Background
Wesley White submitted public records requests in late 2023 and early 2024 to Baker County Medical Services, Inc. (BCMS) and the Baker County Hospital Authority, seeking records related to an alleged security breach or ransomware attack. BCMS is a private entity operating a public hospital under a lease agreement with the Hospital Authority, which was established by the Florida Legislature.
BCMS denied the requests, asserting it was not a public agency subject to Florida’s Public Records Act. The Hospital Authority claimed it had already provided all records in its possession. White sued for mandamus, injunctive, and declaratory relief. BCMS moved to dismiss, claiming the requested records were exempt from disclosure under section 395.3036, Florida Statutes, which provides an exemption for private entities leasing public hospitals when certain criteria are met. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed White’s complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal as to BCMS. The court held that the trial court reversibly erred by looking beyond the four corners of the complaint to determine whether a public records exemption applied. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts are limited to the allegations in the complaint and its attachments; they cannot consider evidence or facts outside the pleadings.
The court established that whether a public records exemption applies is an affirmative defense, and the burden rests with the defendant asserting the exemption. White had no obligation to draft his complaint to anticipate or negate BCMS’s affirmative defense. The exemption under section 395.3036 requires not only that three of five statutory criteria be met, but also that the public lessor comply with the public finance accountability provisions of section 155.40(18). Since White’s complaint and its attachments contained no facts addressing compliance with section 155.40(18), the exemption’s applicability could not be determined from the pleadings alone. Therefore, the dismissal was improper at the motion stage.
The court affirmed the dismissal as to the Hospital Authority, as White had abandoned his arguments regarding that defendant in his appellate brief.
Key Takeaways
- Public records exemptions are affirmative defenses; the burden is on the entity claiming the exemption, not on the person requesting records.
- On a motion to dismiss, courts cannot look beyond the four corners of the complaint and attachments to resolve affirmative defenses.
- For private entities leasing public hospitals, the section 395.3036 exemption requires compliance with section 155.40(18)’s public finance accountability provisions, which must be established in the record, not presumed.
- Plaintiffs do not need to negate possible exemptions in their complaints; doing so would undermine the procedural purpose of motions to dismiss.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms important procedural protections for public records requesters in Florida. By holding that public records exemptions cannot be established at the pleading stage unless evident from the complaint itself, the court prevents entities from dodging disclosure obligations through premature dismissals based on unpled facts. The ruling clarifies that the burden of establishing exemptions rests squarely on the party claiming them, not on the public to disprove them.
For healthcare facilities and other entities leasing public infrastructure, the decision underscores that statutory exemptions require actual compliance with accountability provisions. BCMS and the Hospital Authority must now proceed to discovery and trial to establish whether the section 155.40(18) accountability requirements were satisfied, ensuring that the public records exemption is not merely asserted but proven.