 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
June 7, 2005 Ms. Charlotte Staples
OR2005-04965 Dear Ms. Staples: 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# 225731. The City of Alvarado (the "city"), which you represent, received a request for information related to former and current city police department ("department") employees, internal investigations and motor vehicle accidents involving department personnel, and videotapes of a specified incident. The requestor subsequently clarified the portion of the request related to motor vehicle accidents. You state that the city does not have any documents responsive to some categories of the request.(1) You claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.103, 552.117, 552.130, and 552.136 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information, some of which consists of representative sample information.(2) Initially, we note that the submitted information includes several city ordinances. Because laws and ordinances are binding on members of the public, they are matters of public record and may not be withheld from disclosure under the Act. See Open Records Decision Nos. 551 at 2-3 (1990) (laws or ordinances are open records), 221 at 1 (1979) ("official records of the public proceedings of a governmental body are among the most open of records"). Accordingly, the submitted city ordinances must be released. We next note that some of the submitted information is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code. This section provides in part 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; [and] . . . (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)(1), (3). In this instance, portions of the submitted information consist of completed evaluations made of, for, or by the city, and information in a voucher relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds by the city. The completed evaluations must be released under section 552.022(a)(1) unless excepted from disclosure under section 552.108 of the Government Code or expressly confidential under other law.(3) The information in a voucher is within the scope of subsection (3) of section 552.022(a) and is subject to required public disclosure, except to the extent that this information is expressly confidential under other law. Section 552.103 of the Government Code is a discretionary exception to public disclosure that protects a governmental body's interests and may be waived. See Gov't Code § 552.007; 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 Nos. 665 at 2 n.5 (discretionary exceptions generally), 542 at 4 (1990) (statutory predecessor to section 552.103 subject to waiver). As such, section 552.103 is not "other law" that makes information confidential for the purposes of section 552.022. Therefore, the city may not withhold any of the information subject to section 552.022 under section 552.103. However, because section 552.101, 552.117, 552.130, and 552.136 are considered "other law" for the purposes of section 552.022, we will address your claims under these exceptions for the information subject to section 552.022 along with the remaining submitted information. As it is potentially the broadest claim, we first address your assertion that the submitted information not subject to section 552.022 is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103 of the Government Code. 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. The city 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. University of Tex. Law Sch. v. Texas 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 city 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). 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.(4) 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). Litigation is not reasonably anticipated when an applicant who was rejected for employment hires an attorney and that attorney asks for information about the governmental entity's actions as part of his investigation. See Open Records Decision No. 361 (1983). 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 have not demonstrated that the requestor or his client have taken any objective steps toward litigation against the city. Thus, we find the city has not established that the information is related to reasonably anticipated litigation. Accordingly, the city may not withhold the information at issue under section 552.103. Next, we address your arguments regarding all of the submitted information. Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts from public disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Gov't Code § 552.101. Section 552.101 encompasses information that other statutes make confidential. Medical records are confidential under the Medical Practice Act (the "MPA"), subtitle B of title 3 of the Occupations Code. See Occ. Code § 151.001. Section 159.002 of the MPA provides in part: (a) A communication between a physician and a patient, relative to or in connection with any professional services as a physician to the patient, is confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed except as provided by this chapter. (b) A record of the identity, diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a patient by a physician that is created or maintained by a physician is confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed except as provided by this chapter. (c) A person who receives information from a confidential communication or record as described by this chapter, other than a person listed in Section 159.004 who is acting on the patient's behalf, may not disclose the information except to the extent that disclosure is consistent with the authorized purposes for which the information was first obtained. Id. § 159.002(a)-(c). This office has determined that in governing access to a specific subset of information, the MPA prevails over the more general provisions of the Act. See Open Records Decision No. 598 (1991). Medical records must be released on receipt of the patient's signed, written consent, provided that the consent specifies (1) the information to be covered by the release, (2) reasons or purposes for the release, and (3) the person to whom the information is to be released. See Occ. Code §§ 159.004, .005. Any subsequent release of medical records must be consistent with the purposes for which the governmental body obtained the records. See id. § 159.002(c); Open Records Decision No. 565 at 7 (1990). We have marked the submitted information that is confidential under the MPA. The requestor may have a right of access to some of that information. In any event, the city must not release the information that is confidential under the MPA unless it has authorization under the MPA to do so. See Open Records Decision No. 598 (1991). Next, we note that some information is subject to section 611.002 of the Health and Safety Code, which applies to "[c]ommunications between a patient and a professional, [and] records of the identity, diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a patient that are created or maintained by a professional." See also Health & Safety Code § 611.001 (defining "patient" and "professional"). Sections 611.004 and 611.0045 provide for access to mental health records only by certain individuals. See Open Records Decision No. 565 (1990). We have marked the mental health records that are confidential under section 611.002 and may not be released except in accordance with sections 611.004 and 611.0045 of the Health and Safety Code. Health & Safety Code § 611.002(b); see id. §§ 611.004, 611.0045. The submitted documents also contain accident report forms that appear to have been completed pursuant to chapter 550 of the Transportation Code. See Transp. Code § 550.064 (Texas Peace Officer's Accident Report form). Section 550.065(b) of the Transportation Code states that except as provided by subsection (c), accident reports are privileged and confidential. Section 550.065(c)(4) provides for the release of accident reports to a person who provides two of the following three pieces of information: (1) date of the accident; (2) name of any person involved in the accident; and (3) specific location of the accident. Transp. Code § 550.065(c)(4). Under this provision, the Department of Public Safety (the "DPS") or another governmental body is required to release a copy of an accident report to a person who provides the governmental body with two or more pieces of information specified by the statute. Id. In the present request, the requestor has not provided the required information. Thus, the city must withhold the accident report forms under section 550.065(c). Next, we note that the submitted information includes W-4 forms. Prior decisions of this office have held that section 6103(a) of title 26 of the United States Code, which is also encompassed by section 552.101, renders tax return information confidential. See Attorney General Opinion H-1274 (1978) (tax returns); Open Records Decision Nos. 600 (1992) (W-4 forms), 226 (1979) (W-2 forms). Tax return information is defined as data furnished to or collected by the Internal Revenue Service with respect to the determination of possible existence of liability of any person under title 26 of the United States Code for any tax. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b). The submitted W-4 forms, which we have marked, are tax return information that must be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with federal law. The submitted documents also include Employment Eligibility Verification Forms, form I-9. Title 8, section 1324a of the United States Code, which is also encompassed by section 552.101, provides that this form "may not be used for purposes other than for enforcement of this chapter" and for enforcement of other federal statutes governing crime and criminal investigations. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5); see 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(4). Release of these forms under the Act would be "for purposes other than for enforcement" of the referenced federal statutes. Accordingly, we conclude that the I-9 forms, which we have marked, are confidential and may only be released in compliance with the federal laws and regulations governing the employment verification system. The submitted records also include criminal history record information ("CHRI"). CHRI generated by the National Crime Information Center or by the Texas Crime Information Center is confidential. This section encompasses title 28, part 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which governs the release of CHRI that states obtain from the federal government or other states. Open Records Decision No. 565 (1990). The federal regulations allow each state to follow its individual law with respect to CHRI it generates. Id. Section 411.083 of the Government Code deems confidential CHRI that the DPS maintains, except that the DPS may disseminate this information as provided in chapter 411, subchapter F of the Government Code. See Gov't Code § 411.083. Sections 411.083(b)(1) and 411.089(a) authorize a criminal justice agency to obtain CHRI; however, a criminal justice agency may not release CHRI except to another criminal justice agency for a criminal justice purpose. Id. § 411.089(b)(1). Other entities specified in chapter 411 of the Government Code are entitled to obtain CHRI from DPS or another criminal justice agency; however, those entities may not release CHRI except as provided by chapter 411. See generally id. §§ 411.090 - .127. Thus, any CHRI generated by the federal government or another state may not be made available to the requestor except in accordance with federal regulations. See Open Records Decision No. 565 (1990). Furthermore, any CHRI obtained from DPS or any other criminal justice agency must be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with Government Code chapter 411, subchapter F. We have marked the CHRI in the submitted documents that must be withheld. We also note that the submitted information includes a form F-5 (Report of Resignation or Separation of License Holder). Section 1701.454 of the Occupations Code provides as follows: (a) A report or statement submitted to the commission under this subchapter is confidential and is not subject to disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code, unless the person resigned or was terminated due to substantiated incidents of excessive force or violations of the law other than traffic offenses. (b) Except as provided by this section, a commission member or other person may not release the contents of a report or statement submitted under this subchapter. The report or statement may be released only by the commission employee having the responsibility to maintain the report or statement and only if: (1) the head of a law enforcement agency or the agency head's designee makes a written request on the agency's letterhead for the report or statement accompanied by the agency head's or designee's signature; and (2) the person who is the subject of the report or statement authorizes the release by providing a sworn statement on a form supplied by the commission that includes the person's waiver of liability regarding an agency head who is responsible for or who takes action based on the report or statement. Occ. Code § 1701.454. The city must withhold the F-5 form pursuant to section 552.101 in conjunction with section 1701.454. Chapter 560 of the Government Code provides that a governmental body may not release fingerprint information except in certain limited circumstances. See Gov't Code §§ 560.001 (defining "biometric identifier" to include fingerprints), .002 (prescribing manner in which biometric identifiers must be maintained and circumstances in which they can be released), .003 (providing that biometric identifiers in possession of governmental body are exempt from disclosure under Act). You do not inform us and the submitted information does not indicate that section 560.002 permits the disclosure of the submitted fingerprint information. Therefore, the city must withhold this information, which we have marked, under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 560.003 of the Government Code. Additionally, you assert that some of the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 402.083 of the Labor Code. Section 402.083(a) of the Labor Code states that "[i]nformation in or derived from a claim file regarding an employee is confidential and may not be disclosed by the [Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (the "commission")] except as provided by this subtitle." In Open Records Decision No. 533 (1989), the City of Brownsville received a request for similar information. This office construed the predecessor to section 402.083(a) to apply only to information that the governmental body obtained from the Industrial Accident Board, now the commission. You have not informed us, and the documents do not reflect, that they were obtained from the commission. Therefore, the information at issue is not confidential under section 402.083, and it may not be withheld on that basis. Section 552.101 also encompasses the common law right of privacy, which protects information if it (1) contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. Indus. Found. v. Tex. Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex. 1976). The type of information considered intimate and embarrassing by the Texas Supreme Court in Industrial Foundation included information relating to sexual assault, pregnancy, mental or physical abuse in the workplace, illegitimate children, psychiatric treatment of mental disorders, attempted suicide, and injuries to sexual organs. Id. at 683. In addition, this office has found that the following types of information are excepted from required public disclosure under common-law privacy: an individual's criminal history when compiled by a governmental body, see Open Records Decision No. 565 (citing United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989)); personal financial information not relating to a financial transaction between an individual and a governmental body, see Open Records Decision Nos. 600 (1992), 545 (1990); some kinds of medical information or information indicating disabilities or specific illnesses, see Open Records Decision Nos. 470 (1987) (illness from severe emotional and job-related stress), 455 (1987) (prescription drugs, illnesses, operations, and physical handicaps); and identities of victims of sexual abuse, see Open Records Decision Nos. 440 (1986), 393 (1983), 339 (1982). We have reviewed the submitted records and marked the information that must be withheld pursuant to section 552.101 in conjunction with common-law privacy. Portions of the submitted records, not otherwise excepted from disclosure, contain information that may be excepted under section 552.117 of the Government Code. Section 552.117(a)(1) of the Government Code excepts from disclosure the current and former home addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers, and family member information of current or former officials or employees of a governmental body who request that this information be kept confidential under section 552.024. We note that a post office box number is not a "home address" for purposes of section 552.117. See Gov't Code § 552.117; Open Records Decision No. 622 at 4 (1994) (legislative history makes clear that purpose of section 552.117 is to protect public employees from being harassed at home). Whether a particular piece of information is protected by section 552.117(a)(1) must be determined at the time the request for it is made. See Open Records Decision No. 530 at 5 (1989). Section 552.117(a)(2) excepts from disclosure this same information regarding a peace officer regardless of whether the officer elected under section 552.024 or 552.1175 of the Government Code to keep such information confidential.(5) To the extent the information that we have marked pertains to a currently licensed peace officer who is or was employed by the city, it must be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to section 552.117(a)(2). However, if any individual at issue is not a currently licensed peace officer but is a current or former city employee who made a timely confidentiality election, the city must withhold the same information pursuant to section 552.117(a)(1).(6) We also note that some of the submitted documents contain information concerning officers of other law enforcement agencies, which may be excepted under section 552.1175 of the Government Code. Section 552.1175 provides in part: (b) Information that relates to the home address, home telephone number, or social security number of [a peace officer as defined by article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure], or that reveals whether the individual has family members is confidential and may not be disclosed to the public under this chapter if the individual to whom the information relates: (1) chooses to restrict public access to the information; and (2) notifies the governmental body of the individual's choice on a form provided by the governmental body, accompanied by evidence of the individual's status. Gov't Code § 552.1175(b). We have marked the information pertaining to officers of other agencies. If the city receives notice from an officer at issue in accordance with section 552.1175(2) that the officer chooses to keep the marked information confidential, the city must withhold the information pursuant to section 552.1175 of the Government Code. Social security numbers contained in the submitted information may be confidential under federal law. The 1990 amendments to the federal Social Security Act make confidential social security numbers and related records that are obtained and maintained by a state agency or political subdivision of the state pursuant to any provision of law enacted on or after October 1, 1990. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(viii)(I); Open Records Decision No. 622 (1994). We have no basis for concluding that the social security numbers at issue are confidential under section 405(c)(2)(C)(viii)(I), and therefore excepted from public disclosure under section 552.101 on the basis of that federal provision. We caution, however, that section 552.352 of the Act imposes criminal penalties for the release of confidential information. Prior to releasing any social security numbers, you should ensure that no such information was obtained or is maintained by the city pursuant to any provision of law, enacted on or after October 1, 1990. The submitted information also contains motor vehicle record information. Section 552.130 of the Government Code excepts from disclosure "information [that] relates to . . . a motor vehicle operator's or driver's license or permit issued by an agency of this state." Gov't Code § 552.130. Accordingly, the city must withhold Texas motor vehicle record information we have marked pursuant to section 552.130.(7) Next, the submitted documents contain bank account and insurance policy numbers subject to section 552.136 of the Government Code. This section 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. The city must, therefore, withhold the information we have marked in accordance with section 552.136. The submitted records also include private e-mail addresses. In this regard, section 552.137 of the Government Code excepts from disclosure "an e-mail address of a member of the public that is provided for the purpose of communicating electronically with a governmental body" unless the member of the public consents to its release or the e-mail address is of a type specifically excluded by subsection (c). See Gov't Code § 552.137(a)-(c). Section 552.137 does not apply to a government employee's work e-mail address because such an address is not that of the employee as a "member of the public," but is instead the address of the individual as a government employee. The e-mail addresses at issue do not appear to be of a type specifically excluded by section 552.137(c). Thus, the city must withhold the e-mail addresses we have marked pursuant to section 552.137 unless their owners have affirmatively consented to release. See Gov't Code § 552.137(b). A form DD-214 may be excepted from public disclosure under section 552.140 of the Government Code, which provides in relevant part: (a) This section applies only to a military veteran's Department of Defense Form DD-214 or other military discharge record that is first recorded with or that otherwise first comes into the possession of a governmental body on or after September 1, 2003. Gov't Code § 552.140(a). Section 552.140 provides that a military veteran's DD-214 form or other military discharge record that is first recorded with or that otherwise first comes into the possession of a governmental body on or after September 1, 2003 is confidential for a period of seventy-five years and may only be disclosed in accordance with section 552.140 or in accordance with a court order. See Gov't Code § 552.140(a), (b). You do not indicate when the city first came into possession of the Form DD-214. Therefore, to the extent that the Form DD-214 came into the possession of the city on or after September 1, 2003, we conclude that the city must withhold the information under section 552.140 of the Government Code. If the Form DD-214 was not so obtained, the city may not withhold the information on this basis. Finally, we note that some of the information at issue may be protected by copyright. A custodian of public records must comply with the copyright law and is not required to furnish copies of records that are protected by copyright. Attorney General Opinion JM-672 (1987). A governmental body must allow inspection of copyrighted materials unless an exception applies to the information. Id. If a member of the public wishes to make copies of materials protected by copyright, the person must do so unassisted by the governmental body. In making copies, the member of the public assumes the duty of compliance with the copyright law and the risk of a copyright infringement suit. See Open Records Decision No. 550 (1990). In summary: (1) the medical records we have marked may only be released in accordance with the MPA; (2) mental health records that are confidential under section 611.002 of the Health and Safety Code, and may not be released except in accordance with sections 611.004 and 611.0045; (3) the accident reports must be withheld under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 550.065(c); (4) the W-4 forms we have marked must be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with section 6103(a) of title 26 of the United States Code; (5) the I-9 forms we have marked are confidential and may only be released in compliance with the federal laws and regulations governing the employment verification system; (6) the CHRI we have marked must be withheld pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with chapter 411, subchapter F of the Government Code; (7) F-5 forms must be withheld under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 1701.454 of the Occupations Code; (8) the marked fingerprint information must be withheld under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 560.003 of the Government Code; (9) the information we have marked implicating the former police officer's privacy rights must be withheld under section 552.101 and common-law privacy; (10) to the extent the marked information pertains to a currently licensed peace officer who is or was employed by the city, it must be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to section 552.117(a)(2); (11) if any individual at issue is not a currently licensed peace officer but is a current or former city employee who made a timely confidentiality election, the city must withhold the same information pursuant to section 552.117(a)(1); (12) the other police department employees' home addresses must be withheld under section 552.1175 if these employees elected to keep such information confidential; (13) social security numbers may be confidential under federal law; (14) the marked Texas motor vehicle record information must be withheld under section 552.130; (15) we have marked the information that must be withheld in accordance with section 552.136; (16) the city must withhold the e-mail addresses we have marked pursuant to section 552.137 unless their owners have affirmatively consented to release; and (17) to the extent that the Form DD-214 came into the possession of the city on or after September 1, 2003, the city must withhold it under section 552.140. The remaining information must be released to the requestor; however, in releasing information that is protected by copyright, the city must comply with applicable copyright law. 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, Cindy Nettles
c: Mr. Lance F. Wyatt, P.L.L.C.
Footnotes 1. The Act does not require a governmental body to release information that did not exist when a request for information was received or to prepare new information in response to a request. See Econ. Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (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). 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. 3. The city does not claim section 552.108 as an exception to disclosure. 4. In addition, this office has concluded that litigation was reasonably anticipated when the potential opposing party took the following objective steps toward litigation: filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, see Open Records Decision No. 336 (1982); hired an attorney who made a demand for disputed payments and threatened to sue if the payments were not made promptly, see Open Records Decision No. 346 (1982); and threatened to sue on several occasions and hired an attorney, see Open Records Decision No. 288 (1981). 5. The term peace officer is defined in article 2.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. We note that section 552.117 is applicable only to a personal pager or cell phone number paid for by the employee or peace officer. See Open Records Decision No. 670 at 6(2001) (statutory predecessor to section 552.117(a)(2) encompassed personal cellular phone numbers and personal pager numbers of peace officers who purchased cellular or pager service with their personal funds). A pager or cell phone number provided to an employee or peace officer at public expense may not be withheld under section 552.117. See Open Records Decision No. 506 at 5-7 (1988) (statutory predecessor to section 552.117 not applicable to cellular mobile phone numbers provided and paid for by governmental body and intended for official use). 7. Although you seek to withhold this information under section "552.230," we note that section 552.130 is the correct exception.
|