 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
April 13, 2005 Ms. Ellen B. Huchital
OR2005-3158 Dear Ms. Huchital: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 222044. The Eanes Independent School District (the "district"), which you represent, received a request for "any and all documents that show or reflect the payment of professional liability insurance for [a district] or JR3 employee from [district] campus discretionary funds" for the past five years. You claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103 and 552.136 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted representative sample of the information requested.(1) We have also received and considered comments from the requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (allowing interested party to submit comments indicating why requested information should or should not be released). Initially, we note that some of the submitted information is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code, which provides, in pertinent part: [T]he following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure under this chapter unless they are expressly confidential under other law: . . . (3) information in an account, voucher, or contract relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds by a governmental body[.] Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(3). The submitted information contains three invoices and corresponding copies of paid checks. The invoices and checks are subject to section 552.022(a)(3). Accordingly, these records must be released unless they are expressly made confidential under other law. Sections 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 section 552.103); Open Records Decision No. 542 at 4 (1990) (statutory predecessor to section 552.103 may be waived); see also Open Records Decision No. 522 (1989) (discretionary exceptions in general). As such, section 552.103 is not other law that makes information confidential for the purposes of section 552.022. Therefore, the district may not withhold the information subject to section 552.022 under section 552.103 of the Government Code. However, section 552.136 is other law for the purposes of section 552.022. Therefore, we will address the applicability of that provision to the documents made public under section 552.022(a)(3). Section 552.136 of the Government Code states that "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a credit card, debit card, charge card, or access device number that is collected, assembled, or maintained by or for a governmental body is confidential." Gov't Code § 552.136. Accordingly, the district must withhold the information that we have marked under section 552.136. Next, we address your section 552.103 argument against disclosure of the remaining submitted information. In relevant part, section 552.103 provides as follows: (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 has 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, and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. Univ. of Tex. Law Sch. v. Tex. Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.); 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 552.103(a). To establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated, a governmental body must provide this office "concrete evidence showing that the claim that litigation may ensue is more than mere conjecture." Open Records Decision No. 452 at 4 (1986). Whether litigation is reasonably anticipated must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Open Records Decision No. 452 at 4 (1986). Concrete evidence to support a claim that litigation is reasonably anticipated may include, for example, the governmental body's receipt of a letter containing a specific threat to sue the governmental body from an attorney for a potential opposing party. Open Records Decision No. 555 (1990); see Open Records Decision No. 518 at 5 (1989) (litigation must be "realistically contemplated"). On the other hand, this office has determined that if an individual publicly threatens to bring suit against a governmental body, but does not actually take objective steps toward filing suit, litigation is not reasonably anticipated. See Open Records Decision No. 331 (1982). Further, the fact that a potential opposing party has hired an attorney who makes a request for information does not establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated. Open Records Decision No. 361 (1983). In this instance, you state that, although no lawsuit had been filed at the time the district received the request for information, the requestor has filed complaints against the district with at least four different agencies, as well as several internal grievances, all of which were filed prior to the district's receipt of the request. Based on your assertion, we conclude that litigation was reasonably anticipated by the district on the date that it received the request for information. Further, after review of your arguments and the information at issue, we conclude that you have established that the information is related to the anticipated litigation, specifically to the complaints filed with the Texas Education Agency regarding the employment of named district employees and concerns about the provision of a publicly-funded education to the requestor's son; therefore, the remaining information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103. Generally, however, 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. 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 it must be disclosed. Further, the applicability of section 552.103(a) ends once the litigation has been concluded. Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982). In summary, with the exception of the marked account numbers that must be withheld under section 552.136 of the Government Code, the district must release the invoices and corresponding checks that we have marked under section 552.022(a)(3) of the Government Code. The remaining submitted information may be withheld under 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, upon receiving this ruling, the governmental body will either release the public records promptly pursuant to section 552.221(a) of the Government Code or file a lawsuit challenging this ruling pursuant to section 552.324 of the Government Code. If the governmental body fails to do one of these things, 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); Tex. 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, Amanda Crawford
c: Ms. Susan Bushart
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. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |