|Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
July 24, 2000
Ms. Lisa Aguilar
Dear Ms. Aguilar:
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# 137313.
The City of Corpus Christi (the "city") received a request for several categories of information pertaining to a named individual. You inform us that most of the responsive information has been released. The city seeks to withhold the balance of the requested information, namely, "[a]ll summaries, memorandums and reports written by Ken Fields regarding investigations he conducted for the city of Corpus Christi for the period January 1, 1997 to present." You claim that the information in question is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.103 and 552.107 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and have reviewed the information you submitted.
Section 552.103 of the Government Code, the "litigation exception," provides in relevant part:
(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.
Gov't Code § 552.103(a), (c). The governmental body has the burden of providing relevant facts and documents sufficient to establish the applicability of section 552.103 to the information that it seeks to withhold. To sustain this burden, the governmental body must demonstrate that: (1) litigation was pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that the governmental body received the written request for information and (2) the requested information is related to that litigation. See 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 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4 (1990). Both elements of the test must be established in order for information to be excepted from disclosure under section 552.103. Id.
The question of whether litigation is reasonably anticipated must be determined on a case-by-case basis. See Open Records Decision No. 452 at 4 (1986). To establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated, a governmental body must provide this office with "concrete evidence showing that the claim that litigation may ensue is more than mere conjecture." Id. Among other examples, this office has concluded that litigation was reasonably anticipated where the opposing party took the following objective steps toward litigation: (1) filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), see Open Records Decision No. 336 (1982); (2) 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 (3) threatened to sue on several occasions and hired an attorney, see Open Records Decision No. 288 (1981). This office also has held that a governmental body's receipt of a claim letter that it represents to be in compliance with the notice requirements of the Texas Tort Claims Act, chapter 101 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is sufficient to establish that litigation is reasonably anticipated. See Open Records Decision No. 638 at 4 (1996). If that representation is not made, the receipt of the claim letter is a factor that we will consider in determining, from the totality of the circumstances presented, whether the governmental body has established that litigation is reasonably anticipated. Id.
In this instance, you explain that Ken Fields, the individual to whom the information in question pertains, is an attorney whom the city retained to provide legal services to the Corpus Christi Airport Director. You enclose a copy of Mr. Fields' contract with the city. You inform us that the services that he provided involved matters relating to an award of an airport consulting contract. You state that those matters have become the subject of anticipated litigation. In support of your claim that the city reasonably anticipates litigation, you enclose what you characterize as "claim letters that are in compliance with the notice requirements of the Texas Tort Claims Act and . . . the notice requirements of applicable City of Corpus Christi ordinances and city charter."(1) You assert that "[t]he requested information clearly relates to the anticipated litigation." Based on our review of that information, your representations, the city's contract with Mr. Fields, and the claim letters, we agree that the information in question relates to reasonably anticipated litigation for the purposes of section 552.103. Accordingly, the city may withhold the submitted information from the requestor.
In reaching this conclusion under section 552.103, we assume that the opposing party to the anticipated litigation has not previously seen or already had access to any of the information that the city seeks to withhold. The purpose of section 552.103 is to enable a governmental body to protect its position in litigation by forcing parties seeking information relating to that litigation to obtain it through discovery procedures. See Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4-5 (1990). Therefore, if an opposing party to anticipated or pending litigation has seen or had access to information relating to the litigation, there is no interest in withholding that information from public disclosure under section 552.103. See Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). Moreover, the applicability of section 552.103 ends once the related litigation concludes. See Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982).
As we are able to make a determination under section 552.103 of the Government Code, we need not address the city's claim under section 552.107. 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.
James W. Morris, III
Ref: ID# 137313
Encl. Submitted documents
cc: Mr. René Rodriguez
1. We note that both letters were written by the same attorney on behalf of the same clients. We believe that it would be more accurate to say that the city has received one notice of a claim.
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US