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. | Apr 7, 2017Background
- The University of Texas System and UT Dallas received a PIA request for records related to three social‑science studies; one study had a list of participant names that the University withheld.
- The University sought an Attorney General letter ruling under Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.301, asserting Section 552.101 (confidential by law) based on the common‑law and constitutional right to privacy and informed‑consent promises of confidentiality.
- The Attorney General issued a letter ruling ordering disclosure, concluding the identities were not protected by common‑law or constitutional privacy; the University sued for declaratory relief under § 552.324. The requester intervened.
- At summary judgment the trial court granted the Attorney General’s motion and denied the University’s; the University appealed only the grant to the Attorney General.
- The appellate court analyzed the Industrial Foundation common‑law privacy test (publicity of private facts; highly offensive to a reasonable person; not of legitimate public concern) and whether the AG, as movant, conclusively negated an element of the University’s claim.
- The court held the AG did not conclusively negate the “highly intimate or embarrassing” element on the limited record (the University had produced the grant cover sheet and the informed‑consent form), reversed the summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AG, as traditional summary‑judgment movant, conclusively negated an element of the University’s common‑law privacy claim | University: this is fact‑intensive; informed consent and study subject matter raise genuine issues whether disclosure is highly offensive | AG: names of research subjects are not highly intimate or embarrassing as a matter of law; statutory questions are legal | Court: AG failed to conclusively negate the “highly intimate or embarrassing” element on this record; remand required |
| Whether a list of names of human research subjects is protected under Industrial Foundation privacy test | University: participation in national‑security behavioral experiments could be embarrassing/offensive; informed consent promised confidentiality | AG: Industrial Foundation examples show protected info is primarily medical/sexual/psychiatric; mere names do not meet the test | Court: Cannot decide as matter of law; facts presented raise a fact issue about offensiveness; names may be protected depending on trial evidence |
| Relevance of informed‑consent/confidentiality promises to common‑law privacy analysis | University: consent form promising confidentiality supports that a reasonable participant would find disclosure offensive | AG: expectation of confidentiality does not determine confidentiality under the Act | Court: Expectation of privacy can bear on whether disclosure would be highly offensive; raises fact question for trial |
| Whether PIA application here is purely a question of law suitable for summary judgment | University: privacy application is fact‑dependent; summary judgment inappropriate on disputed facts | AG: PIA questions often statutory and resolvable as law | Court: Some PIA issues are legal, but not all; this case involves mixed questions of law and fact—summary judgment inappropriate on the current record |
Key Cases Cited
- Industrial Found. of the S. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976) (plurality sets common‑law privacy test for public disclosure of private facts)
- Star‑Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (articulates elements for public disclosure of embarrassing private facts)
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (PIA statutory‑construction decisions appropriate for summary judgment when facts undisputed)
- A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1995) (resolving conflicts between confidentiality statutes and open‑records law)
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2014) (movant who meets initial summary‑judgment burden shifts burden to nonmovant to raise fact issue)