the University of Texas System and the University of Texas at Dallas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas And Marilyn Cameron
03-14-00801-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 7, 2015Background
- The University of Texas System and UT Dallas appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Texas Attorney General in a Public Information Act (PIA) dispute over whether the names of human research subjects in a terrorism-related social-science study must be disclosed.
- The Attorney General moved for traditional summary judgment and argued disclosure was not barred by the common-law privacy exemption (Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.101), relying on Industrial Foundation.
- The University argued the AG failed to meet the traditional summary judgment burden because factual proof is required to determine whether disclosure would reveal "highly intimate or embarrassing" private facts under Industrial Foundation.
- The University emphasized recent Texas Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Cox; Comptroller v. AG) require fact-based privacy analyses and sometimes create or recognize privacy-protective exceptions that demand proof at trial.
- The University also urged this Court to consider additional legal interests not raised below (academic freedom, research integrity) and legislative developments (HB 1295) supporting protection of personal identifying information in research.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (University) | Defendant's Argument (Attorney General) | Held (as urged by University in reply brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AG met the standard for a traditional summary judgment | AG failed to negate elements or prove affirmative defenses; factual disputes remain | AG treated motion as legal question and contends no factual inquiry is needed | Summary judgment to AG was improper; remand for trial is required |
| Whether Industrial Foundation alone forecloses privacy protection for research-subject names | Industrial Foundation provides a legal test but requires case-specific factual proof before disclosure | Names, by comparison to Industrial Foundation examples, are not "highly intimate or embarrassing" and can be decided as law | Industrial Foundation sets the standard but factual inquiry is necessary; cannot decide as matter of law here |
| Relevance of Texas Supreme Court privacy precedents (Cox; Comptroller v. AG) | These cases expand privacy-related exemptions and require proof; they support remand for fact-finding | AG ignores or downplays their impact, treating exemption as purely legal | Court should apply Cox and Comptroller reasoning and remand for factual assessment |
| Whether appellate court may consider legal arguments not raised below (e.g., academic freedom, HB 1295) | Court may and should consider such arguments because third-party privacy interests warrant judicial intervention | AG contends standard rules apply and resists new arguments on appeal | Court can consider additional legal bases and legislative context and should remand if those bases support privacy protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Indus. Found. of the S. v. Tex. Indus. Acc. Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976) (announces common-law privacy test requiring assessment whether information is "highly intimate or embarrassing")
- Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accounts v. Attorney Gen. of Tex., 354 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2010) (recognizes nontrivial privacy interests in DOBs and endorses fact-based analysis accounting for technology and identity-theft risks)
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P., 343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) (creates/recognizes privacy-protective PIA exception and stresses the need for proof to draw the disclosure/restraint line)
- Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1995) (summary judgment burden on defendant; must negate plaintiff’s theories or prove affirmative defense as a matter of law)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2002) (describes no-evidence summary judgment standard to be applied when invoked)
- Tex. Home Mgmt., Inc. v. Peavy, 89 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2002) (explains summary judgment burdens and that failure to assert/prove necessary facts is fatal)