News

On February 19, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court in City of Dallas v. Abbott overturned the Attorney General’s understanding of the statutory timeline for responding to requests for public information.  Says attorney Christine Badillo of Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Gallegos & Green, “This is a big deal.” 

On May 16, 2002, the City of Dallas received a request for public information, including “any and all information pertaining to the City of Dallas ‘Assessment Center Process’ for uniform positions of the Dallas Fire and Police Departments.”  On May 22, the City responded, seeking clarification of which assessment centers and for what period of time.  On May 28, the City received a revised request.  In preparing the responsive documents, the City came across several documents that appeared to be covered by attorney client privilege. Accordingly, the City requested an AG opinion to determine whether an exception applied.  The AG concluded that the City’s request was untimely pursuant to Texas Government Code, section 552.301(b), requiring a governmental body that seeks to withhold information to request an AG decision in the matter no later than 10 days “after receiving the written request.”

Ms. Badillo reports that prior to City of Dallas, it was widely understood that the timeline for a public information request “tolled” during the period between a governmental body’s request for clarification and the response.  In other words, the clock stopped for the intervening period, but the days prior to the governmental body’s request for clarification were later added back to the 10-day timeline.  In City of Dallas, however, the Court held that the timeliness of the request for an AG opinion is measured from the date the party seeking public information submits a clarified or specific response. 

In the litigation, the AG’s office took the position that starting the timeline over with the clarified request would encourage governmental bodies to request more clarifications, leading to unnecessary delays.  The Court disagreed, reasoning that giving governmental bodies a reasonable opportunity to respond fully and accurately to requests furthers the purpose of the public information statute.  The Court made clear, however, that such requests for clarification must be sought in good faith, rather than for the purpose of delaying the process. 

Ms. Badillo, who has handled many Public Information Act requests since joining Walsh Anderson in 2004, explained how the facts of this case led to a favorable result for governmental entities.  “[The City of Dallas] had a legitimate reason why they would be harmed by the AG’s interpretation of the law.”  The initial request was worded so broadly that it was not immediately obvious what documents were implicated.  The City “didn’t even know that privileged information would be responsive until they got clarification.”

According to Ms. Badillo, it pays to seek clarification whenever there is doubt as to what items a Public Information Act request is seeking.  Requests are “very often” broad, so at least narrowing the time frame can be a tremendous help.  In Ms. Badillo’s experience, most districts make good faith efforts to respond appropriately to requests for public information.  When issues arise, for example because responsive documents contain sensitive or confidential information, Ms. Badillo points out that districts can seek guidance from the AG’s office.  In addition to issuing formal opinions, the AG runs a helpful hotline, and handbooks regarding the Public Information Act and the Open Records Act are available on the AG website.

The case is City of Dallas v. Abbott, 304 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2010).  Look for a summary in the June issue of the Legal Digest.