Filing 68855636 E?Filed 03/06/2018 01:27:05 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a public corporation of the State of CASE NO. 2017-001098-CA Florida, Judge Roby Plaintiff, vs. EVERGLADES LAW CENTER, INC., a Florida not-for-pro?t corporation, et a1. Defendants. DEFENDANT MAGGY OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF PRODUCTION TO NON-PARTIES Defendant, MAGGY HURCHALLA, objects to Plaintiff?s Notice of Production to Non- Parties seeking production of irrelevant documents from citizens who ?led requests for copies of public records maintained by the Plaintiff and states: INTRODUCTION The South Florida Water Management District is a regional governmental agency that manages water resources in the southern half of Florida. Established in 1949, the agency is supposed to be responsible for managing and protecting water resources and the environment of South Florida. According to the District?s website, ?The South Florida Water Management District is committed to open and transparent two-way communication with the public we serve . . . . We encourage the public to participate in the decision-making process and to be actively engaged at whatever level they choose.? Despite its stated commitment to tranSparency, the District ?led this action against a citizen activist and a non-pro?t organization committed to protection of the environment and the Electronically Filed Martin Case 17001098CAAXMX 03/06/2018 01:27:05 PM Everglades, asking this Court to authorize the agency to violate Florida?s Public Records Act and Open Meetings Law. The District has retained two outside law ?rms, at taxpayer expense, to join agency counsel in following a disgraceful path of harassing and intimidating private citizens who have done nothing more than request public records about matters of public concern. Attorneys are of?cers of the Comt. The privilege that attorneys have to issue subpoenas carries the weight of the law and must be used with discretion and upmost care. Yet the District and its attorneys are attempting to serve subpoenas on private citizens who are not parties to this action requiring individual citizens to produce to the government: All communications between non-party citizens and anyone else at any time without limitation related in any way to the public records request made by the citizens to the District; All communications between non-party citizens and the Everglades Law Center at any time related to the Lake Point litigation; and All communications between non-party citizens and Maggy Hurchalla at any time related to the Lake Point litigation. The communications the government seeks to compel private, non-party citizens to turn over including electronic communications that may require a citizen to surrender his or her computer or computer hard drive to the District - have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to public records requests made pursuant to statutory and constitutional law. Instead, the subpoena for communications appears to be a thinly veiled attempt by the District to assist the operators of the Lake Point rock mining operation in setting up future litigation against citizens who may have expressed objections or concerns about the project. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiff, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, served a Notice of Production to Non-Parties on February 27, 2018, pursuant to Rule Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 2. The Notice includes a proposed subpoena directing more than a dozen citizens who requested copies of public records maintained by the Plaintiff to produce, inter alia, ?any and all communications between you and anyone else that relate in any way to the public records request you submitted to the District seeking documents related to the Lake Point Litigation.? (Emphasis supplied) 3. The request is overbroad and confusing. The subpoena includes complex, and confusing ?De?nitions and Instructions? which are in some respects incomprehensible as well as improper. Plaintiff demands communications between citizens and their friends, family members, attorneys, and ?anyone else? without limitation. 4. If a citizen claims that any of the requested communications are privileged, Plaintiff demands information that constitutes a privilege log, although it is improper for a party to demand a non-party to produce a privilege log identifying privileged communications, especially when such communications have no relevance to issues raised in the pending action. 5. The pending action is a request for declaratory judgment relieving the Plaintiff, a government agency, of its statutory and constitutional duties to produce public records. 6. A non-party may not be required to ?le a privilege log in responding to a production request. United States Sugar Corp. v. Estate of Mullins, 211 So.3d 110, 114 (Fla. 4lh DCA 2017). Moreover, when a party seeks personal information from a non-party such as private communications with friends or family, the requesting party must ?make a showing of necessity which outweighs the countervailing interest in maintaining the con?dentiality of such information.? Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Johnson, 959 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 4"1 DCA 2007) 7. Article 1, section 23, Florida Constitution, affords Floridians the right of privacy and ensures that each person has the right to ?determine for themselves when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.? This right is not waived or surrendered when a citizen makes a public records request to a government agency. 8. Court orders compelling discovery constitute state action that may impinge on constitutional rights, including the constitutional right of privacy. Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So.2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). And while the potential for invasion of privacy is inherent in the litigation process, non-party witnesses retain a reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom from harassment. 9. Plaintiff 5 proposed subpoena demands communications ?that relate in any way to the public records request you submitted to the District? and de?nes the term ?relating to? so broadly as to encompass all communications that mention in any context ?a subject matter identi?ed in this subpoena?. Nowhere in the four pages of ?De?nitions and Instructions? is there an explanation of what constitutes any ?subject matter identi?ed in this subpoena.? 10. The proposed subpoena does not seek documents which are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Citizens who have requested copies of public records need not explain or justify their requests and may not be deprived of their rights to privacy by being forced to disclose privileged or personal communications simply because they exercised their right to request public records. 11. It is against public policy for an agency to demand burdensome, invasive production of irrelevant materials from citizens who are not involved in any litigation and have made no demands upon a government agency other than a request for production of public records pursuant to Chapter 119, ES. 12. Florida Rule Fla. R. Civ. Pro., provides that: ?Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action . . . The subject matter of the pending action is a request by a government agency for a judicial waiver from the requirements of Florida statutes and the Florida Constitution. No evidence can be obtained from non-party citizens who merely requested production of public records that can lead to discovery of any matter relevant to the Plaintiffs claim of an exemption from statutory and constitutional law. 13. The only purpose of the production request of non?parties is to harass and intimidate individual citizens who exercised their statutory and constitutional rights. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS 14. The subpoena contains no time limits but seeks production of communications which were made at any time ever about either the public records request or the Lake Point litigation. This request is overbroad. 15. The subpoena directs non-parties to produce communications from any person, with the de?nition of ?person? set out in the subpoena so broad as to incorporate attorneys, accountants, friends, family members, officers, directors, of?cials, or representatives of corporations, and others without limitation. 16. T1111 51111111111113 1111111113111111111121111131 11 1111111113 c111111111111icati111111 11.111111131116511111113111111 1111311113111 1111111111 13111112111}! 11111. 1111111111111: 11111:! 11111 designed 10 11:11-121113-1113111113311311: 11111111111221: 111111111 1111113111111 the: agmay 15111111111111 10131111111211 public: 1112111111218 1311131121111 111 Chapter '1 191 1.3.3., 111111 1111111111 I, 3111111111231, {11"11111 if}. The 111111111111611 111111111111111111611311111111 11119111135113, 11111113111131 I1111?1113111g1111d 111.113.1131-11111 1111111111111 11:) 1121111 11:1 admissibla avidanw. Befendant, MAGGY ij 5.11.111 1.11 Plaintiffs; 11111111116 11f 13101111611011 111 111111 111(11111311 the 8111111 10 611161311 Qfd?l' determining 1171111: 11111 di'scm'my- 511-1111 1.1111 be had. IHEREBY CERTIFY that 11111111- 111113 ?bregeinghas 11111111111111111111 bf;- E~11111111113x Miaha?l .3. Wis-(211153111311 Esq. and {311111111111 M, 311112111, Esq, T1111111hy 1111111111611, E11111, 1111121 E11113. ?111111111 Egg, and 111111 TraayM. White, 13311.1 211; 1111' 1121111111121111111111111 1.111111; Marcy I 11111111151111 1-11: Edward P. (111 111' 13211112., 131111-1111! 1116111115 Q. 1111111111131117111111111111 1111111111111 11; (11111111113111 11111114211111 111111 3311111111 3. LQEI), Esq? I111 P. T215301. 1311111.; 1:11.111 1111111111111 J. Labhee, ?311., at 11113111111151311111 (1.1111111111111111113111111 1.11113, 111.13- 15111.31 11f 1111111211, 2818. LITTMAM ??t-1113111113, RA. Gamma-.1. f?r Defmdam HURC-HALLA P11513101 1.197 53111311111311 34?.95 Teiaphme: (7'72) 28? 13201} Ilia-111311111211 LSHI 11.1111111111111111111] 1:11.111 ?n 3'31- -- 5% I 135W 1111? 1111;131:1111 Vugmlap Sl?tmk Fla Bar 6