 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
 |
August 22, 2007 Mr. Miles LeBlanc OR2007-10947 Dear Mr. LeBlanc: 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# 287363. The Houston Community College System (the "system") received a request for information pertaining to specified system employees and system employment practices. You state that you will release information pertaining to request items 1, 3(a), 3(h), and 4. You state that you do not maintain information responsive to request items 2, 3(b), 3(c), 3(f), and 8. (1) You claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103 of the Government Code. We have considered the exception you claim and reviewed the submitted information. Initially, we note that some of the submitted information is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code. Section 552.022(a) 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: (2) the name, sex, ethnicity, salary, title, and dates of employment of each employee and officer of a governmental body[.] Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(2). The personnel records you submitted to this office include salary information pertaining to the named officers. The system must release information subject to section 552.022 unless it is excepted from disclosure under section 552.108 of the Government Code, or is expressly made confidential under other law. See id. You claim that this information is subject to section 552.103 of the Government Code. Section 552.103 of the Government Code is a discretionary exception to disclosure that protects the governmental body's interests and is therefore not "other law" that makes information expressly confidential for purposes of section 552.022(a). See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.) (governmental body may waive section 552.103); see also Open Records Decision No. 665 at 2 n.5 (2000) (discretionary exceptions generally). Consequently, the system may not withhold the salary information that we have marked pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code. We will address your section 552.103 argument for the remaining information. Section 552.103 of the Governmental Code 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 was 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). The question of whether litigation is reasonably anticipated must be determined on a case-by-case basis. See Open Records Decision No. 452 at 4 (1986). To demonstrate that litigation is reasonably anticipated, the governmental body must furnish concrete evidence that litigation involving a specific matter is realistically contemplated and is more than mere conjecture. Id. 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. (2) 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). Further, this office has stated that a pending Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") complaint indicates litigation is reasonably anticipated. Open Records Decision Nos. 386 at 2 (1983), 336 at 1 (1982). In this instance, you state, and provide documentation supporting, that the requestor has threatened, in writing, to file suit against the system pertaining to the matters at issue in the request, and the system has received two claim letters from attorneys representing the requestor in sex, gender, and race discrimination claims related to the request. You inform us, and have provided documentation demonstrating, that the requestor has filed a claim of discrimination with the EEOC prior to the system's receipt of this request. Based on your representations and our review, we determine that the system reasonably anticipated litigation on the date that it received the request. Further, you explain, that the remaining information relates to the claims the requestor has made against the system, and that it could be used in support of the requestor's discrimination claims. Thus, we agree, that the remaining documents relate to the reasonably anticipated litigation. Accordingly, we determine that the system may withhold the remaining information pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code. 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 anticipated 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). 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, Justin D. Gordon Assistant Attorney General Open Records Division JDG/jh Ref: ID# 287363 Enc. Submitted documents c: Ms. Carole Keeney Harrington 2104 Pelham Drive Houston, Texas 77019 (w/o enclosures)
1. 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. 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). POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |