Filing # 35957691 E-Filed 12/29/2015 09:44:44 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA
ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO.:
DIVISION:

v.

CA15-1316
55

JEFFERY M. GRAY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
DEFENDANTS VERIFIED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
(ANTI-SLAPP MOTION)
Defendant, JEFFERY M. GRAY (hereinafter, GRAY or Defendant), moves this
Court for an order granting final judgment in favor of GRAY and against Plaintiff, ST. JOHNS
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD (hereinafter, SJCSB or Plaintiff), pursuant to Fla. Stat.
768.295(4), and, as grounds, states as follows:
1.

SJCSBs four-count Complaint fails to allege any material fact that would sustain

any cause of action against Defendant. Rather, Plaintiffs Complaint details a litany of
annoyances with the Defendant and dissatisfaction with current State law. As mere irritation is
not actionable, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment in his favor.
2.

Summary Judgment is appropriate in the instant case as it is clearly provided for

by statute when a governmental entity brings a lawsuit without merit in response to a persons
exercise of a right under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or Art. I, Sec. 5
of the Florida Constitution. Fla. Stat. 768.295(3) and (4).

3.

Summary adjudication is the most effective way to fulfill the stated intent of the

Legislature in its prohibition against SLAPP suits that such lawsuits be expeditiously disposed
of by the courts. Fla. Stat. 768.295(1).
4.

In this Motion, GRAY argues that as a matter of law Plaintiffs case is

unsupportable and that even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiffs speculation regarding GRAYs
intentions and motivations were accepted as well-plead facts, there is no basis in law to support
the instant causes of action.
5.

As the Plaintiffs filings in this matter are facially abhorrent to the SLAPP

prohibitions in Fla. Stat. 768.295, an expeditious entry of Summary Judgment is appropriate.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I.

INTRODUCTION.
This is not a case where the Defendant disputes having performed the basic actions which

form the basis of the Plaintiffs Complaint. Despite the Plaintiffs unsubstantiated
characterizations, the actions undertook by GRAY are neither impermissible nor illegal.
Plaintiffs actions before and since the filing of this action make clear that this suit is punitive in
nature against GRAY for the lawful exercise of fundamental Constitutional rights and intended
to restrict him (under threat of arrest) from the continued exercise of such rights.
GRAY has been a resident of St. Johns County since 2006. He currently has three
children attending schools under the jurisdiction of the SJCSB; a 12 year-old son at Wards Creek
Elementary, a 14 year-old daughter at St. Johns Technical High School, and a 16 year-old son at
St. Augustine High School.
GRAY is also a Vice President of Photography is Not a Crime (PINAC), a
nationwide online news outlet that focuses on government oversight and constitutional

protections. An affidavit by a Vice President of PINAC is attached hereto as Exhibit A. GRAY

also maintains a YouTube channel of his work consisting of First Amendment audits and
government accountability investigations called Honor Your Oath. This project has over
35,000 subscribers. Some of his audits and investigations are viewed over 1 million times.
(Available at: https://www.youtube.com/user/honoryouroath.)
Subsequent to an accident by one of Plaintiffs school buses in which several children
were injured one critically GRAY undertook an investigation to determine if the Plaintiffs
school buses were being operated in a legal, safe manner. The results of the investigation
(available through PINAC and the Honor Your Oath YouTube channel) showed a pattern of
failure to conduct mandated pre-trip inspections of the buses. This development drew the
attention of local traditional media and was the subject of a story in a news broadcast by a
local television station. During that broadcast, Christina Langston, from SJCSBs Community
Relations Department (CRD) coincidentally, the same department which the Plaintiff would
prefer vet all public records requests, including the bus inspection reports stated that she was
not aware there was any type of problem or allegations until [Grays] video was produced this
morning. (News broadcast available at: http://www.news4jax.com/education/photographygroup-raises-questions-on-school-bus-safety).
Prior to this investigation, GRAY sought to examine what chemicals his, and other
children of the district, were routinely exposed to while at school. This resulted in a separate and
distinct case that was voluntarily dismissed by GRAY and is thoroughly, albeit inaccurately,
documented in Plaintiffs Complaint.

II.

PLAINTIFFS IMPERTINENT, SCANDALOUS, AND INACCURATE

BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS.
In 2 of the Complaint, Plaintiff admits that it is the duly elected school board of the

county and operates all 38 of the public schools within the St. Johns County School District. This
admission serves to confirm that Plaintiff is indeed a governmental entity subject to the
prohibition against SLAPP suits in Fla. Stat. 768.295(2)(b).
a. THE AUGUST 26, 2015 VISIT TO THE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT TO
INSPECT MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS (MSDS).
4 and of the Complaint outlines GRAYs knowing non-compliance with the Plaintiffs
public records policy in an attempt to make such a failure actionable in this Court. To bolster the
argument, Plaintiff included as exhibits to the Complaint, a screenshot of the Districts public
records request policy as well as emails between GRAY and the CRD staff discussing the policy.
(See Plaintiffs Complaint Exhibits G I.) Plaintiff cites Fla. Stat. 119.07(1)(b) as an
imperative based on its policy while disregarding the permissive language in the statute it quotes.
(a person having custody of public records may designate another officer or employee
(Emphasis added.)) It is more important to note the mandatory language of 119.07(1)(a) states
that Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected
subject to reasonable times and conditions while supervised. (Emphasis added.) The language of
(1)(a) is to only protect the records from alteration, damage, or destruction, not to set a precondition for review. Wait v. Fla. Power & Light, Co., 372 So. 2d 420, 425 (Fla. 1979).
Plaintiff has made no allegation that the requested MSDSs were not in the custody of the
Maintenance Department (as storing them off-site from the chemicals would be unlawful) and
has acknowledged that there are on-site custodians of records in the District. (See the second
bullet point of the first paragraph in Plaintiffs Exhibit G.)

