### AUIBTIN. **TIEXA%** 78711

The Honorable H.Q. Sibley, D.V.hf. Opinion No. H- 305 Executive Director, Texae Animel Health Commirrion Re: Murt the Commierion 1020Sam Houston State Office Bldg. furnish copier 

### ofofficial Auetin, Texas 78701 document8 to 

### l **ttorneyr in**  lawruitenot involving the Commirrion? Dear 

### Dr. Sibley: The facte involved in thie file indicate that one Jamee Hazelwood purchased a herd of cattle rometime 

### prior to

### March 31, 1971,with the eale conditioned, in part, upon 

### Mr. Hawelwood having the cattle inrrpected for bruoellorir. Mr. Haselwood requested your Commirrion to perform the tnrpection and infact such an inrppction wae performed onMarch 31, 1971. **Many of**  the cattle were found to be infected andthere factr were made known to Mr. Hazelwood. Mr. Hazelwood ie now in litigation with the perron who rold the cattle to‘him and has.requeeted that you furnirh him with copier of documente inyour office, and, more epecifically: (1) a copy ofthe brucelloair quarantine (2) the date ofthe teetn (3) the report ofthe laboratory or chemical analyrir run onthe herd and the number of reactore found (4) a copy ofthe quarantine release

p. 1414. -

. The Honorable H.Q. Sibley page 2 (H-305)

(5) 

### anyprior tests. communications or other documentr you may have received prior to the quarantine in question regarding the brucellorris condition inthe subject herd. He hae particularly asked that the documents be chfied 

### am,totheir authenticity so that he might present them into evidence in the lawsuit without the necessity of taking depositions, etc. He specifically cited to ,you Article 373la ofthe Texan Revised Civil Statutemwhich provides in applicable part:

“Section 1. Any written instrument. certificate, record, part of record, return, report, or part of report, made by an officer of this State or of ” any governmental subdivision thereof, or by him deputy, or person or employee’under hia wpervision, inthe performance ofthe function8 ofWir office and employment, shall be, 10far as relevant, admitted in the court8 ofthis State amevidence of
. the matter stated therein, rubjsct to the provirionr in Section 3.I’ Section 3requirer advance notice to the adverre party. Section 4provides in part:

‘Yguchwritings may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having.& legal curtody ofthe record, or by hiB deputy. Except in the case of a copy of an official writing from apublic office ofthin State or a rubdivision thereof, the attestation &all be accompanied with a certificate that the atterting officer har the legal custody of ouchwriting.
. , . All such attested and certified inrtrumentr and the contents ofthe certificate and the title ofthe person making same, #hall be evidence ofthe

p. 1415The Honorable H.Q. Sibley page 3 (H-305)
mattern, atatements, reprerentatione and title contained therein. ‘I The quertion you have eubmitted to u6ir:

“Does the Commission have to ftirnish **copies** of official documentr (eg., teet rhartr, quarantines) to attorneye when there ir i lawruit involved.which doee not involve the Commieeion? ‘I We have not treated thir **a@**a requert, **for** 6decieion under Section 7, Article 6252-17a, V. T. C. S., the Open Recordr,Act. It ir our opinion that, whether or not the information which .Mr. Hatrelwwaodreeks would be available ae public information under that Act, clearly he in entitled to it. There are circumetancrr under which a record, though public inthe renee that it ie maintained by apublic agency, ie not public in the renre that.it ir to b,emade available to any perron wki wilhee to eee it. Nevertheless, such recordm may be reviewed mndbra accermtble to a particular perron tnvol*ed, Morrim v. Hoerrter, 377 S.W. 2d 841 (Tex. Civ. App., Aurtin, 1964, &writ); Gpen Record@ Decirio,n No. 24 (1974). The prerence ofbrucellorir in 

### a**herd of**  cattle IB

### a reriour mrtter and our rtatuter, particularly Article 7014f-1, V.T. C.S., give your Commimrion broad powerr to determine the diepoeition to be made of ruch animal& See Attorney General Opinion H-148 (1973). It is our opinion that Mr. Hazelwood 

### l hould have accemm to your filea by +ich itwae dete,rmined that his cattle were infected. Gpen Record0 Decision No. 24 (1974). Attorney General Opinion No. 249 (1974). While you ma;ydo no, we know of no rtatute, however, that would require you to furnish him an authenticated copy ofyour recordm leprovided inArticle 37310, V. T. C.S., or certified copy under Article 3731, V. T. C.S. Nor do the provisions of Section 24 ofArticle 7014f-1, V. T. C.S., that anywritten instrument issued by the Commission shall be admirrible as evidence when certified, require that either you or the Commtmmion certify. Of **course, Mr.**  Haeelwood’r attorney can proceed under the

p. 1416.
-.’

.’

The Honorable H.Q. Sibley page 4 W3Q5)

various discovery ruler of the Texae Ruler of CivU Procrdure to develop thin evidence for trial purporee under rubpoena, SUMMARY Records of the Texam Animbl Health Gommiarioq concerning an examination made of 

### aherd of cattle for brucellorie are subject to inrpection by tho moper ofthe herd. It is not mandatory, however, that the Commission authenticate or certify the recordr.eo that they maT.bs l dmieeible upcn &trial of 

### a lawruit growin out of the purchred..of the herd. Very truly yourr,

AEPRPVED:
. Attorney Geaeral of Texam

Opinion Committee

p. 1417