*1 211 1017, (Tex.Civ.App. Antonio danger consciously failed knew of — San 1949, writ); Ray, 2 C. & R. to take Texas no McCormick precautions. neglected (2d Robertson, 1956). Evidence ed. & Oil Co. v. 125 Texas Pacific Coal 4, (1935); .2d 830 v. Bennett Tex. S.W Plaintiffs further that the tri argue Howard, supra. record reveals that refusing into court erred in to admit al not reasonably could have fore defendant deposition testimony certain evidence this accident would occur. One seen that foreman, Maas, in the defendant’s Clarence collapse as a “freak witness described he that a seam in a rock which stated Furthermore, supra, as noted accident.” usually causes a and that cave-in formation superintendent, who had over defendant’s collapse probably here resulted from in thirty-one years the earth-excavation We need not consider this such a seam. with was familiar business even if of this because exclusion contention rock, descended into the manhole type of error, testimony it was error. was harmless prior ques immediately the accident hypotheti is true because excluded This He testified that he did not foresee tion. testimony prove negli does not gross cal any problem of a that would indicate kind plaintiffs any failed evi gence to offer fall the excavation or might into rock that the defendant of such dence was aware might that occur. any other accident appropriate to initiate and failed a seam therefore, that hold, failed to plaintiffs fact, In Maas’s testimo safety precautions. of the danger defendant knew prove that position the defendant’s ny supports precautions. take and failed to Since employees any had knowledge none gross no there exists concluded which dangerous condition existed on the negligence as matter of the trial site. excavation error refusing not in to submit court was pass on question We need not plaintiffs. issues requested by the additional alleged jury misconduct view of our hold- gross no neligence. there was
ing of Photographs Exclusion stated, For reasons court is affirmed. trial Plaintiffs contend that trial failing into evidence court erred to admit photographs depicting
certain the excava during after the cave-in and rescue
tion site plaintiffs’ operations. purpose INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT TEXAS pictures of these into evidence was tender al., Appellants, et BOARD manhole, in, rock that fell to show v. of rock in which manhole type and the however, were, being dug. There nu was OF THE FOUNDATION INDUSTRIAL admitted into evidence photographs merous Appellee. SOUTH, same characteris physical show the 7717. No. excavation site that excluded tics of the Texas, limiting Appeals reveal. the evi Civil photographs Court Beaumont. bearing upon adequately facts shown dence the trial court did abuse proof, other July 1975. Hullum, 79 Stallings v. its discretion. Aug. Denied Rehearing Galveston, 421, 423, (1891); H. 15 S.W. Matula, 580, 15 Rehearing v. Ry. & A. Denied S. Second (1891); 11, 1975. Railroad Commission Sept. S.W. (Tex.Civ. 369 S.W.2d Oil
Shell aff’d, 1963), 380 S.W.2d 556
App. — Austin Rivero, Pozos v. 225 S.W.2d
(Tex.1964); *3 Elliott, Austin, appellants. W. for
Frank Petrovich, Jr., Worth, George J. Fort J. C. Austin, Hinsley, for appellee. KEITH, Justice. case
This involves construction of the Open Texas Records Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. (Supp.1974-1975) (here- Ann. 6252-17& “Act”), applied as inafter claims compensation benefits filed injured employees in Texas. by Plaintiff computer tie sought system into extract, Accident Board “and means” certain items of by electronic infor- appearing every on claim for work- mation compensation every injured filed men’s covered employee Texas law. granted plaintiff summary trial court allowing plaintiff inspect judgment and forms, summary claim denied the copy such defendants, sought by the and they appealed. alleged nonprofit corpo-
Plaintiff it was a engaged gathering information re- ration to workmen’s claims lating its 282 dissemination to members who of workmen. It writ of employers sought, mandamus” were and are of the opin- procured, declaration that filed ion that the writ should issue under the Industrial Accident Board in- with rules general relating to the granting of Texas, provi- writ, workmen in under the jured some which were set out by of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.ATm. art. Sharp sions Giles, Justice Callahan v. (1967), “public subject 4a records and (1941): public” inspection copying by the extraordinary writ, “Mandamus in the Act. Defendants1 were provided right, is not issued as a matter of but mandamus, ordered, per- writ largely in the rests sound discretion of copying of all such claims so as to mit * * * the Court. The writ will not be claim, the file number claim- disclose granted petition unless the shows that name, number, his security social ant’s his relator has clear to the writ. date employer, injury nature *4 thereof, the name of and claimant’s attor-
ney,
any.2
[*]
%
%
[*]
sjc
[*]
is
“While mandamus
a common
appeal upon
points
five
of
law
Defendants
an equitable remedy,
writ and not
require a more detailed
which
state-
error
largely
equitable
issuance is
controlled by
with
of the
in connection
several
con-
ment
principles.”
brought forward.
tentions
it
to
that
the outset
is well
state
while
At
One of the cases
upon by
relied
Justice
yet
judicial
Act is new and as
without
Callahan,
the
supra,
in
Sharp
was Westerman
we bear in mind the
interpretation,
purpose
Mims,
111 Tex.
227 S.W.
181-182
requirement
the
set out in Sec.
(1921), quoting
as
from a decision
the
of
Su-
in
liberally
it
construed
favor of
that
“be
preme
States,
Court of
United
and say-
any request
of
granting
informa-
ing:
“
14(d).
readily
We likewise
con-
* * *
Sec.
tion.”
‘Mandamus
will not be
a
that
Industrial Accident Board is
cede
in aid of
granted
those who do not come
body as defined in Sec.
governmental
hands,’
court with clean
into
since the
a
that under Sec. 83 writ of
2(1)(A) and
‘to
remedy wrong,
writ issues
not to
”
may
compel
be issued to
mandamus
promote one.’
public
make
information as
to
Court
continued:
Act
in the
available under
Act.
defined
“The
that he
rule
who seeks a manda-
But,
deciding
appeal
we must bear
must present
application
mus
his
with
rules,
to
relating
other
those
in mind two
clean hands has no different meaning
governing
writ of mandamus
those
maxim
general
equity
from
that
summary judgments.
of
granting
equity
into
must
‘he
comes
come
speaks
When Sec.
to
clean hands.’
with
mandamus,
says
person
of
it
that the
writ
“may
requesting
n :
seek
‡
n
n !
%
below were the
1.
defendants
supply public information or information
Board,
agency
an
State
Accident
Texas,
attorney general
has
determined
and members as well as
its chairman
record,
person
public
requesting
to
be
We
refer to
director.
will
its executive
attorney general or the
collectively
as
defendants.
them
compelling
a writ
mandamus
seek
body
governmental
to make the information
proviso
A
excluded infor-
2.
public inspection.”
available
relating
injuries
to
to a
mation
claimant’s
genitalia.
case,
attorney general
In this
held that
information should have
been made
governmen-
Sec. 8
the Act reads: “If a
but defendants
to
available
declined
follow
attorney
body
gen-
an
tal
refuses
opinion.
his
provided
decision as
in this
or to
eral’s
not an-
they
were
atories listed above
petition
that
“Having concluded
amount-
by plaintiff.
on conduct
grounded
is
swered
relators
to,
partici-
and hence
invitation
ing to an
five,
defendants contend
By point
in,
good
violative of
faith
act
an
pation
sustaining plaintiff’s
erred in
court
the trial
conscience,
follows that relators
and of
suppress
to strike defend-
motion
hands,
with clean
into court
come
did
have elic-
which would
interrogatories
ants’
them the relief
to entitle
required
showing the use which would
answers
ited
for,
mandamus is
and hence the
prayed
requested
the information
made
be
denied.”
five
agree
point
and sustain
plaintiff.
Cureton,
Wink v.
City
Justice
Chief
now to be stated.
the reasons
Amusement
Griffith
this maxim
(1936), applied
being
appeal
an
from an order
This
manner:
in this
summary judgment,
it is well
granting
unusually long
series of
remember
public
violates the
business
whose
“One
Supreme
our
Court has declared
cases
having
.
no
state
.
.
policy
moving
party
the burden
it is
com-
protected, and not
right to be
legal
demonstrate,
as a matter of
that there
hands,’ because
with ‘clean
into court
ing
fact
issue of
and that he is
genuine
no
public policy
violate the
his activities
judgment.4
state,
given relief in a
entitled
cannot be
equity.”
court
*5
if
to
permitted
contend that
Defendants
several de-
answer tendered
Defendants’
discovery rights they would
their
exercise
of which was that
the in-
fenses, the first
established, or at least
fact
raised a
by plaintiff was to be
sought
formation
issue,
purpose
member firms to discriminate
by its
used
plaintiff
was to enable
to
the information
in violation
employees
prospective
against
“mem-
such information to its
disseminate
(Supp.
8307c
art.
of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann.
where it would then be used
companies”
ber
1974-1975).
against prospective employ-
to discriminate
companies. The
had
plaintiff
such
ees of
Defendants,
Texas Rules of
pursuant
to
activity
principal
its
business
alleged
Procedure,
168,
interroga-
rule
served
Civil
compiling of industrial accident
was
learn, inter
plaintiff seeking to
tories
solely by
“are used
its member
which
wanting the file
(1)
purpose of
alia:
purpose of assisting
for the
in
companies
claim,
social se-
claimant’s
of
number
prospective
back-
checking
employee’s
out
name,
number,
employer’s
claimant’s
curity
to
prior
hiring.”
ground
(2) if
attorney;
claimant’s
name of
ever been used as a
had
information
such
brief,
amplifies
plaintiff
purpose
In its
of a
discharging
employee
basis
prospective
“The relevance of a
saying:
(3)
such
plaintiff;
if
company
member
job
injury to the
or task
past
employee’s
the basis
ever been used as
had
perform,
'though
even
he
he seeks
em-
employ
prospective
refusing to
incapable
performing
physically
be
company.
by a member
ployee
same,
[plaintiff]
reason
seeks to in-
is the
It also
the records
spect
filed its motion
plaintiff
Thereupon,
[defendants].”
businesses cannot afford
that small
interroga-
such
asserts
to strike all of
suppress
medical
examinations
court, although requiring
pre-employment
The trial
tories.
instances,
and, in other
interrogatories
employees;
their
a few
answers
prohibit such examinations.
sus-
contracts
appeal)
to this
union
not material
(which
argues that since the
base it
interrog-
this
as to the
From
motion
plaintiff’s
tained
1974,
granted), and need not be
writ
is set out in Coward
mont
of cases
This series
Beaumont, 515
Gateway
repeated
Bank of
here.
National
129, 134,
(Tex.Civ.App
4fn.
S.W.2d
. —Beau
employer’s insurance carrier is liable
attempt,
entitled to
least,
the very
injured workman for the
consequences
procure admissible evidence and were de-
aggravated
any injury,
even if
a preex-
right.
litigant
No
nied
be
should
cast
isting disability, the information
be
should
summary judgment
until he
had an
has
to such member.
available
prepare
opportunity to
his case for trial.
Department
Cf. Texas
of Corrections v.
It then cites the recent decision of Swan
Herring,
In this pro ceeding, plaintiff having with the the bur Much of defendants’ brief up is taken right showing its to the of writ as of its point den with discussion third wherein law, of the trial court abused its they matter contend that claim sought forms in depriving excepted and erred by plaintiff opera- discretion de are from the (cid:127) right of the utilize the dis fendants tion of the Act “as information deemed covery prepare rules to their by right defense. We confidential the constitutional of speculate not as to the results privacy.” governmental need A body is not re- would have obtained in their quired defendants to furnish information in found discovery; the fact remains that they were records if it is “information deemed confi- 5(b) copying public beyond reads: pur- Sec. of the Act “Neither the records of agent pose establishing proper custodian nor his who controls the of identification public any inquiry shall public being requested; use of records make and the records any person applies inspection or of
217
Constitutional,
right of
has now
privacy
either
statu-
attained constitu-
dential
3(a)(1)
in
judicial decision.”
status
Texas.
tory,
Sec.
tional
or
disagree for the
now to be
reasons
Act. We
Instead,
we turn
the statute itself in
point.
overrule such
stated
sought
to determine
an effort
records
within the
plaintiff are
ambit of the Act.
able counsel calls to our at-
Defendants’
upon
passing
required
are
many
leading
from the
cases
tention
of
purpose
Legislature
in
to look
Supreme
holding that
Court
United States
Act
it
clearly
is
stated
adopting
in
is
privacy
of
one of
right
constitutional
positive
in
most
terms.7
This is
Sec.
recognize, as indeed we
We
dimension.6
broad
language
3(a),
followed
Sec.
must,
supremacy of the several cases
margin.8
in the
quoted
After providing
only
particu-
when confined to the
cited but
collected, assembled,
information
that “[a]11
involved.
do not
field of conduct
lar
by governmental
or maintained
bodies” is
controlling in the case at bar.
them
find
public
inspec-
available for
any
statute
We have
been referred
tion,
Legislature
carefully defined six-
has
judicial decision which
declared that
or
only when such
exceptions
teen
benefits
claims for
be
from inspection.
could withheld
Subsec-
protection
within
the doctrine of
provides
tion
student
records at
counsel cited to us a
privacy; nor has
deci-
institutions could
educational
not be in-
raising
privacy
sion in Texas
doctrine
copied; subsection
spected and
15 made
to constitutional dimensions.
records in the
and death
Bureau
birth
inspection.
immune
Statistics
It
Vital
joined
major-
has Texas
Only recently
no
is
significant
mention made
jurisdictions
ity
recognizing
the other
with the
filed
Accident
let
by adopting
“to be
alone”
right
Board.
the rule that an “unwarranted
tort actions
privacy
constitutes
invasion
is well
It
established
this state
legal injury
remedy
for which
will be
paramount
cardinal rule of con
Atkinson,
Billings
See
v.
granted.”
give
statutes is to
ascertain and
struction
(Tex.1973),
where Justice
5.W.2d
the intention of the Legislature.
effect
leading
many
discussed
au-
could
Many
support
Denton
cases
be cited in
of this
rule;
disposition
thorities. Because
our
of this
elementary
but
interest of
grounds,
other
we do
See,
of error
point
g.,
we mention
a few.
e.
space
necessary
Walker,
to determine if the
not find
Dolan
*7
Connecticut,
See,
g.,
v.
people,
e.
381
delegating authority,
give
Griswold
do not
1678,
479,
14
U.S.
85 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 510
public
servants
the
their
to decide
Baird,
438,
(1965);
v.
Eisenstadt
405 U.S.
92
people
good
the
what
is
for
know and
1029,
(1972); Stanley
349
S.Ct.
31 L.Ed.2d
good
is not
for them to know.
what
557,
1243,
Georgia,
89
v.
394 U.S.
S.Ct.
22
remaining
people
on
so
insist
informed
that
Wade,
(1969); Roe v.
410 U.S.
542
L.Ed.2d
they may retain control over
the instru-
113,
705,
(1973);
S.Ct.
695, (1932); Shoppers rule, v. 697 State such if and operative, valid pre- would 107, Inc., (Tex.1964); 110 any 380 S.W.2d Flow- person, vent firm corporation or from Co., Dempsey-Tegeler ers v. & 472 receiving S.W.2d such information unless there was 112, (Tex.1971). 115 When that intention claim for open ascertained, duty particularly it is the has been named claimant then pending before the Inju- to enforce such intent. Second Board courts court of Keaton, jurisdiction. 250, competent 162 ry event, only Fund v. Tex. 345 such claimant, 711, his (1961). attorney, carrier, 714 to look S.W.2d employer the time of the consequences injury, of our action current here party litigants and third could application of the Act to the obtain such limiting information.' It is obvious that Darr, plaintiff Act. words of the Johnson v. exact could not secure such information, 516, 1098, except 272 S.W. 1099 (1925).9 114 Tex. possibly as to one its employees— own By specifically naming the sixteen certainly not as all claimants on a whole- disclosure, Legislature exceptions sale and indiscriminate basis. expressed in effect intention make all Defendants, citing arising cases under other records discoverable. The maxim ex- adopted rules Railroad Commission (the unius est pressio exclusfo alterlus nam Board, Liquor argue Control thing another) ing of excludes is appli one has the this rule same “force and effect of The rule was cable here. stated Justice agree. We do not statute.” The Railroad Co., Sharp in State v. Mauritz-Wells legislative power Commission exercises spe- 634, (1943): S.W.2d delegated cifically to it by the Constitution express a settled rule that the “It is men- and the statutes. Ry. Texarkana & Ft. S. thing, person, tion or enumeration one Co. v. Houston &Gas Fuel class consequence, or is equivalent to an 284, 287 (1932). 