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

May 25, 2000

Mr. John S. Aldridge
Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 2156
Austin, Texas 78768

OR2000-2080

Dear Mr. Aldridge:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 135951.

The Calallen Independent School District (the "district"), which you represent, received a request for records related to an employee. You claim that a portion of the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103 of the Government Code.(1) The district has released the remainder of the requested information. We have considered the exception you claim and reviewed the submitted information.

Section 552.103(a) excepts from disclosure information relating to litigation to which a governmental body is or may be a party. The primary purpose of the litigation exception is to enable governmental bodies to protect their position in litigation by requiring parties seeking relevant information to obtain it, if at all, through the "discovery" process; and that purpose may survive a previous disclosure to be applicable in prospective litigation involving the same information. Cornyn v. City of Garland, 994 S.W.2d 258, 265 (Tex. App. -- Austin 1999, pet.filed) (citing Tex. Att'y Gen. Open Records Decision No. 454 (1986) (governmental body may retain legitimate reasons for insisting that prospective plaintiff obtain information through "discovery," notwithstanding governmental body's previous disclosure of information to prospective co-defendant). 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. To show that section 552.103 is applicable, the governmental body must demonstrate that: 1) litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated at the time of the request, 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). Section 552.103 requires concrete evidence that litigation may ensue. 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.

You have submitted information to this office showing that a complaining employee has filed a grievance with the Texas Commission on Human Rights (the "TCHR") alleging discrimination. You explain that the submitted documents relate to the subject matter of the grievance. The TCHR operates as a federal deferral agency under section 706(c) of title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") defers jurisdiction to the TCHR over complaints alleging employment discrimination. Id.

This office has stated that a pending EEOC complaint indicates litigation is reasonably anticipated. Open Records Decision Nos. 386 at 2 (1983), 336 at 1 (1982). By showing that the complaint filed with the TCHR is pending, you have shown that litigation is reasonably anticipated. Our review of the records at issue also shows that they are related to the anticipated litigation for purposes of section 552.103(a).

However, we note that if the opposing parties in the anticipated litigation have seen or had access to any of the information in these documents, there would be no justification for withholding that information pursuant to section 552.103(a). Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). Thus, information that has either been obtained from or provided to the opposing party in the litigation is not excepted from disclosure under section 552.103(a), and must be disclosed. It is apparent that the complaining employee has seen some of the information you wish to withhold. The district may not withhold the documents submitted as Exhibits A, B, and D, which the opposing party has already seen. The district may withhold Exhibit C. We also note that the applicability of section 552.103(a) ends once the litigation has concluded. Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982).

The documents that the district must release, however, contain information that may be confidential. Section 552.117 of the Government Code excepts from required public disclosure the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, or information revealing whether a public employee has family members when the public employee requests that this information be kept confidential under section 552.024. Therefore, section 552.117 requires the district to withhold this information pertaining to a current or former employee or official who requested that this information be kept confidential under section 552.024. See Open Records Decision Nos. 622 (1994), 455 (1987). You may not, however, withhold the information of a current or former employee who made the request for confidentiality under section 552.024 after this request for information was made. Whether a particular piece of information is public must be determined at the time the request for it is made. Open Records Decision No. 530 at 5 (1989). Therefore, if the employee has elected to not allow public access to this information in accordance with the procedures of section 552.024 of the Government Code, the district must withhold this information from required public disclosure pursuant to section 552.117.

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,

Julie Reagan Watson
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division

JRW/CHS/ljp

Ref: ID# 135951

Encl. Submitted documents

cc: Mr. Charles E. Polansky
Arlington Star-Telegram
1111 West Abram
Arlington, Texas 76013
(w/o enclosures)


 

Footnotes

1. The district asserts numerous exceptions in its initial letter to this office; however, only the exception found at Government Code section 552.103 was briefed. In accordance with Government Code sections 552.301(e)(1)(A) and 552.302, all discretionary exceptions not briefed are waived.
 

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