 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
July 1, 2005 Ms. Maria Guadalupe Martinez
OR2005-05853 Dear Ms. Martinez: 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# 227273. The City of El Paso (the "city") received a request for information pertaining to a specified incident. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Gov't Code § 552.101. This section encompasses the common-law right of privacy. For information to be protected by common-law privacy it must meet the criteria set out in Industrial Foundation v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). The Industrial Foundation court stated that information is excepted from disclosure if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the release of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public. 540 S.W.2d at 685. In Morales v. Ellen, 840 S.W.2d 519, 525 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, writ denied), the court addressed the applicability of the common-law privacy doctrine to files of an investigation of allegations of sexual harassment. The investigation files in Ellen contained individual witness statements, an affidavit by the individual accused of the misconduct responding to the allegations, and a summary of the board of inquiry that conducted the investigation. Id. The court ordered the release of the affidavit of the person under investigation and the summary of the investigation, stating that the public's interest was sufficiently served by the disclosure of these documents. Id. In concluding, the Ellen court held that "the public did not possess a legitimate interest in the identities of the individual witnesses, nor the details of their personal statements beyond what is contained in the documents that have been ordered released." Id. In order to raise the common-law privacy exception under Ellen, the claim must pertain to sexual harassment in the employment context. In this case, the information relates to a altercation between off duty city employees and not an investigation of sexual harassment under Ellen. Therefore, the common-law privacy protection afforded in Ellen is not applicable here. Likewise, having reviewed the submitted information, we find that even if a portion of it could be considered highly intimate or embarrassing, it is of legitimate public concern. Thus, the submitted information may not be withheld under the common-law privacy exception under Ellen. We note that the city seeks to withhold the submitted information in its entirety under common-law privacy. Information may also be withheld under section 552.101 in conjunction with common-law privacy upon a showing of certain "special circumstances." See Open Records Decision No. 169 (1977). This office considers "special circumstances" to refer to a very narrow set of situations in which the release of information would likely cause someone to face "an imminent threat of physical danger." Id. at 6. Such "special circumstances" do not include "a generalized and speculative fear of harassment or retribution." Id. In this instance, we find the information you have provided is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of "special circumstances." You have not shown that release of the remaining submitted information would subject the victim to an imminent risk of harm. Therefore, we determine that the submitted information may not be withheld under section 552.101 on the basis of common-law privacy. Therefore, the submitted information must be released to the requestor. 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, L. Joseph James
c: Mr. Lorenzo Juarez
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |