|Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
November 6, 2000
Ms. Sara Shiplet Waitt
Dear Ms. Waitt:
You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 140998.
The Texas Department of Insurance (the "department") received a request for a complete copy of a complaint file concerning a specified insurance agent and two insurance companies. You state that some of the requested information will be provided to the requestor. You claim that the remaining requested 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.
Section 552.103(a) provides the following:
(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.
A governmental body has the burden of providing relevant facts and documents to show the applicability of an exception in a particular situation. The test for establishing that section 552.103(a) applies is a two-prong 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 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, no pet.); Heard v. Houston Post Co., 684 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Open Records Decision No. 588 (1991).
You also claim that the entire complaint file should be withheld as attorney work product under section 552.103. In Open Records Decision No. 647 (1996), this office concluded that a governmental body may withhold attorney work product under section 552.103 or section 552.111 of the Government Code if the governmental body can show (1) that the information was created for trial or in anticipation of litigation under the test articulated in National Tank v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. 1993), and (2) that the information consists of or tends to reveal an attorney's "mental processes, conclusions, and legal theories." Open Records Decision No. 647 at 5 (1996).
With regard to item (1) above, under the National Tank test, it must be shown that a reasonable person would have concluded that there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue and that the party resisting disclosure believed in good faith that there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue and prepared or collected the information in question for purposes of such litigation. National Tank Co., 851 S.W.2d at 207; Open Records Decision No. 647 at 4 (1996).
You explain that the enforcement section of the department currently has a file pending regarding the specified insurance agent and companies and is investigating this file for violations of the Insurance Code. You have also provided an affidavit from a department attorney who states that it is the intent of the department to initiate an enforcement action which will be conducted under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), chapter 2001 of the Government Code. See Open Records Decision No. 588 at 7 (1991) (contested cases under the APA are considered litigation under section 552.103). Based on your representations and our review of the submitted information, we conclude that you have shown that litigation involving the department is reasonably anticipated and that the complaint file was prepared for purposes of litigation.
With regard to the second prong of attorney work product, we note that in Curry v. Walker, 873 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex. 1994), the Texas Supreme Court held that a request for a district attorney's "entire file" was "too broad" and that, citing National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Valdez, 863 S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex. 1993), "the decision as to what to include in [the file] necessarily reveals the attorney's thought processes concerning the prosecution or defense of the case." Curry, 873 S.W.2d at 380. Likewise, in applying the attorney work product privilege in the context of the Public Information Act, and pursuant to the rationale set forth in National Union, this office has stated that where a requestor seeks an attorney's entire file regarding particular litigation, such a request may be denied in its entirety under the attorney work product aspect of sections 552.103 and 552.111. See Open Records Decision No. 647 at 5 (1996). Because the requestor in this instance seeks a complete copy of the department's complaint file, we find that the requestor is essentially asking the department to release its entire investigative file concerning the insurance agent and the insurance companies. Therefore, we conclude that the department may withhold all of the submitted information under section 552.103 of the Government Code.
If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ).
Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to the General Services Commission at 512/475-2497.
Ref: ID# 140998
Encl: Submitted documents
cc: Mr. Vance W. Hinds