69.081
Sunshine in litigation; concealment of public hazards prohibited.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
69.081 Sunshine in litigation; concealment of public hazards prohibited.—
(1) This section may be cited as the “Sunshine in Litigation Act.”
(2) As used in this section, “public hazard” means an instrumentality, including but not limited to any device, instrument, person, procedure, product, or a condition of a device, instrument, person, procedure or product, that has caused and is likely to cause injury.
(3) Except pursuant to this section, no court shall enter an order or judgment which has the purpose or effect of concealing a public hazard or any information concerning a public hazard, nor shall the court enter an order or judgment which has the purpose or effect of concealing any information which may be useful to members of the public in protecting themselves from injury which may result from the public hazard.
(4) Any portion of an agreement or contract which has the purpose or effect of concealing a public hazard, any information concerning a public hazard, or any information which may be useful to members of the public in protecting themselves from injury which may result from the public hazard, is void, contrary to public policy, and may not be enforced.
(5) Trade secrets as defined in s. 688.002 which are not pertinent to public hazards shall be protected pursuant to chapter 688.
(6) Any substantially affected person, including but not limited to representatives of news media, has standing to contest an order, judgment, agreement, or contract that violates this section. A person may contest an order, judgment, agreement, or contract that violates this section by motion in the court that entered the order or judgment, or by bringing a declaratory judgment action pursuant to chapter 86.
(7) Upon motion and good cause shown by a party attempting to prevent disclosure of information or materials which have not previously been disclosed, including but not limited to alleged trade secrets, the court shall examine the disputed information or materials in camera. If the court finds that the information or materials or portions thereof consist of information concerning a public hazard or information which may be useful to members of the public in protecting themselves from injury which may result from a public hazard, the court shall allow disclosure of the information or materials. If allowing disclosure, the court shall allow disclosure of only that portion of the information or materials necessary or useful to the public regarding the public hazard.
(8)(a) Any portion of an agreement or contract which has the purpose or effect of concealing information relating to the settlement or resolution of any claim or action against the state, its agencies, or subdivisions or against any municipality or constitutionally created body or commission is void, contrary to public policy, and may not be enforced. Any person has standing to contest an order, judgment, agreement, or contract that violates this section. A person may contest an order, judgment, agreement, or contract that violates this subsection by motion in the court that entered such order or judgment, or by bringing a declaratory judgment action pursuant to chapter 86.
(b) Any person having custody of any document, record, contract, or agreement relating to any settlement as set forth in this section shall maintain said public records in compliance with chapter 119.
(c) Failure of any custodian to disclose and provide any document, record, contract, or agreement as set forth in this section shall be subject to the sanctions as set forth in chapter 119.
This subsection does not apply to trade secrets protected pursuant to chapter 688, proprietary confidential business information, or other information that is confidential under state or federal law.
(9) A governmental entity, except a municipality or county, that settles a claim in tort which requires the expenditure of public funds in excess of $5,000, shall provide notice, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 50, of such settlement, in the county in which the claim arose, within 60 days of entering into such settlement; provided that no notice shall be required if the settlement has been approved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
History.—s. 1, ch. 90-20; s. 1, ch. 91-85; s. 1, ch. 96-349.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1992–2009 · leading case: Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2003)
“§ 69.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). Since the jury clearly found that Jones was injured by the tire in question, the tire is deemed a "public hazard.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Jones (2005)
“§ 69.081(3), Fla. Stat. (2004). Subsection (5) of the Act provides: Trade secrets as defined in s.”
Stivers v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (2000)
“The question in this case is whether a financing practice that causes only monetary injury is a public hazard within the meaning of section 69.081, Florida Statutes (2000), the Sunshine in Litigation Act (the "Act").”
Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea (2008)
“Respondent has not invoked application of the Sunshine in Litigation Act, section 69.081, Florida Statutes, which expressly acknowledges that it does not apply to trade secrets, proprietary confidential business information and other information confidential under state or…”
Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC v. Garcia (2008)
“Two of the cases pleaded claims under section 69.081, Florida Statutes, commonly known as Florida's Sunshine in Litigation Act.”
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Carnoto (2001)
“In particular, the trial court referred issues pertaining to the Sunshine in Litigation Act [Sunshine Act], specifically Section 69.081, Florida Statutes, to a special master, and ruled that a determination would have to be made on Sunshine Act issues before the trial court…”
TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC v. Papandopoles (2007)
“The complaint asserted various negligence and products liability claims against appellants, and a claim for declaratory relief against Ford for violation of Florida's Sunshine in Litigation Act, codified at section 69.081, Florida Statutes. Yampa On June 3, 2002, two Argentine…”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Schalmo (2008)
“§ 69.081(2). When a party seeks to prevent disclosure of information or documents potentially falling within the scope of the Sunshine in Litigation Act, the Act requires the trial court to take certain steps: Upon motion and good cause shown by a party attempting to prevent…”
Smith v. TIB Bank of the Keys (1997)
“NOTES [1] In resolving the instant controversy, we do not construe in any way section 69.081, Florida Statutes (1995), the "Sunshine in Litigation Act" or other similar statutory provisions.”
ACandS, Inc. v. Askew (1992)
“Respondents also brought the attention of the lower tribunal to section 69.081, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990).”
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Lambert (1995)
“The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) and the Lake-land Publishing Corporation, doing business as the Lakeland Ledger (Ledger), filed motions pursuant to the Sunshine in Litigation Act (Sunshine Act),' section 69.081, Florida Statutes (1991), to set…”
Ford Motor Co. v. HALL-EDWARDS (2009)
“Analysis First, Florida’s Sunshine in Litigation Act, § 69.081, Fla. Stat. (2008), is applicable only if the trial court has entered a confidentiality order, or if there is a pending motion by the defending party for a confidentiality order.”
— 69.081(2) — 4 cases
Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2003)
“§ 69.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). Since the jury clearly found that Jones was injured by the tire in question, the tire is deemed a "public hazard.”
Stivers v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (2000)
“The question in this case is whether a financing practice that causes only monetary injury is a public hazard within the meaning of section 69.081, Florida Statutes (2000), the Sunshine in Litigation Act (the "Act").”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Schalmo (2008)
“§ 69.081(2). When a party seeks to prevent disclosure of information or documents potentially falling within the scope of the Sunshine in Litigation Act, the Act requires the trial court to take certain steps: Upon motion and good cause shown by a party attempting to prevent…”
— 69.081(3) — 5 cases
Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2003)
“§ 69.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). Since the jury clearly found that Jones was injured by the tire in question, the tire is deemed a "public hazard.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Jones (2005)
“§ 69.081(3), Fla. Stat. (2004). Subsection (5) of the Act provides: Trade secrets as defined in s.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Schalmo (2008)
“§ 69.081(2). When a party seeks to prevent disclosure of information or documents potentially falling within the scope of the Sunshine in Litigation Act, the Act requires the trial court to take certain steps: Upon motion and good cause shown by a party attempting to prevent…”
Ford Motor Co. v. HALL-EDWARDS (2009)
“Analysis First, Florida’s Sunshine in Litigation Act, § 69.081, Fla. Stat. (2008), is applicable only if the trial court has entered a confidentiality order, or if there is a pending motion by the defending party for a confidentiality order.”
— 69.081(4) — 1 case
Stivers v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (2000)
“The question in this case is whether a financing practice that causes only monetary injury is a public hazard within the meaning of section 69.081, Florida Statutes (2000), the Sunshine in Litigation Act (the "Act").”
— 69.081(5) — 3 cases
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Jones (2005)
“§ 69.081(3), Fla. Stat. (2004). Subsection (5) of the Act provides: Trade secrets as defined in s.”
Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea (2008)
“Respondent has not invoked application of the Sunshine in Litigation Act, section 69.081, Florida Statutes, which expressly acknowledges that it does not apply to trade secrets, proprietary confidential business information and other information confidential under state or…”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Schalmo (2008)
“§ 69.081(2). When a party seeks to prevent disclosure of information or documents potentially falling within the scope of the Sunshine in Litigation Act, the Act requires the trial court to take certain steps: Upon motion and good cause shown by a party attempting to prevent…”
— 69.081(7) — 2 cases
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Jones (2005)
“§ 69.081(3), Fla. Stat. (2004). Subsection (5) of the Act provides: Trade secrets as defined in s.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Schalmo (2008)
“§ 69.081(2). When a party seeks to prevent disclosure of information or documents potentially falling within the scope of the Sunshine in Litigation Act, the Act requires the trial court to take certain steps: Upon motion and good cause shown by a party attempting to prevent…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.