Candy recipe

8/12/2019 Candy recipe

1/70

NO. 03-13-00820-CV

In theThird Court of ppeals

of Texas__________________________________________________________________City of El Paso, Texas

Appellant

v.

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas and

Intervenor, Stephanie Townsend Allala

Appellee__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 261stJudicial District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Number D-1-GN-12-001731

__________________________________________________________________

BRIEF OF INTERVENOR APPELLEE

Stephanie Townsend Allala

Bill AleshireState Bar No. 24031810RIGGS ALESHIRE & RAY, P.C.700 Lavaca St., Suite 920Austin, Texas 78701512 457-9806512 457-9066 Facsimile

[email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENORAPPELLEE, STEPHANIE ALLALA

February 25, 2014ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

A

03-13-0

THIRD COURT OF

AUSTI

2/25/2014 4:

JEFFREY


2/70

Intervenor Allalas Appellee Brief

Page | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. iv

STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................................. viii

ISSUE PRESENTED .............................................................................................. vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 4

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4

STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................. 5

REPLY POINT 1(a) Intervenor is first entitled to targeted discoveryon the mootness issue before the court considers the plea to thejurisdiction...5

REPLY POINT 1(b) The trial court correctly denied the Citysplea because the City was required, but failed, to prove as a matterof law that all of the public information Allala requested hadbeen disclosed. 10

REPLY POINT 2 Intervenors mandamus action under TPIAsection 552.321 is separate and not mooted by any resolution,if any, of the Citys claims against the Attorney General underTPIA section 552.32513

REPLY POINT 3 Intervenor did not bring an action under theLocal Government Records Act (LGRA), but that act is relevantto the scope of the TPIA...14


3/70


Page | iii

CROSS POINT - The existence of a claim by Intervenor Allalaconcerning unlawful redaction of personal email addresses of cityofficials used in their official communication with each otherprecludes dismissal on the city's plea to the jurisdiction. ...21

OBJECTION TO APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY FEES. .22

PRAYER.23

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 24

OBJECTION TO ATTORNEY FEES ...22

APPENDIX.....26


4/70


Page | iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TEXAS CASES

Bland Indep. Sch. Distr. v. Blue,

34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000). ....10

City of Laredo v. Rio Grnade H2O Gardian,No. 04-10-00872-CV,2011 WL 312205 (Tex. App.-San Antonio July 27, 2011). .8

Heckman v. Williamson County,

369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012). ..10

In re Allied Chemical Corp.,

227 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. 2007). ....7

Mission Consol. Indep. School Dist. V. Garcia,

372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012). ..11

State v. Lowry,

802 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. 1991). 6

State Dept. of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzales,

82 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2002). ..5

Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004). .......x, 7, 10, 11

Texas United for Reform and Freedom v. Saenz,319 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. App. Austin 2010, pet. denied). .....9

The Austin Bulldog v. Lee Leffingwell, et al.,

Cause No. 03-13-00604-CV. ..22

Thomas v. Cornyn,71 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2002). ......x, 13

Walker v. Packer,827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992). ...8


5/70


Page | v

STATUTES

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201. .xi

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 202. .....xi

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 203. .....xi

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.003(2). ..15

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.003(8). ..16

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.005. .17

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.006(a). ..19

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.009(a). ...xi, 16

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 202.002. ..17

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 202.005. ...20



Tex. Loc. Govt Code 209.009. ..19

Tex. Govt Code 552.002(a)(2). ....12

Tex. Govt Code 552.137. ...xi, 4, 21

Tex. Govt Code 552.321. ......x, 4, 13, 21, 22

Tex. Govt Code 552.323. ..22

Tex. Govt Code 552.323(a). ..23

Tex. Govt Code 552.323(b) ..22


6/70


Page | vi

Tex. Govt Code 552.325. ....4, 13, 22


7/70


Page | vii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Because of errors in Appellants Statement of the Case, Appellee provides

this clarification of the record.

1. Contrary to Appellants statement at Page 2 of its brief, the City has

not complied with the decision of the Attorney General.... When it requested the

ruling by the Attorney General, the City resisted disclosure of two sets of records,

(a) some specific records for which they claimed trade secret protection and (b)

records of official business maintained on personal email accounts of City officials

not in the possession of the City. As it is doing in this appeal, in seeking a ruling

from the Attorney General, the City argued that the Texas Public Information Act

(TPIA) 1does not require disclosure of correspondence about City business if it

was held privately by City Council representatives in their personal email

accounts. But the Attorney General said:

A governmental body may not circumvent the applicability of the Actby conducting official business in a private medium. [citationsomitted] Thus, to the extent the e-mails originally located in personale-mail accounts related to the official business of the city, they weresubject to the Act at the time of the first request. CR 342 (Tex. AttyGen. OR2012-19216 at 3 (2012)).

1 Tex. Govt Code Ch. 552.


8/70


Page | viii

Not only did the City not comply with this part of the Attorney General ruling, the

City resisted discovery sought by Appellee directly from the witnesses who created

or received the official correspondence so a determination can be made of what, if

any, public information still has not been disclosed. The City sought its Plea to the

Jurisdiction, claiming mootness, precisely for the purpose of preventing Intervenor

from conducting discovery on this core issue.

2. It is not true that the City ... submitted indisputable evidence after

two hearings proving the Citys compliance with the AGs decision. Appellants

Brief at 2. The evidence the City submitted was not indisputable and it was, in

fact, disputed, as is shown below.

3. The wording in the Citys Brief about the Attorney Generals position

regarding the Citys Plea may be misleading: The AG did not oppose the

dismissal of the entire suit in both hearings. Appellants Brief at 2. The Attorney

General did not take a position one way or the other on the Citys Plea or

Intervenors Motion to Compel. III R.R at 37 (Statement by Assistant Attorney

General Matthew Entsminger: The Attorney General is not taking a position on

any motions before the Court today.).


9/70


Page | ix

STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellee requests oral argument and agrees with Appellant that oral

argument may be of assistance to the Court.

ISSUE PRESENTED - REPLY POINTS

1. Reply to Appellants Mootness Claim:

a. Under these circumstances, the trial court would have erred in

deciding the jurisdictional issue of mootness without affording the

Intervenor/Appellee (records requestor Allala) an opportunity to conduct targeted

discovery on whether the records had been disclosed by the City subsequent to

their refusal to do so. Where, as here, the central issue in a lawsuit is whether a

governmental body has fully complied with disclosure of records required by the

TPIA, the requestor is entitled to conduct at least targeted discovery on that central

issue of mootness, prior tothe court deciding to dismiss the case on a plea to the

jurisdiction.

b. Even if it were decided that the requestor was not entitled to conduct

targeted discovery before the issue of mootness was decided, the record shows

issues of a disputed material factabout whether the requested public information

in possession of City officials had been disclosedthat would preclude dismissal

via a plea to the jurisdiction. If the facts are disputed, the court cannot grant the


10/70


Page | x

plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133

S.W.3d 217, 227-28 (Tex. 2004). To obtain dismissal via a Plea to the Jurisdiction

based on fact issues, the burden is on the City, similar to the traditional summary

judgment proof standard, to show as a matter of law that the requested public

information had been disclosed. Id.at 228.

2. Reply to Appellants argument on Intervenors Mandamus action:

The trial court did not lose jurisdiction over Intervenor Allalas TPIA section

552.321 mandamus claims regardless of the status of the Citys section 552.325

claims against the Attorney General. This issue was decided by the Texas

Supreme Court in Thomas v. Cornyn in 2002 (If a requestor intervenes [pursuant

to section 552.325], as here, then the claims at trial may include the requestors

mandamus action [pursuant to section 552.321] seeking the release of the

information.). Thomas, 71 S.W.3d 473, 482 (Tex. 2002). Thus, a

requestor/intervenor may litigate (and seek discovery on) the issue pursuant to

section 552.321 of whether the governmental body ... refuses to supply public

information or information that the attorney general has determined is public

information that is not excepted from disclosure...

3. Reply to Appellants Argument on the Local Government Records Act

(LGRA):

Contrary to the implication of Appellants Brief at page 20, Appellee did not


11/70


Page | xi

bring suitunder the LGRA, but instead argues that a local government record as

defined by the LGRA constitutes public information subject to disclosure under

the TPIA. Local government records are subject to disclosure under the TPIA.

See Tex. Loc. Govt Code section 201.009(a). The Local Government Records

Act (LGRA) 2 is also relevant to a lawsuit under the TPIA because the TPIA

defines public information to in such a way that it includes local government

records, i.e., records in connection with the transaction of official business that

the governmental body owns or has a right of access to it. Even records of official

business, created by a government official using a personal email account, are

owned by the government and are subject to disclosure under the TPIA.

4. CROSS-POINT - Additional Grounds on Which the Trial Court Retained

Jurisdiction:

Appellants Brief ignores the existence of another live undecided issue in the

case that would preclude dismissal via a plea to the jurisdictionthe issue of

whether the email addresses of City officials could be redacted as being email

addresses of members of the public pursuant to TPIA section 552.137. The trial

court clearly had jurisdiction to interpret section 552.137 as it would apply to the

undisputed fact that the emails the City disclosed redacted the email addresses of

the City officials communicating with each other.

2 Tex. Loc. Govt Code chs 201, 202, and 203.


12/70

Intervenor Allalas Appellee BriefPage | 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellee provides this Statement of Facts to supplement and correct errors

in Appellants Statement of Facts.

At page 5 of its brief, the City omitted reference to the Courts ruling

(September 30, 2013) sustaining Allalas objections to the Citys evidence (the

Joyce Wilson affidavit at CR 236-37) regarding mootness. And the Citys brief

omits the Courts first decision regarding the Citys plea to the jurisdiction.

Contrary to the Citys brief, Allala did file written objections and evidence to the

plea evidence the City included in its plea to the jurisdiction, demonstrating that

the City had not met its burden of proof (as a matter of law). CR 247-48.

In this September hearing on the Citys first plea to the jurisdiction, the trial

court said:

THE COURT: All right. For our purposes here, what I would like to

do is, let me just go ahead and rule on what I am going to do with the

plea to the jurisdiction. First of all, I'll grant -- I'll sustain the

objection to that portion of the affidavit of Joyce Wilson and that it's

conclusory. The Court finds that it is conclusory. And that is the last

sentence on paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4. It says, the City of El Paso has

conducted a diligent search for information but does not have any


13/70


Page | 2

additional responsive documents which have not been published or

disclosed without stating the basis, the factual basis for that statement.

The Court is going to not rule on the plea to the jurisdiction. I am not

going to grant it or deny it. I'm holding the ruling on the plea to the

jurisdiction to allow some limited discovery, and then provide,

perhaps, proposed discovery presentation of the jurisdictional issue.

II RR at 50-51.

Before the depositions of the City officials could be obtained, however, the

City filed a Supplemental Plea to the Jurisdiction to try again to meet the Citys

burden of proof regarding mootness. CR 334-357. In response to the Citys

supplemental plea and evidence, Allala objected in writing to affidavits alleging

merely that the City had produced records for which the City had custody or

control because that standard is more narrow than the TPIA definition of public

information subject to disclosure, which includes information that the City owns

or has a right of access to. CR 361-62. At the hearing on November 25, 2013,

counsel for Allala also argued to the Court that affidavits by City officials (who are

not the actual authors or custodians (the City Manager and Council members) who

maintained the official correspondence in personal email accounts) did not prove,

as a matter of law, that all such requested correspondenceeven if it was still

retained privately by the City officialshad been disclosed as required by the


14/70


Page | 3

TPIA. III RR at 34:22-25 35:1-14; 36:4-19. The Court could have reasonably

concluded that the affidavits attached to the Citys Supplement Plea were not based

on personal knowledgetherefore, did not prove as a matter of lawwhat records

were retained in the personal email accounts of the City officials.

At the November 2013 hearing, former Council representative Steve Ortega,

who had publicly refused to turn over his official-City-business emails he held in

his personal email account, provided the Court, for in camera review, emails he

claimed were responsive to the Allala records request. III RR 59. Upon receiving

the Ortega records, after the hearing, Allala filed a Reply noting, ironically, that

one of the emails Ortega revealed was an email from City Manager Joyce Wilson

which had never before been disclosed. CR 414-15; CR 421. This was evidence

that the City Manager had relevant emails from her personal email address about

city business (within the scope of the Allala request) that she had not been turned

over to the City, let alone disclosed in response to Allalas records requests. In

other words, as argued in Allalas Reply, the Ortega evidence filed at that hearing

brought doubt to the correctness of the Citys plea-to-the-jurisdiction evidence and

raised a fact question of whether the City had disclosed all of the requested public

information, or only the information they had obtained, even from their own City

Manager. CR 416-17 (Allalas argument on a genuine issue of material fact).


15/70


Page | 4

Although Allala asked the Court to postpone a decision on the Citys

supplemental plea to the jurisdiction until Allala could conduct targeted discovery

regarding the mootness issue, the Court denied the Citys plea (as it pertains to

Allala) instead. CR 418; CR 412.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The trial court correctly denied the Citys plea to the jurisdiction. It would

have been error had the trial court granted the Citys plea based on the fact

questions related to mootness without first permitting Intervenor Allala and

opportunity to conduct discovery on that issue. Likewise, in the face of disputed

facts as to whether the City officials had disclosed all of the requested emails, it

would have been error had the trial court granted the Citys plea.

The trial court retained jurisdiction over Allalas TPIA section 552.321

mandamus claim for disclosure of public information, separate and apart from

Allala having intervened in the Citys lawsuit against the Attorney General under

section 552.325. Although it was ignored in Appellants brief, the trial court also

retained jurisdiction over Allalas claim that some of the information the City

withheld was the redacted personal email addresses of City officials

communicating with each other about City business. Allala contended that those

email addresses are not confidential under TPIA section 552.137 as email

addresses of members of the public communicating with a governmental body.


16/70


Page | 5

The trial court did not hear or decide that issue.

INTERVENOR APPELLEES ARGUMENT

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because this appeal is based on a challenge to the trial courts subject-matter

jurisdiction, which is a question of law, this Court reviews the trial courts ruling

de novo. State Dept. of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzales, 82 S.W.3d 322,

327 (Tex. 2002).

REPLY POINTS

REPLY POINT 1(a) Intervenor is first entitled to targeted discoveryon the mootness issue before the court considers the plea to thejurisdiction.

Since it was necessary for the trial court to consider evidence of whether the

City had disclosed all of the requested public information to resolve the

jurisdictional question of mootness, the court would have committed error if it did

not firstaccord the Intervenor/Requestor an opportunity to conduct discovery on

that fact question going to the heart of Intervenors case. Failure to permit such

discovery would have been reversible error subject to mandamus.

A party should be afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery in a lawsuit

such as this:

Affording parties fully discovery promotes fair resolution of disputes

by the judiciary. This court has vigorously sought to ensure that


17/70


Page | 6

lawsuits are decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are

concealed. Discovery is thus the linchpin of the search for the truth,

as it makes a trial less of a game of blind mans bluff and more a fair

contest with the issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable

extent.

State v. Lowry, 802 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1991) (citations omitted). The City

asked the trial court to dismiss Allalas claims without permitting Allala the

search for the truth that our discovery rules anticipate. As the Texas Supreme

Court said inLowry:

Only in certain narrow circumstances is it appropriate to obstruct the

search for truth by delaying discovery. Very limited exceptions to the

strongly preferred policy of openness are recognized in our state

procedural rules and statues. The burden is on the party seeking to

avoid discovery to plead the basis for exemption of immunity and to

produce evidence supporting that claim. Id.

The City gave no valid reason to prohibit Allala from conducting this

targeted discovery before deciding the question of mootness based on evidence. If

the trial court had granted the Citys plea and Allala had sought mandamus over

the courts discovery decision, the court of appeals would have determined

whether the trial court abused its discretion and whether the appellant has an


18/70


Page | 7

adequate remedy by appeal. The Texas Supreme Court has explained:

...[W]e have granted mandamus when a denial of discovery goes to

the heart of a partys case....

...[W]e have granted mandamus when a discovery order severely

compromises a partys ability to present any case at all at trial.

In re Allied Chemical Corp., 227 S.W.3d 652, 658 (Tex. 2007).

That is exactly the error that the City of El Paso asked the trial court to

make: (1) deny Allala discovery that seeks to determine if all of requested public

information has been disclosed, and (2) deny Allala discovery that severely

compromises Allalas ability to present any case at the hearing on the Citys plea,

potentially dismissing the lawsuit.

In circumstances such as this, the determination of the plea may also

require consideration of extrinsic facts after reasonable opportunity for targeted

discovery. Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 233. It

should also be noted that in Miranda, the Plaintiff had conducted depositions

beforethe state Department filed is plea to the jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court

has noted:

When the consideration of a trial courts subject matter jurisdiction

requires the examination of evidence, the trial court exercises its

discretion in deciding whether the jurisdictional determination should


19/70


Page | 8

be made at a preliminary hearing or await a fuller development of the

case, mindful that this determination must be made as soon as

practicable. Id. at 227.

As the Court said in Walker v. Packer,Remedy by appeal in a discovery

mandamus is not adequate where a part is required to try his lawsuit, debilitated

by the denial of proper discovery, only to have that lawsuit rendered a certain

nullity on appeal..... Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 841 (Tex. 1992).

