E. Interaction between federal and state law

 

It is well-settled that if a federal statute requires particular records to be confidential, Florida must keep those records confidential. See Mata Chorwadi, Inc. v. City of Boynton Beach, No. 9:19-cv-81069, 2020 WL 2516979, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2020) (citing State ex rel. Cummer v. Pace, 159 So. 679 (Fla. 1935)).  A federal court order issued pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 to prevent the disclosure of documents renders any state statute or regulation to the contrary void pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Id.; see also State v. Buenoano, 707 So. 2d 714, 718 (Fla. 1998); United States v. Harrill, 39 F. Supp. 3d 1374, 1376 (M.D. Fla. 2014).

The Act expressly provides that public disclosure is not required for records that are “specifically required by the federal statute or regulation to be kept confidential.” O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(1).

“Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public agency shall not be required to disclose: Records the disclosure of which is specifically prohibited or restricted by federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court or rule of the senate committee on confirmation oversight relating to information submitted to the committee pursuant to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 75-4315d, and amendments thereto, or the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to specific authorization of federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court or rule of the senate committee on confirmation oversight relating to information submitted to the committee pursuant to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 75-4315d, and amendments thereto, to restrict or prohibit disclosure.”

K.S.A. 45-221(a)(1).

Any document that would be confidential under federal law is confidential under state law. This includes HIPAA, DPPA, and FERPA.

“Any record which is specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal law . . . is exempt from disclosure under s. 19.35(1).”  Wis. Stat. § 19.36(1).