|Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
March 9, 1999
Ms. Eileen C. Begle
Dear Ms. Begle:
You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 122658.
Harris County (the "county") received a request for information related to the termination of the requestor's employment from the Harris County Clerk's Office, including contacts with the United States Department of Labor. You submitted to this office information responsive to the request. You claim that the 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.
When asserting section 552.103(a), a governmental body must establish that the requested information relates to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.(1)
Thus, under section 552.103(a) a governmental body's burden is two-pronged. The governmental body must establish that (1) litigation to which the governmental body is a party is either pending or reasonably anticipated, and that (2) the requested information relates to that litigation. See 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).
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.(2) 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).
Although the requestor has filed a complaint with the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor alleging that the county violated the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, litigation concerning the alleged violation does not appear to be reasonably anticipated. We conclude that you have failed to meet the requisite showing that litigation is reasonably anticipated and, therefore, you must release the information to the requestor.
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.
Emilie F. Stewart
Ref: ID# 122658
Enclosures: Submitted documents
cc: Mr. Douglas E. Oelfke, Jr.
1. Section 552.103(a) excepts from required public disclosure information:
2. 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