These supoenas are so broad and cover such an insane amount of time. Certainly some of these people are going to object to these... Provide all documents related to developer agreements over 20yrs? "All Documents, including financial statements and analyses, concerning the financial impact of past and anticipated future development activities by Disney on You" "All Documents and Communications regarding the Comprehensive Plan"
"All Documents that identify “affected property owners,” as that phrase is used in §163.3225, Fla. Stat., in Your District over the last 20 years."
". All Documents and Communications regarding Your interpretation of the phrase“affected property owners,” as that phrase is used in § 163.3225, Fla. Stat"
If I were one of these random districts.. I'd be like "F off - do your own research not do some 20yr wide net hoping to find something relevant". I mean this basically screams fishing for some sort of evidence since it really has no cited examples, timeframe, or even reference that they have made developer agreements.
I don’t claim to know the law on these issues, but my understanding is that in a civil suit of this nature large document productions aren’t unusual. Most of the documents are probably digital, can be searched by keywords and, since these are government entities, they’re presumably organized in ways that allow them to respond to public records requests. (It seems like much of what Disney is seeking is likely subject to public records requests anyway?)
The subpoenas allow recipients to make production conditional on Disney paying their reasonable costs.
They can also talk to Disney’s lawyers if they have a concern about the breadth of the subpoenas, and perhaps come to an agreement about what should be produced.
If they can’t agree, I assume FL law also allows them to challenge the subpoena in court. I think we can all assume that the Governor’s Office and Desantis will do exactly that, especially re. communications and executive & legislative privilege.
Re. Lake Buena Vista & Bay Lake: Apart from alleged technical infirmities, the district essentially claims that the agreement was a nefarious back-room deal, and the cities were involved in approving it. Also, the district claims that the cities’ involvement in approving the agreement did not meet legal requirements. Their records were always going to end up as part of discovery. (They may also end up as parties. Disney argues that the district is required by statute to add them to the lawsuit.)
I suspect the records from the other districts are narrower than we’d think. Yes, 20 years is a long time but I
think development agreements would generally only be used for really big long-term projects, because that’s when they’re needed. And those districts must have been chosen for a reason. I think Disney knows exactly what they’re looking for, and the districts receiving the subpoenas will too. The lawyers may already be talking.
