 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
August 7, 2003 Mr. Arturo D. Rodriguez
OR2003-5520 Dear Mr. Rodriguez: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 185586. The City of Liberty Hill (the "city"), which you represent, received a request for a copy of a specified study.(1) You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.103, 552.107, and 552.111 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Initially, we note that the submitted information is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code. Section 552.022 provides in relevant part: (a) Without limiting the amount or kind of information that is public information under this chapter, the following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure under this chapter unless they are expressly confidential under other law: (1) 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). The submitted information constitutes a completed report made of, for, or by the city. Accordingly, you must release the submitted information under section 552.022(a)(1) unless the information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.108 or is expressly confidential under other law. You argue that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103, 552.107, and 552.111. These are discretionary exceptions to disclosure that protect the governmental body's interests and are therefore not other law that makes information expressly confidential for purposes of section 552.022(a). See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1999, no pet.) (governmental body may waive section 552.103); Open Records Decision Nos. 677 at 4 (2002) (section 552.107 is not "other law" for purposes of section 552.022), 676 at 6 (2002) (section 552.111 is not "other law" for purposes of section 552.022); see also Open Records Decision No. 522 (1989) (discretionary exceptions in general). You also assert that the submitted information is excepted from release under Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Texas Supreme Court held that "[t]he Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Evidence are 'other law' within the meaning of section 552.022." In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001). Thus, we will determine whether the submitted information is confidential under Rule 192.5. For the purpose of section 552.022, information is confidential under Rule 192.5 only to the extent the information implicates the core work product aspect of the work product privilege. Open Records Decision No. 677 at 9-10 (2002). Core work product is defined as the work product of an attorney or an attorney's representative developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial that contains the attorney's or the attorney's representative's mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5(a), (b)(1). Accordingly, in order to withhold attorney core work product from disclosure under Rule 192.5, a governmental body must demonstrate that the material was 1) created for trial or in anticipation of litigation and 2) consists of an attorney's or the attorney's representative's mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories. Id. The first prong of the work product test, which requires a governmental body to show that the information at issue was created in anticipation of litigation, has two parts. A governmental body must demonstrate that 1) a reasonable person would have concluded from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the investigation that there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue, and 2) the party resisting discovery believed in good faith that there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue and conducted the investigation for the purpose of preparing for such litigation. See Nat'l Tank v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 207 (Tex. 1993). A "substantial chance" of litigation does not mean a statistical probability, but rather "that litigation is more than merely an abstract possibility or unwarranted fear." Id. at 204. The second prong of the work product test requires the governmental body to show that the documents at issue contains the attorney's or the attorney's representative's mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5(b)(1). A document containing core work product information that meets both prongs of the work product test is confidential under Rule 192.5 provided the information does not fall within the purview of the exceptions to the privilege enumerated in Rule 192.5(c). Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Caldwell, 861 S.W.2d 423, 427 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ). You state that "[i]n order to provide the City with the best legal advice possible, the City Attorney commissioned a study of the City streets," and that at the time the study was commissioned, the "[c]ity held several executive sessions regarding the street closure with litigation anticipated, if a peaceful resolution could not be attained." Additionally, you explain that "[a]fter the Study was prepared and peaceful attempts to settle the dispute with the property owner failed, the City filed a lawsuit against the property owner seeking to re-open . . . the City street." Having considered your arguments and reviewed the submitted information, we agree that the submitted information constitutes privileged work product that may be withheld in its entirety under Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 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, W. Montgomery Meitler
c: Mr. Dan Pogue
Footnotes 1. We note that the requestor also seeks any information provided to the city counsel by a named individual regarding a certain property. To the extent that such information exists, we assume it has been released. If not, you must do so at this time. See Gov't Code §§ 552.006, .301, .302; see also Open Records Decision No. 664 (2000) (noting that if governmental body concludes that no exceptions apply to requested information, it must release information as soon as possible). POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |