Vanessa & Audre’ unjustified delay in producing records will at some point be your downfall. You can thank Columbia County Observer for one of these cases!!

A custodian of public records and his or her designee must acknowledge
requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such requests in good
faith. Section 119.07(1)(c), Florida Statutes. A good faith response includes making
reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency
whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be
accessed. Id. The Public Records Act does not contain a specific time limit (such as 24 hours or 10 days) for compliance with public records requests. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the only delay in producing records permitted under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, is the reasonable time allowed the custodian to retrieve the record and delete those portions of the record the custodian asserts are exempt. Tribune Company v. Cannella, 458 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1984), appeal dismissed sub nom., Deperte v. Tribune Company, 105 S.Ct. 2315 (1985).
A municipal policy which provides for an automatic delay in the production of
public records is impermissible. Tribune Company v. Cannella, supra. Thus, an agency is not authorized to delay inspection of personnel records in order to allow the employee to be present during the inspection of his records. Tribune Company v. Cannella, supra. Nor may a city delay public access to board meeting minutes until after the city commission has approved them. Grapski v. City of Alachua, 31 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), review denied, 47 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 2010). And see 96-55 (1996) (board of trustees of a police pension fund may not delay release of its records until such time as the request is submitted to the board for a vote).
An agency’s unjustified delay in producing public records has been
determined to constitute an unlawful refusal to provide access to public records. See
Lilker v. Suwannee Valley Transit Authority, 133 So. 3d 654, 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
(“Unlawful refusal . . . includes not only affirmative refusal to produce records, but also 52 unjustified delay in producing them”). See also, Hewlings v. Orange County, Florida, 87 So. 3d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (mere fact that county quickly responded to public records request by voicemail and fax is not dispositive of whether county unjustifiably delayed in complying with the request); and Promenade D’Iberville, LLC v. Sundy, 145 So. 3d 980, 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (agency violated the Public Records Act by “delaying access to non-exempt public records for legally insufficient reasons”). Compare Consumer Rights, LLC v. Union County, 159 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), review denied, 177 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 2015) (agency’s delay was not “unjustifiable” where petitioner made the public records request “in a suspicious email that could not be easily verified, directed it to a general email account that might not be checked by the person having anything to do with the records at issue, waited four months without saying anything and then sued . . . .”). Accord, Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc. v.Wantman Group. Inc., 195 So. 3d 396, 400, 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (contractor’s delay  in responding to a “curious e-mail request for records” was not unjustified; “public records law should not be applied in a way that encourages the manufacture of public records requests designed to obtain no response, for the purpose of generating attorney’s fees”).
While the custodian may reasonably restrict inspection to those hours during
which his or her office is open to the public, an agency policy that restricts inspection of public records to the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Monday through Friday with 24- hour advance notice violates the Public Records Act. Lake Shore Hospital Authority v. Lilker, 168 So. 3d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). And see AGO 81-12.