The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Judiciary
BILL: SB 1652
INTRODUCER: Senator Grall
SUBJECT: Public Records/Pleading, Request for Relief, or Other Document Stricken by a Court
DATE: March 18, 2025
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Davis Cibula JU Pre-meeting
2. ACJ
3. RC
I. Summary:
SB 1652 creates a public records exemption for certain information in a document stricken by a
court in a noncriminal case. For the exemption to apply, the court must find that the information
is immaterial, impertinent, untrue and would defame or cause unwarranted damage to an
individual’s name or reputation or jeopardize his or her safety. This kind of information often
appears in court proceedings involving a “vexatious litigant.” A vexatious litigant is a person
who has filed multiple lawsuits that are meritless; however, these individuals are also known to
submit documents that are considered scandalous or harassing.
The bill also contains a statement of public necessity as required by law. The statement recounts
that it is a public necessity that immaterial, impertinent, or untrue information that has been
stricken by a court in a noncriminal case be made confidential and exempt from public records
laws. This is necessary because the information would cause damage to an individual and
perhaps jeopardize the individual’s safety. The potential harm that could result from the release
of the information outweighs the public benefit that could be derived from the information if it
were disclosed.
The bill will take effect on the same date that SB 1650 or similar legislation takes effect, if the
legislation is adopted in the same session or an extended session and becomes law.
II. Present Situation:
Vexatious Litigant
A “vexatious litigant” is defined in general terms to be a person or entity who, in the immediate
past 5 years, has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained, pro se,
1
five or more civil actions in
1
A pro se litigant is someone who represents himself or herself in a judicial proceeding without a lawyer. BLACK’S LAW
DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024).
REVISED: BILL: SB 1652 Page 2
any court in the state except in small claims court, and all of the cases were decided adversely
against the person or entity.
2
In 2000, the Florida Vexatious Litigant Law was enacted to deter vexatious litigants from
repeatedly filing lawsuits that were determined to be frivolous.
3
These filings consume a
considerable amount of the court system’s time as well as the time and financial resources of the
person being taken to court. Although the law has been challenged in court as denying a person
access to the court system as guaranteed in the State Constitution,
4
the law has been upheld on
appeal as being constitutional.
5
Courts have noted that, while the State Constitution does provide
a right of access to the courts, the right is not without limits and may be properly restricted when
a litigant abuses the legal process with repeated and frivolous pleadings.
6
In 2021, an initial “Workgroup on Sanctions for Vexatious and Sham Litigation” was established
by the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court to make recommendations on rule and
statutory amendments that would effectively address vexatious or sham litigation in noncriminal
cases.
7
Three years later, another workgroup was established. In 2024, the Chief Justice of the
Florida Supreme Court established the “Workgroup on Vexatious Litigants.”
8
The purpose of the
workgroup was to recommend ways the law could be improved and address the public disclosure
of “improper matters stricken from noncriminal court filings” that could defame individuals and
harm their reputations. Among the recommendations made by the workgroup was the
recommendation to create a public records exemption for the damaging material described above
that could harm, defame or endanger a person in a noncriminal action filed by a vexatious
litigant.
9
Public Records Requirements
The State Constitution guarantees every person the right to inspect or copy any public record
made or received in connection with the official business of the state, except for records
exempted under the Constitution. This right of access to inspect or copy records encompasses
records of the judicial branch.
10
Separation of Powers and the Judicial Branch
However, under the doctrine of separation of powers found in Article II, section 3 of the State
Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court has the authority to regulate the public’s access to
2
See s. 68.093, F.S. The law has not been amended since it was enacted 25 years ago.
3
Ch. 2000-314, s. 1, Laws of Fla.
4
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 21.
5
Smith v. Fisher, 965 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) and Brown v. Miami-Dade County, 319 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 3rd DCA
2021).
6
Id.
7
In re: Workgroup on Sanctions for Vexatious and Sham Litigation, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC21-62 (Dec. 9, 2021)
(https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/813326/file/AOSC21-62.pdf.
8
In re: Workgroup on Vexatious Litigants, Fla. Admin. Order no. AOSC24-19 (April 26, 2024),
(https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2424918/file/AOSC24-19.pdf.
9
Workgroup on Vexatious Litigants, Final Report and Recommendations, The Florida Supreme Court, (Sept. 6, 2024)
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/2446359/file/Workgroup%20on%20Vexatious%20Litigants%20Final%20Report
%209-6-24.pdf.
10
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 24. BILL: SB 1652 Page 3
judicial records and bears the responsibility to protect records of the judicial branch.
11
To
implement this “inherent authority,” the Court adopted what is now referred to as Rule of
General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420.
12
The rule governs public access to judicial
branch records and provides which records are exempt from the public.
In its report, the workgroup noted that under existing law, “even the most inflammatory and
palpably false allegations struck by the court remain in the public record.” The workgroup
further noted that its authority to seal records has its limitations and concluded that the “only tool
available to prevent the ongoing publication” of the defamatory remarks was a public records
exemption.
13
Accordingly, the substance of that conclusion is contained in this bill.
Open Government Sunset Review Act – Exceptions for the Judicial Branch
The “Open Government Sunset Review Act” contained in s. 119.15, F.S., provides for the review
and repeal or reenactment of an exemption in the 5th year after the enactment of a new
exemption or substantial amendment of an existing exemption. However, these requirements do
not apply to an exemption that is required by federal law or that applies solely to the Legislature
or the State Court System. As such, public records exemptions enacted by the Legislature which
apply solely to the State Court System are not subject to the 5 year review.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
The bill exempts from public disclosure information in a document in a noncriminal case that has
been stricken by the court if the court finds the information:
• Is immaterial, impertinent, or untrue; and
• Would defame an individual or cause unwarranted damage to that person’s name or
reputation or jeopardize his or her safety.
The bill contains a statement of public necessity that must accompany a public records
exemption. The statement recounts that it is a public necessity that immaterial, impertinent, or
untrue information that has been stricken by a court in a noncriminal case be made confidential
and exempt from public record provisions. This is necessary because the information would
cause damage to an individual and perhaps jeopardize the individual’s safety. The potential harm
that could result from the release of the information outweighs the public benefit that could be
derived from the information if it were disclosed.
The bill takes effect on July 1, 2025, if SB 1650, related substantive legislation, becomes law.
11
See supra note 9 which cites Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988) and Times Pub. Co.
v. Ake, 660 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1995).
12
See supra note 9. The rule is found here: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/219096/file/RULE-2-420-
Jan2014.pdf.
13
Workgroup on Vexatious Litigants, Final Report and Recommendations, The Florida Supreme Court, 42-43 (Sept. 6,
2024),
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/2446359/file/Workgroup%20on%20Vexatious%20Litigants%20Final%20Report
%209-6-24.pdf. BILL: SB 1652 Page 4
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
Vote Requirement
Article I, s. 24(c) of the State Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the members
present and voting for final passage of a bill creating or expanding an exemption to the
public records requirements. This bill creates a new exemption, therefore, the bill
requires a two-thirds vote of each chamber for enactment.
Public Necessity Statement
Article I, s. 24(c) of the State Constitution requires a bill creating or expanding an
exemption to the public records requirements to state with specificity the public necessity
justifying the exemption. Section 2 of the bill contains a statement of public necessity for
the exemption.
Breadth of Exemption
Article I, s. 24(c), of the State Constitution requires that an exemption to the public
records requirements be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of
the law. This bill exempts from the public records requirements only specific matters in
noncriminal cases. The exemption does not appear to be broader than necessary to
accomplish the purpose of the law.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None identified.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None. BILL: SB 1652 Page 5
B. Private Sector Impact:
The bill may reduce the financial harm to individuals which results from defamatory
information in court files.
C. Government Sector Impact:
Judges and court clerks may have additional workloads resulting from the need to redact
information in filed documents. An amendment to Florida Rule of General Practice and
Judicial Administration 2.420(d)(1)(B) might be needed to incorporate the provisions of
the public records exemption.
14
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
The bill subjects the proposed exemption to the Open Government Sunset Review Act. However,
the Act states in s. 119.15(2)(b), F.S., that it does not apply to public record exemptions that
apply solely to the State Court System. Because the bill amends s. 119.0714, F.S., which applies
solely to the judicial branch, the reference to the Open Government Sunset Review Act should be
deleted.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends section 119.0714 of the Florida Statutes.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.
14
SB 1652 Judicial Impact Statement 2025, Office of the State Courts Administrator (March 17, 2025) (on file with the
Senate Committee on Judiciary).