Click for home page
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT
image
 

May 4, 2005

Mr. Renaldo L. Stowers
Associate General Counsel
University of North Texas System
P.O. Box 310907
Denton, Texas 76203-0907

OR2005-03858

Dear Mr. Stowers:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Public Information Act (the "Act"), chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 223488.

The University of North Texas System (the "system") received a request for the personnel file and other information pertaining to the requestor's client. You indicate that some of the requested information does not exist.(1) You also indicate that some of the requested information has been made available to the requestor, but claim that some of the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.107, 552.117, and 552.130 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted representative sample of information.(2)

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 a 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).

The system asserts that the information at issue in Exhibit A consists of confidential communications between attorneys for and clients of the system made for the purpose of rendering professional legal advice. Based on this representation and our review of the information at issue, we agree that this information consists of privileged attorney-client communications that the system may withhold under section 552.107.

You assert that some of the information in Exhibit B is excepted under section 552.117 of the Government Code. Section 552.117(a)(2) excepts the home addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers, and family member information of a peace officer as defined by Article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the officer made an election under section 552.024. Gov't Code § 552.117(a)(2); see Open Records Decision No. 622 (1994). The information in Exhibit B consists of the names of police officers and corresponding telephone numbers. Section 552.117 does not except a police officer's work telephone number. See Gov't Code § 552.117; Open Records Decision Nos. 622 at 4 (1994) (legislative history of section 552.117(1)(A) makes clear that its purpose is to protect public employees from being harassed at home). Accordingly, the system must withhold the telephone numbers we have marked in Exhibit C under section 552.117(a)(2) if they are the home telephone numbers of police officers. We note, however, that the requestor, as an attorney representing the individual at issue, has a special right of access to the individual's section 552.117 information. See Gov't Code § 552.023 (person or person's authorized representative has special right of access to information held by governmental body that relates to person and is protected from disclosure by laws intended to protect that person's privacy interests).

Finally, you assert that some of the information in Exhibit C is excepted under section 552.130 of the Government Code. Section 552.130 provides in relevant part the following:

(a) Information is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 if the information relates to:

(1) a motor vehicle operator's or driver's license or permit issued by an agency of this state; [or]

(2) a motor vehicle title or registration issued by an agency of this state[.]

Gov't Code § 552.130. The system must withhold the Texas motor vehicle record information we have marked under section 552.130.

To conclude, the system may withhold the privileged communications in Exhibit A under section 552.107. It must withhold the marked telephone numbers in Exhibit B under section 552.117(a)(2) if they are the home telephone numbers of police officers. The system must withhold the marked information under section 552.130. It must release the remaining information at issue.

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,

James L. Coggeshall
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division
JLC/seg
Ref: ID# 223488
Enc. Submitted documents

c: Mr. Vincent E. Wisely
Staff Attorney
Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas
900 Collie, Suite 100
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(w/o enclosures)


 

Footnotes

1. We note the Act does not require a governmental body to disclose information that did not exist when the request for information was received. Econ. Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd); Open Records Decision No. 452 at 3 (1986).

2. 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
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer


Home | ORLs