In other words, Ch. 119, F.S., provides a right of access to inspect and copy an agency’s existing public records; it does not mandate that an agency create new records in order to accommodate a request for information from the agency. Thus, the clerk of court is not required to provide an inmate with a list of documents from a case file which may be responsive to some forthcoming request. Wootton v. Cook, 590 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also AGO 08-29. Cf. s. 120.53, F.S., relating to maintenance of final orders by agencies subject to Ch. 120, F.S.
However, in order to comply with the statutory directive that an agency provide copies of public records upon payment of the statutory fee, an agency must respond to requests by mail for information as to copying costs. Wootton v. Cook, supra. See also Woodard v. State, 885 So. 2d 444, 445n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), remanding a case for further proceedings where the custodian forwarded only information relating to the statutory fee schedule rather than the total copying cost of the requested records. Cf. Gilliam v. State, 996 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (clerk, as custodian of judicial records, had a legal duty to respond to Gilliam’s request for information regarding costs) and Blackshear v. State, 115 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (clerk is “dutybound to respond to a request about copying costs for the records sought”).
Similarly, as stated in Seigle v. Barry, 422 So. 2d 63, 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), review denied, 431 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1983), the intent of Ch. 119, F.S., is “to make available to the public information which is a matter of public record, in some meaningful form, not necessarily that which the applicant prefers.” Accordingly, an agency is not ordinarily required to reformat its records and provide them in a particular form as demanded by the requestor. AGO 08-29. As explained in Seigle:
If the health department maintains a chronological list of dog-bite incidents with rabies implications [a] plaintiff, bitten by a suspect dog, may not require the health department to reorder that list and furnish a record of incidents segregated by geographical areas. Nothing in the statute, case law or public policy imposes such a burden upon our public officials. 422 So. 2d at 65.Thus, in AGO 97-39, the Attorney General’s Office concluded that a school district was not required to furnish electronic public records in an electronic format other than the standard format routinely maintained by the district.
Despite the general rule, however, the Seigle court recognized that an agency may be required to provide access through a specially designed program, prepared by or at the expense of the requestor, where:
2) the information in the computer accessible by the use of available programs would include exempt information necessitating a special program to delete such exempt items; or
3) for any reason the form in which the information is proffered does not fairly and meaningfully represent the records; or
4) the court determines other exceptional circumstances exist warranting this special remedy. 422 So. 2d at 66-67.