51 S.W.2d The Texas of all express exclusion others.” (now Control Liquor Board known as Texas We conclude that work Beverage Alcoholic Commission) exercises compensation filed power men’s with Industri police under statute delegating Accident Board constitute al “information rule-making broad authority. Texas Liquor collected, assembled, or aby Club, maintained” Inc., Control Board Attic body and that governmental (Tex.1970). such claims are inspection 3(a) available under Section Contrasted with the rule-making power of the Act. just agencies mentioned, of the two contention, ancillary As an defendants only general authority for promulgation urge that Industrial Accident Board Rule of rules the Industrial Accident is Board 9.040, quoted margin,10 authorizes the language found in Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. plaintiff denial now (1967), Ann. art. “The apparent its suit. It is readily seeks in that make rules not inconsistent with this law juris- decision 9. This one our presented first, mation is to this Board. The prudence Supreme decided an all-woman claimant, age and last name of middle Texas, panel appointed by Court Gover- security number, possible, social *8 during early which sat the months nor Neff injury prior of the of dates name em- Ferguson’s A. of Miriam first term Governor given ployers request must be for infor- of office. request- The Board will furnish the mation. ed or a record check to the prerequisite approval of a re- 10. “As (1) claimant; following: (2) attorney the the quest a record check or for the furnish- claimant; (3) carrier; (4) for the claimant, ing on a of information there must employer injury; at the time of the current compensation claim for the be a workmen’s (5) party litigants. charges third Fees open pending or named claimant before this requests appeal competent of for record be obtained or on to a court from Board (1961) jurisdiction from the Board at time the Industrial Accident Board.” request (Rev.1974) search for infor- record
219 laws of this enforcing provi change any its of the substantive carrying out and . . ..”11 state.” sions Ac by the Industrial promulgated Rules determining validity of rules In in the poorly fared Board
cident
agencies,
by administrative
promulgated
exceed
Thus,
rule was found to
courts.
in Texas
Bd. of
rule is stated
State
authority of the Board
delegated
Carp,
Optometry
v.
388
Examiners
Acci
Kelly
v. Industrial
held invalid
was
409,
(Tex.1965):
414-415
S.W.2d
874,
(Tex.Civ.
Board,
878
358 S.W.2d
dent
judiciary
is constitution-
“[R]eview
also,
1962,
ref’d).
writ
See
App. — Austin
ques-
to
determination of
ally limited
Insurance As
Employers'
Texas
Jackson
e.,
law,
whether
i.
the action is
of
tions
450,
(Tex.Civ.App.
sociation,
451
471 S.W.2d
powers delegated
agen-
within
e.).
1971,
writ ref’d n. r.
—Eastland
and,
so, whether the
action is arbi-
cy
Indemnity Ins.
14
Bailey v. Texas
or unreasonable because
trary, capricious
1929),
798,
(Tex.
App.,
Comm’n
S.W.2d
reasonably supported by substantial
rule,
still another
the Court
striking down
evidence.”
of the
Ac
regulations
“The
said:
construing
used in
Board cannot be
rule
cident
under discussion does not
give
higher
it a
mandate
so as to
any readily
base
to have
discernable
appear
the statute.”
Instead,
that of
than
statute.
as
in the
argument
defendants,
of
it
read
we
also cite Galacia v. Texas
Defendants
attempt
justify
promulgation
does not
Association,
Insurance
Employers’
statutory authority.
by pointing
1961,
417,
(Tex.Civ.App.
S.W.2d
— Waco
point
itself
of
demonstrates
statement
e.),
n. r.
and Clawson v. Texas
writ ref’d
statutory support.12
the lack of
Ass’n,
Insurance
469 S.W.2d
Employers’
192,
(Tex.Civ.App.
general
The Act is one
application
[14th
— Houston
affirmed,
(Tex.
