

{sup}&#x27; The Complaint was initially filed against Sharon R. Bock in her official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, Palm Beach County. Clerk Abruzzo was sworn into office as Clerk on January 5, 2021.¶

Attorney) seeking the release of grand jury evidence under Florida Statute s. 905.27(1). See Complaint [DE 4].¶

2. The Clerk, through its then in-house General Counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 13, 2019 on the basis that the Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a cause of action. See Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 13]. Shortly thereafter, then Chief Judge Marx, sua sponte, entered an order setting the Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss and the State Attorney’s Motion hiss for a hearing on January 24, 2020. See Order Setting Hearing on Defendant’s ’ smiss dated January 16, 2020 [DE 14]. Days before the motions could be heard o3 , the Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020, which moote e hearing.

3. The Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint ” ded Complaint”) - a 96-page document inclusive of exhibits — sought declaratory cli er Florida Statute 86.011 (Count I) and the release of the records pursuant to 8% s tatute section 905.27 (Count II). More specifically, the Amended Complaint so to lc Itare that under Florida Statute section 905.27(1) ‘o the Plaintiff would be entitled a estimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach Coun ’ and that the disclosure is appropriate “pursuant to the Court’s inherent authori d jury proceedings because of the exceptional public interest in the case.” Amy Co plaint, ¶¶ 6, 63, and 70-72. The Amended Complaint further sought that pursuant da Statute section 905.27, in order to further justice, that the Plaintiff should have e grand jury testimony.

4. On January 24, 2020, the Clerk filed its Answer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II, answering Count I of the Amended Complaint and moving to dismiss Count H again arguing that the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. See Clerk’s Answer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II [DE 24]. A hearing on the Motion was set for March 24, 2020 and rescheduled for May 6, 2020 and then again for June 3, 2020.

5. On June 8, 2020, the Court dismissed Count II of the Amended Complaint with prejudice. In the Order Granting Defendants Motions to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with Prejudice [DE 33] (the “Dismissal Order”), the Court reco ized that all the parties conceded that section 905.27 does not contain an express provisioit civil suit or civil liability. Dismissal Order, p. 3. Indeed, the Court stated that “[r]e9di Dion 905.27 as creating a private cause of action against the State Attorney and unsupported by the language of section 905.27, but is actually o to its plain language of the Statute.” Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). erefore not only

“S 6. The Court’s Dismissal Order was ‘Sly, {sup}o r at the plain language of section 905.27 in its entirety, required the court to (sh11st , re than simply the “furthering justice” provision of 905.27(1)(c) and that the ’ t c o e Legislature was to limit, and not facilitate, disclosure of grand jury records. /d der further stated that any duty under section 905.27 is one of secrecy and not discl¶

7. Following uance of the Dismissal Order, the Plaintiff commenced with discovery by iu R uest for Production of Documents upon the Clerk on July 10, 2020 [DE 36] and f is Amended Request for Production of Documents dated July 24, 2020 [DE 37].

. On October 29, 2020, the Plaintiff filed its Motion to Direct the Clerk of the Court to Unseal the Jeffrey Epstein Grand Jury Files for an Inventory and for An Inventory Report (the “Motion to Unseal”). Based upon the Clerk’s discovery responses and conversations with the Clerk’s office, the Plaintiff requested that the Clerk be permitted to unseal the Epstein Grand Jury¶

files and that the Clerk prepare a written inventory of the items in its possession. Motion to Unseal [DE 49], ¶116-7. Importantly, as stated therein the Clerk did not oppose the Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal. Id.,¶ 10.¶

9. On April 22, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a 35-page Motion for Summary Judgment, which, again, raised the issue of “furthering justice” and set forth case law m various jurisdictions outside of Florida. Despite this Court’s Dismissal Order stating tha n 905.27 was designed to preclude disclosure and promote secrecy, the Plainti its previous unsuccessful argument and asserted that the Court’s inherent authori te a r)odd the Court to order the Clerk to release the grand jury evidence.

10. Due to the length of the Motion for S Ju ent, the Plaintiff’s confusing and confounding legal arguments contained within, i utrm~’ ted f a new in-house General Counsel for the Clerk’s Office, and the transition of Clerk Abruzzo into office, the Clerk retained outside counsel in order to res ? th sod Ni …e otion for Summary Judgment.2 The response filed by the Clerk’s outside co e ’ t ded an analysis of the proper procedure to seek confidential court records and Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 and questioned the used by the Plaintiff of initiating an independent lawsuit. Due to the implicatio gran ng a Motion for Summary Judgment under the basis set forth by the Plaintiff, it erative that the Clerk provide to the Court the Rule of Procedure under which the rand uld have been sought as well as the legal basis for such position.

In its Final Judgment denying the Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court correctly recharacterized the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment¶

^&#x27;‘Kris Court recognized and acknowledged in its Final Judgment dated December 20, 2021 that, as a result of the Plaintiff incorrectly filing suit against the Clerk and moving for summary judgment, the Clerk was forced to take an “expanded” role in this proceeding. See Final Judgment [DE 78]. p. 3.

as a Motion to Obtain Access to Confidential Court Records under Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(j). Final Judgment, p. 3. The Court further analyzed the statute under which the Plaintiff sought to obtain access to the confidential court records and found that the statute’s “in furtherance of justice” provision did not provide a basis for the release of the records. Id., pp. 5-9. Moreover, this Court found that its “inherent authority and supervisor powers,” as argued by the Plaintiff, does not give it carte blanche to ignore le edent or statutory mandate and, therefore, was without power to order the release of . Id., pp. 9- 13. This Court denied the Plaintiff’s request for confidential r Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(j). Rule of General

B. ARGUMENTS?

12. Florida Rule of General Practice and iii41 i ,, inistration 2.420(i) is instructive i i i for scenarios such as this where an action for s tic ‘al information is filed without a legal or factual basis. Specifically, Rule 2.420(i sanctions to be awarded against a party or its attorney if (1) the party or its atto cess to confidential information under subdivision (j) and (2) the court finds after lice d an opportunity to respond, that the party’s motion, filing or other activity was not n good faith and was not supported by a sound legal or factual basis. See Fla. R P. d Jud. Admin. 2.420(iX3).

13. In i instant action, as stated in the Final Judgment, the Plaintiff failed to follow the pure seeking access to confidential records, which thus unnecessarily caused the Clerk to expend public funds to represent its interest and ensure that the proper procedure is used to seek access to confidential court records.

14. Based upon the ruling in the Dismissal Order entered on June 8, 2020, along with the dearth of Florida case law on the topic, and a prior order denying a request to unseal the grand

jury testimony on the basis of the “pursuit of furthering justice” entered in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 50-2006-CF-009454AXXX, Plaintiff’s filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking access to confidential court records was not made in good faith and was not supported by a sound legal or factual basis.

a. The Plaintiff and its counsel knew, at a very minimum, that they did not have a private cause of action against the Clerk on June 8, 2020 — when Chief Judge explicitly warned the Plaintiff that section 905.27 does not create a private cause of a t the Clerk. See Dismissal Order [DE 33], p. 3 (“…not only unsupported by the f section 905.27, but is actually paradoxical to its plain language of the statute.”). rte s Court’s clear directive that the instant suit was improperly filed against the Cle Attorney, the Plaintiff and its counsel continued legal proceedings against the C i \ a Doer a year and a half including the imposition of written discovery, motion practi s tywrings. nngs.

b. The Plaintiff’s Motion fo mm Judgment does not cite any Florida case law that would permit the disclosure o jury records under Florida Statue § 905.27 for the purpose of furthering justice.

c. Additiona than a year before the Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Co tat of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 50-2006-CF-009454AXXX, denied a request f t the ` tate of Florida for the Epstein grand jury testimony on the basis of the pursuit of ice. In her Order Denying the State’s Motion for an Order Unsealing Grand Jury Testimony without Prejudice dated January 14, 2020, then Chief Judge Marx expressly stated that the need for the disclosure of the records “cannot simply [be] public awareness but must be the furtherance of a specified course of action.” See January 14, 2020 Order, pp. 4-5 (emphasis added). Yet, despite this January 14, 2020 Order and the Dismissal Order, the Plaintiff still filed its Motion

for Summary Judgment and raised the same “public interest” argument that had already been previously dispelled.

15. Based upon Plaintiff’s actions, and the actions of its counsel, the Clerk is entitled to be reimbursed the cost of public fluids expended in having outside counsel respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The request for attorney’s fees and costs is made under th Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(i) as well as Florida Rule of dare 1.525 as this Court entered a Final Judgment in this matter. See Fla. R. Ci (“Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys’ fees, or both shall serve a oo ater than 30 days after filing of the judgment ..”).

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Jos Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, Palm B Sh u , respectfully moves this Court to impose sanctions against the Plaintiff and/o s Sss in , el, pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(i) in the amount o lic ds that the Clerk had to expend in responding to the Plaintiff’s incorrectly filed M tin ummary Judgment. , in his official capacity as

Dated: January 19, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER, PALM BACH COUNTY

By: s/ Collin D Collin D. Esq. (FL Bar No. 1018081) Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, Palm Beach County P.O. Box 229 West Palm Beach, FL Tel.: (561) 355-2983 E-mail: eservice®mypalmbeachclerk.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 19, 2022 the foregoing document was furnished upon the following via the Florida ePortal System:

Stephen A. Mendelsohn Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mails: mendelsohns@gtlaw.com; smithl@gtlaw.com; FLService®gdaw.com

Michael J. Grygiel Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, NY 12207 E-mail: grygielm®gtlaw.com

Nina D. Boyajian Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1840 Century Park East, Ste. 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 E-mails: boyajiann@gtlaw.com; riveraal®gtlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC

By: s/ Collin D. Collin D. Esq.

Kenneth G. Turkel Shane B. Vogt James C. Mo Bajo Cuva & Turkel, P.A. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 1A00 Tampa, Florida 33602 E-mails: kturkel@bajocu svogt@bajocuva.com; jmooney@bajocuva.cb

Attorneys for Deliwdatii. Abruzzo, as Clerk and mptruller of Palm Beach County,

¶