Icon Benefit Administrators II, L.P. v. Abbott
409 S.W.3d 897
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- The City of Lubbock hired Reaves to audit Parker Group’s administration of the City’s self-funded health plan; Reaves submitted a report dated March 18, 2011 (the Reaves Audit).
- Parker Group had produced sensitive materials under a Dallas-county protective order during related litigation; the protective order later allowed City use in arbitration.
- After the City received public-information requests for the Reaves Audit, the Attorney General ordered disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA).
- Parker Group sued the City and Attorney General seeking declaratory relief and temporary and permanent injunctions to prevent public release; the trial court initially issued a TRO but later denied a temporary injunction.
- The trial court found the Reaves Audit was a “completed report, audit, evaluation, or investigation” under former Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.022(a)(1), making it core public information not subject to PIA exceptions unless another law made it confidential.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Reaves Audit is a “completed” audit under PIA §552.022(a) | The audit is not "completed" because it lacks an appendix and did not meet accounting/audit standards | The audit was finished and submitted on March 18, 2011; "completed" means brought to an end, not necessarily "whole" | Court held there was evidence the audit was completed; §552.022(a) applies, making it core public information |
| Whether PIA §552.107(b) (or the Dallas protective order) prevents disclosure | Protective order and court order prohibit disclosure; §552.107(b) applies | Core public information under §552.022(a) cannot be withheld absent another law expressly making it confidential; no such law proved | Court held Parker Group unlikely to prevail on this claim because the audit is core public information |
| Whether exclusion of post‑March 18 documents (subpoena/letter) was reversible error | Excluded documents would show the audit was ongoing and thus not "completed" | Excluded evidence was cumulative and would not overcome deference to trial court's finding | Even assuming error, exclusion was harmless; decision affirmed |
| Whether exclusion of City attorney’s deposition and annotated report showing City treated the audit as confidential was reversible error | Those items would show the City considered audit confidential and subject to protective order | If audit is core public information, such evidence cannot change outcome | Even assuming error, no harm because audit is core public information; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (elements and standard for temporary injunction)
- Jackson v. State Office of Admin. Hearings, 351 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2011) (PIA construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
- Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P., 343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) (core public information concept and limits on exceptions)
- Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (deference to trial court on conflicting evidence)
- Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2000) (test for reversible evidentiary error on appeal)