|
Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas John Cornyn |
|
February 26, 2002 Mr. Laurence E. Boyd
OR2002-0911 Dear Mr. Boyd: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 159055. The City of Danbury (the "city"), which you represent, received a request for a named police officer's letter of resignation, information regarding complaints made about the officer during his employment with the city, and information regarding any disciplinary action taken against the officer during his employment with the city. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.102, 552.103, 552.108, and 552.1175 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and have reviewed the submitted information. Section 552.103 provides as follows: (a) Information is excepted from [required public disclosure] if it is information relating to litigation of a civil or criminal nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or may be a party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision, as a consequence of the person's office or employment, is or may be a party. . . . . (c) Information relating to litigation involving a governmental body or an officer or employee of a governmental body is excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) only if the litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that the requestor applies to the officer for public information for access to or duplication of the information. Gov't Code § 552.103(a), (c). Section 552.103 was intended to prevent the use of the Act as a method of avoiding the rules of discovery in litigation. Attorney General Opinion JM-048 at 4 (1989). The litigation exception enables a governmental body to protect its position in litigation by requiring information related to the litigation to be obtained through discovery. Open Records Decision No. 551 at 3 (1990). To show that the litigation exception is applicable, the city must demonstrate that (1) litigation was pending or reasonably anticipated at the time of the request and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. See Gov't Code § 552.103(a), (c); see also University of Tex. Law Sch. v. Texas Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.); Heard v. Houston Post Co., 684 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4 (1990). You advise that the officer who is the subject of the request for information has sued the city in a case styled Darrell Allen v. City of Danbury, docketed as Civil Action No. G-01-722, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. You inform this office that the lawsuit alleges that the city discharged the officer due to racial discrimination. However, the city contends in the lawsuit that the officer was discharged due to incidents unrelated to discrimination, and the information responsive to the request involves those incidents. While the submitted documents were originally involved in a proceeding under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has been concluded, you represent that they are now involved in the civil lawsuit. Based on your representations and our review of the submitted information, we conclude that you have made the requisite showing under section 552.103 that the submitted documents relate to litigation that was pending on the day that the request was received. However, once information has been obtained by all parties to the litigation through discovery or otherwise, no section 552.103(a) interest exists with respect to that information. Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). Thus, information that has either been obtained from or provided to the opposing parties in a pending lawsuit is not excepted from disclosure under section 552.103(a), and must be disclosed. The officer's letter of resignation was obtained from the opposing party in the pending lawsuit and therefore it must be released to the requestor. In addition, the Report of Separation of License Holder was provided to the opposing party. Thus, except for the social security number discussed below, the city must release this document to the requestor. Otherwise, the city may withhold the requested information under section 552.103. We also note that the applicability of section 552.103(a) ends once the litigation has been concluded. Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982). Because section 552.103 is dispositive, we do not address your other claimed exceptions. Regarding the social security number in the Report of Separation of License Holder, section 552.117(2) excepts from public disclosure a peace officer's home address, home telephone number, social security number, and information indicating whether the peace officer has family members regardless of whether the peace officer made an election under section 552.024 of the Government Code.(1) Therefore, you must withhold the social security number in that document pursuant to section 552.117(2). This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances. This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id. § 552.321(a). If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e). If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ). Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to Hadassah Schloss at the Texas Building and Procurement Commission at 512/475-2497. If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. We note that a third party may challenge this ruling by filing suit seeking to withhold information from a requestor. Gov't Code § 552.325. Although there is no statutory deadline for contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days of the date of this ruling. Sincerely, Kristen Bates
c: Mr. Michael Wright
Footnotes 1. Section 552.117(2) applies to peace officers as defined by article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |