 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
June 1, 2005 Ms. Melinda Ramos
OR2005-04768 Dear Ms. Ramos: 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# 225287. The City of Fort Worth (the "city") received a request for the complete personnel files of two named police officers. You state that you have provided the requestor with most of the requested information. You claim, however, that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103 of the Government Code.(1) We have considered the exception you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Initially, we note that a portion of 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 includes three completed investigations made of, for, or by the city. Thus, pursuant to section 552.022(a)(1), the city must release this information unless it is expressly confidential under other law or excepted from disclosure under section 552.108. The city raises section 552.103 for this information. Section 552.103 is a discretionary exception under the Act and does not constitute "other law" for purposes of section 552.022. See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469, 475-76 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.) (stating that governmental body may waive section 552.103). Accordingly, the city may not withhold the completed investigations under section 552.103 of the Government Code. We note, however, that the completed investigations contain information that is excepted from disclosure under section 552.117 of the Government Code. Section 552.117(a)(2) excepts from disclosure the home address, home telephone number, social security number, and the family member information of a peace officer as defined by article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Open Records Decision No. 622 (1994). We have marked the information in the completed investigations that the city must withhold under section 552.117(a)(2). In regard to the remaining information that is not subject to section 552.022, 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). A governmental body 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 on the date the governmental body received the request for information, 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). A governmental body must meet both prongs of this test for information to be excepted under section 552.103(a). You provide documentation showing that prior to the city's receipt of this request one of the named officers submitted a formal Notice of Appeal to an independent third-party hearing examiner regarding the disciplinary decision to suspend the officer. After reviewing your arguments and the submitted information, we agree that litigation was pending as of the date the request was received and that the remaining information relates to the pending litigation. 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 pending litigation is not excepted from disclosure under section 552.103(a), and 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 this instance, it appears that the opposing party has had access to some of the requested records. Accordingly, any information that has been previously seen by the opposing party may not be withheld under section 552.103, and must be released. In summary, the city must withhold the information we have marked pursuant to section 552.117(a)(2) of the Government Code in the completed investigations. The remainder of the completed investigations must be released. With the exception of information previously seen by the opposing party, the city may withhold the information that is not subject to section 552.022(a)(1) pursuant to 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, Lauren E. Kleine
c: Mr. Vincent E. Wisely
Footnotes Footnotes 1. Although you initially raised section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with section 143.089 of the Local Government Code, you have not provided any arguments explaining how this exception is applicable to the requested information. Therefore, we presume you no longer assert this exception to disclosure. See Gov't Code §§ 552.301, .302. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |