January 7, 2010

Ms. Nneka C. Egbuniwe

Deputy General Counsel

Dallas County Hospital District

5123 Harry Hines Boulevard

Dallas, Texas 75235

OR2010-00348

Dear Ms. Egbuniwe:

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# 366515.

The Dallas County Hospital District (the "district") received a request for all information pertaining to twelve named individuals. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.103, 552.107, 552.111, and 552.117 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted representative sample of information. ⁽¹⁾

Initially, we note that the submitted information contains court-filed documents. These documents are subject to section 552.022(a)(17) of the Government Code, which provides that "information that is also contained in a public court record" is "public information and not excepted from required disclosure under this chapter unless [it is] expressly confidential under other law[.]" Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(17). Although you seek to withhold this information under section 552.103 of the Government Code, that section is a discretionary exception to disclosure that protects a governmental body's interests and may be waived. See id. § 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 Gov't Code § 552.103); Open Records Decision No. 665 at 2 n.5 (2000) (discretionary exceptions generally). As such, section 552.103 is not "other law" that makes information expressly confidential for purposes of section 552.022(a)(17). Therefore, the court filed documents, which we have marked, may not be withheld under section 552.103. However, section 552.101 of the Government Code constitutes "other law" for purposes of section 552.022. Accordingly, we will address your arguments under section 552.101 for the court-filed documents, along with your arguments under sections 552.101, 552.103, 552.107, 552.111, and 552.117 of the Government Code for the remaining information not subject to section 552.022.

Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Gov't Code § 552.101. This exception encompasses information that other statutes make confidential. You raise section 552.101 in conjunction with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-1320d-8. At the direction of Congress, the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("HHS") promulgated regulations setting privacy standards for medical records, which HHS issued as the Federal Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information. See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-2 (Supp. IV 1998) (historical & statutory note); Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, 45 C.F.R. Pts. 160, 164 ("Privacy Rule"); see also Attorney General Opinion JC-0508 at 2 (2002). These standards govern the releasability of protected health information by a covered entity. See 45 C.F.R. pts. 160, 164. Under these standards, a covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information, except as provided by parts 160 and 164 of the Code of Federal Regulations. See id. § 164.502(a).

This office has addressed the interplay of the Privacy Rule and the Act. In Open Records Decision No. 681 (2004), we noted that section 164.512 of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that a covered entity may use or disclose protected health information to the extent that such use or disclosure is required by law and the use or disclosure complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of such law. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(a)(1). We further noted that the Act "is a mandate in Texas law that compels Texas governmental bodies to disclose information to the public." See ORD 681 at 8; see also Gov't Code §§ 552.002, .003, .021. We therefore held that the disclosures under the Act come within section 164.512(a). Consequently, the Privacy Rule does not make information confidential for the purpose of section 552.101 of the Government Code. See Abbott v. Tex. Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 212 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App.--Austin 2006, no pet.); ORD 681 at 9; see also Open Records Decision No. 478 (1987) (as general rule, statutory confidentiality requires express language making information confidential). Thus, because the Privacy Rule does not make information that is subject to disclosure under the Act confidential, the district may withhold protected health information from the public only if the information is confidential under other law or an exception in subchapter C of the Act applies.

Section 552.101 of the Government Code also encompasses the Medical Practice Act (the "MPA"), subtitle B of title 3 of the Occupations Code. Section 159.002 of the MPA provides in part:

(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.

Occ. Code § 159.002(b)-(c). Information that is subject to the MPA includes both medical records and information obtained from those medical records. See id. §§ 159.002, .004; Open Records Decision No. 598 (1991). This office has concluded the protection afforded by section 159.002 extends only to records created by either a physician or someone under the supervision of a physician. See Open Records Decision Nos. 487 (1987), 370 (1983), 343 (1982). This office has also determined when a file is created as the result of a hospital stay, all of the documents in the file that relate to diagnosis and treatment constitute either physician-patient communications or records of the identity, diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a patient by a physician that are created or maintained by a physician. See Open Records Decision No. 546 (1990). We note that section 159.001 of the MPA defines "patient" as a person who consults with or is seen by a physician to receive medical care. See Occ. Code § 159.001(3). Under this definition, a deceased person cannot be a "patient" under section 159.002 of the MPA. Thus, section 159.002 is applicable only to the medical records of a person who was alive at the time of the diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment. We further note that medical records pertaining to a deceased patient may only be released upon the signed consent of the deceased's personal representative. See id. § 159.005(a)(5). The medical records we have marked must be withheld from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with section 159.002(b) of the MPA, unless the district receives the required written consent for release under sections 159.004 and 159.005. However, the remaining information you claim is subject to the MPA does not constitute medical records of a person who was alive at the time of diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment, and it may not be withheld on the basis of the MPA.

Section 552.101 of the Government Code also encompasses section 241.152 of the Health and Safety Code, which states in relevant part:

(a) Except as authorized by Section 241.153, a hospital or an agent or employee of a hospital may not disclose health care information about a patient to any person other than the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative without the written authorization of the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative.

Health & Safety Code § 241.152(a). Section 241.151(2) of the Health and Safety Code defines "health care information" as "information recorded in any form or medium that identifies a patient and relates to the history, diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis of a patient." Id. § 241.151(2). The documents at issue relate to deceased individuals. The term "patient" is not defined for purposes of section 241.152 of the Health and Safety Code. When a word used in a statute is not defined and that word is "connected with and used with reference to a particular trade or subject matter or is used as a word of art, the word shall have the meaning given by experts in the particular trade, subject matter, or art." Gov't Code § 312.002; see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tex. 1998). Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary defines "patient" as "one who is sick with, or being treated for, an illness or injury; [or] . . . an individual receiving medical care." Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 1446 (17th ed. 1989). We also note that other statutes dealing with medically related professions generally define patient as an individual who consults a health care professional. See Health & Safety Code § 611.001 (mental health records), Occ. Code §§ 159.001 (physician records), 201.401 (chiropractic records), 202.401 (podiatric records), 258.101 (dental records). Because the generally accepted medical definition of patient indicates that the term refers to a living individual, we find that it does not encompass the record at issue here. Thus, the remaining information may not be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code on the basis of section 241.152 of the Health and Safety Code.

Section 552.101 also encompasses section 611.002 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 611.002 governs the public availability of mental health records and provides in part:

(a) Communications 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, are confidential.

(b) Confidential communications or records may not be disclosed except as provided by Section 611.004 or 611.0045.

Health & Safety Code § 611.002(a)-(b); see id. § 611.001 (defining "patient" and "professional"). Sections 611.004 and 611.0045 of the Health and Safety Code provide for access to information that is made confidential by section 611.002 only by certain individuals. See id. §§ 611.004, .0045; Open Records Decision No. 565 (1990). We have marked mental health records that the district must withhold under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 611.002, unless the requestor is authorized to obtain that information under sections 611.004 and 611.0045 of the Health and Safety Code. See id. § 611.004(a)(5) (professional may disclose confidential information to patient's personal representative if patient is deceased). However, upon review, we find the remaining information you seek to withhold under section 611.002 does not constitute mental health records, and it may not be withheld on that basis.

Next, you claim that the information in Exhibits D and E is confidential under section 161.032 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 552.101 of the Government Code also encompasses section 161.032, which provides in relevant part:

(a) The records and proceedings of a medical committee are confidential and are not subject to court subpoena.

. . .

(c) Records, information, or reports of a medical committee . . . and records, information, or reports provided by a medical committee . . . to the governing body of a public hospital . . . are not subject to disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code.

Id. § 161.032(a), (c). For purposes of this confidentiality provision, a "'medical committee' includes any committee, including a joint committee, of . . . a hospital [or] a medical organization[.]" Id. § 161.031(a). The term "medical committee" also includes "a committee, including a joint committee, of one or more of the entities listed in Subsection (a)." Id. § 161.031(c). Section 161.0315 provides in relevant part that "[t]he governing body of a hospital [or] medical organization . . . may form . . . a medical committee, as defined by section 161.031, to evaluate medical and health care services[.]" Id. § 161.0315(a).

The precise scope of the "medical committee" provision has been the subject of a number of judicial decisions. See Memorial Hosp.-The Woodlands v. McCown, 927 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996); Barnes v. Whittington, 751 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1988); Jordan v. Fourth Supreme Judicial Dist., 701 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1986). These cases establish that "documents generated by the committee in order to conduct open and thorough review" are confidential. This protection extends "to documents that have been prepared by or at the direction of the committee for committee purposes." Jordan, 701 S.W.2d at 647-48. Protection does not extend to documents "gratuitously submitted to a committee" or "created without committee impetus and purpose." Id. at 648; see also Open Records Decision No. 591 (1991) (construing, among other things, statutory predecessor to section 161.032).

You inform us that the district's Board of Managers established the Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee (the "M&M Committee") to review all deaths in custody, identify any risk factors, and develop action plans to manage future risk. Based on your representations, we conclude that the M&M Committee is a medical committee for purposes of section 161.032 of the Health and Safety Code. You state that the information in Exhibits D and E was "collected on behalf of, presented to, and reviewed by the M&M Committee in carrying out its duties[.]" You further state that the documents at issue "include both factual medical information and mental impressions of physicians and other health care professionals involved in the care of the subject patient." You state the information at issue is not prepared in the regular course of the district's business; rather, the information at issue is a tool "used in carrying out distinct, purposeful quality improvement activities of the [M&M Committee.]" Based on your representations and our review, we conclude that Exhibits D and E constitute records, information, or reports of a medical committee acting under subchapter D of chapter 161 of the Health and Safety Code. We therefore conclude that Exhibits D and E are confidential under section 161.032(a) of the Health and Safety Code and must be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code. ⁽²⁾

You also raise section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with constitutional and common-law privacy. Constitutional privacy protects two kinds of interests. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977); Open Records Decision Nos. 600 at 3-5 (1992), 478 at 4 (1987), 455 at 3-7 (1987). The first is the interest in independence in making certain important decisions related to the "zones of privacy" pertaining to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education that the United States Supreme Court has recognized. See Fadjo v. Coon, 633 F.2d 1172 (5^th Cir. 1981); ORD 455 at 3-7. The second constitutionally protected privacy interest is in freedom from public disclosure of certain personal matters. See Ramie v. City of Hedwig Village, Tex., 765 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1985); ORD 455 at 6-7. This aspect of constitutional privacy balances the individual's privacy interest against the public's interest in disclosure of the information. See ORD 455 at 7. Constitutional privacy is reserved for "the most intimate aspects of human affairs." Id. at 8 (quoting Ramie, 765 F.2d at 492).

Privacy is a personal right that lapses at death; thus, information may not be withheld on the basis of the privacy interests of a deceased individual. See Moore v. Charles B. Pierce Film Enters. Inc., 589 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Justice v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 472 F. Supp. 145 (N.D. Tex. 1979); Attorney General Opinions JM-229 (1984); H-917 (1976); Open Records Decision No. 272 (1981). Although you acknowledge that the individuals at issue are deceased, you state that the information at issue identifies family members of the deceased individuals. You claim that this information is confidential under constitutional privacy. However, you have failed to demonstrate how this information falls within the zones of privacy or implicates an individual's privacy interests for purposes of constitutional privacy. Therefore, the information you seek to withhold under constitutional privacy may not be withheld under section 552.101 on this basis.

Next, common-law privacy protects information about an individual if the information (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 types of information considered intimate or 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. As previously noted, the right to privacy is personal and lapses at death. See Moore, 589 S.W.2d at 491. We note that the information at issue pertains to deceased individuals. Upon review, we find that none of the information at issue consists of highly intimate or embarrassing information that pertains to living individuals. Accordingly, no portion of the information at issue may be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with common-law privacy.

We will now address your arguments under section 552.103 of the Government Code for the remaining information not subject to section 552.022(a)(17). Section 552.103 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 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 on the date the governmental body received the request, 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). Both elements of the test must be met in order for information to be excepted from disclosure under section 552.103. See id.

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. ⁽³⁾ 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).

The purpose of section 552.103 is to protect the litigation interests of governmental bodies that are parties to the litigation at issue. See Gov't Code § 552.103(a); Open Records Decision No. 638 at 2 (1996) (section 552.103 only protects the litigation interests of the governmental body claiming the exception). You state that the district anticipates litigation involving seven of the individuals at issue. Specifically, you state that representatives of one of the individuals at issue are in active litigation with the Dallas County Sheriff's Department (the "sheriff") and that representatives of two of the other individuals at issue have filed personal injury claims against the sheriff. You claim that the district is likely to be named a party in these three pending or anticipated lawsuits. Further, you claim that the district anticipates litigation pertaining to another of the individuals at issue because the individual's family "had expressed concern" about the individual's treatment and the district's response time. Finally, you also claim that the district anticipates litigation pertaining to three other individuals. However, you have not demonstrated that any individual has taken objective steps towards litigation with the district relating to the information at issue. Upon review, we find that the district has not demonstrated that litigation involving the district was pending or reasonably anticipated on the date it received the present request for information. Consequently, the district may not withhold any of the submitted information under section 552.103 of the Government Code based on its own interests.

However, you also inform us that the sheriff has litigation interests regarding three of the individuals at issue. In such a situation, we require an affirmative representation from the governmental body with the litigation interest that the governmental body wants the information at issue withheld from disclosure under section 552.103. You have provided us with a representation from the sheriff stating that the sheriff seeks to withhold some of the information at issue under section 552.103. The sheriff states that representatives of one of the individuals at issue have filed a lawsuit against the sheriff and that the sheriff has received personal injury claims from representatives of two of the other individuals at issue. Based on the sheriff's representations and our review, we agree litigation pertaining to those three individuals was pending or reasonably anticipated as of the date the request was received. We further find the information pertaining to those three individuals relates to the pending or anticipated litigation. Accordingly, the district may withhold the information we have marked under section 552.103 of the Government Code on behalf of the sheriff.

However, once information has been obtained by all parties to the anticipated 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 it 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).

Next, you claim Exhibit F is excepted from disclosure under section 552.107 of the Government Code. Section 552.107(1) protects information that comes within the attorney-client privilege. When asserting the attorney-client privilege, a governmental body has the burden of providing the necessary facts to demonstrate the elements of the privilege in order to withhold the information at issue. Open Records Decision No. 676 at 6-7 (2002). First, a governmental body must demonstrate that the information constitutes or documents a communication. Id. at 7. Second, the communication must have been made "for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services" to the client governmental body. Tex. R. Evid. 503(b)(1). The privilege does not apply when an attorney or representative is involved in some capacity other than that of providing or facilitating professional legal services to the client governmental body. In re Tex. Farmers Ins. Exch., 990 S.W.2d 337, 340 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999, orig. proceeding) (attorney-client privilege does not apply if attorney acting in a capacity other than that of attorney). Third, the privilege applies only to communications between or among clients, client representatives, lawyers, and lawyer representatives. See Tex. R. Evid. 503(b)(1). Thus, a governmental body must inform this office of the identities and capacities of the individuals to whom each communication at issue has been made. Lastly, the attorney-client privilege applies only to a confidential communication, meaning it was "not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication." Id. 503(a)(5). Whether a communication meets this definition depends on the intent of the parties involved at the time the information was communicated. Osborne v. Johnson, 954 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex. App.--Waco 1997, no pet.). Moreover, because the client may elect to waive the privilege at any time, a governmental body must explain that the confidentiality of a communication has been maintained. Section 552.107(1) generally excepts an entire communication that is demonstrated to be protected by the attorney-client privilege unless otherwise waived by the governmental body. See Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. 1996) (privilege extends to entire communication, including facts contained therein).

You state that the information in Exhibit F consists of or documents communications between and among attorneys for the district and district employees. You state that these communications were made for the purpose of providing legal advice to the district. You have identified the parties to the communications. You inform us that the communications at issue have remained confidential. Based on your representations and our review, we agree that the information in Exhibit F constitutes privileged attorney-client communications. Accordingly, the district may withhold the information in Exhibit F under section 552.107 of the Government Code. ⁽⁴⁾

We note that the remaining information contains a copy of a living individual's Texas driver's license. 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." ⁽⁵⁾ Gov't Code § 552.130(a)(1). We note that the purpose of section 552.130 is to protect the privacy interests of individuals. Because the right of privacy lapses at death, Texas motor vehicle record information that pertains to a deceased individual may not be withheld under section 552.130. See Moore, 589 S.W.2d at 491. Accordingly, the district must withhold the copy of the living individual's Texas driver's license we have marked under section 552.130. ⁽⁶⁾

In summary, (1) the district must withhold the medical records we have marked under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with section 159.002(b) of the MPA, unless the district receives the required written consent for release under sections 159.004 and 159.005; (2) the district must withhold the mental health records we have marked under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with section 611.002, unless the requestor is authorized to obtain that information under sections 611.004 and 611.0045 of the Health and Safety Code; (3) the district must withhold Exhibits D and E under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with section 161.032(a) of the Health and Safety Code; (4) the district may withhold the information we have marked under section 552.103 of the Government Code on behalf of the sheriff; (5) the district may withhold the information in Exhibit F under section 552.107 of the Government Code; and (6) the district must withhold the copy of a Texas driver's licenses we have marked under section 552.130. The remaining information must be released to the requestor.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular information 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 information or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For more information concerning those rights and responsibilities, please visit our website at http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/index_orl.php, or call the Office of the Attorney General's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at (877) 673-6839. Questions concerning the allowable charges for providing public information under the Act must be directed to the Cost Rules Administrator of the Office of the Attorney General, toll free, at (888) 672-6787.

Sincerely,

Christopher D. Sterner

Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Division

CDSA/eeg

Ref: ID# 366515

Enc. Submitted documents

c: Requestor

(w/o enclosures)

Ms. Elizabeth Lutton

Dallas Sheriff's Department

Frank Crowley Criminal Courts Building

133 North Industrial Boulevard, LB-31

Dallas, Texas 75207-4313

(w/o enclosures)

Footnotes

1. 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.

2. As our ruling is dispositive of this information, we need not address your remaining arguments against its disclosure.

3. 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).

4. As our ruling is dispositive of this information, we need not address your remaining arguments against its disclosure.

5. The Office of the Attorney General will raise a mandatory exception on behalf of a governmental body, but ordinarily will not raise other exceptions. See Open Records Decision Nos. 481 (1987), 480 (1987), 470 (1987).

6. We note this office recently issued Open Records Decision No. 684 (2009), a previous determination to all governmental bodies authorizing them to withhold ten categories of information, including a copy of a Texas driver's license under section 552.130 of the Government Code, without the necessity of requesting an attorney general decision.

POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer