the City of Houston, Texas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, 03-15-00093-CV

Background

The City of Houston (Appellant) withheld internal witness statements and an investigative report compiled by its Office of Inspector General (OIG), claiming attorney‑client privilege.
The statements were obtained during OIG interviews conducted at the City’s direction and attached to the investigative report prepared by City attorneys.
The Texas Attorney General (Appellee) issued an opinion agreeing that most of the investigative report is privileged under Harlandale but argued that separate copies of certain witness statements must be disclosed.
The City contends that under Harlandale and Upjohn the report and its component parts (including attached witness statements) are privileged when prepared by attorneys to provide legal advice.
The City argues the Attorney General’s “piecemeal” approach (requiring disclosure of copies of parts of a privileged report) is inconsistent with precedent and that requestors may obtain the same factual information by interviewing witnesses themselves.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether attorney‑client privilege protects witness statements attached to an internal investigative report	City: Statements attached to a lawyer‑prepared investigative report are privileged as part of the report	AG: Although the full report is excepted, separate copies of the witness statements should be disclosed	City: Under Harlandale and Upjohn, component parts of a privileged investigative report (including attached witness statements) are privileged and should not be disclosed (appellant’s position)
Whether recognizing privilege for attached documents would enable circumvention of the Public Information Act (PIA)	City: No — protection only applies to documents integral to the attorney‑conducted investigation, not unrelated attachments	AG: Allowing privilege for attachments could be abused by appending unrelated documents to shield them	City: Argument is speculative; here the statements clearly relate to the investigation and are properly privileged (appellant’s response)
Proper client for asserting privilege in an internal investigation	City: The client is the City; OIG attorneys represent the City and may assert privilege on its behalf	AG: Implicitly questions scope but concedes the report is excepted	City: OIG attorneys acted as counsel for the City; communications made in that context are confidential and privileged (appellant’s position)
Whether requestor’s ability to obtain facts elsewhere outweighs privilege	City: Requestor can interview witnesses directly; convenience does not defeat privilege	AG: Seeks disclosure despite alternate sources	City: Privilege remains; Upjohn/Harlandale support protecting attorney‑client communications despite availability of factual sources (appellant’s position)

Key Cases Cited

Harlandale Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Cornyn, 25 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (attorney‑prepared investigative report and its component parts are protected by attorney‑client privilege)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (internal corporate interviews conducted for legal advice are privileged)
In re USA Waste Mgmt. Res., L.L.C., 387 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (applying privilege principles to in‑house counsel and internal investigations)