State;
1971),
agencies
placed upon right to has been destroyed by the adoption or retroactive laws. Act. facto post this overly long opinion by conclude century ago, than a More our Su right plaintiff reference of the to determined that use of the preme Court intrude its information-gathering activities nominally facto” is post words “ex confined into computer system. defendants’ We are law, rendering an pun the criminal act to unable to determine from our abbreviated not in manner it was when com ishable a plaintiff record whether seeks a copy Crawford, mitted. Bender filed since every claim or if it wants (1870). Having examined the cases cit to defendants’ computer access program being satisfied that the text ed and an basis as to upon particular a selective indi- rule, correct we now quote nounces the may have viduals who filed is claims. It TexJur.2d, Law, Constitutional however, plaintiff apparent, that to seeks (1960): 121, at 470 computer system use the in the acquisition power “The between the distinction sought it of the information in its suit.13 legislature legislation to enact summary judgment Defendants’ proof legislature of the prohibition to enact affidavit of Data Process- contained legislation kept retroactive should be ing Manager which that compli- asserted legislature has the same pow- mind. The plaintiff’s request ance with to enter as it retrospectively er to act does to act computer program defendants’ “would prohibition prospectively. found in complete already cause a breakdown of our against legis- retroactive proscription workload; agency overloaded it would also against a proscription not lation is complete require the restructuring of our power to It is legislative proscrip- act. processing system data and the hiring against power legislature to tion supply personnel information re- rights. so destroy long vested Thus as no the Industrial quested by Foundation of the right is destroyed vested South.” legislature legislation enact effective this is properly a matter for While is (emphasis not limited.” retrospectively determination the State Board of Con supplied) trol, possibility under Sec. of the findWe no indication in the Act computer privileges of abuse is one ad into only that records which came existence dressed to sound discretion of the trial date of the Act were to after the effective court. law review article entitled language be discoverable. Prom the used “Privacy Computer,” Country and the V. that Legislature, appears all infor man, (1971), 49 Tex.L.Rev. the au governmental agencies within the mation points consequences thor some dire which subject is made is the time the flow from invasion of privacy provisions under the being inspected computer entry system. into We are event, any find that any opinion consequences Act. In do not such may be defendants, plaintiff’s approach technically coun- In a letter is sound and my past correspon- “In some of accomplished sel stated: with a can be minimum of your agency, I have made men- disruption workings dence with to the internal and ev- fact that we aware that the eryday operations tion of the were of the Industrial Accident using my Accident has understanding been further Board. by It system storing computer for the of informa- of a terminal or the installation terminals During pertaining to its the last tion files. accommodate which would additional tele- lines, year, my phone inquiry has taken occasion to inves- client outside can be made feasibility tying existing system tigate computer the technical into system being programmed one computer such as the used extract would be infor- the Industrial Accident Board and ex- requested put and which would mation means, tract, electronic any computer system.” into past investigations supplied) requested. (emphasis Our reveal *10 gard wishes appellee for consideration trial the information appropriate public exercise of discretion in as information. computerize court the writ of mandamus denial of or award Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art. § which we have ordered. the trial allows the Industrial Accident Board (1967) now before abbreviated record Under the not inconsistent with this rules to “make to, and do not determine us, are unable pro- enforcing out and carrying for law Legislature to make intended whether Rule adopted The Board has 9.040 visions.” with the injured workmen filed as follows: Accident available prerequisite approval “As a exploitation by corpo- private commercial . . a record check . on a request for USA, Inc., See, g., Hobby e. Wine ration. claimant, there must be Service, United Internal Revenue States claim for the compensation named claim- (3d 1974). Cir. F.2d before open pending or this Board or ant pointed out, error herein For the juris- a court of appeal competent on the trial court is reversed and judgment the Board the time the diction cause remanded. request ... record search first, this presented to Board. The mid- and remanded. Reversed claimant, name age dle and last number, security if possi- social DIES, (dissenting). Justice Chief ble, injury and the prior dates of name of further go majority I would than the employers given must be hold that de- opinion and information (1961,Rev.1974) . . . a record check.” the Industrial Foundation of sired obtained. Texas Southwest cannot.be pro- rule offers This is reasonable Open Records Act [Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. interested in claims before parties tection (1974-1975) 6252-17a on which art. ] Board. court based his herein de- trial persons are, that “all unless other- clares good law unless it good No law is makes expressly provided by at all times wise good It does not make sense. sense to me complete to full information entitled computerize appellee government regarding the affairs and wishes on hundreds of thousands of individ- those represent official acts of in the files of the uals Industrial Accident public employees.” officials and them as Board. injury on notice of or
The information for workmen’s can claim securing If one. of the purposes this imagination be “official no stretch job is to screen applicants, public . . officials and em- act . [of] spirit of Texas violates law. See Tex. They private disclosures ployees.” 8307c (1974-5); art. 1§ Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. sensitive, extremely times be may at (1971); (1974-5). art. 5196c art. 5196 embarrassing, even detrimental to the indi- recog- The trial court concerned. vidual by exempting “injury his order
nized genitalia body.” 2(2) (1974-5) Act [§ public defines records
Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann.] documents, writings, let- portion of all
“the memoranda, written, printed,
ters, other or developed materials which copied,
typed, I do not re- information.” public
contains