On the August 26, 2015 visit to the Maintenance Department, GRAY complied with the
provisions of Fla. Stat. 119.07(1)(a) by appearing where the requested records were kept and
requesting inspection from the on-site custodian. Regardless of Plaintiffs preferences which may
run contrary to the statute, GRAYs request is not actionable by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot
argue that its policy trumps law.
Plaintiff goes on to allege, Instead, without any advance notice, [GRAY] showed up at
the Maintenance Departments administrative office, refused to identify himself, and began
aggressively questioning then arguing with Susan Lee If this were true, there is neither
statutory provision requiring advance notice nor a similar provision in the Districts policy.
Further, such required advance notice would fly in the face of the intent listed in Wait by
allowing the potential for altering incomplete or improper records prior to inspection. There is
also no requirement for identification as a pre-requisite for records inspection. Plaintiff
acknowledges this in their own policy (the 4th bullet of the first paragraph in Exhibit G) by
stating you do not have to provide your name, show identification or give a reason for the
request. (Emphasis in original.) While this complies with the Florida statutory provisions, it
renders Plaintiffs allegation as a basis for a cause of action disingenuous and impertinent.
Concerning Plaintiffs irrelevant allegation of GRAYs demeanor towards Ms. Lee in 4,
GRAYs video evidence shows otherwise. Assuming, arguendo, that GRAY was indeed
argumentative and an aggressive questioner, there is not statutory provision that one must ask
nicely to inspect public records.
Plaintiff alleges in 5 that two days later, GRAY was offered the opportunity to inspect
the MSDSs at the Maintenance Department. The Plaintiffs stated reasons for GRAYs refusal
are not only speculative but scandalous and, in any other forum, defamatory. Rather than the

obvious issue that two days would have been more than sufficient to cover any flaws in the
retention or display of the MSDS sheets, Plaintiff accuses GRAY of scamming and attempting
to bait Ms. Lee in order to assist an attorney in committing a violation of the Rules of the
Florida Bar. Regardless that GRAY is not subject to the Bar Rules (rendering a suit against him
for a rule violation absurd), motive is irrelevant in the context of a public records request.
The motivation of the person seeking the records does not impact the persons right to
see them under the Public Records Act. Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d 736, 742 (Fla. 4th DCA
2002). An individuals reason for requesting a public record is irrelevant. Barfield v. Sch. Bd.
of Manatee County, 135 So. 3d 560, 562 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2014). A requesters motive for seeking
a copy of documents is irrelevant. Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 8741, 875 (Fla.
2nd DCA 2004). It is clear that despite what the Plaintiff may think or hope of GRAYs
motivation, it has no bearing on this matter.
Plaintiff also alleges that due the GRAYs recording of the encounter on August 26,
2015, GRAY committed a third degree felony under various sections of Fla. Stat. 934.03 by
virtue of recording Ms. Lee and his subsequent publication of the recording on his YouTube
channel, making it available to his subscribers. The accusation of felonious activity not only is
unnecessarily scandalous in this suit, but represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law
and Fla. Stat. 934.03.
Plaintiff admits in 4 of the Complaint that the encounter occurred in the Districts
Maintenance Department administrative office with Ms. Lee, a District employee. The First
Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public
property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest. Smith v. City of Cumming,
Ga., 212 F. 3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000). Further, the prohibition under Fla. Stat.

934.03(1)(a) only applies if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy which is recognized by

society. Society does not recognize such privacy in ones office or place of business. Cohen
Bros., LLC. V. ME Corp., 872 So. 2d 321, 324 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). Factors that determine if the
oral communications falls under the protection of 934.03(1)(a) include the location where the
communication occurred, the type of communication and the manner in which it was made, and
the number of persons present when the statements were made. Stevenson v. State, 667 So. 2d
410, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). There is no analysis that would validate a societally accepted,
reasonable expectation of privacy by a government employee, on government property, in an
area with public access, in front of other government employees, making statements about
government policies and procedures. GRAYs recording of the encounter with Ms. Lee was not
only protected under the First Amendment, but did not run afoul of Fla. Stat. 934.03(1)(a) as
Plaintiff alleges. Because the recording itself was not a violation of (1)(a), by definition the
publishing on YouTube cannot be a violation of (1)(d) which only applies to the use of a
recording that is itself a violation.
b. PLAINTIFFS RELIANCE ON PREVIOUSLY FILED LAWSUITS.
Plaintiff refers to, and attaches as Exhibit B to its Complaint, as suit filed by GRAY
against SJCSB for failure to allow GRAY to inspect and photograph the requested records on
August 25, 2015. (The docket from that action is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) As if to imply
that litigation somehow applies to the instant matter, Plaintiff asserts that the frivolity of the case
let GRAY to have the suit voluntarily dismissed on December 4, 2015 three days prior to the
filing and service of the instant suit. Plaintiff attributes the dismissal to the fear of sanctions
under Fla. Stat. 57.105. Plaintiff neither alleges nor provides any indication that there are a
myriad of reasons one may dismiss a suit.

If frivolity were the reason for the dismissal, the legal mechanism contemplated by Fla.
Stat. 57.105(4) worked properly rendering this matter superfluous. 57.105(4)s safe harbor
provision gives a pleader a last clear chance to withdraw a claim. Walker v. Cash Register Auto
Ins. of Leon County, Inc. 946 So. 2d 66, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). To then permit the relieved
party to then pursue damages far in excess contemplated by 57.105 defeats the purpose of the
statute. Unless, of course, Plaintiff has other motives for the filing of this suit. In fact, Plaintiff
claims that it served the 21 day safe harbor letter on GRAY per 57.105 a day prior to the
filing of the suit they deemed frivolous.
What the Plaintiff failed to mention, which directly contradicts the claim of frivolity, is
that on November 25, 2015, this Court denied SJCSBs Motion to Dismiss that case and ordered
an Answer within 14 days. Absent Plaintiffs contention that this Court would permit a
sanctionable, frivolous lawsuit to proceed through litigation, its failure to include that important
fact is dishonest and misleading. Plaintiff made sure to attach GRAYs dismissal of that suit as
Exhibit D of this Complaint but did not attach this Courts order denying Plaintiffs dismissal
(which is attached hereto as Exhibit C).
Then, attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint, Plaintiff takes great pains to detail a case
involving GRAY in a different jurisdiction, with different parties, a different type of entity,
glaringly different facts as if such a suit would have bearing on the instant matter. There is no
statute or Rule that would permit consideration of such a divergent set of facts.
c. THE ALLEGATIONS SHOW PLAINTIFFS PUNITIVE INTENT AND
WILLFUL FILING OF THIS SLAPP SUIT.
Plaintiff uses, in 13 of its Complaint, the dismissal of the MSDS suit to show that
GRAYs school bus safety investigation was unwarranted harassment. Plaintiff alleges that
GRAYs request for the inspection reports from the bus drivers responsible for completing them
8

