COM'N ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY v. Abbott
Decision Date | 17 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 03-09-00250-CV.,03-09-00250-CV. |
Citation | 311 S.W.3d 663 |
Parties | TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Appellant, v. The Honorable Greg ABBOTT, Attorney General of Texas; and the Honorable Eliot Shapleigh, Texas Senator, Appellees. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Brian E. Berwick, Cynthia Woelk, Assistant Attorneys General, Austin, TX, for Appellant.
Brenda Loudermilk, Chief, Open Records Litigation, Austin, TX, for Appellees.
Doug W. Ray, Ray, Wood & Bonilla, Austin, TX, for Intervenor.
Before Justices PATTERSON, PURYEAR and HENSON.
In this appeal, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality seeks reversal of the district court's judgment requiring the Commission to disclose certain confidential and privileged documents to Texas Senator Eliot Shapleigh. The issue presented is whether separation of powers limits the legislature's authority to obtain confidential and privileged communications between a state agency and its lawyers pursuant to section 552.008 of the Texas Public Information Act. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.008 (West 2004). Because we conclude that section 552.008 requires disclosure of the documents at issue to Senator Shapleigh, we affirm the judgment.
The facts of this cause are largely undisputed. In 2008, Senator Eliot Shapleigh intervened in an administrative proceeding before the Commission involving a request by Asarco, Inc., to renew its air quality permit in order to reopen its copper smelting plant in El Paso, Texas. Shortly after the Commission issued a final order granting the permit application, Senator Shapleigh made two separate requests1 for documents from the Commission under the Texas Public Information Act.2 See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 552.001-.353 (West 2004 & Supp.2009). In both requests, Senator Shapleigh requested documents pursuant to "the legislative purpose special right of access in Section 552.008...."
At the time of Senator Shapleigh's requests, section 552.008 provided:
The Commission made several documents available to Senator Shapleigh but declined to disclose certain documents that it deemed privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product. Id. § 552.305 (West 2004). Included among the documents withheld by the Commission were documents prepared by the Commission's Office of General Counsel to advise the Commissioners regarding the Asarco application. Also included were documents prepared by lawyers in the Environmental Law Division who advise the executive director of the Commission.
The Commission forwarded all of these documents to the Open Records Division of the Office of the Attorney General and requested a ruling under section 552.301 of the public information act.4See id. § 552.301 (West 2004). The Commission asserted that its documents were excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 ( ), 552.103 (information related to litigation), 552.107 (attorney-client privilege), and 552.111 (agency memoranda and deliberative process privilege) of the act. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 552.101, .103, .107, .111 (West 2004). In conjunction with its claim under section 552.101, the Commission also asserted that its documents were excepted from disclosure under Texas Rule of Evidence 503 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5. See id. § 552.101; Tex.R. Evid. 503; Tex.R. Civ. P. 192.5. The Commission further claimed that disclosure of its documents to Senator Shapleigh would "disturb the effective separation of powers under article II, section 1, of the Texas Constitution because the legislative function would be in the position to interfere with the judicial and executive functions." See Tex. Const. art. II, § 1.
The attorney general issued an informal letter ruling, OR2008-06742, which interpreted the public information act to require disclosure of all documents held by the Commission's general counsel and Environmental Law Division to Senator Shapleigh. See Tex. Att'y Gen. OR2008-06742 (May 16, 2008). The attorney general declined to address the Commission's assertions that its documents were confidential under Texas Rule of Evidence 503 or Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5 in conjunction with section 552.101 of the act because the attorney general had previously "concluded that section 552.101 does not encompass discovery privileges." See OR2008-06742 at 1 n. 1 (citing Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD Nos. 676 at 1-2 (2002), 575 at 2 (1990)). Finding that the Commission "failed to sufficiently demonstrate that such interference was present in the instant case," the attorney general rejected the Commission's claim that release of the subject documents would raise separation of powers concerns. Id. at 3. The attorney general concluded that the Commission's documents were subject to disclosure under section 552.008 of the public information act and, therefore, declined to address the Commission's remaining arguments. Id.
The Commission sued the attorney general in district court, and Senator Shapleigh intervened. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 552.324(a), .325 (West 2004). Senator Shapleigh filed a motion for summary judgment. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c). The Commission also sought summary judgment, but the attorney general did not. The district court granted the senator's motion and denied the motion of the Commission. This appeal followed.
The Commission contends that the district court erred in concluding that section 552.008 of the public information act requires the Commission to disclose the documents at issue to Senator Shapleigh because the statute and Senator Shapleigh's requests violate the separation of powers doctrine embodied in article II, section 1, of the Texas Constitution. Senator Shapleigh and the attorney general respond that there was no error in the district court's judgment because the Commission cannot show that the statute or Senator Shapleigh's requests amounted to undue interference with a core function constitutionally committed to the Commission.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.5 Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex.2005). To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the movant must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c).
Determining whether an exception applies under the public information act to support withholding of public information is a question of law, which we review de novo. See City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 357 (Tex. 2000); City of Fort Worth v. Cornyn, 86 S.W.3d 320, 323 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, no pet.). We construe the act liberally in favor of granting requests for information, while narrowly construing exceptions to disclosure. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.001(b) (West 2004); City of Garland, 22 S.W.3d at 365.
We consider questions of statutory construction de novo as well. See City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 25 (Tex.2003). When construing a statute, our primary goal is to determine and give effect to the legislature's intent. Id. To determine legislative intent, we look to the statute as a whole, as opposed to isolated provisions. State v. Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex.2002). We begin with the plain language of the statute at issue and apply its common meaning. City of San Antonio, 111 S.W.3d at 25. Where the statutory text is unambiguous, we adopt a construction supported by the statute's plain language unless that construction would lead to an absurd result. Fleming Foods of Tex., Inc. v. Rylander, 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martinez v. State
...as there is an overlap in the functioning of the three different branches of government. See Texas Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. Abbott, 311 S.W.3d 663, 671–72 (Tex.App.–Austin 2010, pet. denied) ; Armadillo Bail Bonds , 802 S.W.2d at 239–40 (recognizing that the different branches of governm......
-
Martinez v. State, 08-12-00320-CR
...as there is an overlap in the functioning of the three different branches of government. See Texas Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. Abbott, 311 S.W.3d 663, 671-72 (Tex.App. - Austin 2010, pet. denied); Armadillo Bail Bonds, 802 S.W.2d at 239-40 (recognizing that the different branches of governm......
-
In re The Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.
...and have instead "long held that some degree of interdependence and reciprocity is subsumed within the separation of powers principle." Id. at 672 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the separation of powers doctrine "enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but rec......
-
In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.
...and have instead "long held that some degree of interdependence and reciprocity is subsumed within the separation of powers principle." Id. at 672. Accordingly, the separation of powers doctrine upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." Id. (citation omi......