Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

download Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

of 95

Transcript of Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    1/95

    1

    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA

    ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

    Plaintiff, CASE NO.: CA15-1316DIVISION: 55

    v.

    JEFFERY M. GRAY,

    Defendant.

    ___________________________________/

    DEFENDANTS VERIFIED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ANDSUPPORTING 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).

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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    2/95

    2

    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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    3/95

    3

    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/photography-

    group-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.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    4/95

    4

    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 maydesignate 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 recordshallpermit 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 pre-

    condition 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.)

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    5/95

    5

    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 LeeIfthis 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 Waitby

    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 4 thbullet 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    6/95

    6

    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. 4thDCA

    2002). An individuals reason for requesting a public record is irrelevant.Barfield v. Sch. Bd.

    of Manatee County, 135 So. 3d 560, 562 (Fla. 2

    nd

    DCA 2014). A requesters motive for seeking

    a copy of documents is irrelevant.Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 8741, 875 (Fla.

    2ndDCA 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 (11thCir. 2000). Further, the prohibition under Fla. Stat.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    7/95

    7

    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. 3rdDCA 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. 1stDCA 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.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    8/95

    8

    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. 1stDCA 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 daypriorto 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    9/95

    9

    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 personwho has custody of a

    public record.Puls v. City of Port St. Lucie, 678 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4thDCA 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    10/95

    10

    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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    11/95

    11

    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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    12/95

    12

    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 requiresthat 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    13/95

    13

    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,1attempts 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

    1As discussed above, the SJCSD Public Records policy (Plaintiffs Exhibit G), permits the on-site recordscustodian to review the request and Langston acknowledges (Plaintiffs Exhibit J) that the on-site custodian has theability to handle it right there at the moment or seek assistance from the school district.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    14/95

    14

    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.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    15/95

    15

    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 Stevensonabove.

    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. Pulsat 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 notto conditions which must be fulfilled before reviewis permitted but to reasonable regulations thatwould permit the custodian of the records toprotectthem from alteration, damage, or destruction andalso to ensure that the person reviewing the recordsis not subjected to physical constraints designed topreclude 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    16/95

    16

    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. 1stDCA 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. 4thDCA 2014). (QuotingOp. 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    17/95

    17

    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. 1stDCA 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/PR-

    Protocol-10-16-15.pdf, clearly contemplates the on-site records custodian and states:

    An individual requesting to inspect, photograph orobtain copies of public records does not have toshow identification or give a reason for the request.If the request is being made in person, theindividual may remain in the lobby of the school orbuilding where the request is being made while therequest is processed in accordance with thisprotocol.

    (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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    18/95

    18

    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. 3rdDCA 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. 1stDCA 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, andMicrodecisionsabove, 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.Microdecisionsat 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    19/95

    19

    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.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    20/95

    20

    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 deniedon 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    21/95

    21

    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 Dismisswould 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. Wilsonat 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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    22/95

    22

    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. 3rdDCA 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. 2

    nd

    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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    23/95

    23

    that a person is not subjected to physical constraints designed to preclude review. Waitat 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.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    24/95

    24

    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

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    25/95

    25

    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.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    26/95

    26

    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.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    27/95

    27

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished onthe 28thday of December, 2015 via the e-filing portal to:

    David M. Delaney, Esq.Dell Graham203 NE 1stStreetGainesville, FL [email protected]

    /s/ Lesley McKinney

    By: __________________________Lesley McKinney, Esq.Florida Bar No.: 67976

    LAW OFFICE OF DAVID M. GOLDMAN, PLLC3733 University Blvd. W., Suite 212BJacksonville, Florida 32217(904) 685-1200 Phone / (904) 875-4081 [email protected]

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    28/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    29/95

    Exhibit A

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    30/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    31/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    32/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    33/95

    Exhibit B

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    34/95

    GRAY, JEFFERY

    ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

    Back |

    A151121 GRAY, JEFFERY vs. ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

    MMARY

    Judge: MALTZ, HOWARD M. Case Type: Injunction Status: CLOSED

    Case Number: CA151121 Uniform Case Number: 552015CA001121A000XX

    Clerk File Date: 10/14/2015 Status Date: 12/4/2015

    SAO Case Number: Total Fees Due: 0.00

    Agency: Agency Report #: Custody Location:

    RT ES

    PE PARTY NAME ADDRE SS EMAIL ATTORNE Y

    AINTIFF1904 RIVER LAGOON TRACE

    ST. AUGUST NE, FL 32092

    SHAKFEH, ABRAHAM (Main Attorney

    FENDANT40 ORANGE STREETST. AUGUST NE, FL 32084

    ENTS

    TE EVENT JUDGE L OCATION RESUL T

    /25/2015 9:00 AM HEARING (CIVIL) MALTZ, HOWARD M. Chambers COMPLETED

    SE HISTORY

    SE NUMBER CHARGE DE SCRIPTION CASE STATUS DISPOSIT ION OUTSTANDING AMOUNT NEXT EVENT AL E RT

    No Additional Cases

    ES

    UNT CODE DE SCRIPTION ASSESSME NT PAID WAIVE D BAL ANCE PAYME NT PL AN / JUDGME NT DUE D

    462 INJUNCTION (NON VIOLENCE) $400.00 $400.00 $0.00 $0.00C59 CA/DR SUMMONS $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00C59 CA/DR SUMMONS $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00

    CEIPTS

    TE RECE IPT # APPL IE D AMOUNT

    16/2015 2015037125 $420.00

    SE DOCKETS

    Q# IMAGE DIN DATE E NTRY

    2 32 12/4/2015 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Recorded (OR.4119.1294 / 2015076382)

    3112/4/2015 CASE CLOSED

    2 30 12/4/2015 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

    2 29 12/2/2015 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

    1 28 11/25/2015 CIVIL COURT NOTES

    4 27 11/20/2015 REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINT FF

    2 24 11/20/2015 ORDER SCHEDUL NG HEARING NOVEMBER 25, 2015 @ 9:00

    5 26 11/19/2015 PLAINT FF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLA NT

    2 25 11/19/2015 MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING

    6 23 11/10/2015 MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

    Request

    22

    11/10/2015 "DUPLICATE" CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO RETURNED SERVED ON 10/21/2015 ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

    Request

    21

    11/10/2015 "DUPLICATE" CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO RETURNED SERVED ON 10/19/2015 FLOR DA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

    Request

    20

    10/28/2015 CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO RETURNED SERVED ON 10/21/2015 ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

    Request

    19

    10/28/2015 CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO RETURNED SERVED ON 10/19/2015 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

    1 18 10/16/2015 PAYMENT $420.00 RECEIPT #2015037125

    3 14 10/15/2015 CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO SUMMONS ISSUED FOR FLORDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ON 10/15/2015

    3 11 10/15/2015 CORPORATE SUMMONS STATUS SET TO SUMMONS ISSUED FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ON 10/15/2015

    3 10/15/2015 ATTORNEY: SHAKFEH, ABRAHAM ASSIGNED TO GRAY, JEFFERY

    2 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

    1 8 10/14/2015 UNSIGNED ORDER

    1 7 10/14/2015 MOTION TO APPOINT PROCESS SERVER

    1 6 10/14/2015 COVER LETTER TO CLERK10/14/2015 CIVIL COVER SHEET

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    35/95

    2 4

    3 5 10/14/2015 PLAINT FF'S INITIAL COMPLAINT

    1 10/14/2015 CASE FILED 10/14/2015 CASE NUMBER CA151121

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    36/95

    Exhibit C

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    37/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    38/95

    Exhibit D

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    39/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    40/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    41/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    42/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    43/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    44/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    45/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    46/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    47/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    48/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    49/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    50/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    51/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    52/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    53/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    54/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    55/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    56/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    57/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    58/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    59/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    60/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    61/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    62/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    63/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    64/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    65/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    66/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    67/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    68/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    69/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    70/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    71/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    72/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    73/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    74/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    75/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    76/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    77/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    78/95

    Exhibit E

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    79/95

    CommunityRelations

    40OrangeStreet

    St.Augustine,FL32084

    Phone:(904)5477637 FAX:(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

    As

    Custodians

    Statutory

    Designee

    OnbehalfofDistrictpublic recordscustodians, theCRDstaff is the schooldistrictsdesignee for

    respondingto

    public

    records

    requests.

    The

    designated

    staff

    members

    are

    Christina

    Langston,

    Emily

    SerranoandDanielleCook. TheycanreachedbycontactingtheCommunityRelationsDepartment

    at(904)[email protected].

    Protocol

    for

    Responding

    to

    Public

    Record

    Requests

    Publicrecordsrequestswillbeprocessedasfollows:

    GeneralRules

    Requestsaddressed

    or

    received

    at

    the

    District

    offices

    on

    Orange

    Street

    will

    be

    processed

    by

    the

    CRD

    asthecustodiansdesignee. RequestsmadeoraddressedtoDistrictschoolsorotherofficesmaybe

    processedbytheonsitecustodian. Alternatively,theonsitecustodianmayreferthatrequestto

    designatedCRDstaffforresponse.

    Complexrequeststhatwouldinvolvenumerousrecords,extensiveresearch,orITretrieval,orthat

    raiseconfidentialityorexemptionissues,shouldbereferredtoCRDtoprocessasdesignee.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    80/95

    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

    CRDsoptional

    public

    records

    request

    form

    found

    at

    www.stjohns.k12.fl.us/cr/request/

    may

    be

    used

    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

    [email protected].

    Requestsaddressed toaschoolor individualdepartmentmaybe reviewedandprocessedatthe

    schoolordepartmentleveliftheydonotrequestelectronicrecordsanditispracticalandconvenient

    fortheschoolordepartmenttorespond.Otherwise,therequestshouldbereferredtoCRDstaff

    identifiedaboveasthecustodiansdesignee.

    StudentRecords

    Parentsandstudents18yearsofageorolderareentitledto inspectandcopytheireducationrecords

    uponreasonablenotice.Studentrecordsarenotsubjecttopublicdisclosure.

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    81/95

    Exhibit F

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    82/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    83/95

    Exhibit G

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    84/95

    From: Date: Nov 10, 2015 4:33 AMSubject: RE: GRAY V. SJCSBTo: "[email protected]" Cc: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"

    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 declaratoryjudgment. He also feels aggrieved that the police were called on him, he was trespassed from the building, and isbeing threatened with an unfounded case for wiretapping merely for exercising his rights as guaranteed to him bythe Florida constitution. However, despite the School Boards egregious behavior, he is willing to resolve the caseby 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 thistraining, 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 pursuantto Article 1 Section 24 of the Florida Constitution. If SJCSB trespasses Mr. Gray for making a public recordsrequest, 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 SJCSBsegregious 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 ShakfehAttorney at LawFlorida Bar Number: 0092035

    Shakfeh Law, LLC.1207 N. Franklin StreetSuite 219Tampa, Florida 33602

    Tel: (813) 228-0101www.ShakfehLaw.com

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    85/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    86/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    87/95

    Exhibit H

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    88/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    89/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    90/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    91/95

    Exhibit I

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    92/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    93/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    94/95

  • 7/23/2019 Board of Education vs. Gray - Defendent's Anti-SLAPP Motion for Summary Judgment

    95/95