is somehow connected to the voluntary dismissal of the previous suit. Plaintiff implies that its
determination that previous copies of inspection reports obtained from the Transportation
Department and CRD are sufficient for GRAYs needs despite the records being a daily
requirement. Plaintiff again asserts that GRAY did not adhere to policy over statute by
submitting his request through the CRD.
Logically, and to maintain the integrity of the investigation based on facts previously
gathered by GRAY, he reasonably sought to review and photograph the inspection records
concurrent with their generation to avoid any possible alteration prior to examination. This is
allowed and contemplated as above in Witt at 425. Despite Plaintiffs preference that GRAY
follow the Districts spurious policy (and thereby compromising the integrity of the records),
Section 119.07(1)(a) imposes a duty of disclosure upon [e]very person who has custody of a
public record. Puls v. City of Port St. Lucie, 678 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). (Emphasis in
original.)
Plaintiff also implies malfeasance by GRAY by alleging in 13 that he went to the bus
parking area to request these records unannounced and without checking in at the reception
desk. However, quotes from Langston and board members in Plaintiffs Exhibit J to the
Complaint (an article published in The St. Augustine Record on September 23, 2015) again
show that GRAY committed no violations in his direct request to the bus drivers. The article
states that SJCSB is reviewing a draft of its 2016 Legislative Platform and supports a proposal to
require individuals making public records requests at a school site to check in with proper
identification. Such a proposal would not be on the Platform if it were already a requirement.
Further, Langston is quoted in the article explaining coordination of records requests and
states, It just depends on the nature of the request as to whether they can handle it right there at

the moment or if they need further assistance from the school district. Plaintiffs Complaint
shows no cause that a bus driver, as custodian of his/her own daily inspection report would need
assistance from the school district to facilitate permitted photographing of the material.
Plaintiffs presentation of the request to photograph the inspection reports and GRAYs
failure to sign in as improper, deliberate harassment, provocation, and intimidation is clearly
disputed by members own words and actions. Therefore, what other purpose could this suit
serve than to deter GRAY from exercising his First Amendment rights as a citizen-journalist and
parent? This is a blatant SLAPP suit.
d. ACCUASATIONS OF LOITERING AND SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY.
SJCSB alleges in 14 that GRAYs driving on a public roadway while stopping to take
photographs or video of the schools constitutes suspicious activity and loitering which
prompted a call to law enforcement. Plaintiff reports this activity taking place on December 3,
2015 along Hickory Creek Trail between Switzerland Point Middle School and Hickory Creek
Elementary School. Per the Sheriffs Office report of the incident, attached as Exhibit E to the
Complaint, Plaintiffs allegation that GRAY had departed the area prior to law enforcement
arrival is misleading if meant to imply GRAY fled as law enforcement was not on scene until
nearly 24 hours later. It should also be noted that, based on the allegations in this Complaint,
SJCSB was well aware of who GRAY was and his investigative activity long before a mere three
days prior to the filing of this suit so much as to make a report of a random suspicious
vehicle misleading to the Sheriffs Office.
Despite Plaintiffs claim of loitering in this incident, the police report shows that a
male, identified as GRAY, drove along Hickory Creek Trail taking pictures. At some point, he
stopped to ask a district maintenance employee show was responsible for the maintenance of a

10

gate. There was no further incident. The report shows no indication of illegal behavior, need for
further investigation, or requirement to follow up with GRAY. There is no mention of the
misdemeanor loitering of which Plaintiff complains.
Plaintiff also reaches back to December 14, 2012, nearly three years prior to the filing of
the suit, to complain of some of GRAYs activities. Attached as Exhibit F to the Complaint, law
enforcement was called on GRAY as he was videotaping at Mill Creek Elementary the day after
the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. When approached by law enforcement (as summoned by
the school), GRAY gave his name to the responding officer and explained that he was
documenting the additional law enforcement presence at the school. There is no allegation in
Plaintiffs Complaint that this was not a valid news collecting activity considering the
circumstances at the time. There is no indication that GRAY attempted to enter school property
or that there was the need for any action after the encounter. The report is titled merely field
interview.
SJCSB attempts in its Complaint to classify these activities as violations of Fla. Stat.
810.0975 trespass in a school safety zone. A key component throughout the stated statute is
that the person not have legitimate business to account for their presence within 500 feet of
school property. Additionally, there is a provision that a principal or designee may request a
person leave the school safety zone upon having a reasonable belief that he or she will commit a
crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation of students entering or leaving school
property.
Despite GRAYs legitimate business of news gathering and the absence of any
reasonable belief of risk of crime, harassment, or intimidation, on December 7, 2015 (the day
this suit was filed), Dr. Joseph G. Joyner, Superintendent of Schools, orchestrated a scheme to

11

trespass warn GRAY from every structure or property of the St. Johns County School Board.
These letters are attached as Exhibit D to this Motion.
These letters far exceed the limitations set forth in Fla. Stat. 810.0975 as Joyners letter
requires an explanation of purpose and request for entry from the school principal for any
presence, not only on school property, but on non-school property within 500 feet of such
property. The clear indication that these letters were forwarded to both the St. Johns County
Sheriffs Office and St. Augustine Police Department presents a real threat that GRAY could be
arrested merely for driving down the wrong public roadway at the wrong time of day. The
prohibition also requires that any public records requests be made at the CRD a clear violation
of Fla. Stat. 119 and admittedly known by the Plaintiff based on the evidence above.
Interestingly, the letter from St. Augustine High School, where a child of GRAY is in
attendance, merely prohibits entry upon the grounds of [NAME OF SCHOOL]. GRAY is also
prohibited from entering upon the grounds of St. Johns Virtual for any reason. GRAY is
unsure how to abide by a prohibition of coming within 500 feet of an internet entity.
The objective of Fla. Stat. 810.0975 is the protection of school children from harmful
or negative persons such as drug dealers, gang members, and pedophiles. J.L.S. v. State, 947 So.
2d 641, 647 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2007). Instead, Plaintiff (through Joyner) has used this statute to
express animus for GRAY. Joyners animus against GRAY was made clear at a public meeting
held on September 9, 2015. Joyners false and defamatory statements regarding GRAY are
available

at

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/09/florida-superintendent-recorded-

falsely-accusing-pinacs-jeff-gray-of-being-dangerous-man-with-extensive-criminal-record/.
Irrespective of the obvious Constitutional implications which exceed the scope of this
matter (but may be addressed in a separate action), the basis for equating a citizen-journalist to

12

drug dealers, gang members, and pedophiles can be for no other reason than to punish GRAY for
the exercise of his First Amendment rights and make the continued exercise thereof so
burdensome, so risk-filled, as to eliminate the exercise altogether.
III.

PLAINTIFFS COUNT ONE DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiff would have this Court believe that there is some ambiguity in the Florida Public

Records Act that is resulting in a controversy regarding the Districts public records
procedures which warrants declaratory relief under Fla. Stat. 734.01. Unfortunately for the
Plaintiff, 734.01 has existed in the Florida Statutes since 1974.
SJCSB, despite knowing that the district procedures outlined in this Complaint neither
comport with the law nor the Plaintiffs own, published policies,1 attempts to justify relief on the
basis that GRAY persists in disobeying the specific instruction to submit his requests through
CRD GRAY is not a petulant student subject to the specific instruction of the Plaintiff. He,
as are the rest of Floridians, subject to the law. The law, Fla. Stat. 119, is clear.
a. SJCSBS GENERALIZED ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF DECLARATORY
RELIEF
i.

Defendants surprise, adversarial public records demands disrupt

District operations.

The only way a public records request would not be a surprise, is if one gave advance
notice that a request was forthcoming. Again, Plaintiff is attempting to impose conditions upon
requestors that do not exist in Fla. Stat. 119.07. By definition, the first indication of an
unexpected request would always be a surprise.
GRAY is not a student subject to the demands of the District. He bears no statutory or
constitutional duty to ensure a legal public records request does not become adversarial. A
1

As discussed above, the SJCSD Public Records policy (Plaintiffs Exhibit G), permits the on-site records
custodian to review the request and Langston acknowledges (Plaintiffs Exhibit J) that the on-site custodian has the
ability to handle it right there at the moment or seek assistance from the school district.

13

review of the (farcically illegal) video in the Maintenance Department documenting Ms. Lees
refusal to permit inspection of maintenance records clearly shows that it is not the public record
demand which is adversarial, but the record refusal.
ii.

[L]aw enforcement must be summoned to deal with Defendant.

Plaintiff has failed to state or show any instance of a contact with GRAY where law
enforcement was required (must) rather than elective. GRAY has committed no crime, has
posed no threat, has crossed no acceptable bound which would show the Plaintiff must
summon law enforcement.
GRAY has exercised his statutory and constitutional rights in a legally permissible way.
Plaintiffs allegation of law enforcement involvement is no more than a continuation of its
pattern of actions and threats the trespass letters, this SLAPP suit, a history of harassment as
evidenced by Plaintiffs Exhibits E and F designed to discourage GRAYs journalism.
iii.

Preventing further vexatious litigation.

A vexatious suit is one instituted maliciously and without good grounds, meant to create
trouble and expense for the party being sued. Blacks Law Dictionary, 10th Ed. (2014).
Defendant is unsure which suit(s) Plaintiff is alleging have been vexatious in the past. As shown
in Exhibits B and C, in CA15-1121, SJCSBs Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of
action was denied by this Court. However, Plaintiff has filed the instant suit primarily because
[GRAY] has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue
a prohibited SLAPP suit. Fla. Stat. 768.295(3). Plaintiff appears to be requesting judicial
intervention to prevent Plaintiffs own actions.

14

iv.

GRAYs video documentation and subsequent publishing of the

recordings is criminal.

Plaintiff may be of the opinion that the recording of a public employee, in a public place,
performing public duties is criminal however it is not illegal. Opinion does not supplant law.
Plaintiff has not alleged or shown any fact or circumstance sufficient to obviate the exceptions to
Fla. Stat. 934.03(1)(a) and (d), discussed with Smith, Cohen, and Stevenson above.
b. PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO FRUSTRATE
GRAYS ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS ARE PERMITTED UNDER
THE SUPERINTENDENTS RIGHT TO DESIGNATE OTHERS TO
RESPOND TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS AND ADOPT
REASONABLE RULES REGARDING THE INSPECTION, COPYING, AND
PHOTOGRAPHING OF RECORDS.
While a custodian may be designated under Fla. Stat. 119.021, there is still a duty of
disclosure upon every person who has custody of a public record. Puls at 514. (Emphasis in
original.) There is nothing in 119.021 (which governs custodial requirements) which allows
a custodian to implement restrictions not found in the remainder of 119 or Fla. Const. Art. I
24.
The Florida Supreme Court has addressed the Superintendents authority to adopt
reasonable rules in Wait:
It is clear to us that this statutory phrase refers not
to conditions which must be fulfilled before review
is permitted but to reasonable regulations that
would permit the custodian of the records to protect
them from alteration, damage, or destruction and
also to ensure that the person reviewing the records
is not subjected to physical constraints designed to
preclude review.
At 425.
Plaintiff attempts to justify its obstructive behavior on the necessity of review by
specially trained and experienced staff to ensure no confidential or exempt material is
15

disclosed through a public records request per the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) found in 20 U.S.C. 1232g.
FERPA protects the privacy of student education records. There are only limited parties
to which student education records may be released without the parents or eligible students
consent Maintenance Department personnel and bus drivers on not on that list.
The policy espoused by the Plaintiff to ensure that released records are properly redacted
and the necessity of imposing conditions on the public records requests in contravention of Fla.
Stat. 119.07 results in an understandable delay in the release of student educational records.
However, unjustified delay in making non-exempt public records available violates Floridas
public records law. It is not the length of the delay, but whether the delay is unreasonable or
excused. Consumer Rights, LLC v. Bradford County, 153 So. 2d 394, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
The duty of a custodian to safeguard records is not sufficient to justify the imposition of an
additional condition, which might for some have a chilling effect on access to public records.
Chandler v. City of Greenacres, 140 So. 3d 1080, 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). (Quoting Op. Atty
Gen. Fla. 91-76 (1991)).
Plaintiff cannot have it both ways. Either SJCSB is knowingly imposing a condition
resulting in delay upon non-exempt records or SJCSB believes that an MSDS and a bus safety
inspection report constitutes a student education record yet allows the records to be under the
physical custody of Maintenance Department personnel and bus drivers. Regardless, it is SJCSB
that is violating the Florida Public Records Act (and possibly FERPA) rather than any illegal
activity by GRAY.
Disregarding the impertinent, scandalous, and unprofessional wording of the allegations
that GRAY disregards specific instructions from the district and refuses to adhere to district

