Click for home page Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
John Cornyn

July 5, 1999

Ms. Bertha Bailey Whatley
Fort Worth Independent School District
100 North University Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76107-1360


Dear Ms. Whatley:

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# 125471.

The Fort Worth Independent School District (the "district") received multiple requests for a specific videotape. You claim that the requested videotape is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.102, 552.103, and 552.111 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and have reviewed the submitted videotape.

Initially, you argue that the submitted videotape is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103. To show that section 552.103 is applicable, the district must demonstrate that 1) litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated, and 2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. University of Tex. Law Sch. v. Texas 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). Section 552.103 requires concrete evidence that litigation may ensue. To demonstrate that litigation is reasonably anticipated, the district must furnish evidence that litigation is realistically contemplated and is more than mere conjecture. Open Records Decision No. 518 at 5 (1989). Whether litigation is reasonably anticipated must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Open Records Decision No. 452 at 4 (1986).

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. See Open Records Decision No. 331 (1982).

You explain that the videotape relates to the alleged misconduct of several employees. You state that the district has formally proposed the termination of two of the employees depicted in the tape. Furthermore, you state that these "individuals have indicated that they intend to contest the termination of their employment pursuant to Board policy." You have not, however, established that this employee grievance hearing should be considered litigation for purposes of section 552.103(a). Consequently, you have not demonstrated that litigation is reasonably anticipated in this matter. The district may not withhold the videotape under section 552.103.

You also contend that the submitted videotape is excepted from disclosure under section 552.111. Section 552.111 excepts "an interagency or intraagency memorandum or letter that would not be available by law to a party in litigation with the agency." In Open Records Decision No. 615 (1993), this office reexamined the predecessor to the section 552.111 exception in light of the decision in Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ), and held that section 552.111 excepts only those internal communications consisting of advice, recommendations, opinions, and other material reflecting the policymaking processes of the governmental body. An agency's policymaking functions, however, do not encompass internal administrative or personnel matters; disclosure of information relating to such matters will not inhibit free discussion among agency personnel as to policy issues. Open Records Decision No. 615 at 5-6 (1993). The videotape at issue directly relates to internal administrative and personnel matters. Thus, the district may not withhold the submitted videotape under section 552.111.

Lastly, you argue that the requested videotape is excepted from disclosure by sections 552.101 and 552.102. Section 552.102 excepts from disclosure "information in a personnel file, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Gov't Code 552.102(a). In Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, 652 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. App.--Austin 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court ruled that the test to be applied to information claimed to be protected under section 552.102 is the same as the test formulated by the Texas Supreme Court in Industrial Foundation for information claimed to be protected under the doctrine of common-law privacy as incorporated by section 552.101 of the act. Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." This section encompasses information protected by common-law privacy and excepts from disclosure private facts about an individual. Id. Therefore, information may be withheld from the public when (1) it is highly intimate and embarrassing such that its release would be highly objectionable to a person of ordinary sensibilities, and (2) there is no legitimate public interest in its disclosure. Id. at 685; Open Records Decision No. 611 at 1 (1992).

Portions of the videotape you seek to withhold depict several employees exposing themselves. We agree that the district must withhold images of the exposed body parts pursuant to section 552.101. We do not believe, however, that the employees maintain a privacy interest in the remaining portions of the videotape. Open Records Decision Nos. 444 (1986) (public has legitimate interest in knowing reasons for dismissal, demotion, promotion, or resignation of public employees), 423 at 2 (1984) (scope of public employee privacy is narrow). We, therefore, conclude that although the district must withhold the images of the exposed body parts, all remaining portions of the videotape must be released to the requestors. Thus, if the videotape can be edited to successfully conceal the exposed body parts, you must release the remaining portions of the tape. If the tape cannot be so redacted, you must withhold the video in its entirety.

We are resolving this matter with an informal letter ruling rather than with a published open records decision. This ruling is limited to the particular records at issue under the facts presented to us in this request and should not be relied on as a previous determination regarding any other records. If you have any questions regarding this ruling, please contact our office.


June B. Harden
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division


Ref: ID#125471

Encl. Submitted videotape

cc: Ms. Lena Lewis
1200 Summit Avenue, #840
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(w/o enclosures)

Mr. Charles Williams
5233 Bridge Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76103
(w/o enclosures)

Mr. Clinton W. Bond
P.O. Box 1780
Fort Worth, Texas 76101
(w/o enclosures)

Ms. Dorothy White
8001 John Carpenter Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75247
(w/o enclosures)



1. 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
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer

Home | ORLs