A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A y!k N?M??N rC f?Nla3 Yz N?q qr NEeD d6h N?M K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O d6 I I i i CTX GH FT I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8 First as a crucial threshold matter the Amended Motion fails as a matter of law because Aronberg did riot comply with the strict day safe harbor notice requirement set forth in Section i prior to filing his November Amended Motion which was materially different i than arid raised new arguments and cited record evidence not included in his first Motion for Attorneys Fees 223First Motion served on June and filed on July DE This technical failure alone requires the denial of the Amended Motion for sanctions Second as to the merits the Amended Motion should be denied because Aronberg iri his official capacity as the State Attorney was a proper party defendant The State Attorney was undisputedly an interested party to the Newspaper 2s action seeking access to grand jury records and,he would have had the right to intervene in the lawsuit had he not beeri narned in the Complaint The State Attorney was at the very least a nominal defendant Sanctions are inappropriate under Section Third the Amended Motion fails under Section because Aronberg cannot meet the burden for sanctions:under the statute and cannot demonstrate that Plaintiff claim,was so devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to.be completely untenable as required to satisfy Section Rather the claim at issue Count I of Plaintiff First Amended Complaint is exactly the type of claim specifically excepted from sanctions,under Section IO5 a as the Plaintiff claim was presented to the Court as a good faith argument for the interpretation of existing law or at least the establishment of new law as it applied to the material facts with a reasonable expectation of success In short Plaintiff claim was made and pursued in good faith and based bn sufficient grounds which insulates it from sanctions Indeed the Court 2s December Final Judgment described Plaintiff arguments as 223sincere 223palatable and persuasive and noted this was a case of 223first impression that 223irnplicated issues of constitutional import in the BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Fir i as a crucial tb eshcild aher,theAnrended Mofi fails as a ratterofJa beca se Arcmberg did not comply with tlie-stnct2J-day safo harbor notice reqwreni nt set forth Section I pri9r to filing hi.s Novem9er Amended Mqtjon wbicll materi ly d.i.ff_erent i tha:n and raised new a:rgumertts and cited record evidenc.e not included ih his first Motion for AttorneysFees CFirstMotion served on Junes and filed on July DE35 This technical failure al.one requires the denial oftlre Amended Motion for sanctions Second as tci the merits the Amended Motion should be denied 267oecause Arortherg;in his offi 1al capc:tcity a,s the State Attorn wi,is a proper party clef nciant Tlie t;ite Attorney ur1dispufodly an intertsted party to the Newspaper.s a_ction seekiIJg access to grand jury records and.he would have hadthe rignttciintervene in the lawsuit had.he notbeen rtah1ed i the:Complaint Th.e.State Attorney was at the very least a npminal _defendant 267anctions_are inappropriate t1nder Section-57.J Third the Amended Motion fails under Section57.105 because Aronberg cannotmeetthe burden fqr _sar.wtionsutJdei:the sJarnte and canDoi demo.ns_trate th.at Pla_intiJis cfoi_rn_ was so devoid ofmerit b.oth on the facts and the Jaw anobe completely untenable as required to satisfy Sec_fion Rather the claim at issue Count I of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is exactly I the type ofolai specift call excepte_c_i from sancci ons under Sect1 on a as the P.laintiff claim.was presented tc the Court a:s a good faith argument forthe interpretation of existing law or at ast the est11_bli hment of new fa_w as it applieq t9 the material fac;ts with a reasonal le expectation of suc.cess In short Plaintiffs claim was made and pursued irt good faith and based on sufficienq tounds which insulates it from sanctions Indeed the Courts December FiIJal Judgment desG_ribed Piaiutiff arguments sin ere,i palatable and persuasive and noted this--was a case of first impression that implicated issues of constiJtional import in the CA/Aropfl:ffl5 A.L BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I contextof 223genuine subjects of publicinterest and concern See e.g DE pp Aronberg 2s continued position which he has declined to withdraw that the Plaintiff claim was made in bad faith is squarely contradicted by the Court 2s Final Judgment and the.record Fourth even if Aronberg had met the technical 21-day safe harbor notice requirement and could satisfy the heavy burden.under the statute which he did not and.cannot the amount of fees sought by his counsel.is not supported by Florida law Specifically the contingency risk multiplier that Aronberg 2s counsel seeks cannot be applied where as here the only basis forfees is Section sei forth in more detail,below the Amended Motion should be denied in its entirety BACKGROUND On January Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint DE 223Complaint against State Attorney Aronberg and the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County Florida Sharon Bock now Joseph Abruzzo 223Clerk for declaratory relief Count I and relief under Florida Statutes Section Count II seeking to obtain access to records from the grand.jury proceeding and criminal prosecution Of the late Jeffrey Epstein a convicted sex offender by former State Attorney Barry Krischer On January Aronberg filed an Answer to Count I and a Motion to Dismiss Count 223Aronberg Answer DE In.his Answer to Count I of the Complaint Aronberg admitted that Plaintiff sought but Defendants 223have refused to provide access to testimony minutes and other evidence presented in in the grand jury proceeding Aronberg Answer DE The same day the Clerk also filed an Answer to Count I and Motion to Dismiss Count II DE BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM context of"genuine subjects of public 267interestand concern See e.g UDE pp Aronbetgs continued positi-on which ie has declined to withdraw thatthl Plaintiffs claim was i mg.cle ba,d fa1t_h squg.r,el contrad1Gte.9 by th Court Final 265dgmeqt 9ci_ th rec9rci I Fotitih even if Aronberg 267had met thetechnica:121.,day safoharbor hotice requirement and could satisfy-the heavy burden:under-the statute which he did not and.cannot the amount offees s_o 265gbtby his counseii not Upported.by Floncl law SpecifjcaUy the conti.ngency risk:mu tipl1er that Aronbergs c0unsel seeks cannot be applied where as her the onlybasis for fees is Section As set forth.iQmore detail.below the Arnencleq Motion should be den,ie_d in its entirety BACKGROUND Qn Jan ry Pi_ail tiff fit a First Amended Com,plajnt DE Complaint against Sfate-.Attomey Aronberg and the Clerk and Comptroller ofPalm Beach County Florida Sharon Bock now Joseph Abruzzo Clerk for declaratory relief Count I and reii under Fiorida Stat 265tes Secifon Count II seeking to obtain access to records from the grand.jury proceeding and crin1in:al prosecution of the late Jeffrey Epstein a convicted sex offender fonner State AttomeiBa K.rischer On i:nuary Aro11herg filed an Answedo CountJ an:d a Motion to Dismiss Count Aroriber Answer DE In hJs Answer to Count I 9fthe Complaint Aron berg admftt t_ha.t,Pfaintiff sought but Defendants have refused fo provide access to testimony mihutes and other evidence I presented in in 267the grand jury proceeding Aronberg.Answer I DE i I The 267ame day the Clerk also filed an Answer to Count I and Motion to Dismiss Count II DE I i I I I CA/Aro?fi:m5?i BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM On June the Court entered an Order Granting the Defendants Motions to Dismiss Count IT of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint With Prejudice DE The Order specifically did not address the merits of Count I On July Aronberg filed his First Motion seeking sanctions against Plaintiff under Florida Statutes Section DE On June prior to filing his First Motion Aronberg 2s attorney Douglas A Wyler Esq served via email to Plaintiff counsel an unfiled copy of the First Motion with an enclosure letter The enclosure letter was not filed along with the First.Motion DE which has no exhibits.3 The June enclosure letter accompanying the First Motion but not the First Motion itself alleged in conclusory fashion that Aronberg did not have possession custody or control of the grand jury documents sought by Plaintiff See DE at Ex A Importantly however there was no evidence in the record to confirm this allegation and the First Motion did not refute or even address the State Attorney 2s ability to object to or impede attempts by the Plaintiff or any other third party to seek grand jury documents whether through the Clerk or other means At the time of Aronberg 2s First Motion for sanctions which.he expressly admitted was a 223place-marker motion to the extent he ultimately prevailed on the merits,4 ho motions for summary judgment had been filed and Aronberg had not served any affidavits or identified any evidence relating to this matter dr any al legations in the Complaint Aronberg later attached the June enclosure letter as Exhibit A to his October