October 3, 2002

Mr. Anthony S. Corbett
Winstead Sechrest & Minick
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 800
Austin, Texas 78701

OR2002-5596

Dear Mr. Corbett:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 170206.

The Travis County Water Control and Improvement District No. 18 (the "district"), which you represent, received a request for copies of information pertaining to out-of-district accounts, in-district accounts, and a specified capital improvement project and related expenditures. The requestor also asks the district several questions in his request, including questions that would require the district to perform legal research on issues that are raised in the request. We note that the Public Information Act (the "Act") does not require a governmental body to prepare answers to questions posed by a requestor or to perform legal research. See Open Records Decision Nos. 563 at 8 (1990) (considering request for federal and state laws and regulations), 555 at 1-2 (1990) (considering request for answers to fact questions). You state that you do not maintain information that is responsive to several portions of the request.⁽¹⁾ You claim, however, that the remaining requested information is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and have reviewed the submitted information.

Initially, we note that some of the information at issue is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code. Section 552.022 makes certain information public, unless it is expressly confidential under other law. See Gov't Code § 552.022(a). One category of public information under section 552.022 is "a completed report, audit, evaluation, or investigation made of, for, or by a governmental body, except as provided by Section 552.108[.]" Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(1). Two documents that we have marked constitute completed audits that must be released to the requestor, unless they are confidential under other law or are excepted from disclosure under section 552.108. Although the district claims that these audits are excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.103, we note that this exception to disclosure is a discretionary exception under the Act and, as such, does not constitute "other law" that makes this information confidential.⁽²⁾ Accordingly, we conclude that the district may not withhold any portion of these audits from disclosure under section 552.103 of the Government Code.

However, we note that portions of the audits may be subject to section 552.117(1) of the Government Code. Section 552.117(1) excepts from disclosure the home addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers, and family member information of current or former officials or employees of a governmental body who request that this information be kept confidential under section 552.024 of the Government Code. See Gov't Code § 552.117(1). However, information subject to section 552.117(1) may not be withheld from disclosure if the current or former official or employee made the request for confidentiality under section 552.024 after the request for information at issue was received by the governmental body. Whether a particular piece of information is public must be determined at the time the request for it is made. See Open Records Decision No. 530 at 5 (1989). Accordingly, we conclude that the district must withhold from disclosure the information that we have marked pursuant to section 552.117(1), if the board members to whom this information pertains requested that this information be kept confidential under section 552.024 prior to the district's receipt of this request. Otherwise, the district must release this particular information from the completed audits to the requestor.

You claim that the remaining submitted information is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code. Section 552.103 provides in pertinent part:

(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). The district maintains the burden of providing relevant facts and documents to show that the section 552.103(a) exception is applicable in a particular situation. The test for meeting this burden is a showing that (1) litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that the governmental body receives the request for information, and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. See University of Tex. Law Sch. v. Texas Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.); see also 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). The district must meet both prongs of this test for information to be excepted under section 552.103(a). We note that contested cases conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"), chapter 2001 of the Government Code, are considered litigation under section 552.103. See Open Records Decision No. 588 at 7 (1991).

You state that the requestor has filed a protest with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and that a preliminary hearing that is to be conducted by the State Office of Administrative Hearings as a contested case under the APA was scheduled for August 21, 2002. Based on our review of your representations and the remaining submitted information, we conclude that the district has demonstrated that litigation was reasonably anticipated on the date of its receipt of the request and that this information is related to that litigation for purposes of section 552.103. Accordingly, we conclude that the district may withhold this information from disclosure pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code.

However, we note that 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. See Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). Thus, information that has either been obtained from or provided to the opposing party in the anticipated litigation is not excepted from disclosure under section 552.103(a) and may not be withheld from disclosure on that basis. Further, we note that the applicability of section 552.103(a) ends once the litigation has been concluded. See Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); see also Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982).

In summary, the district must withhold from disclosure the information that we have marked pursuant to section 552.117(1) in the completed audits to the extent that the board members to whom this information pertains requested that this information be kept confidential under section 552.024 prior to the district's receipt of this request. The district must release the remaining portions of the completed audits pursuant to section 552.022(a)(1) of the Government Code. The district may withhold the remaining submitted information from disclosure pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code.

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# 170206

Enc. Marked documents

cc: Mr. Douglas Verret
13807 Bay Tree Drive
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
(w/o enclosures)

Footnotes

1. We note that it is implicit in several provisions of the Act that the Act applies only to information already in existence. See Gov't Code §§ 552.002, .021, .227, .351. The Act does not require a governmental body to prepare new information in response to a request. See Attorney General Opinion H-90 (1973); see also Open Records Decision Nos. 87 (1975), 342 at 3 (1982), 416 at 5 (1984), 452 at 2-3 (1986), 555 at 1-2 (1990), 572 at 1 (1990). A governmental body must only make a good faith effort to relate a request to information which it holds. See Open Records Decision No. 561 at 8 (1990).

2. Discretionary exceptions are intended to protect only the interests of the governmental body, as distinct from exceptions which are intended to protect information deemed confidential by law or the interests of third parties. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 630 at 4 (1994) (governmental body may waive attorney-client privilege, section 552.107(1)), 551 (1990) (statutory predecessor to section 552.103 serves only to protect governmental body's position in litigation and does not itself make information confidential), 473 (1987) (governmental body may waive section 552.111), 522 at 4 (1989) (discretionary exceptions in general). Discretionary exceptions, therefore, do not constitute "other law" that makes information confidential.
 

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