Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Gatehouse Media Tex. Holdings, II, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 08-20-00157-CV |
| Parties | The UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN and Jay Hartzell, in his Official Capacity as Interim President of the University of Texas at Austin, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA TEXAS HOLDINGS, II, INC., d/b/a Austin American-Statesman, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
H. Melissa Mather, Assistant Attorney General, Austin, for Appellants.
Maitreya Tomlinson, The Tomlinson Firm, PLLC, Austin, John A. Bussian, The Bussian Law Firm, PLLC, Raleigh, NC, for Appellee.
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Appellants, the University of Texas at Austin and Jay Hartzell, in his official capacity as President of the University of Texas at Austin (together referred to as the University), appeal the trial court's determination that Appellee, Gatehouse Media Texas Holdings, II, Inc., d/b/a Austin American-Statesman (the Statesman), was entitled to information requested under the Public Information Act (PIA).2 Faced with competing motions for summary judgment, the trial court denied the University's motion and granted the Statesman's, ordering that the information requested must be disclosed. On appeal, the University seeks protection of the requested records. On cross-appeal, the Statesman argues that, while the trial court reached the correct decision regarding the sought-after information, it erred in denying the Statesman's motion for attorney's fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's rulings on both motions for summary judgment and reverse and remand the trial court's denial of the Statesman's motion for attorney's fees.
On August 30, 2019, a representative from the Statesman sent a PIA request via email to the University, seeking the "final results" of all disciplinary hearings conducted by the University since January 1, 2014, where the University determined that a student was either an "alleged perpetrator of a crime of violence," including forcible sex offenses, or "an alleged perpetrator of a nonforcible sex offense," and, with respect to the allegation, was found to have committed a violation of the University's rules or policies. The request specified that the term "final results" included the name of the student, the violation committed, "any essential findings supporting the institution's conclusion that the violation was committed," and certain details regarding the sanction imposed, including a "description of [the sanction] ... the date of its imposition and its duration."3 The Statesman's request mirrored the information permitted to be disclosed under a provision of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) 20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g(b)(6)(B).
The University's Open Records Coordinator responded to the request by email over two weeks later—on September 16, 2019—stating the University would not produce the information requested because "[FERPA] does not require The University to disclose any student information that is responsive to your request...."4 In denying the request, the University did not seek an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).5
As permitted by the PIA, the Statesman filed a petition for mandamus in the 353rd Judicial District Court in Travis County, seeking the disclosure of the requested information. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 552.321(a). The Statesman also requested attorney's fees and costs. After the University answered the suit, the Statesman filed a traditional motion for summary judgment, contending the requested information was subject to disclosure for two reasons. First, it argued the University could not withhold the requested information because FERPA allowed its release and, as a result, the information did not fall under any exception to the PIA's disclosure requirement.6 Second, it argued the University must disclose the information because it had failed to comply with § 552.301 of the PIA by timely requesting a decision from the OAG on the applicability of any exception and continued to withhold the information without a compelling reason.
The University opposed the motion, contending in its response that the requested information was excepted from disclosure under the PIA's confidentiality-of-student-records exception. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 552.114(b). The University also argued, in the alternative, that the requested information should be considered confidential by law under the PIA's confidential-information exception. Id. § 552.101 ().
Regarding the Statesman's argument about the University's failure to seek a decision from the OAG, the University argued that it was not required to request an OAG decision under the plain language of subsection (d) of the confidentiality-of-student-records exception. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 552.114(d) (). Additionally, the University argued the Statesman had not established the absence of a compelling reason to withhold the requested information; and thus, it did not meet its burden on summary judgment, as it simply made a "bare allegation" that no compelling reason existed. The trial court set a hearing for February 6, 2020, on the Statesman's motion for summary judgment.
On the evening before the hearing, the University filed its own motion for summary judgment on these same issues. The February 6 hearing proceeded as planned, and at the conclusion, the trial court took the matter under advisement. The parties subsequently agreed to a briefing schedule on the University's motion for summary judgment and also agreed the trial court could consider the competing motions together.
After the parties completed briefing on the University's motion for summary judgment, the trial court issued an order on February 28, 2020, granting the Statesman's motion and denying the University's. Along with the written order, the trial court issued and filed a letter explaining its rulings. The trial court's letter began with a disclaimer stating that the explanation therein did not exclude other reasons the trial court may have for its order or limit the possible bases of support for its order. The remainder of the trial court's letter explained that it believed the University was required to request a ruling from the OAG before withholding the requested information. It concluded the failure to request such a ruling raised the presumption that the information was subject to disclosure absent a compelling reason to withhold the information; and in turn, the trial court found no such reason in the record.
On March 20, 2020—after the trial court had issued its order—the Statesman filed a motion for attorney's fees and to enter a final judgment. In support, the Statesman submitted affidavits and other documentation to prove its fees and argued the fee award was mandatory under § 552.323(a) (). In its motion, the Statesman acknowledged the University had cited various appellate court decisions but argued none were on point, and that the University therefore could not have reasonably relied on them.
On April 9, 2020, the University filed a motion to reconsider the order. In its motion, the University informed the trial court that it had requested a decision from the OAG regarding the Statesman's request on March 17, 2020—over six months after the Statesman's initial request for information and over two weeks after the trial court had signed the order granting the Statesman's motion for summary judgment. The University also asked the trial court to delay signing a final judgment until the OAG responded with its decision so that the trial court could reconsider its summary judgment rulings.
Five days later—on April 14, 2020—the trial court made clear in an email to counsel for both parties that it would not reconsider its order; that the basis for its decision was the PIA's requirement that a governmental entity wishing to withhold information under an exception timely requests a decision from the OAG; that briefing on the University's motion to reconsider was not necessary; that a hearing on the same was not necessary; and that the parties were to "continue with [their] efforts to reach an agreement on submission of attorney's fees." The University filed its response to the Statesman's motion for attorney's fees and to enter a final judgment on April 17, 2020. The Statesman filed its reply to the University's response on April 22, 2020.
That same day—April 22—the University received a response from the OAG regarding the Statesman's original request for information. The OAG's position, as stated in the letter, was that FERPA does not allow educational institutions to disclose unredacted personally identifiable information (PII) contained in education records to the OAG for the purpose of the PIA's review process. The letter stated that, in accordance with the PIA's review requirement found in § 552.301(e), educational authorities would be required to submit any education...
To continue reading
Request your trial