16

policies, Plaintiff persists in attempting to equate school policy with law. Failure to adhere to
emailed instructions while abiding by statute does not rise to a cause of action. In the event this
Court determines the Districts policy is reasonable, an application of a reasonable policy may
result in an unjustified delay which amounts to an unlawful refusal to comply with Fla. Stat.
119. Johnson v. Jarvis, 74 So. 3d 168, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Plaintiff complains that the Districts policy is to require all visitors to sign in and that
GRAY refuses to do so. The Districts policy (per Plaintiffs Exhibit G) is also you do not have
to provide your name, show identification or give a reason for the request. (Emphasis in
original.) The same document confirms on-site custodians. Plaintiffs Exhibit J confirms that not
only is there no law that requires checking in at a school with identification in order to make a
public records request, SJCSB is aware that it is not currently a legal requirement.
The Plaintiffs own Public Records Request Protocol, attached hereto as Exhibit E and
available online at http://www.stjohns.k12.fl.us/cr/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2015/02/PRProtocol-10-16-15.pdf, clearly contemplates the on-site records custodian and states:
An individual requesting to inspect, photograph or
obtain copies of public records does not have to
show identification or give a reason for the request.
If the request is being made in person, the
individual may remain in the lobby of the school or
building where the request is being made while the
request is processed in accordance with this
protocol.
(Emphasis in original.)
Plaintiffs allegations in Count One are not supported by law or fact. The allegations of
criminal activity and supposed causes of action for GRAYs failure to adhere to District policy
are inherently false and clearly known to be false at the time the pleading was made. Not only

17

is this a prohibited pleading under Fla. Stat. 768.295, but it is also a sham. Cromer v. Mullally,
861 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003).
IV.

PLAINTIFFS COUNT TWO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

An injunction is proper only when a clear legal right is at stake, irreparable harm is

threatened, and the remedy at law is inadequate. Gulf Power Co. v. Glass, 355 So. 2d 147, 148
(Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Plaintiff fails to allege a clear legal right or an irreparable harm stemming
from GRAYs actions. Plaintiff merely states that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress
Defendants unlawful and inappropriate conduct. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant
has shown that his actions were neither unlawful nor inappropriate.
First, Plaintiff alleges that it knows the inner machinations of GRAYs mind and his
motivation behind his public records requests. SJCSB supports this telepathy by citing that
GRAY has made at least six attempts to obtain public records from Plaintiff. (Note: There is no
restriction in statute on the number of requests allowed.) Plaintiff refers to an irrelevant and
immaterial case in another jurisdiction, with different parties, and different issues (as discussed
above). Then, despite the overwhelming evidence that GRAY is publishing these investigations
as a citizen-journalist, Plaintiff asserts that GRAY dare to generate income from his news
reporting activities. Per Barfield, Curry, and Microdecisions above, not only is the motive for a
public records request irrelevant, but if it were true that GRAYs sole purpose was profit, his
wish to use them in a commercial enterprise does not alter his [or her] rights under Floridas
public records law. Microdecisions at 875.
Then, Plaintiff alleges menacing and threatening behavior by GRAY that has particularly
affected the Districts female employees. The video of which the Plaintiff so vociferously
complains shows this to be a baseless allegation. The video of the August 26, 2015 request is

18

available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPWndJ00x_Y.

There is no point where

GRAY frightened, intimidated, baited, provoked, menaced, or threatened Ms. Lee.

Further, there is no evidence that GRAY disrupted the orderly school and office environment.
As discussed above, Plaintiff is mistaken in its belief that the recording and publishing of
the public records requests are unlawful. Still, Plaintiff attempts to use that video to import some
sort of culpability on GRAY for the alleged, unsubstantiated conduct of others. This does not
present a cause of action against GRAY. If individuals have made phone calls, sent emails, or
posted internet comments about District staff which are in violation of the law, the appropriate
action is to seek out the perpetrators rather than pursue relief from GRAY.
Next, Plaintiff restates its dubious loitering claim and asserts that GRAYs video
recording would be suspicious and threatening, and would disturb and disrupt the school
environment based on the timing (three years apart) subsequent to the mass shootings in San
Bernardino and Newtown. As discussed above, not only was GRAY engaging in completely
legal activity, but his news gathering was of events constituting great public interest. Untold
numbers of stories were taped in front of schools throughout the country on those days, yet it was
GRAYs (and only GRAYs) that was dangerous. Beyond the absurdity of the allegation,
Plaintiff defeats any claim of lack of remedy at law for this allegation by its subsequent issuance
of (albeit, illegal) form letter trespass warnings from all school property in the county plus
surrounding land.
Plaintiffs dislike of GRAY does not rise to the level to warrant an injunction affecting
his constitutional rights of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, right to redress the
government, and access to public records. These allegations do nothing more than serve as a
prohibited SLAPP action under Fla. Stat. 768.295.

19

V.

PLAINTIFFS COUNT THREE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Plaintiff succeeds in using the magic words to attempt to support a claim for malicious

prosecution. Per Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 1994), there
are six elements to such a claim:
These include (1) An original civil judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff. (2)
The present defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding. SJCSB is correct that
GRAY filed suit in October, 2015 under case number CA15-1121 against SJCSB.
(3) The termination of the original proceeding constituted a bona fide termination of that
proceeding. This is correct. The proceeding was terminated.
(4) There was an absence of cause for the original proceeding. This is where Plaintiffs
claim begins to derail. Plaintiff attaches Exhibit C to their Complaint (SJCSBs Motion to
Dismiss) to attempt to show that the claim had no merit. However, Plaintiff misleads the court in
failing to acknowledge that the attached Motion to Dismiss was denied on November 25, 2015.
(See Exhibit C.) Further, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice attached to the
Complaint as Plaintiffs Exhibit D provides no indication which of the innumerable reasons for
choosing to dismiss a case provided the basis for the dismissal. A Plaintiffs inaccurate guess as
to an element of a claim is not enough to support that claim. Plaintiff attempts to re-argue the
Motion to Dismiss as support for this element despite previously losing on the matter.
(5) The present defendant acted maliciously in filing the previous lawsuit. Again, lacking
a basis in fact or law on its own, Plaintiff must refer to the immaterial and irrelevant case
discussed ad nauseam above. Despite no evidence showing GRAY had any motivation other
than to ensure proper application of the Florida Public Records Act, Plaintiff accuses GRAY of
perpetrating a scam and litigating for personal financial gain. First, as above and if true, the

20

motive of financial gain is not prohibited. Second, if financial gain were the goal, GRAYs
dismissal of the suit after prevailing on the Motion to Dismiss would be nonsensical.
Plaintiff fails to clarify if it is alleging malice in fact or legal malice, per Wilson v.
ONeal, 118 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960) but fails to effectively claim either. So
desperate is the reach that Plaintiff attempts to show actions unrelated to the underlying case and
taking place nearly three months after filing to show the requisite malice in filing the offending
action. One cannot be liable in October for an act that does not take place until December.
(6) Damages result to plaintiff. Plaintiff claims substantial legal fees in defense of the
case and seeks monetary damages in excess of $15,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Without
any provided basis for damages, GRAY can only address the attorney fees.
Based on the confirmation of engagement letter dated October 27, 2015 and attached
hereto as Exhibit F, attorney time was billed at $170/hr. Assuming all attorney time, 88.24 hours
were billed to prepare a six-page motion to dismiss, review an amended complaint and request to
produce, and attend the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss prior to the voluntary dismissal on
December 4, 2015. This exorbitant amount of damages is further evidence of Plaintiffs SLAPP
intent.
As all six elements are required to show malicious prosecution and Plaintiff cannot show
malice, this claim must fail. Wilson at 105.
VI.

PLAINTIFFS COUNT FOUR ABUSE OF PROCESS

Plaintiffs allegations in Count Four exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the

elements of the tort. While relying again upon magic words like improper purpose and
extort money, [t]here is no abuse of process when the process is used to accomplish the

21

result for which it was created, regardless of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or
ulterior purpose. Scozari v. Barone, 546 So. 2d 750, 751 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989).
GRAYs prayer for relief plainly includes compliance with Fla. Stat. 119, protection
from being trespassed while accessing public records, as well as fees and costs resulting from the
need to file suit.
Fla. Stat. 119.12 provides for attorneys fees if a civil action is filed against an agency
to enforce the provisions of this chapter Additionally, the exclusive technique adopted by
the legislature for the accomplishment of the Acts purposes is judicial intervention. Lorei v.
Smith, 464 So. 2d 1330, 1332 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985). As suit is the exclusive remedy for obtaining
compliance, the filing of such suit cannot, by definition, be abuse of process.
Further, Plaintiffs allegations in this count are made despite being knowingly false by
the drafter. On November 10, 2015, Plaintiffs attorney was sent a proposal to resolve the case. It
is facially apparent from the minimal and justifiable monetary damages requested (and permitted
by Fla. Stat. 119.12) that Plaintiffs claim of GRAYs intent to extort money are patently
false. Plaintiffs counsel and Plaintiff cannot claim they were unaware of the falsity of the
allegation as they responded to the proposal on November 13, 2015. As they are evidence
required to refute a claim in this second suit, the email sent to Plaintiffs counsel with the
proposal and the letter in response are attached hereto as Exhibit G.
VII.

PLAINTIFFS DILATORY POLICIES HAVE FACILITATED A PATTERN OF

CRIMINAL WRONGDOING.
There are various provisions throughout Fla. Stat. 119 to ensure that public records are

maintained as an accurate depiction of government activity and recordkeeping. A public record

that is altered or falsified is no public record at all and frustrates the right of the People to hold
the government accountable for its actions. It is the duty of the public record custodian to ensure
22

that a person is not subjected to physical constraints designed to preclude review. Wait at 425.
A condition which necessitates a delay permitting a public record to be altered precludes not
only review of that record but destroys the record.
Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution (1968 Revision) guarantees every person
the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official
business of any public body. This right is no less dear than the other fundamental rights of
Floridians. Every particular section of the Declaration of Rights stands on an equal footing with
every other section. Boynton v. State, 64 So. 2d 536, 552 (Fla. 1953).
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges or counterfeits a public record is guilty of a felony
of the third degree. Fla. Stat. 831.01.
There are provisions in the law which serve to protect records from such destruction:
Fla. Stat. 119.021(1)(a): All public records should be kept in the buildings in which
they are ordinarily used.
Fla. Stat. 119.07(2)(d): Photographing of public records shall be done in the room
where the public records are kept.
Consumer Rights, LLC at 397: [u]njustified delay in making non-exempt public records
available violates Floridas public records law.
These provisions, along with others cited above, prevent the unlawful tampering with the
records. An unnecessary and unjustified delay requiring a person to leave the premises and return
later to inspect and photograph non-exempt records that were readily available upon that
persons initial arrival invites felonious alteration.
This is not mere speculation. SJCSBs systemic refusal of the on-site custodian to permit
inspection and photography of public records has made the alteration of records commonplace.

23

SJCSBs apparent solution to keep this unlawful activity from the light of day is to file SLAPP
suits such as this one in order to prevent disclosure.
Examples of illegal conduct with SJCSB public records are easy to find:
1.

November 18, 2015. Accident with serious injuries. Bus 268. Pre-trip inspection

report not completed as required. Memorandum from the Director of Transportation, Alfred
Pantano, confirms that Joseph Sanks, the bus driver, routinely completes the public record
non-contemporaneously with the inspection. This is the incident that prompted the investigation
into school bus inspection records that Plaintiff is alleging is a scam. The pre-trip inspection
reports and Pantano Memorandum are attached hereto as Exhibit H.

The investigation is

available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjm-1lkci2w.

2.

November 30, 2015. Pre-trip inspection not completed, public record falsified.

Bus 14. Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKtTukxz4kE.

3.

December 1, 2015. Pre-trip inspection not completed, public record falsified. Bus

83. Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK6zsrq34SI.

4.

December 1, 2015. Pre-trip inspection not completed, public record falsified. Bus

254. Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYk8NagDonM.

5.

December 2, 2015. Pre-trip inspections not completed, public records falsified.

Buses 94 and 150. Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpSYLLk8f7k. The

investigation video in number 1 above exemplifies the danger to the authenticity of the public
records subject to delayed disclosure in the segment on Bus 94. (The pre-trip falsified inspection
forms for buses 14, 83, 94, and 150 are attached hereto as Exhibit I.)
Five instances were documented over the course of only three days and there is
confirmation that the Director is aware of an issue. This would never come to light without the

24

exact, permissible activity that SJCSB has illegally prohibited GRAY, as a citizen-journalist,
from conducting and has now filed a SLAPP suit to prevent.
School bus safety and the integrity of public records are inarguably public issues
protected from assault by SLAPP suits in Fla. Stat. 768.295. It would seem that official like
Langston who was not aware there was any type of problem until the video was produced
would have an interest in protecting both the safety of the buses and the records. Instead, the
Plaintiff filed this meritless suit to prevent the continued discovery of wrongdoing under the
guise of policy and discomfort to employees.
However, we have finally found a point where the identity of the actual custodian is
relevant. Whether it is the on-site custodian, the named personnel at the CRD, or the
Superintendent as stated in the Complaint, it is up to the State and law enforcement to determine
where the responsibility for the lawlessness lies.
VIII. CONCLUSION
It is this Courts duty to determine, as a matter of law, whether or not the instant suit was
filed to inhibit the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights rather than a permissible
purpose. The Plaintiff has not presented one claim or a single allegation upon which an action
lies. Nevertheless, even if GRAY were to admit, arguendo, all of Plaintiffs impertinent and
scandalous allegations, they remain non-actionable as they are all permitted by law. GRAY is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IX.

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES

GRAY has retained the undersigned to represent his interests in this action and has

agreed to pay a reasonable fee for services for which reimbursement is sought from Plaintiff.

25

WHEREFORE, Defendant JEFFERY M. GRAY, respectfully requests this Honorable

Court:
1.

Enter Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant.

2.

Deny all relief requested by Plaintiff.

3.

Find that Plaintiffs claim was a prohibited SLAPP suit pursuant to Fla. Stat.

768.295.
4.

Rescind the illegal and malicious trespass warnings issued by all schools under

Plaintiffs control on December 7, 2015.

5.

Award appropriate damages, attorney fees, and costs to Defendant in accordance

with Fla. Stat. 768.295(4).

6.

Require Plaintiff to report the findings of this Court to the Attorney General

within 30 days in accordance with Fla. Stat. 768.295(5).

7.

Refer the evidence of violation of Fla. Stat. 831.01 uncovered in the school bus

investigation to the appropriate State Attorney for review and possible action.
8.

Any and all other relief this Court finds appropriate.

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished on
the 28 day of December, 2015 via the e-filing portal to:
th

David M. Delaney, Esq.

Dell Graham
203 NE 1st Street
Gainesville, FL 32601
ddelaney@dellgraham.com
/s/ Lesley McKinney
By: __________________________
Lesley McKinney, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 67976
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID M. GOLDMAN, PLLC
3733 University Blvd. W., Suite 212B
Jacksonville, Florida 32217
(904) 685-1200 Phone / (904) 875-4081 Fax
lmckinney@jacksonvillelawyer.pro

27

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Back| Print

CA151121 GRAY, JEFFERY vs. ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

SUMMARY
Judge: MALTZ, HOWARD M.
Case Number: CA151121
Clerk File Date: 10/14/2015
SAO Case Number:
Agency:

Case Type:
Uniform Case Number:
Status Date:
Total Fees Due:
Agency Report #:

Injunction
552015CA001121A000XX
12/4/2015
0.00

Status:

Custody Location:

CLOSED

PART ES
TYPE

P A R T Y N A ME

A DDR E S S

GRAY, JEFFERY

PLAINTIFF

E MA I L A T T O R N E Y

1904 RIVER LAGOON TRACE

ST. AUGUST NE,FL32092
40 ORANGE STREET
ST. AUGUST NE,FL32084

DEFENDANT ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

SHAKFEH, ABRAHAM (Main Attorney)

EVENTS
DA T E

E VE N T

J U DG E

L OCATION

RE SUL T

11/25/2015 9:00 AM

HEARING (CIVIL)

MALTZ, HOWARD M.

Chambers

COMPLETED

CASE HISTORY
C A S E N U MB E R

C H A R G E DE S C R I P T I O N

CASE STATU S

DI S P O S I T I O N

O U T S T A N DI N G A MO U N T

N E XT E VE N T

AL E RTS

No Additional Cases
FEES
COU N T

C O DE

DE S C R I P T I O N

A S S E S S ME N T

PAID

W AIVE D

B AL AN CE

P A Y ME N T P L A N / J U DG ME N T

DU E DA T E

462
C59
C59

INJUNCTION (NON VIOLENCE)

CA/DR SUMMONS
CA/DR SUMMONS

$400.00
$10.00
$10.00

$400.00
$10.00
$10.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

RECEIPTS
DA T E

RE CE IP T #

A P P L I E D A MO U N T

10/16/2015

2015037125

$420.00

CASE DOCKETS
S E Q # I MA G E

DI N

DA T E

E N TRY

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Recorded (OR.4119.1294 / 2015076382)

32

12/4/2015

31

12/4/2015

CASE CLOSED

30

12/4/2015

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

29

12/2/2015

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

28

11/25/2015

CIVIL COURT NOTES

27

11/20/2015

REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINT FF

24

11/20/2015

ORDER SCHEDUL NG HEARING NOVEMBER 25, 2015 @ 9:00

26

11/19/2015

PLAINT FF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLA NT

25

11/19/2015

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING

23

11/10/2015

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

11/10/2015

"DUPLICATE" CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO RETURNED SERVED ON 10/21/2015 ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

11/10/2015

"DUPLICATE" CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO RETURNED SERVED ON 10/19/2015 FLOR DA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

10/28/2015

CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO RETURNED SERVED ON 10/21/2015 ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

10/28/2015

CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO RETURNED SERVED ON 10/19/2015 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

18

10/16/2015

PAYMENT $420.00 RECEIPT #2015037125

14

10/15/2015

CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO SUMMONS ISSUED FOR FLOR DA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ON 10/15/2015

11

10/15/2015

CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO SUMMONS ISSUED FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ON 10/15/2015

11

10/15/2015

ATTORNEY: SHAKFEH, ABRAHAM ASSIGNED TO GRAY, JEFFERY

10

10/15/2015

JUDGE MALTZ, HOWARD M.: ASSIGNED

17

10/14/2015

CA/DR SUMMONS ASSESSED $10.00

16

10/14/2015

CA/DR SUMMONS ASSESSED $10.00

15

10/14/2015

INJUNCTION (NON VIOLENCE) ASSESSED $400.00

10/14/2015

UNSIGNED ORDER

10/14/2015

MOTION TO APPOINT PROCESS SERVER

28

27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12

Request

Request

Request

Request

22
21
20
19

10/14/2015

COVER LETTER TO CLERK

10/14/2015

CIVIL COVER SHEET

3
2
1

10/14/2015

PLAINT FF'S INITIAL COMPLAINT

10/14/2015

CASE FILED 10/14/2015 CASE NUMBER CA151121

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

CommunityRelations
40OrangeStreet
St.Augustine,FL32084
Phone:(904)5477637FAX:(904)5477523

PublicRecordsRequestsProtocol

TheFloridaPublicRecordsLawauthorizesthepublictoinspect,photographandcopypublicrecords
maintainedbytheSt.JohnsCountySchoolDistrict.Publicrecordsarerecordsmadeorreceivedin
connectionwiththeDistrictsofficialbusiness.However,therearemanystatutoryexemptionsfrom
public records disclosure, and some records are statutorily designated as confidential (student
information,socialsecuritynumbers,healthcarerecords,etc.).
Districtprotocolrequirestheonsiterecordscustodian,ortheCommunityRelationsDepartments
(CRD)staffasthecustodiansdesignee,toreviewrequestedrecordstoconfirmtheyaresubjectto
publicdisclosureundertheFloridaPublicRecordsLawandtocoordinateinspectionandcopying.
Anindividualrequestingtoinspect,photographorobtaincopiesofpublicrecordsdoesnothaveto
showidentificationorgiveareasonfortherequest.Ifrequestisbeingmadeinperson,theindividual
mayremaininthelobbyoftheschoolorbuildingwheretherequestisbeingmadewhiletherequest
isprocessedinaccordancewiththisprotocol.

