410 S.W.3d 876
Tex. App.2013Background
- DART prepared a completed internal investigation report of a workplace racial-discrimination complaint; the report included interviewees identified by name, job position, and hire date.
- A media public-information request sought the report; DART asked the Texas Attorney General for a ruling that it could withhold the report under PIA exemptions.
- The Attorney General issued a letter decision requiring disclosure of the report; DART sued in Travis County seeking a declaration that it could withhold the report.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court ordered disclosure of the report but required redaction of the interviewees’ names, positions, and hire dates.
- The Attorney General appealed, arguing that the report is "core public information" under former Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.022 and must be disclosed in full because no other law makes it expressly confidential.
- The appeals court considered whether common-law privacy, anti-retaliation statutes, the informer’s privilege, or PIA exceptions (§§ 552.101, 552.102) rendered the interviewee information confidential.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the completed investigation report is core public information that must be disclosed unless expressly confidential under other law | AG: The report is "core public information" under former § 552.022 and must be disclosed absent an express confidentiality provision | DART: The report (or portions) is protected by common-law privacy, anti-retaliation statutes, informer’s privilege, and PIA §§ 552.101/552.102 | Held for AG: report is core public information and not made confidential by other law; AG entitled to judgment ordering disclosure |
| Whether interviewees’ names, positions, and hire dates are protected by common-law privacy (Industrial test) | DART: identifying info is intimate/embarrassing and not of legitimate public concern | AG: such workplace observer information is neither intimate nor personal; public has legitimate interest | Held for AG: information is not highly intimate/embarrassing nor personal to interviewees; Industrial privacy not satisfied |
| Whether federal/state anti-retaliation statutes render interviewee identities confidential | DART: anti-retaliation laws make such participant identities confidential to protect witnesses | AG: statutes prohibit retaliation but do not make investigation details confidential | Held for AG: anti-retaliation statutes do not constitute "other law" making the information confidential |
| Whether the informer’s privilege or PIA exemptions (§§ 552.101, 552.102) permit withholding | DART: informer’s privilege and PIA privacy/personnel exceptions apply to protect identities | AG: informer’s privilege applies to law-enforcement informants; § 552.101/552.102 are regular PIA exceptions and cannot withhold core public information | Held for AG: no evidence DART interviewees reported to an enforcement agency to invoke informer’s privilege; §§ 552.101/552.102 cannot withhold core public information here |
Key Cases Cited
- Industrial Found. of the South v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976) (articulates common-law privacy test for PIA exemptions)
- Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P., 343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) (defines "core public information" under former § 552.022)
- Jackson v. State Office of Admin. Hearings, 351 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2011) (discusses PIA purpose and liberal construction in favor of disclosure)
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (summary-judgment standards in PIA cases)
- Rovario v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (establishes informer’s privilege doctrine)
- Texas Comptroller v. Attorney Gen., 354 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2010) (discusses application of § 552.102 to non-core information)