Response to Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the State Attorney 2s Fla Stat Section.57.105 Motion 223Aronberg 2s October Reply DE See Aronberg 2s October Reply DE at i CA/Arof?ft BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM On June the Com:t entered an Order 267Gra:nti11gthe Defendants Motions fo Dismiss Count Tl of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint With Prejudice DE The Order specifically did 1ddre_ss the merits ofC9t1QJ On July Aronbergfiled His FirsfMotion seeking sanftions againstPlaintiff under Florida 267statutesSection DE JSJ Ju_11e pnor fo fi_ng his F1rstMot_i9n Aronberg attorv.ey Dougi A Wyler Esq served via email to Plaintiffs courlsel an untiled copy of th First Motion with an e.ncfosure lett The endo ure letter was-not file.d long with th First.Moti DE which hfl.S no ex_hi its The June enclosure letter acc.oinpanying the Eitst Motion but iiotthe First Mo:ti_on itself al_eged in It1sory fashion that_ Aronberg gi not bave PPSSe siOn q1stody or contr.ol of the gra:rid,jury doCimiehts sought by Plaintiff See DE at Ex A Importantly however there was no evidence in the record to confirm this allegation anp the First Motion did not _refute or even address the _State Attorneys abiltty to obje_d to or lnipede atternpts by the Plaintiff or an5 othecthitd party to seek gtandjury documents whether through the Clerk or other means At:tbetime of Aronbergs First:Motion for sanction 267s,which,he expressly admitted was a place,.markef motion to the extent he 267ultimately prevailed on the merits ho hiotiohs for surnwasy-j1,Jclgw _nt:l adbeen filed Aronb rgluid not serveg any affidavit or 1d ntified WY evidence relating to this matter ot any allegations irt the Complaint Aronberg Jater_,a _ach the Jun enclqst1re tt r_as Exhih At his Octo Response to Plamt1ff Memorandum of Law Oppos1t1on to the State Attorney Fla Stat Section.57.105 Jvfotion Arohberg October Reply DE45 See AfOhbeTgs October Reply DE45 at CA/Arof tl i AL BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I On or aboutAugust Aronberg:filed a Motion for Summary Judgment DE and an affidavit DE averring that he not have possession or control over the Epstein grand jury materials and had.no authority to demand that the Clerk provide access to the materials This was the first record evidence relating to Kronberg 2s lack of possession or control of the grand jury materials sought by Plaintiff Notably Aronberg 2s affidavit still did not refute or address the State Attorney 2s ability to object to or otherwise impede an attempt by Plaintiff to seek grand jury documents On October Aronberg filed a motion to set a hearing on his Motion for Summary Judgment DE 47On that same date Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dropping Party as to i Aronberg dismissing him from,the case DE Nineteen days after Plaintiff dismissed Aronberg from the action by filing an October notice dropping Aronberg as a party DE on November Aronberg filed his Amended Motion DE seeking sanctions under Florida Statutes Section against Plaintiff relating to all fees and costs incurred by Aronberg after June The Amended Motion unlike his First 223place-marker Motion filed on July referenced Aronberg 2s August Motion for Summary Judgment and exhibits Importantly unlike his First Motion which was served via 221email upon Plaintiff 2s counsel days before filing Aronberg 2s Amended Motion was never served via any method of delivery before it was filed on November On August-12 Aronberg filed an Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of his Amended Motion for Attorneys Fees DE I As to the Plaintiff remaining claim.against the Clerk on April Plaintiff filed a motion forsummaryjudgment against the Clerk as to Count of the Complaint DE I CA/Arop BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM On or about-August Aronberg:filed a Motion for Summaty Judgment DE arid an affidavit averring that:he.did hot have possession or Jntrol over the Epstein grandjury materials and rnd a1.1thority ciemJi.nd tllatthe Ci erk provige dccess to the.materials This was the first record evidence relating to Aronbetgs lack of possession or coT1frol of the grand I I jury materials sought by Plaintiff Notably Aronbei:g affidavit still d1d nqt refute or address the State Attorneys ability to 267object tq or otherwisejrngecle an attemptby Pla1 tiffto seek grancl fui:y doclirrtents On October ATQnberg fileci a motion to set a heanng on hi_s MotiQn for Sllmtnary Judgment OE On that same date Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dropping Party as to I Aron berg dismissih him froin the case DE Ni_neteen days_ fier Piain6ff dismissed Aroriberg from th,e action by filing an October notice dr_opping Aron berg as a patty OE on November Aron berg filed his Amended Motion DE seeking sanctions under Florida Statutes Section agajnst:Pfo_tQti_fj relafo:ig to-ailfees and costs bwm:red by AroJJ_berg af:ter June The Amended Motion utilike.hisFirsf"pla:ce markef Motionfiled onJuly referenced Aronberg August Motion for Summary Jud ment and exhibits Importantly unlike ms First Mqt1on which was served via/email upon riain_t1ff counsel days before filing Arotibetg Amended Motion was never served via any method of deli:vecy before it wa_s fileg onNoverriber On August Aronb:erg,filed an Amen 267ded Memoranqum of Law in Support of his Amended Motion for Attorneys Fees DE74 i I As to the Plaintiffs maihjng 267claini cJ,gainst the Clerk April Plai11tiff I filed.a motion for summary judgment against the Cletkas to.Count I ofthelcornplaiht I I I I CA/Aro fl BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The hearing on the Plaintiff 2s motion for summary judgment against the Clerk as to Count I of the Complaint took place on October On December the Court entered an order on Plaintiff 2s motion for summary judgment Because the only other count of the Complaint Count had been disposed of by Order filed June DE the Court 2s December order was a final judgment in the case 223Final Judgment DE Oil January Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as to the Final Judgment DE The evidentiary hearing on Aronberg 2s Amended Motion for sanctions is set on the I Courts ten-week docket between March and May DE i MEMORANDUM OF LAW i I LEGAL STANDARD Under Section Florida Statutes the Court may award reasonable attorneys fees only if it finds that a party or its attorney knew or should.have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the Court or at any time before trial was riot supported by material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or would not be supported by the application of then existing law to those material facts To award sanctions 223the trial court must find that there were no justiciable issues of law of fact and that the losing party 2s attorney did not act in good faith i based on the representations of his or her client 224Siegel Rowe So 3d Fla 2d DC A quotation omitted Indeed 223where there is an arguable basis in law and fact for a party 2s claim a trial court may not sanction that party under section Minto PBLH LLC Friends ofFlorida Although the Clerk had previously filed a motion to amend the Final Judgment on January DE the Clerk withdrew the motion to amend on January DE CA/Arop I BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The hearing on.the Plaintiffs:motion for summaryjudgment:againstthe Clerk,as to Counfl of the Complaint took place on October On Decembe.r JO tl Court ent recl an order fl raip.t_iff IIlOtton for surnmary judg ment Because the only other count of the Complaint CounnI had been disposed ofby Order filed iune DE the Courts December ord was a final judgment I 1n the case Fi;naf 265clg1ent DE I I Ort January Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as the Final Judgment DE The evidentiary hearing on Aronberg Amended Motion for sanctions is set on.the Courts tefi,..week docket between Ma.tth and May DE MEMORANDUM OF LAW LEGAL STANDARD Under Section Sf i Florida Statutes the Court may award reasonable attorneys fees 0J1ly i_f it finds t_ha_t a pany or its attorney knew or should have known that a tfaitn defense when initially presented to the Court or at any tirne before trial 267was not suppotted by material facts neces.sary tQ est_apih the cl_ 1;im Qr defense or wgulcl not be supported by the application of then existing law to th.ose.material facts To award sancti 225ons the trial co11rt mJst find that them were no justiciable issues oflaw at fact and that the losing partys attorney di4 not act in good faith I b?-sed on the represent?,tinn of his or her Gli nt Siegel Rowe So fl a 2d DGA quotation omitted Indeed where thereis an arguable basis in law and fact for a partys claim a trial court I may nQt sanctipnthatparty und section Minto PBLH LLC Fri_e11 of Florid.a Although the Clerk had previously filed a rnotion fo amend the Firfal Jupgrnent oh January DE the Clerk vithdretv the motion to amend on January DE CNAropfi:m5?i ffl BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Inc So 3d Fla 4th DCA citingKowqUekv Rehm So 3d Fla 4th DCA emphasis added Courts must apply Section 223with restraint to i ensure that it serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting a chilling I effect on use of the courts MacAIister Bevis Constf Ihc So 3d Fla 2d DCA i Taking into account the amendments that broadened the statute after 223Florida court 2s have continued to caution that section must be carefully applied to ehsure that it serves the purpose for which it was intended to deter frivolous pleadings MC Liberty Express Inc All Points Servs Inc So 3d Fla 3d DCA 223Thus an award of fees under section requires more than the moving party succeeding in Obtaining a dismissal of the action Of the entry of a summary judgment in its favor and a party does not need to have conclusive evidence to prove its case at the ti me of filing in order to avoid sanctions Where a party reasonably believes the factual basis for its claim exists it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to prove those facts If attempts to prove those facts are fruitless that is still riot cause for sanctions where the party 2s initial belief was well-founded internal citations omitted Thus a voluntary dismissal does not.automatically equate to sanctionable conduct Before awarding sanctions the trial court must make 223explicit findings that 223the action was 2frivolous or so devoid Of merit both on the facts arid the law as to be completely untenable I This burden is a heavy one Id internal citations omitted emphasisadded Additionally the trial court 2s findings 223must be based on substantial competent evidence;presented to the court at the hearing on attorney 2s fees or otherwise before the:court and in the trial court record Trust Mong LLC Ferlanti So 3d Fla 4th DCA The trial court 223must make an inquiry into what the losing party knew of should have knowri during the fact-establishment I CA/Arop BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i Inc 3d Fla 4thDCA2017 citingKowallekv Rebn1 lr So Fla 4th DCA emphasis added Courts must apply Section with restraint to I i ensure th ij serves its intended.purpose ofdi_scq 265rclging bas le lc1ims witj101,1t casting chill_jng I I I effect on use of the courts MacAlisier i Bevis Consti fil So 3d Fla 2d,DCA I 2di5 lPg into acc_ount tlie amendments that broaqened the statute after Fh rJQa cq_utis have continued to caution that section must be carefully applied to eirsutecthatit.setvestlie purpos forwhich it wa5.1nttmded terfrivol9qs pieaq1ngs.i MClibe,:ty Ex.press Inc All Pofnis Sexvs Inc Set 3d Fla Thus an awarq offees under se_ction teq ites more than the inoving party succeeding in obtaining a disfuissal of the action or the entry of a summary 265dgment:in iJs favoc lDQ a party does not 1Jeed t_o have c;onc;l 265siy evidence to prove ifa case at:thetime of filing in _o.r:dedo avoid sanctions Where_ a party"reasonably believes the factual basis for its claim exists it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to prov thos_e facts Jfatte!.11p:fs t.o prove thqse fa ts a.re trnitless th.at is still ri_ot Gcll!Se for sanction_s wherethepariysinitial beliefwaswell-founded intemal citations omitted Thus a voluntary dismissal does not automatically equate to sanctionable conduct Before aw,arding sanctions the tric1t GOUft m:ust make Xplzdt findings that Jhe actipn_ was frivolous:or so devoid ofmetitbothon the facts-artdthe law as.to becompletely untenable I Tlus burden 1s-a heavy one,"Id n1t,ernal qtiit_lQP om1tt ernphc s1s 1,Qd Adif1t19nally I the trial courts findings must be based ort si.ibsfantial competent evidehce;ptesented to the collrt the hearing on attorneys fees or otherwise before the court and in the ti:ial court record.Ti:ust I Mo tg LL Fetlanti So 3d I Fla 4th DCA2Ql6 he ral court mu.st art 1rtqu1ry"-1rtto what the losing party knew ot should have known dutmg the fact-estabhshmenr I CA/Arop iJ BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I process both before and after suit was filed See hue Lehman So 3d Fla 4th IL ARONBERG 2S AMENDED MOTION MUST BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 21-DAY SAFE HARBOR PROVISION IN SECTION A Aronberg Failed To Serve Days Prior To Filing The Amended Motion Asserting New Arguments In Violation Of Section I Aronberg 2s Amended Motion failed to comply with the 21-day notice provision set forth i in Florida Statutes Section and as a result the Amended Motion must be denied outright Aronberg 2s Amended Motion raised arguments not raised in his First Motion and cited evidence not in the record at the time the First Motion was filed thus Aronberg was required to independently comply with the day safe harbor provision of Section as to the Amended Motion See Lago Kame By Design LLC So 3d Fla 4th DCA hold that if a party files a subsequent or amended motion for sanctions under section and raises.an argument that was not raised in the original motion for section sanctions the subsequent motion must independently comply with the twenty-one-day 221safe harbor provision I of section i Thus Aronberg 2s failure to serve the Amended Motion on Plaintiff at any time prior to i filing it alone requires denial of the Amended Motion See id As the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted in Lago hold otherwise would allow a party to raise a new ground for sanctions in a subsequent motion under section without giving the other side the opportunity to withdraw the offending claim or defense within twenty-one days after ecei ving notice of the new There is at least one instance where Florida Epstein grand jury materials have been disclosed though who did so and how they were disclosed is not presently known The United States Department of Justice acknowledges that Florida Epstein grand jury materials are in its possession See Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment DE CAW 260PheS Wl BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM process both before and after suit was filed See Chue 1J Lebmm1 So 3d Fla 4th JI ARONBERGS AMENDED MOTION IUST BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 21/DAY SAFE HARBOR PROVISION IN SECTION I A AR.ONBERG FAILED To SERVE DAYS PRIOR To Fii..iNG Tm AMENDED MOTION ASSERTING NEW AR:GUMENTs lNVioLATiONOF:SECTION 4t I Aronbergs Amended Motion failed to comply with the21 day hot c.e provision set forth I I in Florida Statutes Section and as a result the Amended tion must be denied i outright Aronberg Arnencied Motioll raised 1rg11ments not raised in his i,:irst Moti:on a11d eited I evidence not in the record at the time the First Motion was filed thus Atortb.erg was required to independently comply with the safe harbor provision of Section I os as to the Amended Motion See Lago v,XameBy Design LLC So 1d Fla 4th DCA We holdthatif,1partyfiles a subsequentor amended motion for sanctionsundersectioi1505 and rais,es an arg11ment that was not raised in the oiiginaLmotjon for section,57J sanftions the sub 267s:equentmotion must independently comply with the twenty-one-day safe harbor provision of section Thus Aron bergs failure to serve the Amended Motion on Plaintiff at any time prior to I I filing it alone requites denial of the Amended Motion See id As the F9urth District Court of AppeaLnoted in Lago tg hold.otherwi ewo cIIQw a party tqr ise.:tnew grmmd for sanction in a subsequent motion under sectiOil without giving the other si.de th opportuni.ty to I I I withdfaWtheoffending daim otdefoiise within twenty-one days afterteceiying notice of the new I I I J:h ls at I,east 0ne instance where Florida _EVitein pnu:rd ry matei:iall have been sciosed though who did so,when and how-they were dis.closed 1s not presently kno Ihe,Umted Stat Department of Justice acknowledges that fl ori da.Epsfein grand jury maforial arei its possession See Plaintiffs Motion fot Surrurtaty Judgment DE CA/Arofl5?iJ BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM ground for sanctions So 3d at see also Moore Estate ofAlbee by Benzenhafer So 3d Fla th DC A court could not consider amended motion for section fees because it raised additional grounds.for sanctions not raised iri the defendant 2s prior motion for-fees and there was indication that defendant complied with the twenty-one-day 221safe harbor provision of section citing So 3d at Phillips Garcia So 3d Fla 3d DC A also citing Lago and denying motion for section i I fees on other grounds and fi nd i ng i significant that the defendant 2s motion for fees did not allege qualified immunity 227the defense which was successful on the merits a grounds for i I entitlement to an award of fees i Because Aronberg 2s barebones First Motion did riot include the substantive arguments nor cite any evidence later raised in the Amended Motion Aronberg was required to serve the Amended Motion at least days before filing same in order to give Plaintiff the opportunity to withdrawthe count that remained against Aronberg Count I The Amended Motion was filed in violation of Section and should be denied The Court Cannot Consider The Amended Motion For Sanctions Because IT Was Filed After Aronberg Was Dismissed As A Party From The Action On November Aronberg filed the Amended Motion seeking sanctions against i Plaintiff relating to Count I of the Complaint against hint However the entire action which necessarily included Count I was dismissed as to Aronberg on October nineteen days before Aronberg filed his Amended Motion DE Because at the time Aronberg filed the Amended Motion Aronberg had already been dismissed as a party the Court does not have jurisdiction over and cannot consider the later-filed Amended Motion Sei Sidtosca Olympus Ins Co So 3d Fla 3d DCA 223Because entitlement to fees was premised upon a motion for sanctions filed after the voluntary dismissal and it is well-established that CA/Arop BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i ground for sanctions So 3d at also Moore Estat.e of AJbel by Benzenhafer So 3d Fla 5thDCA court could not consider amended motion for section fees becat1se it raise i aqclihonal grntrnds for sanctions not raised ij the defendanf prior I motion for,fees and there was no indication that defendant c0mpliedwith the twenfrone day I safe harbor provision of section citingTago So 3d at Phillips Garcia I Jd ti9 Fla 3d I C:A2Ql4 also citing Lago ci,n_d denying motio11for section I I fees.on other gtoi.mds and firtdirigit significant that.the defendant motion for fees did not c1.llege quaiified imm1,mity-the defense which wci,s suq:essf1,1lon the merits-as a grqund:s for I entitlement to an award of fees Because Aronbergs barebones First Motion did notincludetlie substantive arguments nor I c_ite any evfdence later raised in the Amended 1orj.on Aronberg was require to serve the Amended Motion atleast days before filing same in brdei to give Plairitiffthe opporiunity withdraw 267the count that remained against Aronberg Count I The Amend Motion was filed in yiolatiotJ SectioJJ and sho be denied THE 267COURT CANNOT CONSIDER THE AMENDED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BEcAOsE Ir Wis FILED AFTER ARONBERG WAs DrsM1ssiio As A PARTY FRoM THE ACTION On November Aronberg filed the Amended Motion see ng sanctions against Plaintiff relatin to Count of the C:omplaiht against him However the entire action which i n.eGes 1tnly fociuded Co I was dismissed as to Aronberg on Qcto.ber ninetee.n days before Atonberg,filed his Arnended Motion DE Because at the time Aronberg filed the I Amended Motion Aronberg had already been dismissed as a party the Court does not have I iutiscfiction over and ca11r1of consider the Ja,ter-filed Arne_nded Motio11 Se SMl:osca Olympus Ins Co So 3d Ffa 3d DCA Because entitlement to foes was premised upon a motion for anctions fileci after the voluntary dismi a:_l and iLi well-:e tablisheci that a CA/Aro flb BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM trial court has,continuing jurisdiction to consider asection motion for sanctions only where the motion for sanction was filed with the court before a voluntary dismissal we are constrained to reverse and remand the trial court 2s award of fees under section quoting iMgp i So 3d at where the court stated that 223bjecause appellee 2s second motion for section sanctions not comply with the twenty-one-day 221safe harbor provision of section the trial court erred in granting that motion see also Pino Bank of N.Y So 3d Fla in light of the day safe harbor provision under Fed Civ which is 223nearly identical to and interpreted as Fla Stat the motion for sanctions at issue must be submitted prior to dismissal of the Claim for the court to have jurisdiction as the safe harbor provision allows the party to withdraw the offending pleading Plaintiff 2s prior dismissal of Aronberg as a party means that the Court does not have jurisdiction to Consider the later-filed Amended,Motion for sanctions As a result the Amended Motion should be denied Aronberg 2s Self-Described 223Place-Marker First Motion for Sanctions was Insufficient and Did Not Absolve Aronberg Of The Requirement To Serve The Amended Motion Prior To Filing Aronberg specifically admitted that his First Motion for sanctions under Florida Statutes Section was filed as a 223place-marker to 223notify Plaintiff of the State Attorney 2s intention to seek sanctions should he prevail on the merits at a future:substantive hearing See Aronberg 2s October Reply DE at 223The Motion was filed to further put the Plaintiff on notice that the State Attorney would seek sanctions should he prevail on the merits of the lawsuit I The First Motion for sanctions was insufficient under Section when filed it set forth no substantive arguments as to why Count I of the Amended Complaint was insupportable based on material facts in the record or the application of existing law to those facts Rather at the I BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM trial court has contin:uingj urisdidionfo c_onsider a section motion for sanctions orily where the motion for sanction wa:s filed with the court before a voluritary dismissll we ate constrained I I to reverse and re,mctnd the trial courts awctrci qffe upqe,r sectiop qvoting Lago i So 3d at where the court stated that Jecause appellees se:cond n:1ot on for section sanctions did not comply with the twentrone-day safe harbor provision of section the tnaf erred fo granting that n1ot1on Pino Bqnfc of NY So Jd Fla in light ofthe2l-day safe harbotprovisionunderFed Giv which is nearly icle,nticali to and interpre.ted c1 Fla Stat the mQtion J9r mction issue mu_st qe submitte_d p_rior to dismissal of the claim for the cm1rt to have jurisdictiou as the safe harbor provision allowsthe party to withdraw-the offending pleading juri 225sdicfion to consider the_later..:filed Amended Motion for sanctions As a result the Amended Motion should be denied ARONBERGS SELF,-DESCRIBED PLACE-MARKER FIRST MOTION FOR SANGTIONS WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DID NOT ABSOLVE ARONBERG OF THE REQUIREMENT To SERVE THE AMENDED MOTION PRIOR To FILING Aronberg pe.cificaliy ct_clmitted that hi First Motion for anction under Florida Statute Se_ction was filecl as a place..:marker to no_tify Plaintiffoflhe State.Attonre,y s-inkntion to seek sanctions should he prevail on the merits at a future substantive hearing See Aronherg Octqber J4 DE at5 JJ The Mqti fi:iecL to further pllt th,e Plaintiff on notice_ that the State Attorney would seek sanctions should he ptevail on the-merits of the lawsuit I The Fir Motion for sanctions was insufficient under Section when_ fikd it set forth no substantive atgutnents as to why Count I of the Amended Complaint was insupportable cm ri fac;t in the rec9rd orthe ppli ati9n ofexistinglaw to thdse fac;ts R_c1ther atthe lO I I CA/Ar0f?il8ffl:5 A.L BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM time the First Motion was filed there was no evidence in the record supporting the statement by Aronberg 2s counsel that it was impossible for him or the State Attorney 2s Office to provide the documents sought in the Complaint Essentially what Aronberg argued in his 223place-marker First Motion is that if he prevailed in defending the lawsuit his attorneys fees should be awarded as sanctions against Plaintiff in his favor.7 There is no such mechanism as a 223place-marker motion for sanctions Otherwise any defendant could file a threadbare and coriclusbry 223place-marker notice of his intent to seek fees if he ultimately prevails and then seek fees based on later-filed evi dence and arguments A motion I for sanctions must be supported by the record evidence at the time it is filed Because the First Motion was not so supported it fails under the statute Further as explained above service of the First Motion did not absolve Aronberg of his obligation to serve the Amended Motion on Plaintiff through counsel prior to filing theAmended Motion The First Motion cannot be a 223place-marker for the mandated service of the Amended Motion under Section I STATE ATTORNEY A RON BE RG WAS A PROPER PARTY The material facts in the record at all times supported Plaintiff claim against Aronberg When Count I was filed and throughout the litigation prior to Aronberg 2s dismissal Plaintiff had a good faith basis for understanding that:the State Attorney 2s Office had either access to control over or the ability to impinge prevent or thwart Plaintiffs attempts to obtain public access to the Epstein grand jury materials See e.g Ferlanti So 3d at reversing trial court 2s award of fees for naming husband,as defendant in mortgage foreclosure proceeding even though husband was never a signatory to mortgage or note and plaintiff made no such allegations but Aronberg 2s 223place-marker First Motion appeared to be based erroneously on a prevailing party Standard see Reply at which is not the applicable standard for imposing sanctions expressly set forth i ecti on CA/Arop I BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM time the FirsJ Motion was filed there was no evidence in the record supporting the statement by Aronbergs counsel that it was impos 225sible fot hfrn or:the State Attotnefs Office tnptovide the documents sought in the,Compfa,int Essentially what Aronberg argued in his place-marker First Motioh is that if he prevailed in defending the lawsuit his attorneys fees should be,awarded as sanctions against Plaintiff in his clvor There is no,su mechanism as a pace marker mot101J for sanc ions Otherwise _any defendant could file a threadbare and condusory place-hiatker notice his intenttb seek fees I I if he 265ltima,tel prevail i!Ild then seekf es bcLsed on iater-:fi ledeyi cl nce ancl argtiments A motion I I for sanc.tions must be supported by the record evidence at the time it is fi ed Because the First I I lvfotioh was not so supported it fails undeftlie statute Further as explained above Service of the I FfrslIVlotiotJ did not ctbsolYe-Ar911berg of bis obligation to serve t_he,Amencl Motion on Pia,intiff through counsel prior to filing the Amended Motion The First Motion cannot be a place-1arker for the mandated service ofthe Amended Motion under Section Ill STA3 AfTORNEY ARONBERG WAS A P:ROPERP:ARTY The material facts in the record at all times Supported Plaintiffs cl1im against Atonberg When Count I was filed_ and thr9ugh9 265tthe litigc;i,tion prior to Aronl:,erg qismiss J,l,.Plc;i.intiffhad I a good faith basis for under.standing that th:e State Aft:Qmey Office had eiJher access_ to contrQl ewer otthe ability-to impifi prevent or thwart Plaintiffs attempts to obt ifi public access to the Epste,in grand jury m_ate,ric;i.ls Se Ferfami So 3d at i:evers,jng trial co award of57 QS fees for naming husband as defendant in mortgage foreclosure pr ceeding even though husband was never a signatory to mortgage or note and plaintiff made nd such allegations but I Aronbergs place-marker First Motion appeared to be bas.ed erroneously on a_ prevailing-party standard see Reply at which is not.the a:pplicabl standard for 267imposi bg sahcti ons expressly set forth:in Sectibh57 l1 CA/Aro_p BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM there was at least some triable set of facts under which defendant could.have been liable see also Grove Key Marina LLC Casamayor So 3d Fla 3d DCA affirming denial of section motion for fees even though lessees prevailed in defeating the county 2s I claim against them for unpaid taxes as the law at issue was a complicated matter the county 223simply covered its bases and the county 2s position that it could take remedial action against the lessees even after it became clear that the city not the lessees owed the taxes 223while novel was riot completely unreasonable Nowhere in the record did Aronberg ever refute his office 2s ability to object to or otherwise impede attempts by the Newspaper to seek grand.jury materials While Aronbcrg 2s August affidavit filed with his Motion for Suiftfnafy Judgment averted that he did not have possession or control oyer the Epstein grand jury materials his affidavit was notably silent as to whether the State Attorney could or would seek to intervene in or object to the Newspaper 2s attempts to obtain the Epstein grand jury materials See DE On October when Aronberg filed a motion to set a hearing on his Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff made the strategic deci si on to di smi ss Aronberg as a party from the action despite it still having a substantial good faith basis to keep Aronberg in the case even at that point See DE As State Attorney Aronberg was not named in thisaction solely as a custodian of the grand jury records Rather he was a defendant in his official capacity because his office has its It is also worth noting that while Aronberg allegedin the June enclosure.letter to his First Motion that his office did not have physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials he nevertheless argued in that same letter relying on Section that the Clerk should riot produce them By taking a position against disclosure Aronberg in effect asserted his right to the secrecy of the Epstein grand jury materials Stated another way Aronberg claimed the statutory right for the State Attorney Office Xo prevent access to the Epstein grand ury materials a position which actually supported the propriety of naming him in his official capacity as a party defendant in this action CA/ArOpft 260?lffi BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM there was at leastsome friable set ofJads i:mderwhich defendant co.uldhave been liable see also I GfiJ ieKey Marii1a LLC Casarnayol So 3d Fla 3d CA affirming I deniaJ of section rnqtion for fees even thm1gh lesse.es preyailed iv efeatjng the co 265nty I daim against them for unpaid taxes as the law atissue was a co1plica:t matter the county simply covered its bases and the countys position that it could take remedial action against the le,s_sees e,ve,Q after it became clearthat t_be_ cjty not the lesseesi owed tl:le tax wh1le 267novel was not completely unreasonable lwhe,re in.the recqrd gig Aronberg eyer refute his officei ability td 9bj ect to or othenvise impede attempts by the Newspaper to seek grandjury materials While Arorib 267ergs August I affidavit filed with his Motion fot Summary Judgment averred that he did not have i pg5sess1011 or control over the Epstei_n graJJd jury materials bis i:J.ffis.lavit as siJeQt as tQ whether the State Attorney 267ould or would seek fo intervene in ot object fo the-News1Yaper,s attempts to obtain the:Epsteingrand jury materials See DE On October.2i when Ai:onberg tJed a motion.to set aheari_ng on his M9tio_11 oi Summary 265dg1:emJ ai_nt1ffmade.the I strategi decision dismissAronberg as.a party from th action despjte it still having:asubstantial 267good faith basis to keel Aronberg the case.even at that point See As State Attorney Aron berg was not narned.in this action solely as a,custodian ofthe grand jury records Rather he was a defendant in his official capacity becausei his office has as its It is-also worth noting that while Aronbergallegedin:theJ encfosureJetter tObis first Motion that his office did n:ot have physical p_ossession of the Epstein grand jury material he nevertheless argued in that saine letter relying on Section that the Clerk should not produce them taking a position against disclosure Aronberg in effect Jsserted his right to the sec:recy of the Epstein grand jury Q1ateria_ls Stat_ an.othei way Aronberg c:l in1ed the staNtory right-for the State Attorneys Office topreve_nt ac:cesSto the Epstein grand ilfY materials a pos1tion which a:cfuaBy supported the propriety of naming him in his official capacity as a party defendant ih this 225action I I I i I CA/Aro-pfL,lo BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I Lo W?Q?n??ծ d?U4?I lp lPN 鲅?s??v WM?իin Wڗ 3N?Ra":?pդ a6 i4?ҭ7?Mza?ݥ cV qH0?Ȑ a?ڧ Ҵ?N?5?KJ??ñ?V?GV W?Uv?N"?M?7qI?5M kM4?iDP?0?;L?g a J?m X0?G a Dt ӵj M4 Eq A һMvڰ?x X??A A Zmm45P?j DT p??Ny2P?M4 A N?Q7?yJΙ fh?I S?a DF ٦v EB1?ئ?B GfIs tRG hDm db N_ E3 I:FKf DE L?y D?B C꼈GU?dP?Da EHV a ڎ?ؤ Ka?K A?D?R b?j?e STZiH R?4AQ ef TU FUXM0 ĨA G?zl a Ge?9 NdCM??tM?6?si I L?ߔhc Z?i??B?a B?B PA ש?n p??l 7j i D?h uy?s?W K??괓 qU?N?eR5?k?f A gȜ?pK H?GD BFfj"!?E Da a A A?2pp??M ߵu?-??F?Nd?SY 8g ff pM3 i XC 0d ĘT?n i?L CA l!?v A?v _4 A Ȑ?Hx Be i 0B pd Mȴ I?p 8D KD?N Ȏ??A vG?Hh 쎉?X h6?a?K l?6?iZ?k J?It J2 H29?nh N?M?m w?zv mm?f h?J ݯW n?k??n yq u??x i _mu 7Yf ko?_ W?a_ zL AmׯK v??m g??iz o?Y ݯ?B G?P??rGu?U?з?K o?Ei U?ئ k??K?ү mS?K?ՠ I Zv?G 1i?i?A B!?K?I մ?V i?p r"A a v?C?u i?UZ C?ӰJ A A?I?2P?dp DFV I Mcb i?h4 M?A J?pV ȃ??A?ڦ q-Z a a XTv a 8L 0?ƌDA DDh?8 hDC XL ęj MF I?a ږvO r?l dB hDDC E??Fܛ qTdW dJ0??tH0 _?qznP?T?I?h8q e??L 4J?U A??gz v?ѕ L-?d Q?hC?q Mj?ΆD0?V3 Huȶ PaJX?C.?Dp?CR?l?d Z??Ԋ ECL ȣL?j a Ĉ??y d?f?S a fl a0 fdNAP?m5д ҚF?tjg_eFF A?H RB6??A sM?a rv a0 CD?L ӵD p?tm J??J وA?)?D A xE??p w?m 5L a4 Z?"N aG?E Ȗ?82sNɝ W_?ڶq ƪ??I PA Е?v dXh I i P??i n?i??O?o _z n??n?D u??bo??a?p M?W N:C??Xa c?ĥ w?p gzV J?o 8r P??s a ii w??y?k A k?5?ak j?7?c?cb?xm??K Z?F?j q?i o?m NC 鯽?w mm q?r??F z?t?5z?M u?W W?m L4?"V;VE 5b ij I i?kL U1 Wk i_ ڭ?Cb A??v C?P?Ҥ??V??dWQD 5b MA CV 5zݲ Wڲ L)P a 0B4D?e J?l iȑm iwn a8 miZM Ն?Zc?7 M0L?A 4c E1?B DDe?B b2 dvD KEz iI Lj?C?Z:J 2Naw rh?M??E ɔn6?D GM"J 4?JK 3j fp dI C?U?D lDP i Fu?9ʮ a Duf?"?R xM?Bb4?ttY DPE?B??e Dp?ڐ hR E?U LPA?ʦ?aBk?Ǭ?o X-S Dt0 nB?Έ?Rf T5 p?A?B ER i?H aUB?믆ŧ)C Ub 劋K hl??cEm Y?THx ȗ?D hh Gi2Q??d?TGd?4D O6 Q?wt u?k S?o 4m Ŭl?b U?q?WSq Y쾹??D TG IEWo 6t j,??DZ Eh rU G?EED BP 龪w utD??d??p i a0?L E恢 ƈA?F?"?I il gA?3q A xDB SM h?m x?Asdt a a lT i?xP i wM"?ţ t?d Xe?I6?6?ON a h6 8jO na A ȶ??D a A ڷO?I _Ӵ?V?i?N?ޗ i A p?H7?h5N a I?KK?I?KM qZ?w?q 7I ڪzᴮ?u ߡ??ZG ǻ??ޕ?q v?1?a?K?Ϳ?K?Ko?zȞ ma x?Ʒ zY Ao U?_ɎL UBԲ??C?,?K v?o xw?u WF!?q HZYG j?N?P?b?S?m?;kM m,?U co M_?W U?ZV?u?oO k?k mu??P?L 67khm dA I??E O??o??v?J?/?KLi?Rj?a a i HQ??":?aWھ 5v hF m?Lkr a zUb lRȗM I?V vD e:h0?E 0?XB a G0?B DE Xk?5 a DD0?0L fZb9 J?E?Јa B!?h ey?ϣ4?gL?K?_ h"O tG HE ɅD?V P??B 1M PΙ ge?_ p,?3?F?XmK Iђ o?e 5?h?D?W5dj XC?Vw ap??O"AC gF T?x a?A h:M M?/D d?h Ɵ?m J?WWV?x O_K?x rLC pUU?_?z PL i 7h dqB L"?w?H Ho?:?x k1?HI?nU5dQ N?gA FA a BL eM!hXL h??b zy ҧJ 3AIق a h3 UM T?wdQ f??O_aBFsD I 5Mt?B?LC??8w lj?Q?A?E XT2 A tIuZ_ 0d?F A?I m??ö pӵ?k Q?Ut??I?2tA A Z?M?T?t m?W?Z?_i l0M?pa I V0 j?գ ri C?!?W?(AWJtZA?6 V5M A ȗ?U u??W jA kV?dt?_ KK z?i?Hܒ P?,R??mS?քT yVgXZY?w?v??ڥuihi?QHm?F?ڱ?pK A kp?K kI AA?V?V KۺM(a 1Fl g6 Zg pp c!?uOm ӭxa i8D1u a I?KK U??ȼ XaB a mm i?5Z ml?t zi?Ȯ a a I LV?4?m G?Z Ep 0?XL DD dn?ڠa4 M0 e?XVV?mx u3 J?i H?v?R hj?P?0L Aو?b 5O H?i yRXlȵ őt ԶV?v?Mx-R V??d o?-K S?;KfI0 db w?V ÎL-U?I 륾Q RB 8g 0CA j2 ȨrA?cf A?3cA?D A?A?BU a?Y?R BR ۆA 2v a ABi?A PP?Zh?j??ţc?id gSR D1 Zwm Ӯ?ƨl??ɠ G?h 5?Gzn??T??Vj A Q?љ a a pa C,O i V?K a 3CL d?v?.?ih?a I?vaӴ A??n R??a zo?K?VΆ La a mp z?F v?wE?j?f A HȰ A6 PNȹj?d?L B?U aiO?K i w?P t??X?ٵ i O?Z ׯb ҿ??b?Q d??r p?Ӡ i??ںw?ҧz?_ jI l5?n o?a n?o NJ?Z xk w??m OA W?ׯ_ ׯ?rc R?v?z p?p Q??Da _i U?oja?ڛ?FG?K??K?7zW vQ?k N?C L??f k6?o K??k?u?O ư?S p?V a v?J5??Ul I?dG1??T c?a4 a i Z?R c?j;?m E2 I gyF DF?l 4?a?QM4ȃ?I?E a U?LB?F A C??Eg Q?4uG PdQ??v!T F2X I PA DC A L?(Έ?DউT H?E h0 Rn sB D?N3 KQF GH??S IC EBA b?xA.RDy2 ᣲzY 3J A PB"0 A?L?!A L2 A T?v4?O?b??QC R?l?S?xR3?dx?F??m O??ЋM Gd DE!i!?I?K 8a Di 0C Tx X?x X?Փ R?LX?)??GcH O?V?O,?h XR v?Na gq Ǝ?B I i k??ec??tBgf?ta Dx?f?C??O l?k I D?Ⱦt?tA P?Q B?ʑ?F?xs i tP tG?ה?G hw ęRD TE G?y zB d??C dt gL oc TDq ZKR4??jC3?K?D AL?9G Jd x0?P Q?w d?L H??CA?B?n A i?U dL i?ˆ K6 a A 3d NeY D.Ba0 L(MB??i?h i 8?ъz?N n?p D?O?0DI??L L(?T??Zhh??ui?n??TN p?E 4C NɎh??1M5M4?t?qM 5E hr _M MȶE?jK7?x t??ӽS Ӌ?V4?M wL ƈG П0 ȖE?OO?Λd p?i;B?T?M a zp wM?i o?k??uN?ۼS_?x i?p k?M?z uZ I 鴘?I?zڦ?skI ǯmw 1U z??xV t?ĭ?lu??ߥ w??N ش??b lw c?M?Һk?T 8D ic 8f l-Z a?xK?鰩 N?j?i"wa?O ߪ_?o O?K n?a ÿp O?RXm A i?w??z k?M?ҿ_?Z?D xJ D??Q o?/n I?Zp?L m,?zo դ??/iF?E ND Az??_v?u?k E??Xay Zu0 8QA hE B0 Ӵ?mUZ8?i EE a0 f??a c??lk?ڪȖ Q?T a pP XA 놩?Wj?I?b TV Pi?AO??S O-?aB a CA JD 5Er A??ki?i??W a F8 h?b PA A C??L ˣ?rK 0L 0B 3?Vt?D DDq S??B hp3?Er1 6?hN W?o q2 J?M QN??D R/?DvP??F Ej O"BqɺS?Kb fggp P??XE h0 A a R?b bm?M Gz?pL?F2 H?Gz G?j?M Da Rb Dv5 C?P KÓ A Y?ҏ a Q?2V?ڰ A?eR I c?e_z F??G WL z?x lΣ X3 f?J 4B A H2 A٣ ŧ?L"v A A a ψ?A?L?U?i?Ŧ dK?v?j 4Hw4QoE?a r?0a M9 F?V?i j??ON iW?k??IPo P?Y a tl?6Y ςA i;?a?i?oI X?w?i hi j?M I T?Ө a V?v?o IU?5i??ky o??W?Elc?o?IPK??I u??Һ i AA?ڿ UO wK?嘄H J?B??r t?u??z a?rӖ3 u?5?XJ o??a R_ G_?J o?Q X7 vQ oo?m i??oo Ww wj?I?G Q?t?N 0?cb?fi i peɄә?u??a ٵ?V lS j?s??z Zj 6D 9B?i?F i0a4 Ո?N?D Sj?L t?a Pm?I H6 lU!I?S BA V??B?M A?a 0?W?Km2;Mt?a ږY(?G?e I?_;RB U??Bl p_L x?N?I??I GU uE 1Q I K?u2x fd p-q ZZ m?Dtd w?B Go鑬?d Ks 3L Rj w,?Zt M3L Q??K?D H_?dF Q?"Ԧ po1N 0DL P?X Sk H.E?Y??J y?tD i??D U??P ddhdȎ?L0 a aB OA魢N scB dc f??F pA a 3P A ŅT??A xB w??ᦥ 襶E?N N?f?A cF A mz?I?I i B?lj d?D dH"E M?7?d?S?ӏku?w?m)p nhF i?a4?j?v?Ӵ ꭤ?a I?n OӆN?6?eг m??Ҷ WJߨ?pǯ?E mn m0 u_ ק?t i X2 W?a U?w??ৱ WW h?Y Mv?e GAa lR D8 IX?_ xw?z?_ Ut?mi?O?_ R?w?USۻ i Xi_鶰 qD I?T V?J Ka?V?Ѩ R4 h1h u?ja_ i zr ӻJ Ȯ?dv A F?i r?a Xi1J0 a I?i?M?Ѧ?ٴ aN?0 h0 DE3?Pq h4?L?a i??N hDA d_ GL??O??JDuM ea A jl Iv?gz AI4S A CE Gk a4vV vJ A Na ޓNv uFh 3??MDF DF Gʪ S:D lU2??NW JԈȢ!2I?B T?D p?B",T JElaPV ZɹH RQ??E I?nR?,?Q(X 1Q PH Di a0 Uѱ vG?T??kt?A H?qW i ȌPL U2အtlnӾ CL d"Y?x iq A zp nE hE DDq Xpᓰ?rc vd4 f??A?xO?r?t oL,?Y??r W9 I?D?k wO M?j??Dr ǡQ Ȑ??I a a i q?0?A?SA oƿjT HD pd D4L a pg k?T hjm a 526dPԐY?u a A1??Pn a o8d1I D9v 4N T?w64n wA hq?I?v A A?b TкP Ki8A hd p?ӽ A M;M0?h?j 5y aݾ D??E?c Nȷ 7N ZI?6?m 0P?I GH Ry յt Ӯ?N?S_?u?K?K?6Gk?٤ڿǸV 6ר?v pv?J??z qW??B c??,W?p?ZN 4?ٴ?ڵخ?G zE yc2 o??Am B?Z_ I I?K?K P?u_ A iz mt?Xm/?7 Q?Z W?vQ?m u?n?K ϧ?z?x GV a X0?լ0V M2 Ml S?x m1P kn n??ׯ?KU a A ET?z q?LC?ci6 b?M2 E?Ҡ?A i a4NB ߴ?ao d??u wLA?lRm CM JȮ a 0E?Xn lSa Hj?ۼW a4?u a0 k(Gj?X?M MZkdn?2P dp M0 E?m MN A hD0G Qf EIZ-?l l!?B Xx a j?i JH Ax M?m hd Zh A6m Ar GX 2Y G?J?ťdC Eb LS H2T e?tGfrjwD A hW_?/w B5 v!x D?.?F??RMc?phZ zm qV?S40 eJ?H i q?U?G??v CΦ?C 0i?E 0?A?DP yN?FU e9 C??Ni P?A A?N?c MQ Y?Q A 8A?K dЈ A a PD Z6 a?Ib.??nD Х?ZW?N I?M?ww a xh A?8T mBa?v?ƒ h?i4?K?jK I??OV iG M?HPI n?M?-So Ѳ?ǣe h4 xN a ڪ?n괽zt 5L _ݺj i?o?hZ?i?Æ w?u?o?V W?w t?t??wZzu??I?U?o h/D o?i W?!WB 5R Wa ﶽ5 Xu??W?z_ ݥ?ɍ eh Ҿ??p o?o 9ݪ Gyޗע k?K??ҿ?a l?W A z?T?v i?"F uk a?N??zv?H mAȜ??1 Xjh A?a Xa O?S6 ءi4?M CX??I??H:b A i?P sM J?Mz?K k??RÆ?X M?i?UA Eu z?KN?i;b?M?M8 i MU4?a4 hC a kiC N?Gi XL a6 nEpA h0 N??i U?h fG H66Et b??Ƕ?i?iݦ 4?L!hDA vQ Kd?x?y hE?b"дd ٮ??kh?ȱk kM HS h?r B?E??W TG ѫ5?L Dx?dxZH k?h RM i C?H hȴ?B a ˣ?ˢ ıN I??b?B a 4W 4V?S Sj i UC/?2I yڻ N(?i?Ј?a p?UZ V8 iB xB??A?J??ʦv?T?F FFD aH?Y fyO?N EHLq S?i?B?I3 Ff?DUfRd b?b L?O4 y?HGF JG DB9fy4DvsPr Rm?D?G _S?q a E?hG?G aHc M0 Ft S?ˣ1 ܨa i?B CNN 6cH7 A?M i a0?A??XO y?ԁ vO?AÄ O?m XA??j a5??wԷh H??rv sf A i i I6 0N?O?ڻ PGt m4 Ai sH6??A 8t i n?Z z?t-TB??B8?KI a ý?sa M?c mn??v?x ɧ?m??lX?z uC?u a?j?a n?j ao t?Q KK P??pp mT6 8a _A ږ7 k?q??p k?a pV o?b w_ Wv lp a A?A Lצ?P GO?-o?o7 u??z?J JҶ a?G 4?Pk o??Sۯ?e?i6?Uկi ôá?i4 a??kݦ 0dra?l4 م?4BQ1 ؤ?lP l0M sA hD0L"M 0?V?qQ?z??Hi EE5 a aB wS YB?Dv??xM?q??0 hXA?X A b?dt 4Ȯ?D V?M;i h0?N hZ?F?R??A DA b?є Tv??XUU ІΪ?G Y?,Q a?L tWR?25X??L?iG y?wl ʑg G?ar?-r?Fڞ HgPU WyqD P?a Mmp?j NBӽ UU ʻ!?T kԁ?H U_ h??T C??D v蟀ܯ??tÝ s??đE??تȻ??Q M2 R_ I i Gm7Kk U??DD _?Zp I i??w Z?om1mUOGRU D?A v?J?LΤ??u q??u?aa h3?PA 9d pN?h0?t A?A??Q??އj i lȃ H?랈cR6D1??f i??4ȰP P?i Lߥ a B8 4k a a ʍ2x MA MT UH??i aS DݢwT6J?Q dH p?m ӆ?aSa?a zz mR i(N a m/I u?ի hz d?m??z CL M;_M?뾺?I i?n GO 뀧??w o?M k?ȿ k??C և?ے?ᒿ B?W p_!H?n IV z?K E??oO?ۯ?e?ɧ?W tN?a?n kK_?ݮ _I I A HWy C?i i?B Kد?o?z m?mz?o?ߺҿ?mT Ȑs 3a a?kv?Li o??b 4B a6 M6 Pݾ U?A??ka a5 LB PҷM A Dĩ?I?i??b?M?i 튰?iZL0??qtŪ WM BЋ A h??MXXi9 q?l 0a A??i a?ڪdWN 4ȣ h0 Ј0B E??a hXL a0 0B EU-x MB K??NÖ b?x??BV B?VE F?-rH ZGb?iF dIY f??b 97aJs eP ôT?Bؼ OM?O qƎ v6 х??B Lmx v?j?Z ǾK?k?qs?Q v?D u?rJ?G??ݠ?Gz u?d BqI A DPDA dV A?B au J?R I fE sL?B A??Մ A oE h??Wi BA ڧK??Ԇy,?FR d0 2vh QxB rH t?i l?m 6GR 4B?y?ND MWP s?T Mr v?M?a?i?u _OVc A??A a LB 8GƋ D?O 7A md u?B?A?N A?o A Jd G?HGh?h?xat dHg5ma zv?p?7 M/?o a ڧ?Xa 5j ҿO?a һN o?Lجh;?U uӵ?n I v?b??p v??K a a _v O?u _n _?w뮿?o?A I?H m/?kAXp??VH_?G Yb?D pE;O?m?WN?E??_ j?o I a?G ءIw _?Qo KT Oߚ?o o?ku m?w?Ҧ?/?wiY?v _m Ue"?Z?OG CK?a a W?ۿH U?Jڴ??o Ĭ:b o?K?z?u w?z?Ob?kv?Km?g A x?dW J?W?C zkk i I?i C2 O?mnᅆ?J A?M?j I5b Tn?SI?G B?m:i_j?M y?a xmV?A fpB b?N??GA6Ӧ Ml Kp?AX??U?E EF CA a څ??L 咮?A A DDhDDC?Ј?ޕ??P??-Ų d??J?Rp H?Ӥ Ka IjװA uS A C?L 8r x?DG J?-QU i fE ѤvJ vS a wD VA?A??d 㦨?J H;?D E??FF?u?q??D?Ǵ??Nw Rc 3Q?D W?eB Ȝ?й a A MH?jI Jj S?W A?v?j 2VI I??h0?fѠ A3 v?v pe Z?Ȕ ȗ??DGQ 4Ȧ a4 oD?.?SA w??f pe??4?v?zkt s?j"HJ?l Cg a4 P?z??zzroD?Ţ A??H?a?Ir3 a ŤN v?Bx 6ɫO v?맅Ҵ?8?_kP?L v?Z-?HHXDߢ??ZM?.?i?w?d u?E m?D dy:?d?y Rp i??v U?i?W 䯥u?u n6?t ӭU _k I m?p 1:xV oo?B5mk a?j XDž?xD?t?J:?K k?N8a??O a o??D o?a?u P??xo uo?7 Wm i F?C?O??F X7v?b د?j a m?UI n?-t?.ApdG?m u"A Dƒopݔ/v ڴ?I??a i?S uLU Iw??KJߵ Ol a X?ط m??M?im?dp?M?ȃ M0?A a Ko 4?nAy i?H إ?km DD 4r h0 b?Xi i??Z?kw??m 馘L a 4?Od I p?a A??A A??I?N,h O??d EY A 1U X!?r r1?ΐA??q d?P a DY Du-?b G?3?B-MxT OA H?R L?"ts Va e:?g?A I Dv gM1 I h?ށK??BH B?T BAa0?P ƌͰ?R0?g hE D?Wa 3Y dڨ?F??rکQ?6F?ǀ?D aWh?-2ф AC C?p ʹ?C C??N L??F eU ÕҼ?i??D b9 A?V?w tS?s P?R A?N?d_ ouh?J k/?tR?8D Kq n??tV V?O B.?W?XF z?G uJ??sڝ?DM g??EE Mr?U Un?N ȡ?y Ra0?A P?5D i?S?T n:?jdQ a 3J 3F PL A w4Qp lT?N?L??4tf?GV i MPi XD?z h?R?B?ݤ p?s Y?T?D A 8D i?A 5A Qpϭ zd ɟ??t Bh O?Ȑ?V?o x?O.?ݧ B7 nȸ x?M?p a ӋLXiɿDݟ 6Z A 6?In?z Wm n?Cp?v?i I wN??L J?J _a-إ 0A?Bm l0 i?I?j K?WC L0O?a?hC z??Р p?hK l0 i qX ҥ??X?K p?yc8O iw L8 h?_n K?V?ꗮ?A D?M _o?K z?w w?i??4yi G?a i?ջ??c?U i W?G Ϥ?lz K?Һ kt?װ?V?R?i6 AUb ے?k O?V ե?㬿 a Et rc jsT Tqb I a6 铸j A zWa;b 1U Xح j?dp a4 i?T 0Ҡ?K"p ˍ?A A Za a 4W M6 I?M6 Vȃ??D i pA i A 0A TMǨ primary interest the protection of its grandjury system In re Grand Jury Proceedings 2d 11th Cif italics in original In that case the federal government petitioned a Florida State Attorney to turn over state grand jury transcripts In opposition the Broward County State Attorney argued against their release citing to Section Later a federal grand jury served a subpoena upon the same State Attorney seeking grand jury transcripts The State Attorney advised the federal court that he would produce the transcripts thereby demonstrating that irrespective ofphysical possession he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them pursuant to the subpoena For these same reasons State Attorney Aronberg in his official capacity was a necessary party at the very least as a nominal defendant Plaintiff had a legitimate and good faith basis to name Aronberg in hiscapacity as-the State Attorney as a party defendant and to include him in the lawsuit As the public official charged with protecting the grand jury process the State Attorney was a necessary party and he would have had the right to intervene as a defendant even if he was not named as a party in the Complaint As the Court noted in the Final Judgment the State Attorney had been dismissed and 223there have been no attempts to intervene in this case to take a position against disclosure of the grand jury materi al See DE pp Further even assuming the State Attorney did not have physical possession Florida law does hot prohibit his office from requesting the Epstein grand jury materials from the Clerk Indeed as the State Attorney is well aware Florida Statutes Chapter does not bar any State Attorney from accessing grand jury materials even after a defendant has been convicted and sentenced I I i CA/Arop BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i primary interestt protecii fi gr jury sysfo lh re Gra,ul wy.1roceedings 11th Cir 1tahcs ongmal In that case the federal government pet1t10ned a Florida State At orney to tu_m over state grand jury lscrip l_n opposi!Iol the reward Couoty State Attorney argued against their release citingto Section Later a federal gra:rtd jury ser,ved a subpoenauponJhe-same State Attorney seekinggrand:jury transcripfs The,State Attorney adv1_sed the federal court t_hat he wouid Produce the tnrnscripts the.reby der.nonstrating that irrespective 243physital possession he had legalautfiofity to obtain and deiivedhetrt pursuant to the subpoena For these same rea qns tate Attorney Aronber in his official capa 242ity wa necessary party atthe very le.ast as a nominal defe11dant Ela.inti ff had a legitimate and good faith basis to name Aforiberg in his capacity as the State Attorney as a party defeQd?-Qt aQd to.inctu_cie hjin fo the lawsuit As the:p official cl irged with protecting the grand jury process the Sta:te Attorney was a necessary party and he would ha:ve hadthe.ri ht to intervene as.a defendant even ifhe was not named as a party in the Complaint As tbe noted i.n tbe Fi 4dgment the Stat_e AttRrney bad beetJ di srnissed a,tJd the.re have qeen no a:ftempts fo intervene in this case to take a position against discl0sure of the grand jury materials See pp 265rther even 11s_sm11ing the State Attorney d1d not have physical p9ss ssion Flonda law i does not prohibit his office froirt requesting the Epstein grand jury materials from the Clerk fnde as the tte Attorney is weff aware Elorida.Stat 265tes Chapt oes not bar any State I Attorney from accessing grand jury materials even after a defendant his been convicted and I sen tented f3 CA/Aro-pifE AL BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I IV THE ISSUES RAISED IN COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT WERE A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION WERE NOVEL AND COMPLEX AND PRESENTED A GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR THE IV THE ISSUES RAISEDlNCOUN OF THE COMPLAINT WERE AMATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION WERE NOVEL AND COMPLEX AND PRESENTEDA GOOD FATTHARGUMENTFOR THE I Moreoyer th Court noted this a cas of firs_t impr s_s_ion whi impliyat ci i_ss of constitutional import regarding the historic tension between gi:and jury secrecy and the Fitst Amendment in the ccititext Of genuine subjects of public interestand cohcer Id atp There Arqnberg,s Novemper Amended Motion appeass_ to relate 9ttly to Count of the Compl afot though as set for:th abov no co_ was peIJdiQg agains_t Aronperg as of October While Count II alleged that the Newspaper lia_s c_onsfitutional and statutory standing to overcome gta:nd jury secrecy provisions in furtherance of justice Count in contrast did not allege:a Section private right of action Instead Count I soughtded ratofy telief"urtderthe U.S Constitutions First Amendment and the Florida Constitution_ analogous provisions As to Coum aimi ff presented l_rtpus reasoned ar m.e.ntnvhy cti on creat!3s_ pri va:e gbt of actto:11 favor of the media on both constutronal and statutory grpunds See Plamttff Opposition.to Aron bergs Motion to Oismi ss Count II ofthe Fi i:st An1end Complaint DE at i CAIArOfB_:iifn?ihffi BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Lш DA A??B гxL m4 Ȱ?a a DC h4 A аB!?U qf D?.q q?(R M!R GjR??e Gf?"?Ԋ Nw 3?ЊR??DE A?P b?,DDCL a 㕤!?qR T?TDDR A?I XP pL Ŭ?3?UŜ aɖJ G?FC?n?v B?7)W?CYn is no basis,for Aronberg 2s position that Plaintiff claim was devoid of merit both on,the facts and law as to be completely untenable in this case of first impression involving important constitutional issues See MCLiberty Express So 3d at Where a claim presents novel and complex issues such as here sanctions under Section arc not appropriate See Grove Key Marina LLCv Casamayor So 3d Fla 3d DGA Requesting a ruling on an issue of first impression by its very nature is a good-faith effort to interpret or extend existing law 227and is not baseless or unsupported It is Aronberg 2s continued position seeking sanctions not Plaintiffs claim that is baseless Unlike the State Attorney or the Clerk who did not cite to any case that previously resolved I the issues presented relating to the media 2s implied private right of action under Florida Statutes Section as alleged in Count II or for declaratory relief to obtain grand jury materials as in Count I Plaintiff cited federal case and other state court cases in which the courts granted disclosure of grand jury materials like those sought here Plaintiff appropriately relied upon such authorities in its prior filings in this matter to argue that the Constitutional provisions 225and interpretive case law along with Florida Statutes Section provided ample grounds,for the Court to direct therelease of the Epstein grand jury materials to the Newspaper as a surrogate for the public or to require the Court to conduct an in camera examination of the same to balance the public 2s right to know through a free media with Florida 2s qualified statutory interest in grand jury secrecy See e.g First Amended Complaint DE at Plaintiff 2s Opposition to Aronberg 2s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the First Amended Complaint DE at Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Aronberg 2s First Motion DE at In short Plaintiff proposed a good faith interpretation of existing law in support of its declaratory relief claim in Count I BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM is claim was devoid ofmeritboth on.the.facts and Jaw as to he completely untenable in this case of first impression involving important I c;onst11:l!t10nal 1ssl!eS Se lvfC Liberty Exprnss So 3d at Where c:la1.m pres ms npvel I and complex issues such as here sanctions under Sedion are hotlpptopriate Se.e-Gtove I i keyMarina LLCv Casamayor So 3d Fla 3d bGA20l5 Requesting a ruling an issue of first i 225mpression by its very na:ture is a good falth effort to interpret oi extend I existingJaw-and is rtot baseless or unsupported It is Aronbetgs continued pcisition seekig sanctions not Pla1ntiffs c;:I.1im 1;ha_t1s baseless Unlike tbe State Attorney or the Cl.erk who did not cite to any case th,af;pteviously resolved i the issues presented telatin!?,to the medias implied private riglit ofactioh under Florida Statutes as aJleged in Count TI or fen dedaratory relief to oqtain g,rand jury materi_ai a alleged ih C.ount I Plaintiff cited federal case and other state court cas in which the courts granted disclosure of grand jury materials like those sought here Plaintiff appropriately relied upon s.11ch al!thorities i_n its prior fiffngs in this rna_tter t.o ar:g that the Coostit:uti.onai prov._isio_n_s 267and interpreti e_case.law_ alongWith Florida Statutes S_ection pro ided arnplegrnun 267ds.for the Court to direct the release of the Epstein grand jury materials to the Newspaper as a surro,gate for the public or to requh:e the Court to conciuct an in camgrq amfoation qfthe same to b:alanGe the publics tight t0 know through a free media witli Floridas qualified statutory interest in grand jl ry secrecy See e.g First Amended Complaint DE at Pls1,intiffs Opposition tq Aronbergs Motion to Dismiss Count II of the First Am 267ended Complai lt DE at 2Q Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Atortberg.s First Moti DE at in short Plaintiff proposed a good faith interpreta.tion of existi_Qg law in supkort of its deci_aratory I relief claim in co-unt I rs I I CA/Aropfl:ffl5?iht BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The Exception From Sanctions Under Section a Applies Here Even in the absence of supportive law properly relied upon by Plaintiff award of fees pursuant to section is inappropriate when a party makes a good-faith.effort to change an existing rule of law and in such a circumstance Section a provides an explicit i exception from sanctions See Cook Cook So 2d Fla 2d DCA trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against plaintiff attorney who swore in an affidavit that he filed a subsequent action in a good-faith effort to change the law regarding the doctrine of interspousal immunity to argue the court should create an exception to the doctrine Key Biscayne I Gateway Partners Ltd.v Village Council for Village of Key Biscayne So 3d Fla 3d DCA reversing order of sanctions under as good faith argument was presented,for extension of existing Jaw with reasonable expectation of success Specifically Section a mandates thatmonetary sanctions shall be awarded if the court determines that the claim or defense was initially presented to the court as a good faith argument for the extension modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment Of new law as it applied to the material facts with a reasonable expectation of success Fla Stat a emphasis added At the very least Plaintiff provided a good-faith argument for the extension or modification of existing law or the establishment of new law and thus sanctions are hot appropriate under Section.57.105 a See also Final Judgment pp 223Perhaps the circumstances presented above will induce the Legislature to amend section to grant the courts additional authority or leeway in ruling on unique cases such as this one Until that time this court is bound by the fundamental doctrines of statutory construction separation of powers and stare decisis to rule according to het law as it exists today CA/AroPte BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM THE EXCEPTION FROM SANCTIONS UNDER SECTION A APPLIES HERE I Eye,n in the bse,nce gf 265pporti ve la.w proper re,li eq 265pon by Pl 11in ff an award off e,es pursuant to section is:inapproprjate when a party niakes a good-fai effort to change an i existing rule of law and in such a circumstance Section I a provides an explicit I I exception from sa1;1ct1ons See Cookv Cook So 2d Fll:J 2cl 1cA trial court abused its discretion in awatdirtgfees against plaintiffs attorney who swor in,Afl affidavitthat he I filed a subsequent action in a good-faith effort to change the law regarding the doctrine of I foterspous.al immunity c1,rgue the courtsi1o create an txceptic to 267the 242ctrine Key Bi_scayne I Gateway Partilers LtdV Village Cowtcilfor Village of Key Biscayne lo Fla 3d I reversing order ofsf!nctions under as go9cl faith gument wa_s pre_senteq.for extension of existing law with reasor1able expectation of success Specifically Section a mandates that monetary sanction snail fiotbe awarded I if the court cletennjne,s that the ctaim gr cle,fen_s was ip.itiai presemecl t.o the cpurt as good faith argument for the extknsion modification or reversal of e:dsting law or th establishment i1ew law as it applied to the material facts with.a reasonable exp ctation of success Ela Stat ST a en1phasls adcled Atthevetyleast Plaihtiffptovided a good-faith:atgumentforthe ext nsion otmodifitation of existing law or the establishment of new law and tht1s s,mcti ms are hot appropriate 4nger I _ction lQ5 a Se qlso Final Judgment pp Perhaps the cit;c 2651stances pres nteo aoove will induce the Legislature to ainertd section to grant the courts additional authority I qr leewf!y ruling OD 265njqu case_s sqcl as this orte UnH that time thj courtjs pound by the fundamental dodrin of statutory c:onstruction separation of powers ands/are dedsis to rule 267according to het la as.it exists today f6 CA/Arop iJ BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The Amended Motion for sanctions should be denied based on the express provisions of Section a and the exception set forth in Section a THE AMOUNT OF FEES SOUGHT INCLUDING A MULTIPLIER IS NOT APPROPRIATE i No amount of fees may be awarded as sanctions under Section Even assuming arguendo that Aronbcrg somehow met the technical day safe harbor notice requirement and could satisfy the heavy burden under Section which he did hot and cannot the contingency risk multiplier sought by his counsel cannot be applied as a matter of law The State Attorney 2s counsel Douglas A Wyler Esq was hired pursuant to a retainer agreement which is attached as Exhibit to the Amended Motion DE The retainer agreement provided that fees would be paid to Mr Wyler and his firm only if attorneys fees were awarded to the State Attorney pursuant to a court order DE at Ex 223You will not be liable of required to pay any monies to our office unless we are successful in our representation of you in the above-referenced litigation and receive a court order awarding attorneys fees However Ar.onberg did not file a counterclaim or any other affirmative claims seeking monetary damages in the litigation And.the causes of action in the Plaintiff 2s complaints for declaratory judgment and for relief under Chapter Florida Statutes did not provide any basis for an award of attorneys fees or the shifting of fees for a prevailing party Thus the only basis for attorneys 2fees was through sanctions under Section Florida Statutes i i It is well-settled under Florida law that a contingency risk multiplier as sought by Arohberg 2s counsel here cannot be applied where the only basis for fees is sanctions under Section See.e.g Swortz Southern Rambow Corp So 2d Fla 3d DC A 223When a case is so patently frivolous as to cause counsel to represent his or her client for a fee that is solely contingent upon a section recovery it cannot reasonably be treated as BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The Amended Motion for sand.ons should deni.ed based on the express provisions of Section.57.105 a and 267the except1on,set forth Section a THE Al 1QVNT OF FE SO JGHT INCLUDI_NG A fU 1TIPLIE1l IS N:OT AJ RQJ Rlt TE I I No amount of fees may be awarded as sanctions under Section Even ass 267uming arguendo thatAronberg somehow met the techni al 21-day safe harbor notice requirement amj could sa:ti 225sfy the heavy burden 267under Section 57.lQS which he did not and cannot the contihg 242rtcy riskmultiP,liet sought by his counsel tafliiot be applied as a mattetof law The State Attorpeys COlJ._nsel Do 265gla_s A Wyler Esq was hirecl pt1rsuant to a r.etai.rn agreement which i attached a:s Exhibit to the Amended Motion I?E SQ The retainer agreement provided that fees would be paid to Mr Wyler and his ffrm only_ifattome_ysfeeswere awardedfotheState AttQmey 265rsuantto acoJJrt ordeL PE O_ atE2C Yq will not 267eJiable ot required to pay any monies to our office unless we are successful fr1 our representation of you in the above-refGrenced iitigati c1nd receive a court pr ier 11warding c:J.ttorn ys fees However Aronberg did_ not file a c:ountercla:im,or any other affirmative claims se:ekirtg mon.etary dam 267ages in the liti ation And,the causes of action in the Plaihtiff coniplairits for declaratory judgment and for 242fief upder Chapter Fl.ori_d Stcit 265tes did not provi.de any 1l is for a_ri ward o.f attorneys fees or the shifng of fees for a prevailing party Thus the only basis for attorneys fees was throug;h sanctions under Section Florida Statutes I lj is well settled uncler Fionqa Jaw that a c:or1tingen_cy risk rm ltipl1et so 265ght by Arohbergs counsel here cannot be ap 267pljed where the only basis for fees is-sanctions under Section See e.g Swartz Souti1em Rainbow Corp Sc?c_ 2ci I Fl 3d DCA When a case is so patently frivolous a,s cause counsel forepresenfhi or ber client for a fee that is solely contingent upon a section recovery it cannot rea,sonably be treated as I CA/Arorll,tP Ji.i!Ji BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM involving a risk that would support a multiplier citing Transflorida Bank Miller,576 So 2d Fla 4th DCA see also Richardson Merkle So 2d Fla 2d DCA holding it was error to apply a contingency risk multiplier to an award of fees based on Section andreversing as to the amount of the multiplier see also olfe Nazaire I So 2d Fla 4th DCA reversing and remanding trial court 2s award of fees where court did not explain its reasons for award using a multiplier as the court is required to state the ground on which it justifi es the enhancement or reducti oh of fees The multiplier sought by Aronberg 2s counsel cannot be awarded as a matter of law Beyond I that Plaintiff objects to any and all amounts of fees sought by Aronberg 2s counsel and.requires strict proof of the reasonableness of those fees at the evidentiary hearing No-fees are appropriate under Section CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing Plaintiff A Florida Holdings LLC publisher of The Palm Beach Post respectfully requests that the Court:deny State Attorney Dave Aronbcrg 2s Amended Motion for Attorneys Fees in its entirety with prejudice and grant such other and further relief as the Court deem necessary or proper Respectfully submitted GREENBERG TRAURIG P.A Attorneys for GA Florida Holdings LEG Publisher of Th Palm Beach Post s/Lauren Whetstone i_ LAUREN involving a risk that would support:a multiplier ing Ti-aNsfl_oridaBa,lv 2d Fla 4th DCA ee al oRichard Merkle So 2d Fla 2d DCA hplding it was error to apply a c:9nting ncy risk multiplier to atard 9ffees pased 9n Section and.reversing as tcHhe amount of the multiplier se._e also jwolfe 1J Nazaire I So 2d Fla 4th DCA reversingand remanding trial courts award of fees-where court diq 11ot explafo its reasons for awc1rcl_ 265six1g a muft1plfor as the court requlrecl to state the ground on which it justifies the enhancement or tedilction offees I Them4ltipfrer srn,ight by Aronbergs coun_sel c.annot be awa.rclec;i c1s amatter,oflaw Beyond I i that Plaintiff objects to any and all amounts of fees sought by Aronbergs c.ounsel and.requites strict proofofilie reasonableness ofthosefees:at the 267evideiitiafy hearing No-fees ate,apptopriate un_der Sec:tJoD CONCLUSION Based.on the foregoing Plai-ntiff CA.Florida Holdings LLC publisher of ThePalm Beach Post respectf requests that-the Court deny St J.te Attorney Dave Aronbergs Amended Moti"pn for Attorneys Fees in its entitety With prejudice artdgrant such other and further relief as the Court deems necessc1.ry or pr per Respectfully submitted I GREENBERG TRAVRIG P.A Ati.orneysjor CA FloridaHoldings LEC Publi 1ier.0/1Ju Pai Bea_chPQ.5t ls/La.ute Whetstone LAlJREN Tel whetstonel 253tlaw.coin bideaum gtlaw.corn I sandra.famadas gtlaw.com thomasd mlaw.com i FLScrvice gtlaw:com STEPHEN A MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No Greenberg Traurig A East Las Olas Bogleyard Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Tel rhendelsdliris gtlaw.com smithl gtlaw;com MICHAEL I GRYGIEL Admitted Hac Vice Greenberg TRAUriG A State Street 6th.Floor Albany NY Tel gry giel gtl aw com NINA BOYAJlAN A dm i tted Pro Hac Vice Greenberg Traurig P.A Century Park East Suite Los Angeles GA Tel bovaj i ann gtl aw.com riveraal gtlaw.com i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of February a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein s/Lauren Whetstone Esq Lauren Whetstone Esq CA/Arof BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Tel vhetstonel gtla:w.coni bideauin gtlaw.com I sandra:famadas gtlaw.com thomasd Q:tiaw:com FLServ1ce mgtiaw:com STEPHEN A MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No GREENBERG Tlu.URIG EastLas Qlas B.o 265leyijrd Su1te Fori Laudei:dale,.FL Tel rhendelsohris gtlaw.co1i1 sm ithl mgtl aw com MICHAEL GRYGIEL AdmitledPtoHac Vice GREENBERG TRAtJRIG P;A State Street 6th.Floor Aibi:iny NY Tel Q:f i giel m:I a com NINA BOY.AJ!AN Aqmitteg ProHac Vice GREENBE TRA.umc P.:A Ce_ntury Park East Suite Los Angeles CA tel boyajiann gtlaw.com riveraai gtlaw,com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24ih day off ebruary a e-and correct copy of the foregoing has been fiied with the C:ler:k of the Cmirt 265s1ng:the State of Florida e-fHing system which vill send a notice of electronic setvite for all parties oftecord her:eirt s/Lauren Wi1etstone Esq LautenWhetstoile Esq CA/Af0Jllfi!li9i BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM
