April 4, 2002

Mr. Robert R. Ray
Assistant City Attorney
City of Longview
P.O. Box 1952
Longview, Texas 75606-1952

OR2002-1654

Dear Mr. Ray:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 160861.

The City of Longview (the "city") received a request for access to all documents pertaining to negotiations between the city and Entergy for the sale of water. You state that you have released some responsive information to the requestor. You claim, however, that portions of the requested information are excepted from disclosure pursuant to sections 552.106, 552.107, 552.111, and 552.137 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and have reviewed the submitted information.

You claim that portions of the information are excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.107 of the Government Code. Section 552.107(1) protects information encompassed by the attorney-client privilege. We note that in instances where an attorney represents a governmental entity, the attorney-client privilege protects only an attorney's legal advice and the client's confidences made to the attorney. See Open Records Decision No. 574 (1990). Accordingly, these two classes of information are the only information contained in the records at issue that may be withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Section 552.107(1) excepts information that an attorney cannot disclose because of a duty to his client. In Open Records Decision No. 574 (1990), this office concluded that section 552.107 excepts from disclosure only "privileged information," that is, information that reflects either confidential communications from the client to the attorney or the attorney's legal advice or opinions; it does not apply to all client information held by a governmental body's attorney. See Open Records Decision No. 574 at 5 (1990). Based on our review of your arguments and the information at issue, we conclude that most of this information constitutes either a client confidence or an attorney's legal advice or opinion provided in furtherance of the rendition of legal services to the client. However, particular notes of one of the attorneys involved in this matter appear not to have been communicated to anyone at all or were not otherwise demonstrated to us to constitute privileged communications. Accordingly, the city may only withhold the marked information from disclosure pursuant to section 552.107 of the Government Code.

However, you also claim that the attorney notes are excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.111 of the Government Code. Section 552.111 excepts from disclosure "an interagency or intraagency memorandum or letter that would not be available by law to a party in litigation with the agency." In Open Records Decision No. 615 (1993), this office reexamined the predecessor to the section 552.111 exception in light of the decision in Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ), and held that section 552.111 excepts only those internal communications consisting of advice, recommendations, opinions, and other material reflecting the policymaking processes of the governmental body. See City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 364 (Tex. 2000); see also Arlington Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas Attorney Gen., 37 S.W. 3d 152 (Tex. App.-Austin 2001, no pet.). The purpose of section 552.111 is "to protect from public disclosure advice and opinions on policy matters and to encourage frank and open discussion within the agency in connection with its decision-making processes." Austin v. City of San Antonio, 630 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We find that you have not demonstrated, nor does it appear, that the attorney notes at issue constitute internal communications of the city. Accordingly, the city may not withhold the marked attorney notes from disclosure pursuant to section 552.111 of the Government Code.

You also claim that portions of the information contain e-mail addresses that may be subject to section 552.137 of the Government Code. Section 552.137 makes certain e-mail addresses confidential and provides in pertinent part:

(a) An e-mail address of a member of the public that is provided for the purpose of communicating electronically with a governmental body is confidential and not subject to disclosure under this chapter.

(b) Confidential information described by this section that relates to a member of the public may be disclosed if the member of the public affirmatively consents to its release.

Gov't Code § 552.137. Accordingly, unless the members of the public in question have affirmatively consented to their release, you must withhold the e-mail addresses that you have marked in red from disclosure pursuant to section 552.137 of the Government Code.

In summary, the city may withhold from disclosure the information that we have marked pursuant to section 552.107 of the Government Code. The city must withhold the e-mail addresses that you have marked in red from disclosure pursuant to section 552.137 of the Government Code. The city must release the remaining information to the requestor.

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,

Ronald J. Bounds
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division

RJB/seg

Ref: ID# 160861

Enc. Marked documents

cc: Ms. Rebecca Hopkins
309 East Austin Street
Marshall, Texas 75670
(w/o enclosures)

POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer