|Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
September 13, 1999
Mr. Dan T. Saluri
Dear Mr. Saluri:
You have asked 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# 127389.
The City of Lubbock Police Department (the "city") received a request for "copies of the police internal affairs investigation into the shooting of Joseph De La Rosa by police Officer Tracy Taylor." In response to the request, you submit to this office for review the information which you assert is responsive. You contend that the submitted information is excepted from required public disclosure by sections 552.101, 552.103, and 552.108 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions and arguments you raise, and have reviewed the information submitted.
Because section 552.103(a) of the Government Code is the most inclusive exception you raise, we will consider this exception first. Section 552.103(a) excepts from disclosure information:
(1) relating to litigation of a civil or criminal nature or settlement negotiations, 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; and
(2) that the attorney general or the attorney of the political subdivision has determined should be withheld from public inspection.
The city 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, 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). The city must meet both prongs of this test for information to be excepted under section 552.103(a). Section 552.103 requires concrete evidence that litigation may ensue. To demonstrate that litigation is reasonably anticipated, the city must furnish evidence that litigation is realistically contemplated and is more than mere conjecture. Open Records Decision No. 518 at 5 (1989).
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. Open Records Decision No. 555 (1990); see Open Records Decision No. 518 (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). Nor does the mere fact that an individual hires an attorney and alleges damages serve to establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated. Open Records Decision No. 361 (1983). Whether litigation is reasonably anticipated must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Open Records Decision No. 452 at 4 (1986).
In this instance, you have supplied to this office a notarized "City of Lubbock Claim Form" completed by the mother of a deceased individual. You state that the claim form "complies with the notice requirements of the Texas Tort Claims Act," and sets out a claim against the city in an estimated amount of three million dollars.(1) The deceased individual's mother alleges in the claim letter that "[t]he police Department . . . proximately caused the death of my son." Based on your arguments and the submitted records, we conclude that litigation is reasonably anticipated. Open Records Decision No. 638 (1996). We also conclude that the documents submitted by the city are related to the litigation for purposes of section 552.103(a). Therefore, the information at issue may be withheld pursuant to section 552.103(a).
Generally, however, once information has been obtained by all parties to the 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.(2) Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982).
Finally, we note that the submitted "Internal Affairs Table of Contents" includes references to an autopsy report and a Custodial Death Report. Although you have not submitted an autopsy report to this office, we note that the public disclosure of an autopsy report created by a medical examiner is governed by section 11 of article 49.25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(3) Pursuant to section 11, to the extent the requested information includes autopsy records, such information is a public record and must be released to the requestor. See also Open Records Decision No. 529 at 8 (1989). Likewise, we note that in Open Records Decision No. 521 (1989), this office held that under article 49.18(b), in conjunction with a directive issued by the Office of the Attorney General, section one of custodial death reports filed with this office is public information.(4) All remaining portions of the custodial death report, i.e. Parts II through V, including all attachments, are deemed privileged under article 49.18(b) and must be withheld from the public. Open Records Decision No. 521 at 5 (1989). Accordingly, the city must withhold all portions of Parts II through V of all the custodial death report. However, Part I of the custodial death report is expressly made public under article 49.18(b), and therefore this portion of the custodial death report must be released.
As we resolve your request under section 552.103, we need not address your other claimed exceptions at this time. 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 upon as a previous determination regarding any other records. If you have questions about this ruling, please contact our office.
Ref.: ID# 127389
Encl: Submitted documents
cc: Mr. Burle Pettit
1. Under Open Records Decision No. 638 (1996), a governmental body may establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated by showing that (1) it has received a claim letter from an allegedly injured party or his attorney, and (2) the governmental body states that the letter complies with the notice of claim provisions of the Texas Tort Claims Act ("TTCA") or applicable municipal statute or ordinance.
2. We note that some of the information in the submitted documents may also be confidential by law. Therefore, once litigation has concluded should there be a subsequent request for this information, we advise the city to exercise caution and seek a ruling from this office concerning the records. See Gov't Code §§ 552.352, 552.101.
3. The Public Information Act's exceptions do not, as a general rule, apply to information made public by other statutes. Open Records Decision No. 525 (1989).
4. Article 49.18(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that law enforcement agencies complete custodial death reports and file those reports with the attorney general, who "shall make the report, with the exception of any portion of the report that the attorney general determines is privileged, available to any interested party."
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US