 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
 |
December 14, 2006 Ms. Cary Grace OR2006-14699 Dear Ms. Grace: 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# 266918. The City of Austin (the "city") received three requests from the same requestor for (1) salary information for three named individuals; (2) exams, results, and other information relating to three specific positions and several named individuals; and (3) certain e-mail or other correspondence involving three named individuals. You inform us that the city has no information that is responsive to portions of these requests. (1) You state that some responsive information will be released. You have submitted information that the city seeks to withhold under section 552.103 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and have reviewed the submitted information. (2) We also have considered the comments that we received from the requestor. (3) Section 552.103 of the Government Code provides in part: (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 that claims an exception to disclosure under section 552.103 has the burden of providing relevant facts and documentation sufficient to establish the applicability of this exception to the information that it seeks to withhold. To meet this burden, the governmental body must demonstrate that (1) litigation was pending or reasonably anticipated on the date of its receipt of the request for information and (2) the information at issue is related to the pending or anticipated litigation. See Univ. of Tex. Law Sch. v. Tex. Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.); Heard v. Houston Post Co., 684 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Both elements of the test must be met in order for information to be excepted from disclosure under section 552.103. See Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4 (1990). To establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated, a governmental body must provide this office with "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. Id. You state, and have provided documentation demonstrating, that the requestor filed a claim of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") prior to the date of the city's receipt of the instant requests for information. You assert that the information at issue is related to the requestor's claim. This office has stated that a pending EEOC complaint indicates that litigation is reasonably anticipated. See Open Records Decision Nos. 386 at 2 (1983), 336 at 1(1982). Based on your arguments and the submitted documentation, we find that the city reasonably anticipated litigation on the date of its receipt of this request. We also find that the information at issue is related to the anticipated litigation. We therefore conclude that you have demonstrated that section 552.103 is applicable in this instance. We note, however, that the requestor appears to have already had access to some of the information at issue. The purpose of section 552.103 is to enable a governmental body to protect its position in litigation by forcing parties to obtain information that is related to litigation through discovery procedures. See Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4-5 (1990). If the opposing party already has seen or had access to information that is related to anticipated litigation, through discovery or otherwise, then there is no interest in withholding such information from public disclosure under section 552.103. See Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). Therefore, to the extent that the requestor already has seen or had access to the information at issue, the city may not now withhold any such information under section 552.103. The rest of the information at issue is excepted from disclosure at this time under section 552.103. We note that the applicability of this exception ends once the related litigation concludes or is no longer reasonably anticipated. See Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982). 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); Texas 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 Office of the Attorney General 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. 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 W. Morris, III Assistant Attorney General Open Records Division JWM/jww Ref: ID# 266918 Enc: Submitted documents c: Ms. Katherine Nodland 1214 Baylor Street, Apartment 102 Austin, Texas 78703 (w/o enclosures) Footnotes1. We note that the Act does not require a governmental body to release information that did not exist when it received a request or create responsive information. See Econ. Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd); Open Records Decision Nos. 605 at 2 (1992), 555 at 1 (1990), 452 at 3 (1986), 362 at 2 (1983). 2. This letter ruling assumes that the submitted representative samples of information are truly representative of the requested information as a whole. This ruling neither reaches nor authorizes the city to withhold any information that is substantially different from the submitted information. See Gov't Code §§ 552.301(e)(1)(D), .302; Open Records Decision Nos. 499 at 6 (1988), 497 at 4 (1988). 3. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (any person may submit written comments stating why information at issue in request for attorney general decision should or should not be released).
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |