Steven Miro Motion For Attorneys Fees and - or Costs Against City of Miami Re Carollo

Filing # 83227065 E-Filed 01/11/2019 02:24:30 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 2018-034893
STEVEN MIRO
Plaintiff, Expedited Treatment

v. Required by Statute
CITY OF MIAMI &

JOE CAROLLO
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF THE PREVAILING

PARTY ENTITLING HIM TO FEES AND COSTS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI
Plaintiff Steven Miro hereby files his Amended Motion to Declare the Plaintiff the
Prevailing Party Entitling Him to Fees and Costs against Defendant City of Miami (the
“Motion”). A joint stipulation of dismissal was entered on January 3, 2019 and a dismissed
order was entered on January 9, 2019, with the Parties agreeing that the Court would reserve
jurisdiction solely to determine Plaintiff’s entitlement, if any, to fees and costs against Defendant
City of Miami (not Defendant Carollo).
1. This lawsuit was filed under the Public Records Act (the “Act”) to compel
compliance with the production of documents. Initially the City was the only defendant. No
responsive documents were produced prior to the lawsuit being filed. The lawsuit itself was filed
11 weeks after the PPR was made in writing and only after repeated emails to the City requesting
the documents. Extensive presuit written correspondence was filed with the Court on October
22, 2018. No explanation for the delay was ever provided prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
2. Once this lawsuit was filed, the City asserted for the first time that Carollo
personally, not the City, was the proper defendant and custodian of the requested documents, and
KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRÓN, 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715, Miami, Florida 33131, 305.330.6090
www.kymplaw.com
that it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff to sue Carollo personally. The City asserted (and
provided evidence) that Carollo was not cooperating with the PRR and the City suggested an
order be entered, or at least that it be made clear that an order would be entered, that would allow
it to convince Carollo to cooperate with the PRR. Carollo was reluctantly added by the Plaintiff
as a co-defendant in light of the City’s defense and at the City’s urging.
3. After and because this lawsuit was filed on October 15, 2018, the City finally
searched for and produced several text messages responsive to the PRR (request number 1). See
Exhibit A (Emails between City Attorney and Carollo post-dating the lawsuit concerning the text
messages). (Presumably the Defendants have now produced all responsive documents to this
request number 1, although they have not clearly stated as such). There is no way to know what
text messages were deleted prior to Carollo knowing they were the subject of a PRR. There is no
evidence the City has proper (if any) policies or procedures for handling public records on
private accounts, etc.
4. After and because this lawsuit was filed on October 15, 2018, the City conducted
a search on or about November 2, 2018 for responsive emails to the PRR (request number 2).
Carollo’s chief of staff, Richard Blom, executed an affidavit on or around November 2, 2018
indicating that the search was conducted on November 2, 2018. See Exhibit B (Blom Affidavit).
There is no way to know what emails were deleted prior to Carollo knowing they were the
subject of a PRR. There is no evidence the City has proper (if any) policies or procedures for
handling public records on private accounts, etc.
5. After and because this lawsuit was filed on October 15, 2018, the City indicated
that there were no responsive documents to item 3 on the PRR. See Exhibit C (Email from City)
Carollo apparently made his own PRR on the City in June 2018, but the City (for reasons never
2
www.kymplaw.com
explained) never conducted any search or production in response to Carollo’s PRR. The City
never indicated it had no responsive documents prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
6. It took the filing of this lawsuit for the City to search for and produce the
requested public records. To be clear, the City never even searched for the documents until this
lawsuit was filed 11 weeks after the PRR was made in writing to the City. (The City did attempt
to produce the wrong documents containing Miami.gov emails, but via email to the City the
Plaintiff made it clear it was expressly not seeking those documents and was instead seeking the
documents requested on the actual PRR). See Exhibit D.
7. On October 12, 2018, after it became readily apparent that the City was not
producing any responsive documents, the City emailed the Plaintiff to assure that “Chapter 119
and the prescribed penalties stated therein can assure you any responsive documents have not
been destroyed.” See Exhibit E. This is a nothing short of a concession that the City knew it
would be responsible for fees and costs for non-compliance with the Act. To the extent the City
places the blame on Commissioner Carollo, or members of his staff, that is not the fault of the
Plaintiff and not a legally recognized defense for non-compliance under the Act.
8. As a matter of law, Plaintiff “prevailed” within the meaning of the Act because it
took the filing of this lawsuit to force the City to minimally comply with its statutory obligations.
(In light of the City’s tenuous argument that Carollo is the custodian of the records, it is not even
clear if the City has in fact fully complied with its statutory obligations because no one knows
what documents were deleted).
9. “If a civil action is filed against an agency to enforce the provisions of this
chapter, the court shall assess and award the reasonable costs of enforcement, including
reasonable attorney fees, against the responsible agency if the court determines that: (a) The
3
www.kymplaw.com
agency unlawfully refused to permit a public record to be inspected or copied; ….” § 119.12(1)
(emphasis added). The use of the word “shall” makes fees mandatory.
10. Attorney fees are available to a prevailing plaintiff in a PRR lawsuit in either of
two scenarios:
This brief survey of the case law suggests

