An Alachua County judge threw out Alachua Today’s lawsuit against Mainstreet Daily News late Monday, refusing to grant an emergency injunction to prevent publication of a story.  

Mainstreet published the story Saturday. It detailed a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigation into Adam Boukari and a raid on Boukari Law/Alachua Today, based on an FDLE memorandum. 

“Plaintiff cites no legal authority that would allow the Court to issue a prior restraint prohibiting the publication of the obliquely referenced document,” Eighth Judicial Circuit Court Judge George Wright wrote in his three-page opinion, noting prior restraint lawsuits carry a presumption of unconstitutionality.

Alachua County Today is a weekly newspaper that is operated by the Boukari family, with Bryan Boukari listed as publisher and Ellen Boukari listed as director. The newspaper shares offices in downtown Alachua with Boukari Law, also operated by Bryan Boukari, brother of Adam Boukari. 

Last Thursday, Mainstreet reached out to both Adam and Bryan for comment on the planned story that followed an April 30 hearing where the memo was discussed. Bryan replied via email with the lawsuit filed over an hour earlier on behalf of Alachua Today; Adam denied any wrongdoing in a separate statement.  

Jim McGuire, a partner at Thomas & LoCicero, a South Florida law firm specializing in media cases, said the entire situation is rare for a couple reasons.   

First, law enforcement rarely raids media offices and perhaps even more rarely raids a law office. He said he’s never seen a case where both incidents are combined as they were with Alachua Today/Boukari Law—though he understands the reasons given the investigation. 

Second, he said the lawsuit against Mainstreet is an unusual circumstance.  

“Even though newspapers and TV stations and radio stations may view each other as competitors, there tends to be a common interest: we all have the right to publish information and to get information out to the public,” McGuire said. “So the idea of a newspaper suing another newspaper to prevent it from publishing information, again, extraordinarily unusual circumstance.”  

But these rare facts around the case don’t detract from a media company’s ability to publish legally obtained information, McGuire said.   

Generally, he said any information legally obtained may be published. 

Wright agreed. In his court order, he also pointed to previous court rulings that go further: even if a news organization plans to publish a defamatory story, the courts have ruled that the First Amendment allows that to happen.  

As Wright quotes from a U.S. Supreme Court Case, this is a “theory deeply etched in our law: a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand.” 

“The injunction sought here would operate as a prior restraint on the First Amendment rights of Defendant and is therefore presumed unconstitutional,” Wright wrote in the order. 

Wright also said that Alachua Today has misunderstood the reach of Florida’s courts when sealing a document and Rule 2.420 of the Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration. He said the court sealing a document is only meant to prevent public access through the court system, not to declare that the information may never be known or published. That publishing could range from media organizations but also citizens publishing on Facebook or telling their neighbor. 

“The determination of a court record’s confidentiality has no effect on whether the 

public through other means has a right to obtain, possess, or publish the document,” Wright said.  

McGuire said an emergency motion to prevent publication is not uncommon. He said lawyers will try to argue in favor of what’s known as prior restraint.    

“Lawyers, with some regularity, try to convince a court to issue a prior restraint, to stop someone from speaking before they’ve said anything. In my view, there are almost no circumstances in which a prior restraint would ever be lawful,” McGuire said.  

Even if a judge rules information confidential, the public may still have access on First Amendment grounds. This is the basis for major news stories of the past like Watergate and flows down to local stories here in Alachua County. 

In the Watergate case, a whistleblower leaked confidential information and could face penalties from the government he worked for. But The Washington Post, which published the stories, faced no repercussions.   

Even recently, The Atlantic published information received when its editor was added to a government Signal chat with top government officials, including the vice president. The fault doesn’t lie with a media outlet when the information is obtained legally.   

McGuire said reporters can even seek confidential information. Theoretically, after the April 30 hearing, he said Mainstreet reporters or those for another outlet could have asked for the confidential information from the attorneys or anyone else with access.   

However, in this case, Mainstreet had already received the confidential information before the hearing. And the memorandum, though sealed on the court website, remained available to the public on the Alachua County government website, because it was sent in an email attachment to County Commissioner Chuck Chestnut.   

But the fact that it was publicly available Wednesday on the county website remained relatively unknown until news stories published on Saturday.   

McGuire noted that the judge’s timing seemed appropriate. He said the court ruled quickly and correctly. 

“We are grateful for Judge Wright’s fair and impartial review of the facts, along with his expeditious decision,” said Mainstreet publisher J.C. Derrick.  

Why was the memorandum filed and marked confidential? 

The memorandum was filed as part of a motion with the Eighth Judicial Circuit on Tuesday, April 29, by Attorney Leonard Ireland, who declined to comment on the matter, regarding a civil case.  

The civil case involves easement rights between two city of Alachua businesses: Alachua Today and DW Ashton Catering.   

The case started in 2022 and involved a 2024 trial before Wright, who decided the case in favor of DW Ashton Catering. But Alachua Today appealed that decision to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.  

The April 30 hearing was planned to settle motions for sanctions and motions for taxation of costs. Then, Ireland filed a motion with the FDLE memorandum, kicking everything into high gear. 

After Bryan Boukari immediately requested a sidebar with the judge at the hearing, the groups discussed Ireland’s motion and the attached memorandum for over 10 minutes. Boukari again asked the court to seal the memorandum along with the transcript of what the attorneys and judge had just discussed during the sidebar.   

Ireland stated that the memorandum should be included in the record.   

“This is not confidential; this is a matter of public record,” Ireland said.     

But Wright said he was unsure of that.     

“My concern is, I don’t want to have anything publicly released that is a matter of pending investigation that could reveal any confidential matters,” Wright said.     

Ireland said that the memorandum proves that Bryan Boukari lied to the court last year while litigating the civil case. But Ireland never clarified exactly how the memorandum proved his case.      

The lawyers argued the motions for sanctions and taxation of cost. Though Wright noted that if the higher court overturns his decision on appeal, the entire taxation of costs could get turned around.   

At the end of the hearing, Ireland brought the memorandum back. He reiterated that the memorandum isn’t confidential and should be added to show improper conduct by Bryan Boukari.     

Boukari interjected, saying take it to the bar, and the judge agreed.    

With the case effectively out of his hands, Wright said there is little he can do. He said allegations of a lawyer lying are concerning if true, but he said filing a complaint with the Florida Bar would be more effective.   

The Florida Bar oversees the actions of attorneys in Florida, and Wright said the Florida Bar’s sanctions, if needed, would be greater than his.    

“I would like to stay in my lane and resolve legal matters and not divert into investigating members of our local community,” Wright said.    

Boukari said he’s confident he’s done nothing wrong. 

“Personally, I believe this is being done for the intention of trying to besmirch my character and my name,” Bryan Boukari said. “And I want to tell this court that I have every confidence that I have acted properly before this court.”  

After Wednesday’s hearing, Boukari submitted a motion to strike Ireland’s entire motion and the attached memorandum. He said the memorandum contains “a series of unverified and inflammatory allegations involving certain individuals who are not parties to this case.”     

Wright decided on Monday to deny and strike Ireland’s entire motion for judicial notice with the attached memorandum along with the sidebar conversation from the hearing. Those documents are to remain confidential on the court’s website.  

He said the memorandum serves no legitimate litigation purpose and that it contained “immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous allegations concerning individuals not parties to this proceeding…”