Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL
December 5, 2002
Ms. Lillian Guillen Graham
Dear Ms. Graham:
You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 173140.
The City of Mesquite (the "city") received a request for ten categories of information regarding the South Mesquite Project. You state that you will release a portion of the responsive information. However, you claim that a portion of the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103, 552.107, and 552.111 of the Government Code and Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the information you have submitted as being responsive to the request. We have also considered the comments submitted to this office by the requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (providing for submission of public comments).
Initially, we note that the submitted information contains the minutes of a public meeting. The minutes, tape recordings, notices, and agendas of a governmental body's public meetings are specifically made public by statute, see Gov't Code §§ 551.022 (minutes and tape recordings), 551.043 (notice), and therefore may not be withheld from the public pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code. Information specifically made public by statute may not be withheld from the public under any of the Public Information Act's exceptions to public disclosure. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 544 (1990), 378 (1983), 161 (1977), 146 (1976). Accordingly, the city must release the minutes we have marked.
Additionally, the submitted information contains documents that are subject to section 552.022(a) of the Government Code, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a) Without limiting the amount or kind of information that is public information under this chapter, the following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure under this chapter unless they are expressly confidential under other law:
. . . .
(3) information in an account, voucher or contract relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds by a governmental body;
. . . .
(5) all working papers, research material, and information used
to estimate the need for or expenditure of public funds or taxes
by a governmental body, on completion of the estimate[.]
Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(3) and (5). Under section 552.022, this information must be released unless it is expressly confidential under other law. Sections 552.103, 552.107, and 552.111 of the Government Code are discretionary exceptions to disclosure that protect the governmental body's interests and are therefore not other law that makes information expressly confidential for purposes of section 552.022(a). See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1999, no pet.) (governmental body may waive section 552.103); Open Records Decision Nos. 630 at 4-5 (1994) (governmental body may waive statutory predecessor to section 552.107), 473 (1987) (governmental body may waive section 552.111). However, the attorney-client privilege and work product privilege are also found in Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence and Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, respectively. Recently, the Texas Supreme Court held that "[t]he Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Evidence are 'other law' within the meaning of section 552.022." In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001). As you only assert the work product privilege with respect to the section 552.022 information, we will determine whether this information is confidential under Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Open Records Decision No. 677 (2002).
An attorney's work product is confidential under Rule 192.5. Work product is defined as
(1) material prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for a party or a party's representatives, including the party's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents; or
(2) a communication made in anticipation of litigation or for trial between a party and the party's representatives or among a party's representatives, including the party's attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, employees, or agents.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5(a). Accordingly, in order to withhold attorney work product from disclosure under Rule 192.5, a governmental body must demonstrate that the material, communication, or mental impression was created for trial or in anticipation of litigation. Id. To show that the information at issue was created in anticipation of litigation, a governmental body must demonstrate that 1) a reasonable person would have concluded from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the investigation that there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue, and 2) the party resisting discovery believed in good faith that there was a substantial chance that litigation would ensue and conducted the investigation for the purpose of preparing for such litigation. See National Tank v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 207 (Tex. 1993). A "substantial chance" of litigation does not mean a statistical probability, but rather "that litigation is more than merely an abstract possibility or unwarranted fear." Id. at 204. Information that meets the work product test is confidential under Rule 192.5 provided the information does not fall within the purview of the exceptions to the privilege enumerated in Rule 192.5(c). Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Caldwell, 861 S.W.2d 423, 427 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ).
After reviewing your arguments and the section 552.022 information we have marked, we find that you have not demonstrated that this information constitutes work product pursuant to Rule 192.5. Therefore, the section 552.022(a)(3) and (5) information may not be withheld under Rule 192.5.
However, the section 552.022(a)(3) information in Tab No. 5 contains an account number. Section 552.136 of the Government Code makes certain account number information confidential and provides in relevant part:
(a) In this section, "access device" means a card, plate, code, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrument identifier or means of account access that alone or in conjunction with another access device may be used to:
(1) obtain money, goods, services, or another thing of value; or
(2) initiate a transfer of funds other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a credit card, debit card, charge card, or access device number that is collected, assembled, or maintained by or for a governmental body is confidential.
Accordingly, the city must withhold the account number we have marked pursuant to section 552.136 of the Government Code.
We will now address your arguments regarding the non-section 552.022 information. Section 552.103 of the Government Code provides as follows:
(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.
A governmental body 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 on the date the governmental body received the request for information, 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). A governmental body must meet both prongs of this test for information to be excepted under section 552.103(a).
To establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated, a governmental body must provide this office "concrete evidence showing that the claim that litigation may ensue is more than mere conjecture." 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 have submitted to this office a copy of a petition filed by the requestor in the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. You state that "although the City is not currently a party, everyone else involved in that City project was served as a party to that civil proceeding and an Order was entered by that court granting discovery from those parties" and that "[a]ll of the records enclosed herein, which are responsive to this request, relate to the same matter (the South Mesquite Project) which was the subject of the civil proceeding and thus, are related to that litigation." Further, you contend that the requestor is attempting to obtain records and testimony from the other parties and through this request for information to support a claim against the city for damages sustained during construction of the South Mesquite Project and that the requestor has submitted a claim for damages through a series of letters to the city. You state that the city has denied the requestor's claim for damages. Based on your arguments, we agree that litigation involving the city was reasonably anticipated at the time it received the instant request for information. In addition, we also find that the remaining information is related to the anticipated litigation. Therefore, we agree that the non-section 552.022 information may be withheld under section 552.103 of the Government Code.
We note that 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. In addition, the applicability of section 552.103(a) ends once litigation concludes. Attorney General Opinion MW-575 1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982). As we are able to make this determination, we need not address your remaining arguments.
In summary, we conclude that: 1) you must withhold the account number we have marked pursuant to section 552.136 of the Government Code; and 2) you may withhold the non-section 552.022 information under section 552.103 of the Government Code. All remaining information must be released.
This letter ruling is limited to the particular records 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 records or any other circumstances.
This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id. § 552.321(a).
If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e).
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 Hadassah Schloss at the Texas Building and Procurement Commission at 512/475-2497.
If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. We note that a third party may challenge this ruling by filing suit seeking to withhold information from a requestor. Gov't Code § 552.325. Although there is no statutory deadline for contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days of the date of this ruling.
W. Montgomery Meitler
Mr. Bradford W. Ireland
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