 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
 |
September 5, 2007 Mr. Jesús Toscano, Jr. OR2007-11470 Dear Mr. Toscano: 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# 290083. The City of Dallas (the "city") received a request for the city's database of lawsuit settlements and judgments since January 1, 2000. You state that some of the requested information has been released, but claim that some of the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.111 of the Government Code and privileged under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5. (1) We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted representative sample of information. (2) Section 552.111 excepts from disclosure "an interagency or intraagency memorandum or letter that would not be available by law to a party in litigation with the agency." This section encompasses the attorney work product privilege found in Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2000); Open Records Decision No. 677 at 4-8 (2002). Rule 192.5 defines work product as (1) material prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for a party or a party's representatives, including the party's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; or (2) a communication made in anticipation of litigation or for trial between a party and the party's representatives or among a party's representatives, including the party's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees or agents. A governmental body seeking to withhold information under this exception bears the burden of demonstrating that the information was created or developed for trial or in anticipation of litigation by or for a party or a party's representative. Tex. R. C. P. 192.5; ORD 677 at 6-8. In order for this office to conclude that the information was made or developed in anticipation of litigation, we must be satisfied that a) a reasonable person would have concluded from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the investigation that there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue; and b) the party resisting discovery believed in good faith that there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue and [created or obtained the information] for the purpose of preparing for such litigation. Nat'l Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 207 (Tex. 1993). A "substantial chance" of litigation does not mean a statistical probability, but rather "that litigation is more than merely an abstract possibility or unwarranted fear." Id. at 204; ORD 677 at 7. You inform us that the "Audit letter" and "Exposure" columns in the submitted chart "reveal the mental impressions of the attorneys in the City Attorney's Office as they prepared for trial in lawsuits involving the City." Specifically, you assert that the audit letter column "reveals the City Attorney's opinion of whether the city's potential monetary exposure in a lawsuit would exceed $100,000" and that the exposure column "reveals the City Attorney's estimate of the amount of money the city would have to pay the opposing parties and their attorneys in a lawsuit were the city to be liable." Finally, you assert that the information "has only been shared with this office and other city personnel and agents." After review of your arguments, we agree that the city may withhold the information we have marked under section 552.111 of the Government. (3) The city has not established that the remaining information consists of privileged attorney work product; therefore, the city may not withhold the remaining information under section 552.111, but instead must release it 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); 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 L. Coggeshall Assistant Attorney General Open Records Division JLC/jh Ref: ID# 290083 Enc. Submitted documents c: Mr. Michael Grabell The Dallas Morning News P.O. Box 655237 Dallas, Texas 75265 (w/o enclosures)
1. Although you raise section 552.101 in conjunction with the attorney work-product privilege, this
office has concluded that section 552.101 does not encompass discovery privileges. See Open Records
Decision Nos. 676 at 1-2 (2002), 575 at 2 (1990)
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.
As our ruling is dispositive, we do not address your other argument to withhold this information. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |