April 5, 2012

Ms. Molly Shortall

Assistant City Attorney

City of Arlington

P.O. Box 90231

Arlington, Texas 76004-3231

OR2012-04945

Dear Ms. Shortall:

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# 449887.

The City of Arlington (the "city") received four requests from the same requestor for information pertaining to a named police officer and a specified incident. You state the city has made some of the requested information available to the requestor, but claim the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.107 of the Government Code. ⁽¹⁾ We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information.

You assert Exhibit B is excepted from disclosure under section 552.107 of the Government Code. Section 552.107(1) protects information coming 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 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). Governmental attorneys often act in capacities other than that of professional legal counsel, such as administrators, investigators, or managers. Thus, the mere fact that a communication involves an attorney for the government does not demonstrate this element. Third, the privilege applies only to communications between or among clients, client representatives, lawyers, and lawyer representatives. 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, id., 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, orig. proceeding). Moreover, because the client may elect to waive the privilege at any time, a governmental body must explain 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 explain Exhibit B constitutes a confidential communication between a city attorney and city employees that was made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services. You also assert the communication was intended to be confidential and its confidentiality has been maintained. After reviewing your arguments and the submitted information, we agree Exhibit B constitutes a privileged attorney-client communication that the city may withhold under section 552.107. You also argue the responsive information in Exhibit C is excepted from disclosure under the attorney client privilege. However, upon review of your arguments and the submitted information, we are unable to conclude that the information in Exhibit C is protected by the attorney client privilege. See Tex. R. Evid. 503(c) (listing who may claim attorney-client privilege).

You also assert Exhibit C is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code, which excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." This section encompasses the doctrine of common-law privacy, which protects information that (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. Upon review, you have not established the information in Exhibit C is highly intimate or embarrassing and not of legitimate concern to the public. Therefore, none of this information is confidential under common-law privacy, and the city may not withhold it under section 552.101 on that ground.

Exhibit C contains e-mail addresses of members of the public. Section 552.137 of the Government Code excepts from disclosure "an e-mail address of a member of the public that is provided for the purpose of communicating electronically with a governmental body" unless the member of the public consents to its release or the e-mail address is of a type specifically excluded by subsection (c). ⁽²⁾ See Gov't Code § 552.137(a)-(c). Section 552.137 does not apply to a government employee's work e-mail address because such an address is not that of the employee as a "member of the public," but is instead the address of the individual as a government employee. The e-mail addresses at issue do not appear to be of a type specifically excluded by section 552.137(c). You do not inform us a member of the public has affirmatively consented to the release of any e-mail address contained in the submitted materials. Therefore, the city must withhold the e-mail addresses we have marked under section 552.137. ⁽³⁾

To conclude, the city may withhold Exhibit B under section 552.107 of the Government Code. The city must release the information we have marked in Exhibit C under section 552.137 of the Government Code. The city must release the remaining information 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,

James L. Coggeshall

Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Division

JLC/ag

Ref: ID# 449887

Enc. Submitted documents

c: Requestor

(w/o enclosures)

Footnotes

1. Although you raise section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with the attorney-client privilege under Texas Rule of Evidence 503, 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). Thus, we will not address your claim the submitted information is confidential under section 552.101 in conjunction with rule 503.

2. The Office of the Attorney General will raise mandatory exceptions on behalf of a governmental body. See Open Records Decision Nos. 481 at 2 (1987), 480 at 5 (1987); see, e.g., Open Records Decision No. 470 at 2 (1987) (because release of confidential information could impair rights of third parties and because improper release constitutes a misdemeanor, attorney general will raise predecessor statute of section 552.101 on behalf of governmental bodies).

3. This office issued Open Records Decision No. 684 (2009), a previous determination to all governmental bodies authorizing them to withhold ten categories of information, including an e-mail address of a member of the public under section 552.137 of the Government Code, without the necessity of requesting an attorney general opinion.

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