that attorney's fees are awardable for unlawful
refusal to provide public records under two
circumstances: first, when a court determines that the
reason proffered as a basis to deny
a public records request is improper, and second, when
the agency unjustifiably fails to respond to
a public records request by delaying until after the
enforcement action has been commenced.
Office of the State Attorney for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida v. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d
759, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Only one of those scenarios need apply, but here both apply.
11. Both scenarios apply here. First, the City’s proffered reason at the first two
hearings in this matter was “we can’t” do the search because the City is not the custodian of
record. This explanation or objection was never made prior to the filing of the lawsuit; it was an
after-the-fact excuse that was made for the first time at the first hearing in this action. (In fact,
prior to filing suit, the City was asked in writing if it was going to take the position that Carollo’s
Hotmail account and his text messages were not public records of the City, but the City never
responded at all to that inquiry and instead kept stalling). Also, as explained in the previously
filed and incorporated memorandum of law concerning custodianship, this is legally baseless.
The City is the custodian of records. And more importantly, in the end, the City did conduct the
search by having Carollo’s chief of staff Richard Blom conduct a search of Carollo’s private
Hotmail account for responsive documents and it did produce Carollo’s business related text
messages when (after the lawsuit was filed) the City Attorney emailed Carollo requesting those
texts. It obviously could have done this when the PRR was initially made in July. Instead, the
4
www.kymplaw.com
City waited until the 11th hour after this lawsuit was filed and after the City was likely facing
serious adverse rulings on this point (the Court was prepared to issue an order to show cause, but
the City requested a few days to speak with its client about the seriousness of the situation before
the Court formally issued an order to show cause). The City’s conduct undercuts its argument.
12. Second, the three-month delay between the PRR being made and the documents
being searched for and produced constitute unreasonable delay justifying a fee award. The
Complaint to enforce the Act was filed 11 weeks after the PRR was made in writing and after
repeated written requests were made between the initial request and the filing of the lawsuit. The
City did nothing until the Complaint was filed. (Ironically, the City stated the email search
would produce “voluminous results,” but when it finally conducted the search in November 2018
it produced ZERO emails).
13. As a matter of law, this entitles the Plaintiff to fees and costs. See Brunson v.
Dade County School Bd., 525 So. 2d 933, 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“When considered in the
light of the intent of chapter 119, which has as its purpose the prevention of government agencies
from restricting access to public records, the Board's unjustified delay in complying with the
requests until after a suit was brought amounted to an “unlawful refusal” under section 119.12,
for which attorney's fees and costs are to be awarded.”).
14. To the extent this Motion is opposed, and if necessary, Plaintiff requests an
evidentiary hearing and opportunity to take testimony from City employees.
5
www.kymplaw.com
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff requests an order entitling him to fees and costs as
the prevailing party against the Defendant City of Miami. (The amount should be determined
separately, assuming the parties cannot agree).
. Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Matthew Sarelson

Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq.
Florida Bar 888281
KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRÓN
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Miro
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715
Miami, Florida 33131
Phone (305) 330-6090
msarelson@kymplaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed this document on January 11, 2019 via the Court’s
eportal system and that it will email this document to all counsel of record.
/s/ Matthew Sarelson

Matthew Sarelson
6
www.kymplaw.com
From: Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie
To: Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie
Cc: PublicRecords
Subject: FW: PRR 18-1201
Date: Monday, October 22, 2018 12:10:30 PM
Attachments: Image-2.png
Image-3.png
Image-4.png
Image-5.png
Image-6.png
Image-7.png
Image-8.png
Image-9.png
From: Mendez, Victoria <vmendez@miamigov.com>

Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 5:06 PM
To: Min, Barnaby; Gibbs, Domini; Harrison, Douglas A.
Subject: Fwd: PRR 18-1201
Victoria Méndez, City Attorney

Board Certified, City, County and
Local Government
City of Miami Office of the City
Attorney
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
victoriamendez@miamigov.com
Assistant: Marta Gomez (305) 416-1844
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Carollo, Joe (Commissioner)" <JCarollo@miamigov.com>

Date: October 19, 2018 at 3:43:27 PM EDT
To: "Mendez, Victoria" <VMendez@miamigov.com>
Subject: PRR 18-1201
Image
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit B
From: Gibbs, Domini
To: Matthew Sarelson
Cc: Eves, Eric; Harrison, Douglas A.
Subject: RE: Steven Miro v. City of Miami 18-034893
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:53:58 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
As previously stated, there are no responsive documents to that portion of PRR 18-
1201. All responsive documents related to the other portions of the request have
been provided.
Domini Gibbs
Assistant City Attorney
City of Miami Office of the City Attorney
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Telephone: 305-416-1800
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
DGibbs@miamigov.com
Karla L. Mejia, Litigation Assistant, (305)416-1863
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain
legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it
in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this
message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might
constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was
received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in
this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under Florida law, e-mail
addresses and the contents of the e-mail are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address, or the contents of
the e-mail released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this
office by phone or in writing.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:43 PM
To: Gibbs, Domini <DGibbs@miamigov.com>
Cc: Eves, Eric <eeves@miamigov.com>; Harrison, Douglas A. <DAHarrison@miamigov.com>
So, Carollo seems to have made a PRR, but there is no assigned number given to the request? It’s
like a secret, off-books request?
From: Gibbs, Domini [mailto:DGibbs@miamigov.com]

To: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>
Exhibit C
Cc: Eves, Eric <eeves@miamigov.com>; Harrison, Douglas A. <DAHarrison@miamigov.com>

Mr. Sarelson,

In regards to PRR 18-1201, the City Closed the request in its entirety stating, “all
responsive documents have been provided to the requester.” The City is not stating
that we never searched for the third portion of the request. However, there are no
responsive documents to that portion of the request.

Thank you,

Domini Gibbs
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Telephone: 305-416-1800
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
DGibbs@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain
legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it
in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this
message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might
constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was
received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in
this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under Florida law, e-mail
addresses and the contents of the e-mail are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address, or the contents of
the e-mail released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this
office by phone or in writing.

From: Eves, Eric
Subject: Fwd: Steven Miro v. City of Miami 18-034893

Get Outlook for iOS

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:10:11 PM
To: Eves, Eric
Cc: Harrison, Douglas A.

Also – the third item on the PRR is documents responsive to Carollo’s June 2018 PRR. The city closed
my PRR saying it had nothing. I assume that is correct? The city never actually searched for or
produced any documents as requested by Carollo?

