Opinion ID: 2828983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Higher, Compelling Reason Standard Governs

Text: the City’s Untimely Request to Withhold Public Information. Because the City’s request for an attorney general opinion on withholding Exhibits F and G was untimely, I address whether the asserted reason for disclosure satisfied the PIA’s elevated compelling reason standard. The only exceptions to required disclosure of public information under Subchapter C that the City may raise in this suit are exceptions it raised with the Attorney General in its request for decision contained in its letter of June 10, 2002. See Tex Gov’t Code § 552.326. The only exception the City raised in the June 10 letter was section 552.107(1) of Subchapter C concerning “information that . . . an attorney of a political subdivision is prohibited from disclosing because of a duty to the client . . . .” Id . § 552.107(1). Whether Exhibits F and G are subject to public disclosure depends on the interpretation of the exception for attorney-client privileged information in Subchapter C of the PIA. See id . To simply assert the exception, however, the City must have requested a decision from the Attorney General on the privilege within ten business days from the date of receipt of the request. Id. § 552.301. If the City’s request was dilatory, Exhibits F and G would be presumed subject to public disclosure and “must be released unless there is a compelling reason to withhold the information.” Id. § 552.302. The City argues that it satisfies the compelling reason standard by merely asserting the attorney-client privilege as an exception to disclosure. If so, the City could except public information from disclosure merely by asserting the same justification it was late in raising with the Office of the Attorney General. But such an interpretation contradicts the express language of the statute and violates its purpose. The very use of the word “compelling” in this context indicates the intent to impose a tougher standard for violation of the deadline. Precepts of statutory construction dictate that because the Legislature did not define the word “compelling” in the PIA, we interpret the word according to its plain and common meaning. See McIntyre v. Ramirez , 109 S.W.3d 741, 745 (Tex. 2003). The common meaning of “compelling” is “demanding attention” or “respect.” Compact Oxford English Dictionary 300 ( 2nd ed. 1991) . To be compelling, a justification must be more than simply legitimate or good, it should be persuasive to the point of demanding respect or acquiescence. The City argues that the attorney-client privilege is always a “compelling reason” to prevent disclosure because it is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law and is vital to encourage clients to confide in their attorneys. See Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat , 904 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Tex. 1995). The City’s interpretation of the section 552.301 compelling reason standard would require nothing more to keep public information secret than a late assertion of a legitimate justification, notwithstanding the statutory mandates. There are several other reasons this conclusion is incorrect.
In considering the 1999 proposed amendment to the PIA that would include the compelling reason standard, the Legislature was not acting in a vacuum. The Office of the Attorney General originated the compelling reason standard long before the Legislature amended the statute to incorporate it. Every Attorney General in the thirty-five years since the PIA was enacted has applied and enforced the heightened compelling reason standard. See Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-26 (1974) (Attorney General John Hill); Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-319 (1982) (Attorney General Mark White); Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-552 (1990) (Attorney General Jim Mattox); Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-630 (1994) (Attorney General Dan Morales); Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-3474 (2001) (Attorney General John Cornyn); Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-6858 (2002) (Attorney General Greg Abbott). In 1974, the Attorney General reasoned that a late request for decision meant that the resulting presumption that information must be disclosed could only be overcome by a “compelling demonstration that the information requested should not be released to the public.” Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-26; see also Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-552. That office affirmed the application of this standard in several instances. See Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-319; Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-150 (1977); Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-34 (1974). In 1994, an attorney general opinion addressed the very issue before this Court. “The mere fact that the information is within the attorney-client privilege and thus would be excepted from disclosure under section 552.107(a) of the Open Records Act [now PIA] if the governmental body had made a timely request for an open records decision does not alone constitute a compelling reason to withhold the information from public disclosure.” Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-630 at 7. The office confirmed that ruling in 2001. See Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-5561 (2001). In 1999, before the PIA was amended that year, the Attorney General again explained that the compelling reason standard applied to public information for which the request for decision was late. Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-725 (1999) (Attorney General John Cornyn). And these attorney general opinions consistently apply a higher standard to allow this type of exception to withholding information. In addition, several courts of appeals have adopted the Attorney General’s standard for deciding PIA disputes arising out of a late request for an attorney general opinion. Doe , 269 S.W.3d at 154 (stating that “statutory and case law support the AG’s general rule” and adopting that standard); Jackson v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety , 243 S.W.3d 754, 758 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007, pet. denied) (adopting the Attorney General’s compelling reason standard); Hancock v. State Bd. of Ins. , 797 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no pet.) (citing attorney general opinions, recognizing the compelling reason standard, and holding that the agency must do more than present a “mere showing of the applicability of one of the statutory exceptions” to overcome the presumption of openness). But see City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News , 969 S.W.2d 548, 554–55 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998) (refusing to adopt the “compelling demonstration test” because the court did not find “ Hancock and the attorney general opinions” adopting that test persuasive), aff’d on other grounds , 22 S.W.3d 351, 364 (Tex. 2000) (plurality opinion) (declining to address the applicability of the compelling reason standard because the information at issue was subject to disclosure regardless of that analysis). As the Attorney General and these courts of appeals have consistently held, to uphold a late request to except public information from disclosure based on the attorney-client privilege requires more than reasserting the same privilege. See Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-676 (2002); Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-5561; Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-630. It is thus not surprising that the Legislature continued this established and predictable policy. At a Senate hearing on amending the PIA in 1999 to explicitly incorporate the compelling reason standard, the author of the bill, Senator Corona, explained that the amendment “will require the governmental body to forfeit any discretionary exceptions and would require the release of the information,” consistent with the Attorney General’s previous decisions. The author then introduced the chief of the open records division of the Office of the Attorney General, who explained: [T]he attorney general’s office has interpreted that this— and basically this codifies a long standing interpretation of the attorney general’s office, that I think stretches all the way back from 1977 in Open Records Decision 150—and the attorney general has determined that, uh, compelling reasons would be if if [sic] the information were made confidential by another source of law outside the Open Records Act . . . as well as if release of the information would adversely affect the privacy or property interest of third parties. 4 Hearing on S.B. 277 Before the Senate Committee on State Affairs, 76 th Leg., R.S. (Partial Transcript at 2, March 11, 1999); Act of September 1, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S. ch . 1319, § 21, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4509; see also Phillips v. Beaber , 995 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1999) (stating that courts presume the Legislature acts with knowledge of the accepted legal meanings of terms); McBride v. Clayton , 166 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. 1942) (explaining that “statutes are presumed to be enacted by the legislature with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it”). Since the Legislature’s 1999 addition of the compelling reason standard to the PIA, the Attorney General has affirmed its interpretation, and the Legislature has not responded negatively to it. Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-676. The Court has explained that it is persuasive that the Legislature had amended the PIA several times without responding negatively to attorney general interpretations. City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News , 22 S.W.3d 351, 366 (Tex. 2000).
The overall scheme of the statute indicates the Legislature’s goal of preventing open government requests from languishing in the bureaucratic process due to dilatory requests for decisions and slow responses. See, e.g. , § 552.301(b) (requiring governmental entities to request decisions on exceptions from disclosure of public information within ten business days); §552.306 (requiring the Attorney General to render a decision “not later than the 45th business day after the date the Attorney General received the request”). 5 To accomplish this goal of the PIA, a “compelling reason” must be a higher and more demanding standard to create a persuasive incentive for governmental entities to comply with the PIA’s expeditious time frames. The Court’s holding undercuts the incentive to be prompt by allowing an easy manner to delay the decision to produce public information. Under the City’s position, a city that prioritizes open government and works diligently to meet the deadline for a request for decision on an attorney-client privilege issue is treated no differently than a city that is not diligent in attempting to respond to a PIA request and simply asks for a “good faith” clarification of a word or phrase in a request. To demonstrate a compelling reason to withhold information, the Attorney General’s longstanding interpretations require that the governmental entity assert the attorney-client privilege along with another special circumstance that increases the consequences of disclosure, such as that the interests of third parties would be harmed or that the governmental entity is prohibited from disclosing the information by other law. 6 See Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-5561; Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-630; Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-26. I agree that the two bases for demonstrating compliance with the compelling reason standard are reasonable. However, application of the standard should also consider circumstances in which the disclosure of such privileged information would likely inflict substantial harm to the public or the entity. In this case, without more, the City’s privilege fails the compelling reason standard. However, in other circumstances, disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications could cause substantial harm to the public entity and add substantial cost or even harm the public that the PIA seeks to keep informed.
From the Statute in These Situations. The City argues that attorney-client privilege is always a compelling reason to prevent disclosure. In re City of Georgetown , 53 S.W.3d 328, 332–33 (Tex. 2001) (quoting Leggat , 904 S.W.2d at 647). That holding essentially means that a governmental entity could either intentionally or unintentionally make a late request to the Attorney General seeking an exception from disclosure and still not have any higher burden to except information from disclosure. I disagree that the importance of the privilege means that a statute or rule cannot provide for waiver of the privilege or elevate the standard to rely on it. See, e.g. , Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3(d) (stating that a party who inadvertently discloses information waives the attorney-client privilege if it does not assert the privilege within ten days of disclosure); Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see also In re Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg , 222 S.W.3d 434, 439–41 (Tex. 2007); In re Living Ctrs . of Tex., Inc. , 175 S.W.3d 253, 259–60 (Tex. 2005). The City waived the straightforward application of the attorney-client privilege by not requesting a decision within ten business days and should not be able to overcome that waiver by reasserting the same privilege. 7 It is important to remember that the City retains control over the nondisclosure of otherwise privileged information if it simply abides by the PIA’s deadlines. This in no way diminishes the importance of the attorney-client privilege; instead, I believe that the City must follow the procedures specifically mandated by the PIA in order to assert it without having to establish a compelling reason. The procedure in section 552.301 is not a trap for the unwary that could catch a conscientious governmental official off guard. 8 An action as simple as placing a letter to the Attorney General with a short request for a decision in the United States mail, first class, within ten business days after receiving the public information request, satisfies the statute. See Tex. Govt. Code § 552.308. The likely reason the entity would not comply with this requirement is simply because it does not have a system in place to handle these requests quickly and efficiently, which is the harm the Legislature attempted to remedy in the statute by training all public officials in the requirements of the PIA and explicitly requiring prompt responses to the people for public information.