 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
May 12, 2003 Mr. Anthony S. Corbett
OR2003-3168 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# 180844. The Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District (the "district"), which you represent, received two requests for information from the same requestor. The first request was for all information relating to all costs of planning and construction of the facilities defined in a specified bond proposition and related resolution. The second request was for all information relating to legal files concerning two named individuals as well as a particular condemnation proceeding. You have submitted a single set of documents, which you represent is responsive to both requests. You state that you have released some of the requested information. However, you claim that the remaining requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.105, 552.107, and 552.111 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted sample of information.(1) Section 552.107(1) of the Government Code protects information coming within the attorney-client privilege. When asserting the attorney-client privilege, a governmental body has the burden of providing the necessary facts to demonstrate the elements of the privilege in order to withhold the information at issue. Open Records Decision No. 676 at 6-7 (2002). First, a governmental body must demonstrate that the information constitutes or documents a communication. Id. at 7. Second, the communication must have been made "for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services" to the client governmental body. Tex. R. Evid. 503(b)(1). The privilege does not apply when an attorney or representative is involved in some capacity other than that of providing or facilitating professional legal services to the client governmental body. In re Texas Farmers Ins. Exch., 990 S.W.2d 337, 340 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999, orig. proceeding) (attorney-client privilege does not apply if attorney acting in capacity other than that of attorney). Governmental attorneys often act in capacities other than that of professional legal counsel, such as administrators, investigators, or managers. Thus, the mere fact that a communication involves an attorney for the government does not demonstrate this element. Third, the privilege applies only to communications between or among clients, client representatives, lawyers, and lawyer representatives. Tex. R. Evid. 503(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E). Thus, a governmental body must inform this office of the identities and capacities of the individuals to whom each communication at issue has been made. Lastly, the attorney-client privilege applies only to a confidential communication, id. 503(b)(1), meaning it was "not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication." Id. 503(a)(5). Whether a communication meets this definition depends on the intent of the parties involved at the time the information was communicated. Osborne v. Johnson, 954 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex. App.--Waco 1997, no writ). Moreover, because the client may elect to waive the privilege at any time, a governmental body must explain that the confidentiality of a communication has been maintained. Section 552.107(1) generally excepts an entire communication that is demonstrated to be protected by the attorney-client privilege unless otherwise waived by the governmental body. See Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. 1996) (privilege extends to entire communication, including facts contained therein). You represent that the submitted Category 3 information was communicated between the district and its attorneys and that the information was not intended for disclosure to third parties. Based on your representations and arguments and our review of this information, we find that you have demonstrated that the Category 3 information is protected by the attorney-client privilege and is therefore excepted from disclosure under section 552.107. You argue that the remainder of the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.105 of the Government Code. Section 552.105 excepts from disclosure information relating to: (1) the location of real or personal property for a public purpose prior to public announcement of the project; or (2) appraisals or purchase price of real or personal property for a public purpose prior to the formal award of contracts for the property. Section 552.105 is designed to protect a governmental body's planning and negotiating position with regard to particular transactions. Open Records Decision Nos. 564 (1990), 357 (1982), 310 (1982). Information excepted under section 552.105 that pertains to such negotiations may be excepted so long as the transaction is not complete. Open Records Decision No. 310 (1982). A governmental body may withhold information "which, if released, would impair or tend to impair [its] 'planning and negotiating position in regard to particular transactions.'" Open Records Decision No. 357 at 3 (1982) (quoting Open Records Decision No. 222 (1979)). The question of whether specific information, if publicly released, would impair a governmental body's planning and negotiation position in regard to particular transactions is a question of fact. Accordingly, this office will accept a governmental body's good faith determination in this regard, unless the contrary is clearly shown as a matter of law. Open Records Decision No. 564 (1990). You state that the remaining submitted documents marked as Category 2 "relate to the location of real property for the District's water line and treatment plant project" and that the district "has not yet announced to the public the specific location of the pipeline route or water treatment plant and related facilities." You further state that the submitted Category 2 information references "the name of landowners, or otherwise refer[s] to the proposed location of property to be acquired for the project" and that release of this information "would harm the District in connection with its negotiations for purchase of the real property interests from the landowners." Based on your representations and our review of the submitted information, we conclude that you have demonstrated the applicability of section 552.105 to most of the Category 2 documents. Thus, you may withhold most of the Category 2 documents under section 552.105 of the Government Code. However, we have marked some information that is not excepted by section 552.105 because you have failed to demonstrate how release would harm the district's planning and negotiating position. As you raise no other arguments with regard to this information, you must release it. In summary, we conclude that you may withhold the submitted information pursuant to sections 552.105 and 552.107 of the Government Code, with the exception of the information that we have marked.(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 Dep't of Pub. 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, Jennifer E. Berry
c: Mr. John C. McLemore
Footnotes 1. We assume that the "representative sample" of records submitted to this office is truly representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records Decision Nos. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records letter does not reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office. 2. The information for which you have asserted section 552.111 has been disposed of under sections 552.105 and 552.107. Therefore, we need not address your section 552.111 argument. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |