August 9, 2012

Mr. Thomas Bailey

Legal Services

VIA Metropolitan Transit

P.O. Box 12489

San Antonio, Texas 78212

OR2012-12479

Dear Mr. Bailey:

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# 461605.

VIA Metropolitan Transit ("VIA") received a request for information pertaining to a specified accident, specifically, documents relating to property damage of the motor vehicles involved, photographs and video footage of the motor vehicles involved, and documents that represent the contents of insurance agreements in effect. 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 you have submitted only the requested photographs and video footage for our review. To the extent information responsive to the remainder of the request existed on the date VIA received this request, we assume you have released it. If you have not released any such information, you must do so at this time. See Gov't Code §§ 552.301(a), .302; see also Open Records Decision No. 664 (2000) (if governmental body concludes that no exceptions apply to requested information, it must release information as soon as possible).

Next, you inform us the submitted photographs were previously the subject of a prior request for information, in response to which this office issued Open Records Letter No. 2012-07089 (2012). In this ruling, we concluded VIA may withhold the submitted photographs under section 552.103 of the Government Code. As we have no indication the law, facts, and circumstances on which the prior ruling was based have changed, VIA must continue to rely on the prior ruling as a previous determination and withhold the photographs in accordance with Open Records Letter No. 2012-07089. See Open Records Decision No. 673 (2001) (so long as law, facts, and circumstances on which prior ruling was based have not changed, first type of previous determination exists where requested information is precisely same information as was addressed in prior attorney general ruling, ruling is addressed to same governmental body, and ruling concludes information is or is not excepted from disclosure). We will address your argument against disclosure for the remaining video footage, which was not at issue in the previous request.

Section 552.103 of the Government Code provides, in relevant 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). The purpose of section 552.103 is to enable a governmental body to protect its position in litigation by forcing parties to obtain information relating to litigation through discovery procedures. See Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4-5 (1990). A governmental body has the burden of providing relevant facts and documents to show that the section 552.103(a) exception applies 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 requested information is related to that litigation. See Univ. of Tex. Law Sch. v. Tex. Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, orig. proceeding); 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). The governmental body must meet both parts of this test for information to be excepted under section 552.103(a). See ORD 551 at 4.

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 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. ⁽¹⁾ 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. Open Records Decision No. 331 (1982). Further, the fact that a potential opposing party has hired an attorney who makes a request for information does not establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated. Open Records Decision No. 361 (1983).

You contend VIA reasonably anticipates litigation regarding this matter because the requestor informs VIA in the request letter that his law firm has been retained to represent an individual for the serious personal injuries and damages sustained in a collision involving a VIA driver and seeks "discoverable information." You further note that the letter warns VIA of the consequences and legal effect spoliation "may have in connection with this matter or any litigation arising from this incident." Based on your representations and our review, we find VIA reasonably anticipated litigation on the date the request was received. We also find that the submitted video is related to the anticipated litigation. We therefore conclude that VIA may withhold the submitted video under section 552.103 of the Government Code.

We note once the information at issue has been obtained by all parties to the anticipated litigation through discovery or otherwise, a section 552.103(a) interest no longer exists as to that information. See Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). Thus, information that has either been obtained from or provided to all other parties in the litigation is not excepted from disclosure under section 552.103(a), and it must be disclosed. The applicability of section 552.103(a) also ends once the litigation has been concluded or is no longer reasonably anticipated. Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982).

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,

Kathleen J. Santos

Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Division

KJS/eb

Ref: ID# 461605

Enc. Submitted documents

c: Requestor

(w/o enclosures)

Footnotes

1. In addition, this office has concluded 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
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer