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 

1020 Sam Houston State Office Bldg. furnish copier of official 

Auetin, Texas 78701 document8 to l ttorneyr in 

law ruit e not 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 in fact such an inrppction wae performed on March 31, 1971. Many of 

the cattle were found to be infected and there 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 

in your office, and, more epecifically: 

(1) a copy of the brucelloair quarantine 

(2) the date of the teetn 

(3) the report of the laboratory or chemical analyrir run on the herd 

and the number of reactore found 

(4) a copy of the quarantine release 

p. 1414 
. - 

. 

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

(5) any prior tests. communications or other documentr you may 

have received prior to the quarantine in question regarding 

the brucellorris condition in the subject herd. 

He hae particularly asked that the documents be chfied am ,to their 

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 of the Texan Revised Civil Statutem which 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, in the performance of the function8 of Wir 

office and employment, shall be, 10 far as relevant, 

admitted in the court8 of this State am evidence of . 

the matter stated therein, rubjsct to the provirionr 

in Section 3. I’ 

Section 3 requirer advance notice to the adverre party. 

Section 4 provides in part: 

‘Yguch writings may be evidenced by an official 

publication thereof or by a copy attested by the 

officer having.& legal curtody of the record, or by 

hiB deputy. Except in the case of a copy of an 

official writing from a public office of thin State 

or a rubdivision thereof, the attestation &all 

be accompanied with a certificate that the atterting 

officer har the legal custody of ouch writing. . , . 

All such attested and certified inrtrumentr and 

the contents of the certificate and the title of the 

person making same, #hall be evidence of the 

p. 1415 
The Honorable H. Q. Sibley page 3 (H-305) 

mattern, atatements, reprerentatione and 

title contained therein. ‘I 

The quertion you have eubmitted to u6 ir: 

“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 6 decieion 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. Hatrelwwaod reeks would be 

available ae public information under that Act, clearly he in entitled to 

it. There are circumetancrr under which a record, though public in the 

renee that it ie maintained by a public agency, ie not public in the renre 

that. it ir to b,e made available to any perron wki wilhee to eee it. 

Nevertheless, such recordm may be reviewed mnd bra 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 of brucellorir 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 it wae dete,rmined that his cattle were infected. Gpen Record0 

Decision No. 24 (1974). Attorney General Opinion No. 249 (1974). 

While you ma;y do no, we know of no rtatute, however, that would 

require you to furnish him an authenticated copy of your recordm l e provided in Article 37310, V. T. C. S., or certified copy under Article 3731, 

V. T. C. S. Nor do the provisions of Section 24 of Article 7014f-1, V. T. C. S., 

that any written 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 a herd of cattle 

for brucellorie are subject to inrpection by tho moper 

of the 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