DesignationofCommunityRelationsDepartmentStaff
AsCustodiansStatutoryDesignee

On behalf of District public records custodians, the CRD staff is the school districts designee for
respondingtopublicrecordsrequests.ThedesignatedstaffmembersareChristinaLangston,Emily
SerranoandDanielleCook.TheycanreachedbycontactingtheCommunityRelationsDepartment
at(904)5477637orbyemailatsjpubrec@stjohns.k12.fl.us.

ProtocolforRespondingtoPublicRecordRequests
Publicrecordsrequestswillbeprocessedasfollows:

GeneralRules

RequestsaddressedorreceivedattheDistrictofficesonOrangeStreetwillbeprocessedbytheCRD
asthecustodiansdesignee.RequestsmadeoraddressedtoDistrictschoolsorotherofficesmaybe
processedbytheonsitecustodian.Alternatively,theonsitecustodianmayreferthatrequestto
designatedCRDstaffforresponse.

Complexrequeststhatwouldinvolvenumerousrecords,extensiveresearch,orITretrieval,orthat
raiseconfidentialityorexemptionissues,shouldbereferredtoCRDtoprocessasdesignee.

Requestsshouldbepromptlyacknowledgedbythecustodianordesignee.

IfanonsitecustodianrefersarequesttotheCRD,theonsitecustodianshouldprovidetherequesting
partywiththename(s)andcontactinformationofthedesignedstaffmember(s).

Theonsitecustodianordesignee,asapplicable,should:

a) Acknowledgetherequest.
b) Processtherequestingoodfaithandinareasonabletime.
c) Determinetheexistenceandlocationoftherequestedrecords.
d) Reviewtherequestedrecordsforconfidentialorexemptmaterial,andpossibleredaction.
e) Notifytherequestingpartyofanyclaimofconfidentialityorexemption.
f) Producethenonexempt,nonconfidentialrecordsforinspectionandpossiblecopying.

InPersonRequests

Thecustodianwhoreceivestherequestshouldrequestadescriptionoftherequestedrecords.The
CRDsoptionalpublicrecordsrequestformfoundatwww.stjohns.k12.fl.us/cr/request/maybeused
forthispurpose.However,therequestdoesnotneedtobemadeusingtheformorinwriting.The
requestcanbeverbal.

AnonsitecustodianmayrefertherequesttotheCRDstaffasdesignee.Iftheonsitecustodian
electstoprocesstherequest,heorsheshouldfollowtheGeneralRulesstatedabove.
Ifcopiesarerequested,thecustodianshoulddeterminehowtherequestingpartywouldlikethem
delivered(onsitepickup,email,fax,etc.).Therequestingpartymaywaitforcopiesduringoffice
hours.
Forquestions,contacttheCRDat(904)5477637.
OtherRequests
Publicrecordsrequestssubmittedbymail,electronically(email,telephone,fax,etc.)orothermedia
shouldbeprocessedasfollows:
Requests for email and other electronic records may be addressed to the CRD, or by email to
sjpubrec@stjohns.k12.fl.us.
Requests addressed to a school or individual department may be reviewed and processed at the
schoolordepartmentleveliftheydonotrequestelectronicrecordsanditispracticalandconvenient
fortheschoolordepartmenttorespond.Otherwise,therequestshouldbereferredtoCRDstaff
identifiedaboveasthecustodiansdesignee.

StudentRecords

Parentsandstudents18yearsofageorolderareentitledtoinspectandcopytheireducationrecords
uponreasonablenotice.Studentrecordsarenotsubjecttopublicdisclosure.

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

From: <ashakfeh@shakfehlaw.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2015 4:33 AM
Subject: RE: GRAY V. SJCSB
To: "ddelaney@dellgraham.com" <ddelaney@dellgraham.com>
Cc: "fdupchurch@ubulaw.com" <fdupchurch@ubulaw.com>, "ewhisler@dellgraham.com"
<ewhisler@dellgraham.com>
Mr. Delaney,
I hope you had a pleasant weekend.
I have conferred with Mr. Gray regarding the matter. He values his day in Court and obtaining declaratory
judgment. He also feels aggrieved that the police were called on him, he was trespassed from the building, and is
being threatened with an unfounded case for wiretapping merely for exercising his rights as guaranteed to him by
the Florida constitution. However, despite the School Boards egregious behavior, he is willing to resolve the case
by dismissing it with prejudice in exchange for the following:
1) The SJCSB must acknowledge that it's public record policy is unlawful. The SJCSB must also correct it's
unlawful public records policy and retrain their staff to insure future civil rights violations do not occur. For this
training, he recommends they contact Joel Chandler at FOG Watch or The First Amendment Foundation.
2) The SJCSB places a Sunshine Manual in the lobby of the Facilities Maintenance Building.
3) The SJCSB must rescind all trespass orders they have against him as these orders violate his civil rights pursuant
to Article 1 Section 24 of the Florida Constitution. If SJCSB trespasses Mr. Gray for making a public records
request, they will have to pay Mr. Gray $5,000.00 in liquidated damages.
4) Mr. Gray shall be allowed to inspect and photograph the Safety Data Sheets in accordance with Chapter 119,
Florida Statutes.
5) SJCSB shall pay Mr. Gray his costs and attorneys fees related to this matter of $2,400.00. Despite SJCSBs
egregious behavior, Mr. Gray will not be seeking personal compensation beyond costs and attorneys fees.
This offer shall expire at 5:00 pm on Friday afternoon.
Abraham Shakfeh
Attorney at Law
Florida Bar Number: 0092035
Shakfeh Law, LLC.
1207 N. Franklin Street
Suite 219
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel: (813) 228-0101
www.ShakfehLaw.com

Exhibit H

Exhibit I