Lake Point Phase I, LLC, and Lake Point Phase II, LLC (collectively, Lake Point), the District, and Martin County entered into a partnership for an environmental project. After contract disputes arose, Lake Point brought suit against the District, Martin County, and others. During the course of that litigation, the trial court ordered the parties to attend mediation. The District held duly noticed meetings that included closed and confidential attorney-client sessions in accordance with Florida statutes. At issue in this case is one specific meeting that occurred on August 23, 2017 (the Shade Meeting). An open meeting immediately preceded the Shade Meeting. When the Board convened the Shade Meeting, a certified court reporter recorded the entire closed-door session, as required by statute. Eventually, Lake Point and the District developed a settlement agreement at mediation. Shortly after, the Everglades Law Group (ELG) made a public records request for the Shade Meeting transcript. The District argued it was exempt from disclosure—Florida law exempts written communications from mediation proceedings from being made available to the public. ELG never asked the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the Shade Meeting transcript. Final judgment was entered in favor of the District. ELG appealed, claiming there is a limited exception to Florida’s Sunshine Law and that nondisclosure is only required temporarily, not permanently. Moreover, the public records law should be construed liberally in favor of the state’s policy of open government. How should the appellate court rule? Is public access more important than confidentiality of mediation proceedings?