Background
Michael Barfield petitioned the Fifth DCA under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d) to quash a trial court’s amended order that sealed the judicial records in a residential eviction action filed by the landlord, Shorehouse TIC I LLC, in Duval County Court. Barfield was not a party to the underlying eviction proceeding. The trial court had denied Barfield’s motion to vacate the sealing order, finding that he lacked standing as a non-party to challenge it.
The case implicates Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution, which provides that every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with official business of any public body, specifically including the judicial branch. The court had previously granted Barfield’s petition by unelaborated order, and Barfield moved for issuance of a written opinion after the underlying records reportedly remained unavailable despite the court’s ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth DCA granted Barfield’s motion for written opinion and quashed both the trial court’s amended sealing order and its order denying Barfield’s motion to vacate. On the standing question, the court squarely rejected the respondent’s argument that Barfield, as a non-party, lacked standing to challenge the closure order. Citing Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), the court held that “both the public and news media shall have standing to challenge any closure order.” To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, would negate the public’s constitutional right of inspection and allow litigants to seal court files by agreement or stipulation.
On the merits, the court found the sealing order did not satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420, which requires specific factual findings demonstrating that one of ten enumerated grounds for confidentiality applies. Simply sealing an entire court file by party agreement does not meet this standard.
Key Takeaways
- Any Florida citizen—not just parties to the litigation—has standing under Article I, section 24(a) to challenge the sealing of court records, including in residential eviction cases.
- Litigants cannot seal entire court files simply by agreement or stipulation; sealing orders must comply with Rule 2.420’s requirement for specific factual findings establishing an enumerated ground for confidentiality.
- Florida courts must ensure that sealed records are actually made available to the public after a sealing order is quashed—the opinion was prompted by the records remaining inaccessible even after the appellate court’s initial order.
Why It Matters
This case is particularly relevant given ongoing debates about the sealing of eviction records in Florida. Some landlords and tenants agree to seal eviction files—often as part of settlement—to protect tenants from the housing-market consequences of having an eviction on their record. This decision makes clear that such agreements, standing alone, cannot override the public’s constitutional right of access. For real-estate practitioners and tenant advocates, the ruling means that any sealing order must be independently justified under Rule 2.420’s specific criteria, not merely by party consent. The standing holding also empowers journalists, researchers, and civic organizations to challenge improper sealing orders without needing to intervene in the underlying case.