 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
November 7, 2003 Mr. Lou Bright
OR2003-8050 Dear Mr. Bright: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 190791. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (the "commission") received two requests from the same requestor for incident reports that relate to ten named business establishments and a specified time interval. Your letter to the requestor reflects that the commission has released some of the requested information.(1) You contend that other responsive information is protected from public disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.103, and 552.130 of the Government Code and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5. We have considered your arguments and have reviewed the information you submitted. We first note that the submitted information is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code. Section 552.022 provides that 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). You inform us that the submitted information consists of a completed investigation made of, for, or by the commission. Therefore, the commission must release this information under section 552.022(a)(1) unless it is excepted from disclosure under section 552.108 of the Government Code or expressly confidential under other law. The commission does not seek to withhold the submitted information under section 552.108. You do claim that this information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103. We note, however, that section 552.103 is a discretionary exception to disclosure that protects the governmental body's interests and may be waived. See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469, 475-76 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.) (governmental body may waive Gov't Code § 552.103); Open Records Decision No. 542 at 4 (1990) (statutory predecessor to Gov't Code § 552.103 may be waived). As such, section 552.103 is not other law that makes information confidential for the purposes of section 552.022. Therefore, the commission may not withhold any of the submitted information under section 552.103 of the Government Code. You also contend that the submitted information consists of attorney work product that is confidential under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5. The Texas Supreme Court has held that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are "other law" within the meaning of section 552.022 of the Government Code. See In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328, 336 (Tex. 2001). Therefore, we will address your arguments under rule 192.5. For the purpose of section 552.022 of the Government Code, information is confidential under rule192.5 only to the extent that the information implicates the core work product aspect of the work product privilege. See Open Records Decision No. 677 at 9-10 (2002). Rule 192.5 defines core work product as the work product of an attorney or an attorney's representative, developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, that contains the mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories of the attorney or the attorney's representative. See 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 the mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories of an attorney or an attorney's representative. 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 part of the work product test requires the governmental body to show that the materials at issue contain the mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories of an attorney's or an attorney's representative. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5(b)(1). A document containing core work product information that meets both parts of the work product test is confidential under rule 192.5, provided that the information does not fall within the scope of the exceptions to the privilege enumerated in rule 192.5(c). See Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Caldwell, 861 S.W.2d 423, 427 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ). You inform us that the submitted information was prepared by agents of the commission for the purpose of instituting civil litigation. You state that this information will form the basis of administrative charges that will be presented to the State Office of Administrative Hearings by attorneys for the commission. You also inform us that the agents of the commission who prepared the submitted information were acting as representatives of attorneys for the commission who are responsible for conducting administrative litigation. You state that when the information was prepared, there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue, and the information was prepared in the belief that litigation would ensue. You assert that the submitted information contains the investigators' mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions. You also inform us that access to the submitted information has been confined to those employees of the commission necessary to prepare for litigation of the matter to which the information pertains. Having considered your arguments, we conclude that you have demonstrated that the submitted information is confidential in its entirety under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5. Therefore, the commission may withhold the submitted information under rule 192.5. As we are able to make this determination, we need not address your other arguments against disclosure. 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, James W. Morris, III
c: Ms. Lise Olsen
Footnotes 1. Your letter also reflects that some of the requested information does not exist. We note that chapter 552 of the Government Code does not require the commission to release information that did not exist when it received this request or to create responsive information. See Economic Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd); Open Records Decision Nos. 605 at 2 (1992), 452 at 3 (1986), 362 at 2 (1983). POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |