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

September 30, 1999

Ms. Sally Clark Farris
Assistant City Attorney
City of San Antonio
P.O. Box 839966
San Antonio, Texas 78283-3966


Dear Ms. Farris:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 128372.

The City of San Antonio (the "city") received a request for the following information:

1) Copies of all the scoring sheets for all Professional Environmental Services and Professional Engineering Services Solicitations (and or Requests for Qualifications) issued by the City of San Antonio since January 1, 1998,

2) Identification of all of the firms that were awarded the contracts contemplated by the solicitations referenced in item 1 above.

You contend that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103 of the Government Code.

Section 552.103(a) excepts from disclosure information relating to litigation to which a governmental body is or may be a party. The governmental body has the burden of providing relevant facts and documents to show that section 552.103(a) is applicable in a particular situation. In order to meet this burden, the governmental body must show 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, 212 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4 (1990). The governmental body must meet both prongs of this test for information to be excepted under 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). Further, the fact that a potential opposing party has hired an attorney who makes a request for information does not establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated. Open Records Decision No. 361 (1983).

We have considered your arguments against disclosure and the requestor's arguments in favor of disclosure. Based on the totality of circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that the city does not reasonably anticipate litigation at this time. Therefore, the city may not withhold the requested information from disclosure under section 552.103.

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.


Karen E. Hattaway
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division


Ref: ID# 128372

Encl. Submitted documents

cc: Mr. Dennis Lee Rone
Geo-Marine, Inc.
550 E. 15th Street
Plano, Texas 75074
(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