-Matthew

From: Min, Barnaby
To: Matthew Sarelson
Cc: Gibbs, Domini; Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie
Subject: RE: PRR 18-1201- IT SEARCH TERMS
Date: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 2:53:56 PM
Understood. Obviously, the results will be voluminous which will result in increased time and costs.
We will send you an estimate shortly.
Barnaby L. Min
Deputy City Attorney
City of Miami

Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:36 AM
To: Min, Barnaby <bmin@miamigov.com>
Cc: Gibbs, Domini <DGibbs@miamigov.com>; Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-
Sassi@miamigov.com>
Barnaby –
After conferring with counsel, I don’t believe any search words are appropriate. We are requesting
every single email, text message and phone record during the previously identified time period that
concern city business in any way.
Thank you, Matthew
From: Min, Barnaby [mailto:bmin@miamigov.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 4:09 PM
To: msarelson@kymplaw.com
Cc: Gibbs, Domini <DGibbs@miamigov.com>; Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-
Sassi@miamigov.com>
Mr. Sarelson,
I just left you a message. Please call me when you have a moment to discuss at (305) 416-1835.
Barnaby Min

Date: August 30, 2018 at 3:49:17 PM EDT
To: "Gibbs, Domini" <DGibbs@miamigov.com>
EXHIBIT D
Cc: "Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie" <SSchloss-Sassi@miamigov.com>, "jcplanas@kymplaw.com"
<jcplanas@kymplaw.com>, PublicRecords <PublicRecords@miamigov.com>
Subject: Re: PRR 18-1201- IT SEARCH TERMS
I understand, but those aren't agreeable search terms. If Commissioner Carollo used
his private email to send an email to another person (another Commissioner, or a city
employee, or a lobbyist, or anyone at all) concerning City business, then by statute it is
a public record and Commissioner Carollo's is required by law to preserve the email.

The appropriate search criteria is "All emails to or from carollojoe@hotmail.com that
discuss or concern City business," or words to that effect. A broader, liberal
construction should be used to insure that all potential city business is captured in the
request.

If it means the City subpoenas hotmail.com for the entire email records, and then the
City reviews the document production to determine what is City business versus what
is personal, then so be it.

I have witnesses who will testify that Commissioner Carollo routinely used his private
email and cell phone (paid for by the City) to conduct city business to avoid (or attempt
to avoid) sunshine act requirements.

Please advise how the City is handling this.

-Matthew

MATTHEW SETH SARELSON, Esq

PARTNER
Brickell World Plaza | 600 Brickell Ave., Suite 1715 | Miami, Florida 33131
t: 305.531.2424 | f: 305.531.2405 | d: 305.330.6090
www.kymplaw.com | msarelson@kymplaw.com | vCard
LinkedIn Skype Twitter

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Gibbs, Domini <DGibbs@miamigov.com> wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Sarelson,

I attempted to call your office to discuss. I understand your concern and
I can assure you that the City of Miami is processing your request in
compliance with Chapter 119. Our office has requested all documents
which may be responsive to your request, and they will be provided
accordingly. However, we need you to agree to search terms in order for
our IT Department to properly search our internal server. I am not by
any means stating the City will not produce responsive items which may
otherwise exist, as well.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Domini Gibbs
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Telephone: 305-416-1800
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
DGibbs@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This
e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as
a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product
privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,
that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the
sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please
notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of
itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses and the
contents of the e-mail are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address, or the contents of
the e-mail released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity.
Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.

Cc: Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-Sassi@miamigov.com>;
jcplanas@kymplaw.com; PublicRecords <PublicRecords@miamigov.com>

I understand her email fully.

My point is that by doing so (i.e., conducting the search under the terms currently
being proposed by the City), the City will not be in compliance with its statutory
obligations.

If the City cannot and/or will not produce the carollojoe@hotmail.com emails (and
phone records and text messages, because the City pays for the phone service) that
concern City business, then we have no choice but to file suit. Nothing personal of
course, but the law is crystal clear that a city can't avoid operating in the sunshine by
using private email accounts and text messages.

If we've reached an impasse on this, then please advise and we can proceed
accordingly. But I'm trying to avoid a sunshine act lawsuit.

Thank you, Matthew

PARTNER
Brickell World Plaza | 600 Brickell Ave., Suite 1715 | Miami, Florida
33131
t: 305.531.2424 | f: 305.531.2405 | d: 305.330.6090

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Gibbs, Domini <DGibbs@miamigov.com> wrote:
Mr. Sarelson,

Thank you for your email. The City’s goal is to provide you all
documents responsive to your request. The email provided from Ms.
Schloss-Sassi is for our IT Department to conduct a search of any and
all emails relevant to your request on the City of Miami’s server.

Domini Gibbs
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Telephone: 305-416-1800
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
DGibbs@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message.
This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this
e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work
product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person
or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for
the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail
message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under Florida
law, e-mail addresses and the contents of the e-mail are public records. If you do not want your e-
mail address, or the contents of the e-mail released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.

To: Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-Sassi@miamigov.com>
Cc: jcplanas@kymplaw.com; PublicRecords <PublicRecords@miamigov.com>;
Gibbs, Domini <DGibbs@miamigov.com>

No no.

Absolutely not. Not "From or to" @miamigov.com.

If city business was conducted on any email from or to carollojoe@hotmail.com
TO OR FROM ANYONE then it is a public record. It is not limited "TO OR FROM" a
city account. He can't avoid public record laws by using a private email account.
This has been litigated repeatedly and each time the plaintiff seeking the
documents won.

Please advise if the City will comply. If this is an issue, let us know and we will have
the suit filed in a matter of days.

Thank you, Matthew

PARTNER
Brickell World Plaza | 600 Brickell Ave., Suite 1715 | Miami, Florida
33131
t: 305.531.2424 | f: 305.531.2405 | d: 305.330.6090

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-
Sassi@miamigov.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon,

Please review the suggested criteria below for your email
query. Please advise if there are any edits you wish to make to
the suggested criteria. If the suggested criteria are acceptable,
a non-refundable deposit of $42.81 needs to be made to
commence running the query. If the query takes an hour or
less, no additional fees will be assessed and the records will be
produced upon completion of the review for any statutorily
exempt emails. If the query takes more than an hour to run,
then additional fees may be assessed based on the additional
time spent beyond the initial hour to complete your query. A
detailed summary will be provided detailing the hourly rate of
the employee completing the query and the total time spent
completing your query. The additional fee must be paid prior
to receiving the requested records.

Payment of fees can be made to the “City of Miami” and
delivered to the Innovation and Technology Department on
the 5th floor of the Miami Riverside at 444 SW 2nd Avenue,
Miami, FL 33130. Payment can be done by check or cash.
Please be advised that if paying in cash, please bring exact
change.

Results are based on the suggested criteria and may contain
emails not related to requestor’s desire. If you do not agree
with the suggested criteria, you can edit it before submitting
payment. Once the payment is received and the query is
executed, a change in criteria may incur additional charges

The process to create the storage media will take
approximately 4 business days after receiving the approval and
payment. The costs include searches for Civilian mailboxes.
Police mailboxes are not included. If the request is related to a
law matter case or may include any other exempted emails,
then a review of the results may be required before being
released and this may add more delivery time.

Start Date 5/30/2018
End Date 6/11/2018
From or To @miamigov.com
“carollojoe@hotmail.com”
OR
Key words \
carollojoe@hotmail.com and “City of Miami”
Phrases
OR
“carollojoe@hotmail.com” and “Steven Miro

From: Matthew Sarelson
To: "Min, Barnaby"; "Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie"
Cc: "PublicRecords"; "Alban, Xavier E."; "Gibbs, Domini"
Subject: RE: PRR 18-1201
Date: Friday, October 12, 2018 4:38:51 PM
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Ok, Joe Carollo will fully comply with the law. Good to know. Thank you, Matthew

Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 4:37 PM
To: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>; Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-
Sassi@miamigov.com>
Cc: PublicRecords <PublicRecords@miamigov.com>; Alban, Xavier E. <XEAlban@miamigov.com>;
Chapter 119 and the prescribed penalties stated therein can assure you any responsive documents
have not been destroyed.
Barnaby L. Min
Attorney
Telephone: (305) 416-1835
Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
bmin@miamigov.com
Assistant: Kenya Jones, Senior Legal Assistant (305) 416-1828
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses and the contents of the e-mail are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address, or the contents of the e-mail, released in response to a public records request, do not

To: Min, Barnaby <bmin@miamigov.com>; Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-
Sassi@miamigov.com>
What is the date that the rest of the documents requested on July 30, 2018 will be produced to me?
What is the assurance that these documents have not been destroyed by Joe Carollo?
EXHIBIT E

MATTHEW S. SARELSON, Esq
PARTNER
Brickell World Plaza | 600 Brickell Ave., Suite 1715 | Miami, Florida 33131
t: 305.531.2424 | f: 305.531.2405 | d: 305.330.6090

To: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>; Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-
Sassi@miamigov.com>

Ms. Schloss-Sassi’s electronic mail to you clearly states “some responsive documents.” The
remaining documents are being obtained.

Barnaby L. Min
Attorney
Telephone: (305) 416-1835
Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
bmin@miamigov.com

Assistant: Kenya Jones, Senior Legal Assistant (305) 416-1828

Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses and the contents of the e-mail are public records. If you do not want
your e-mail address, or the contents of the e-mail, released in response to a public records request, do not

To: Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie <SSchloss-Sassi@miamigov.com>
Cc: PublicRecords <PublicRecords@miamigov.com>; Min, Barnaby <bmin@miamigov.com>; Alban,
Xavier E. <XEAlban@miamigov.com>; Gibbs, Domini <DGibbs@miamigov.com>

Thank you.

It would appear that none of the documents requested were produced in this request. We have
extensive @miamigov.com emails, but nothing from carollojoe@hotmail.com and no text messages.
Or basically anything else that was requested.

Alternatively, feel free to explain how this document production responds to the PRR.

This request was made on July 30. It is now October 12.

I need a firm date that ALL responsive documents will be produced.

Thank you, Matthew

From: Schloss-Sassi, Stephanie [mailto:SSchloss-Sassi@miamigov.com]
To: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>
Cc: PublicRecords <PublicRecords@miamigov.com>; Min, Barnaby <bmin@miamigov.com>; Alban,
Xavier E. <XEAlban@miamigov.com>; Gibbs, Domini <DGibbs@miamigov.com>
Subject: PRR 18-1201

Dear Mr. Sarelson, Esq.:

Hi, how are you? I hope that this email finds you well.

Please be advised that some responsive documents to your Public Records
Request have been uploaded to Next Request for your review and/or
download.

Please see: https://miami.nextrequest.com/requests/18-1201.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments and/or concerns.

Best regards,

Stephanie Schloss-Sassi, Paralegal
City of Miami
Office of the City Attorney
Telephone: 305-416-1893
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
E-mail: SSchloss-Sassi@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might
contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert,
please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or
disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and
to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this
communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original
message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under
Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.

Steven Miro Motion For Attorneys Fees and - or Costs Against City of Miami Re Carollo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Steven Miro Motion For Attorneys Fees and - or Costs Against City of Miami Re Carollo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Filing # 83227065 E-Filed 01/11/2019 02:24:30 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Plaintiff, Expedited Treatment

CITY OF MIAMI &

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF THE PREVAILING

City of Miami (not Defendant Carollo).

as a co-defendant in light of the City’s defense and at the City’s urging.

private accounts, etc.

handling public records on private accounts, etc.

documents requested on the actual PRR). See Exhibit D.

what documents were deleted).

This brief survey of the case law suggests

it produced ZERO emails).

for which attorney's fees and costs are to be awarded.”).

evidentiary hearing and opportunity to take testimony from City employees.

separately, assuming the parties cannot agree).

_/s/ Matthew Sarelson

/s/ Matthew Sarelson

From: Mendez, Victoria <vmendez@miamigov.com>

Victoria Méndez, City Attorney

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Carollo, Joe (Commissioner)" <JCarollo@miamigov.com>

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>

From: Gibbs, Domini [mailto:DGibbs@miamigov.com]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>

From: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>

Thank you, Matthew

From: Min, Barnaby [mailto:bmin@miamigov.com]

From: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>

MATTHEW SETH SARELSON, Esq

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Min, Barnaby [mailto:bmin@miamigov.com]

Assistant: Kenya Jones, Senior Legal Assistant (305) 416-1828

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Matthew Sarelson <msarelson@kymplaw.com>

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

You might also like