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

April 11, 2000

Mr. Tim G. Sralla
Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla & Elam, L.L.P.
500 Throckmorton Street, Suite 3400
Fort Worth, Texas 76102-3821

OR2000-1421

Dear Mr. Sralla:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 133965.

The City of Southlake (the "city"), which you represent, received a written request for the following information:

All documents, reports, factual observations, opinions, data, calculations, notes, photographs, or other tangible material prepared by, for or at the direction of the City relating to the settlement of soils or geotechnical analysis of roads in or around the City.

You explain that the city has conducted an investigation into the cause of multiple street failures within the Timarron subdivision in the city, and that the city retained an engineering firm to investigate the failures. You state that the city will release to the requestor the engineering firm's reports and underlying data. You seek to withhold, however, certain other records, which you characterize as "attorney work product," pursuant to section 552.103 of the Government Code. You have submitted a representative sample of these documents for our review.(1)

The test for establishing that section 552.103(a), the "litigation exception," applies to requested information is a two-prong showing that (1) litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated at the time the request for the information is received, and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. University of Texas Law Sch. v. Texas Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. App.--Austin, 1997), Heard v. Houston Post Co., 684 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

You advise us that the city has authorized your law firm, as city attorneys, "to investigate the feasibility and advisability of prosecuting litigation on its behalf" as a result of the street failures and that the city is now "actively contemplating litigation against the responsible entities." After reviewing your arguments and the documents at issue, we conclude that you have met your burden of establishing that litigation regarding this matter was reasonably anticipated on the date the city received the public information request and that the records at issue "relate" to that litigation for purposes of section 552.103. The city, therefore, may withhold the information at issue pursuant to section 552.103 at this time.(2)

In reaching this conclusion, however, we assume that the opposing party to the anticipated litigation has not previously had access to the records at issue; absent special circumstances, once information has been obtained by all parties to the litigation, e.g., through discovery or otherwise, no section 552.103 interest exists with respect to that information. Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). If the opposing parties in the litigation have seen or had access to any of the information in these records, there would be no justification for now withholding that information from the requestor pursuant to section 552.103. We also note that the applicability of section 552.103 ends once the litigation, or likelihood thereof, has been concluded. Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982).

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).

If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. 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.

Sincerely,

James W. Morris, III
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division

JWM/RWP/ch

Ref.: ID#133965

cc: Mr. Scott Griffith
Griffith & Nixon
One Lincoln Centre
5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1025
Dallas, Texas 75240
(w/o enclosures)


 

Footnotes

1. In reaching our conclusion here, we assume that the "representative sample" of records submitted to this office is truly representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records Decision No. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records ruling does not reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office.

2. Because we resolve your request under section 552.103, we need not address the applicability of the other exceptions you raise.
 

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