Without being permitted the requested depositions before disposition of the Citys

plea, Allala could not have been expected to prove the heart of her casethat the

City has not disclosed the requested information. Considering that the depositions

of these key witnesses would have sought evidence that goes to the merits of

Allalas claim that the City failed to provide the requested records, it would be an

abuse of discretion and reversible error to deny Allala that discovery on the very

issue that the Citys plea is based on: whether the public information has been

disclosed.

Allala correctly asked the trial court that she be allowed to conduct

discovery while the Plea was pending. This request is similar to the following

case. In City of Laredo v. Rio Grande H2O Guardian, 3 the plaintiff requested

3 No. 04-10-00872-CV, 2011 WL 312205 at *1 (Tex. App.San Antonio July 27,2011).


20/70


Page | 9

public information from the City of Laredo, and the City staff consulted with the

appropriate departments and council chambers regarding the requests, and then

responded to each one with either responsive information or with a declaration that

no such records existed. Id. The City claimed it had produced all of the

information in its possession. Rio Grande [the plaintiff] disagreed and filed a

petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court to compel the City to produce the

public records Rio Grande claimed were not released in response to its previous

requests for information. Id. at *10. The City complained on appeal that the trial

court should not have granted the plaintiffs petition for mandamus. The Court of

Appeals noted with approval that the trial court neither granted nor denied Rio

Grandes petition:

Rather, the trial court noted the issues raised by Rio Grande with

regard to the Public Information Act were not moot, and Rio Grande

would be given an opportunity to depose members of the Laredo City

Council and to conduct further discovery.... [T]he trial court

seemingly passed on the matter, deciding to allow the information to

be gathered through traditional discovery devices, advising Rio

Grande that it would be permitted to file motions to compel in the

event information was not forthcoming.

Id.at *10. (emphasis added); see also, Texas United for Reform and Freedom v.


21/70


Page | 10

Saenz, 319 S.W.3d 914, 918 (Tex. App.Austin 2010, pet. denied) (approving

trial courts action of continuing a hearing on TxDOTs plea to the jurisdiction for

90 days during which the parties conducted discovery including depositions.).

The trial court was correct in denying the Citys plea to the jurisdiction if for

no other reason than that Allaya had not been afforded an opportunity to conduct

discovery over the core mootness issue of whether the City had complied with the

TPIA.

REPLY POINT 1(b) The trial court correctly denied the Citys pleabecause the City was required, but failed, to prove as a matter of lawthat all of the public information Allala requested had been disclosed.

The Texas Supreme Court has made it clear that when, as here, the court

must consider evidence to determine a plea to the jurisdiction, the burden in on the

movant of the plea, similar to the burden in summary judgment.

There is no dispute regarding whether Allalas pleadings, based on the

TPIA, demonstrate the trial courts jurisdiction. Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v.

Miranda,133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004) (noting that in assessing a plea to the

jurisdiction the court begins with the live pleadings). The Texas Supreme Court

has made it clear that the Court must consider evidence when it necessary to

resolve the jurisdictional question, e.g. in this case, the question of whether all of

the requested public information had been disclosed. Heckman v. Williamson

County,369 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tex. 2012) (citing Bland Indep. Sch. Distr. V. Blue,


22/70


Page | 11

34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000).

... [A] trial courts review of a plea to the jurisdiction mirrors that of a

traditional summary judgment motion. Initially, the [movant of the

plea] carries the burden to meet the summary judgment proof standard

for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction. If it does, the

[non-movant of the plea] is then required to show that a disputed

material fact exists regarding the jurisdictional issue. If a fact issue

exists, the trial court should deny the plea.

Mission Consol. Indep. School Dist.v. Garcia,372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012).

On review by the appellate court, this Court reviews the matter under a de novo

standard and take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant (Allala).

Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228. And the Court must also indulge every reasonable

inference and resolve any doubts in favor of the nonmovant.Id.

As Allala showed the trial courtand the court agreedthe City did not

meet its initial burden to show, as a matter of law, that the City had fully complied

with the TPIA. The emails at issue were created and retained on the personal

email accounts of the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council Representatives who

were the custodians of these public records. Only these individuals had the

requisite personal knowledge to provide admissible affidavits about whether the

city correspondence on their personal email accounts had been disclosed. The City


23/70


Page | 12

Manager was the only one of these officials who gave an affidavit, and the trial

court granted Allalas objection that that affidavit was conclusory. CR 247-48; II

RR at 50-51.

The rest of the Citys plea evidence consisted of affidavits from city

employees who claimed only that the City had disclosed the information,

eventually, within the custody and control of the City, dodging the issue of

whether all of the public information (as that term is defined in section

552.002(a)(2)), which includes information owned by the City or that the City has

a right of access to had been disclosed.

This deficiency in the City meeting its burden of proof under these

circumstances was pointed out by Allala to the court, in writing and in argument.

CR 361-62; III RR at 34:22-25 35:1-14; 36:4-19. Allala also pointed out

evidence submitted by former Representative Ortega demonstrated that the City

Manager had not disclosed all of the relevant emails from her personal email

account. CR 414-15; CR 421.

The trial court had plenty of reason to hold that the City had failed to meet is

burden of proof for a plea to the jurisdiction and to deny the Citys plea.


24/70


Page | 13

REPLY POINT 2 Intervenors mandamus action under TPIAsection 552.321 is separate and not mooted by any resolution, if any,of the Citys claims against the Attorney General under TPIA section552.325.

In its brief at page 18, the City argues that court lacked jurisdiction to hear

Intervenor Allalas mandamus action under TPIA section 552.321 because the City

supplied public information to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.... The

Citys brief does not contain any record evidence that the Attorney General was

satisfied with what information the City disclosed in response to Allalas public

information request. But nevertheless, whether the Attorney General was satisfied

is not relevant to whether Allala had a right to pursue her section 552.321

mandamus action regardless of the status of the Citys suit against the Attorney

General under TPIA section 552.325.

This issue was decided by the Texas Supreme Court inThomas v. Cornyn

in

2002:

If the requestor does not intervene, the governing body will bring a

declaratory judgment or mandamus action seeking to withhold

information. If a requestor intervenes, as here, then the claims at trial

may include the requestor's mandamus action seeking the release of

the information. [citations omitted]. While the remedy differs, the

issue is the same in both causes of action: whether the information has


25/70


Page | 14

been shown to be excepted from disclosure.

Thomas, 71 S.W.3d 473, 482 (Tex. 2002). Thus, the court retained jurisdiction

over Allalas mandamus action pursuant to section 552.321 of whether the

governmental body ... refuses to supply public information or information that the

attorney general has determined is public information that is not excepted from

disclosure...

REPLY POINT 3 Intervenor did not bring an action under the LocalGovernment Records Act (LGRA), but that act is relevant to the scopeof the TPIA.

In response to the Citys argument that records in the hands of the City

officials are not subject to the TPIA, Allala argued that, because those records are

local government records, they belong to the City and are included as public

information subject to disclosure under the TPIA. If the City refused to obtain

these local government records, the court could order the City to do soas a

mandamus under the TPIA for the City to disclose information that the City owns

or has a right of access to.

Allalas argument concerning the Local Government Records Act was not

that she had a right to bring a claim for mandamus under the LGRA but that the

LGRA was relevant to her claim for mandamus under the TPIA because the

records she soughteven if created or received by these City officials on their


26/70


Page | 15

personal email accounts in the transaction of official City businessare public

information as defined by the TPIA.

Chapter 201 of the Local Government Code, the Local Government

Records Act pertains directly to the records at issue in this lawsuit.

a. The witnesses are custodians of the records of their individual

offices.

Custodian means the appointed or elected public officer who by the state

constitution, state law, ordinance, or administrative policy is in charge of an office

that creates or receives local government records. Tex. Loc. Govt Code

201.003(2) (Vernons 2008).

b. The correspondence sought in the open records requests [emails

between Council Members or City Manager about official business or with the

Baseball stadium promoters] is a local government record.

(8) Local government record means any document, paper, letter, book, map,

photograph, sound or video recording, microfilm, magnetic tape, electronic

medium, or other information recording medium, regardless of physical form or

characteristic and regardless of whether public access to it is open or restricted

under the laws of the state, created or received bya local government or any of its

officers or employeespursuant to law, including an ordinance, or in the transaction


27/70


Page | 16

of public business.... 4

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.003(8) (emphasis added).

c. Local Government Records are public information and the

custodian of the record must protect the record.

Sec. 201.009 (a) Local government records are subject to Chapter 552,

Government Code [the TPIA].

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.009(a) (Vernons 2012).

Sec. 202.002. LITIGATION AND OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS. (a)

Regardless of any other provision of this subtitle or rules adopted under it, a local

government record the subject matter of which is known by the custodian to be in

litigation may not be destroyed until the litigation is settled.

(b) Regardless of any other provision of this subtitle or rules adopted under it, a

4 That section goes on to say: The term does not include:(A) extra identical copies of documents created only for convenience of reference or research byofficers or employees of the local government;(B) notes, journals, diaries, and similar documents created by an officer or employee of the localgovernment for the officer's or employee's personal convenience;(C) blank forms;(D) stocks of publications;(E) library and museum materials acquired solely for the purposes of reference or display;(F) copies of documents in any media furnished to members of the public to which they areentitled under Chapter 552, Government Code, or other state law; or(G) any records, correspondence, notes, memoranda, or documents, other than a final writtenagreement described by Section 2009.054(c), Government Code, associated with a matterconducted under an alternative dispute resolution procedure in which personnel of a statedepartment or institution, local government, special district, or other political subdivision of thestate participated as a party, facilitated as an impartial third party, or facilitated as theadministrator of a dispute resolution system or organization.


28/70


Page | 17

local government record subject to a request under Chapter 552, Government

Code, may not be destroyed until the request is resolved.

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 202.002 (Vernons 2008).

d. The requested local government records do not belong to the

witnesses; these records belong to the City of El Paso.

Sec. 201.005. DECLARATION OF RECORDS AS PUBLIC PROPERTY;

ACCESS. (a) Local government records created or received in the transaction of

official business or the creation or maintenance of which were paid for by public

funds are declared to be public propertyand are subject to the provisions of this

subtitle and Subchapter J, Chapter 441, Government Code. (emphasis added)

(b) A local government officer or employee does not have, by virtue of the

officer's or employee's position, any personal or property right to a local

government record even though the officer or employee developed or compiled it.

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.005 (Vernons 2008) (emphasis added).

e. These witnesses/custodians of these emails they created or

received about official City business have statutory duties to protect the

records and turn the records over to their successors in office.

Sec. 203.022. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CUSTODIANS. (a)

Custodians of records in each local government shall:


29/70


Page | 18

(1) cooperate with the records management officer in carrying out the

policies and procedures established by the local government for the efficient and

economical management of records and in carrying out the requirements of this

subtitle;

(2) adequately document the transaction of government business and the

services, programs, and duties for which the custodian and the custodian's staff

are responsible; and

(3) maintain the records in the custodian's care and carry out their

preservation, microfilming, destruction, or other disposition only in accordance

with the policies and procedures of the local government's records management

program and the requirements of this subtitle and rules adopted under it.

(b) State law relating to the duties, other responsibilities, or recordkeeping

requirements of a custodian of local government records do not exempt the

custodian or the records in the custodian's care from the application of this subtitle

and rules adopted under it and may not be used by the custodian as a basis for

refusal to participate in the records management program of the local government

whose establishment is required by this chapter. 5

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 203.022 (Vernons 2008) (emphasis added).

5 It should be noted that correspondence about operations of government must beretained for 2 years and correspondence about new programs or policies must be retained for 4


30/70


Page | 19

Sec. 201.006. RECORDS TO BE DELIVERED TO SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE.

(a) A custodian of local government records shall, at the expiration of the

custodian's term of office, appointment, or employment, deliver to the custodian's

successor, if there is one, all local government records in custody. If there is no

successor, the governing body shall determine which officer of the local

government shall have custody.

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 201.006(a) (Vernons 2008) (emphasis added).

f. A city official risks conviction of a Class A misdemeanor if they

destroy or alienate these official city records or fail to deliver them to their

successor in office.

Sec. 202.008. PENALTY: DESTRUCTION OR ALIENATION OF RECORD.

An officer or employee of a local government commits an offense if the officer or

employee knowingly or intentionally violates this subtitle or rules adopted under it

by destroying or alienating a local government record in contravention of this

subtitle or by intentionally failing to deliver records to a successor in office as

provided by Section 201.006(a). An offense under this section is a Class A

misdemeanor.

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 202.008 (Vernons 2008); see also 209.009 making it a

years under mandatory State Library & Archives Commission rules applicable to the City of ElPaso.


31/70


Page | 20

criminal offense for an individual who knowingly or intentionally acquires or

possesses a local government record.

g. The City Council of El Paso has a responsibility to make sure the

requested local government records are provided to the City for disclosure

under the TPIA.

Sec. 202.005. RIGHT OF RECOVERY. (a) The governing body may demand and

receive from any person any local government record in private possession created

or received by the local government the removal of which was not authorized by

law.

(b) If the person in possession of a local government record refuses to deliver the

record on demand, the governing body may petition the district court of the county

in which the person resides for the return of the record. If the court finds that the

record is a local government record, the court shall order the return of the record.

(c) As part of the petition to the district court or at any time after its filing, the

governing body may petition to have the record seized pending the determination

of the court if the governing body finds the record is in danger of being destroyed,

mutilated, altered, secreted, or removed from the state.

Tex. Loc. Govt Code 202.005 (Vernons 2008).

By reading the LGRA together with the TPIA, the trial court has jurisdiction

pursuant to TPIA section 552.321 to require the City to obtain its local


32/70


Page | 21

government recordsif necessary by court action brought by the City against the

custodian of the records who is withholding the recordswhich are subject to

disclosure under the TPIA as public information. Contrary to the Citys appeal

and argument, the TPIA does not have a gaping loophole for governmental bodies

to stand aside and permit its government records be concealed in the private hands

of public officials. Together, the LGRA and TPIA work to make sure public

information is available to the public.

CROSS POINT The existence of a claim by Intervenor Allalaconcerning unlawful redaction of personal email addresses of cityofficials used in their official communication with each otherprecludes dismissal on the Citys plea to the jurisdiction.

When Allala received disclosure of emails from the City in response to her

open records requests, the personal email addresses of the City officials used to

email each other were redacted. Ostensibly, the City claims that these email

addresses are confidential pursuant to TPIA section 552.137, which makes

confidential email addresses of members of the public used to communicate with

a governmental body. Allala contends that within the correct meaning of section

552.137, these City officials, communicating with each other about City business,

are not members of the public who email addresses are confidential under


33/70


Page | 22

section 552.137. 6

The Citys plea to the jurisdiction, like its appeal brief, ignored this part of

the case below. The trial court did not address this issue, nor did the court need to,

since the court denied the Citys plea. Clearly, the court has continuing

jurisdiction over Allalas claim for mandamus under section 552.321 to compel

disclosure of the email addresses of the City officials used in the transaction of

City business. This was sufficient grounds for the court to deny the Citys blanket

plea to the jurisdiction.

OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY FEES

In its brief at page 21, Appellant asks the court to remand the case to the trial

court to award attorney fees but does not cite the statutory basis for that claim.

Allala objects to Appellants claim for attorney fees to the extent the award of

Appellants attorney fees would be against Allala. The only applicable statute for

award of attorney fees to a governmental body who files suit under the TPIA is

TPIA section 552.323(b) which permits attorney fees to be awarded against the

Attorney General if the governmental body prevails in the lawsuit under TPIA

section 552.325 (which permits suit against the Attorney General, not the

requestor). TPIA section 552.321 permits award of attorney fees only to a

6 The merits of this issue is pending before the Third Court of Appeals in TheAustin Bulldog v. Lee Leffingwell, et al.,Cause No. 03-13-00604-CV.


34/70


Page | 23

requestor/plaintiff who prevails and does not permit attorney fees to be awarded to

the governmental body against the requestor.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Intervenor/Appellee Stephanie Allala asks this Court to

uphold the trial courts denial of the City of El Pasos plea to the jurisdiction,

award Intervenor/Appellee its appellate costs, and remand the case to the trial court

for a determination of an award of attorney fees pursuant to Tex. Govt Code

section 552.323(a) for Appellees costs associated with this TPIA lawsuit in

district court and for such other relief to which Appellee is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bill AleshireBill Aleshire

State Bar No. 24031810RIGGS ALESHIRE & RAY, P.C.700 Lavaca St., Suite 920Austin, Texas 78701512 457-9806512 457-9066 [email protected] FOR APPELLEESTEPHANIE ALLALA


35/70


Page | 24

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this Brief complies with TRAP Rule 9.4 and contains 5,064

words in Times New Roman typeface of 14-point.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties,

through counsel of record, via e-file on Feb 25, 2014.

Appellants Counsel

George E. HydeState Bar No. 45006157Lowell F. DentonState Bar No. 05764700Scott M. TschirhartState Bar No. 24013655Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal Hyde & Zech, P.C.2500 W. William Cannon Drive, Suite 609Austin, Texas 78745-5292(512) 279-6431

(512) 279-6438 [email protected]@[email protected]


36/70


Page | 25

Appellee Greg Abbot, Attorney General of Texas Counsel

Kimberly L. FuchsOffice of the Attorney General, Open Records LitigationAdministrative Law DivisionP.O. Box 12548Austin, Texas 78711-2548(512) 475-4195(512) 320-0167 [email protected]



37/70

Appendix to Intervenor Allalas Appellee Brief

APPENDIX TO INTERVENOR APPELLEES BRIEF

RECORD EXCERPTS:

TAB 1 [II RR 50-51] Trial Courts Ruling on Objection to Wilson Affidavitand Plea to the Jurisdiction.

TAB 2 [CR 361 362 part] Allalas objection to citys custody and controlevidence.

TAB 3 [III RR 34-36] Allala objection to citys custody and controlaffidavits.

TAB 4 [ CR 413-23] Allalas evidence of missing records.

STATUTES CENTRAL TO ARGUMENT

TAB 5 Tex. Loc. Govt Code section 201.003; Definitions of Custodianand Local government record.

TAB 6 Tex. Loc. Govt Code section 201.005; Records as Public Property.

TAB 7 Tex. Loc. Govt Code section 201.009; Records Are Subject to TPIA.

TAB 8 Tex. Loc. Govt Code section 202.005; Right of Recovery of Records.


38/70

TAB 1[II 50 51]Trial Court s Ruling On Objections toWilson Affidavit and Plea to the Jurisdiction


39/70

Plea to th e J u r i s d i c t i o nS e p t e m b e r 3 0 2013o3 1 3 a0 82 a cv

1

1 REPORTER S RECORDVOLUME 2 OF 3 VOLUMES2 TRIAL COURT C USE NO D - I - G V - 1 2 - 0 0 1 :fILED IN3rd COURT OF APPEA S3 CITY OF EL PASO IN THE DISTRICT TEXAS

12 26 2 1312:21 : PM v s . TRAVIS COUNTY IJERFREYD KYLE

Clerk5 GREG BBOTT 261ST J UD IC IA L D IS TR IC T6

89

101 1121314

PLE TO T JURISDI TIONSEPTEMBER 3 0 2013

VOLUME 2 OF 3 VOLUMES

15 On th e 30th d ay of S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 3 th e fo l lowing16 p ro ceed in g s came on to be held in th e a b o v e t i tl e d an d17 num ber ed cause b e fo re th e H o n o r a b l e Orl inda N a r a n j o18 J u d g e P re s i d i n g held in Aust in Trav i s C o u n t y T e x a s .19 Proceed ings repor t ed by c o m p u t e r i z e d s teno type20 m a c h i n e .2122232 425


40/70

P l e a to t h e J u r i s d i c t i o nSep tember 30 2013 50

He is a t te m pt in g to impo r t i n t o a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t comprehens ive l o c a l gove rnmen t management r es p on s ib i l i t y t h a t has no wa ive r o f sove r e ign immuni t y4 th e r i g h t to go in t h e r e t h rough th e back door of th e5 TPIA and en f o r c e all o f t h o s e s t a nda r d s fo r r e co r d s6 r e t e n t i o n and r e c o r d s management7 There i s no cause o f ac t i on fo r t h a t And8 I want th e Cou r t to unde r s t and t h a t we t h i nk t h a t th a t9 does no t c r e a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n a t all.

10 THE COURT: A ll r i g h t For ou r pu rpo se s11 he r e what I would l i k e to do is let me j u s t go ahead12 and r u l e on what I am go ing to do wi th th e p le a to th e13 j u r i s d i c t i o n14 F i r s t o f all I ll g r a n t -- I ll s u s t a i n15 th e ob j e c t i on to t h a t po r t i o n o f th e a f f i d a v i t o f Joyce16 Wilson and t h a t it s conc l u s o r y17 The Cou r t f i nd s t h a t it i s conc l u s o r y18 And t h a t i s th e last s en t ence on pa r ag r aph 1 2 3 419 It s ays t h e Ci ty o f El Paso has conduc t ed a d i l i g e n t20 s e a r c h f o r in fo rm a tio n bu t does no t have any add i t i o n a l21 r e spon s i v e documents which have no t been pub l i s h ed or22 d i s c l o s e d wi t hou t s t a t i n g th e b a s i s th e f a c t u a l ba s i s23 fo r t h a t s t a t emen t24 The Cour t i s go ing to no t r u l e on th e p l e a25 to th e j u r i s d i c t i o n I am no t go ing to g r a n t it or deny


41/70

it.

P l e a t o t h e J u r i s d i c t i o nS e p t e m b e r 30 2013

I m h o l d i n g t h e r u l i n g on t h e p l e a t o t h e

51

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a l l o w some l i m i t e d d i s c o v e r y , and t h e n3 p r o v i d e , p e r h a p s , p r o p o s e d d i s c o v e r y p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e4 j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e .5 So let s so t h e n , now let s go t o t h e6 m o t i o n t o q u a s h .

89 C o u n s e l ?

10

MR DENTON:THE COURT:

MR DENTON:

I f I may?And i s t h a t i n h e r e a s w e l l ,

It i s i n my n o t e b o o k , and I m a s s u m i n g it s i n h i s n o t e b o o k .12 MR ALESHIRE: It is.1314

THE COURT: Okay.MR DENTON: And I w i l l be v e r y b r i e f

15 a b o u t t h i s , J u d g e .16 THE COURT: C o u n s e l , let s j u s t t a k e a17 t w o - m i n u t e b r e a k , f i v e - m i n u t e b r e a k , and t h e n w e l l come18 b a c k .19 Break t a k e n .2021 C o u n s e l .

THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . You may be s e a t e d ,

22 A l l r i g h t . L e t s go r i g h t t o t h e m o t i o n23 t o q u a s h . Have you been a b l e t o r e a c h any t y p e o f24 a g r e e m e n t on t h i s ?25 MR DENTON: C o u n s e l h a s a g r e e d t h a t we


42/70

TAB 2[CR 361-362 part]Allala s Objection to City s

Custody and Control Evidence


43/70

CAUSE NO. D-I-GV-12-001731

Flied13 November 5 P1 :2Amalia Rodriguez Mendistrict lerkTravis istrictD 1 GV 12 o 1731CITY OF EL PASO TEXAS

Plaintiffv.GREG ABBOTT ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

Defendantv.STEPHANIE TOWNSEND ALLALA

Intervenor

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

26 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TRAVIS COUNTY TEXASINTERVERNORIPLAINTIFF LL L SRESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TOPLAINTIFF EL P SO S SUPPLEMENTAL PLE TO THE JURISDICTION

STEVE ORTEGA S MOTION TO QU SH OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENAIntervenorlPlaintiffAllala (Allala) asks the court to postpone acting on El Paso s Plea to

the Jurisdiction until Allala is afforded an opportunity to conduct discover on the core issue ofwhether all records requested under the Texas Public Information Act have been disclosed, andto deny Steve Ortega s motions to stop his deposition on that issue.

PROCEDURAL FACTS The law of this case was established by the Court on the record and in its Order onSeptember 30, 2013. The Court specifically decided to not rule on El Paso s Plea to theJurisdiction and to deny El Paso Motion to Quash, permitting the depositions ofCityManagerJoyce Wilson, CityRep. Niland, and former City Rep. Byrd to go forward. Exhibit 1-1,1-2.2 El Paso, has filed a supplemental plea alleging that they have produced the records theCity raised in its lawsuit for which the City has custody or control. Allala asserts that custodyor control is not the appropriate standard. The TPIA (section 552.002(a)(2)) defines (and the

INTERVENOR ALLALA S RESPONSE 11-25-13Page f 436


44/70

Attorney General ruled) that records the governmental body owns or has a right of access toand that is correct standard for defining the documents that must be produced. Allala asserts thatbecause the records at issue (emails about City business held in personal email accounts of Cityofficials) are local government records (Loc. Gov t Code Chs. 201, 202, 203), they are subjectto the TPIA. (Tex. Loc. Gov t Code, Sec. 201.009, (a) Local government records are subject toChapter 552, Government Code [the TPIA]. )3. Prior to the September 30th hearing, on September 19 2013 at 2:45 p.m., Steve Ortegawas served with Notice of Intent by Allala to take Ortega s deposition (like the other Cityofficials and former officials). Exhibit 1 3. Neither EI Paso or Ortega responded to or objectedto the Notice. So, on October 8 2013, more than 10 days after the Notice ofIntent was issued,Ortega was served with the subpoena for his deposition.4. Ortega has publicly refused to turn over records about City business in retained inpersonal possession. Exhibit 1 4. In his Motion to Quash, Ortega has now objected that therecords sought are not subject to the TPIA, but that he will present the court with records he haspreviously withheld from disclosure. Allala objects to Ortega s affidavit as being incomplete asto whether he has, or will, tum over all records responsive to Allala s open records requests ofSeptember 5 2 12 and October 5 2012.5. Ms. Allala s requests are attached. EXHIBIT 1 5; 1 6. Two primary parts of thoserequests were:

1. E-mails (including emails written using personal email accounts), letters,memoranda, notes, or other forms ofwritten communication regarding any matterof public business of the City of El Paso from You to (or copied to, or blindcopied to) any council representative(s) or the Mayor or the City Manager fromJanuary 1 2 12 to the date of this request. This request includes all such writtencommunication regardless of whether other persons also were sent thecommunication.

INTERVENOR ALLALA S RESPONSE 11-25-13Page 2 of14362


45/70

TAB 3[ 34-36]Allala Objection to City sCustody and Control Affidavits


46/70

Plea to th e J u r i s d i c t i o nNovember 25 20130 3 - 1 3 - 0 0 8 2 0 - C V

1

1 REPORTER S RECORDVOLUME 3 OF 3 VOLUMES2 TRIAL COURT C USE NO D 1 GV 12 00173f ILEDINrd COURT OF APPEA S

3 CITY OF EL PASO IN THE DISTRICT ~ ~ R ~ TEXAS12 26 2 1312:21 :4 vs . TRAVIS COUNTY DERmEYD.KYLEClerk5 GREG OTT 261ST J UD IC IA L D IS TR IC T6

89

101 1121314

PLE TO T JURISDI TIONNOVEM ER 25 2013

VOLUME 3 OF 3 VOLUMES

15 On th e 2 5 t h day of N ovem ber 2013 th e fo l lowing16 proceed ings came on to be held in th e a b o v e t i t l e d an d17 num ber ed cause b e fo re th e H o n o r a b l e Orl inda N a r a n j o18 J u d g e Pres id ing h e ld in Aust in Trav is C o u n t y T e x a s .19 Proceed ings repor t ed by c o m p u t e r i z e d s teno type20 m a c h i n e .2122232 425


47/70

your

Argument s by Mr Alen sh i r eovem er 25 2013 34

2 MR ALESHIRE: It s th e p le a h i s p l e a3 to th e j u r i s d i c t i o n . It was a t t a c h e d . And th e copy I ot5 THE COURT: Yes So it s Exh i b i t B It s6

beh ind Tab 5 . OkayMR ALESHIRE: By th e way Your Honor it

8 was November 14 th i s when it was s e r v ed .9 THE COURT: November 14 t h . Okay

10 MR ALESHIRE: Th is was s e rved on me on11 November th e 14 th .1213 Okay1415 t oday?16 o t h e r .

THE COURT:

MR DENTON:

THE COURT:

And that s what it s ay s .

Isn t t h a t t e n days befo r e

L e t s no t a rgue w ith each

18 MR ALESHIRE: In pa r a g r a ph 11 on th e19 t h i s i s th e Kr i s t i n Lynn Hamil ton a f f i d a v i t . It s20 Exh ib i t B21 THE COURT: I m t h e r e .22 MR ALESHIRE: On page 2 pa rag raph 11 ,23 t h i r d s en t en ce , be l i ev e t h a t all ma t e r i a l s w ith in th e24 C i t y s cus tody o r c o n t r o l were l o c a t ed and a s s im i l a t e d25 by my o f f i c e .


48/70

Arguments by Mr. Alensh i r eovem er 25 2013 35

1

2 th e p l e a .Tha t i s th e same l anguage t h a t i s used in

On page 2 o f t h e i r p l e a , pa rag raph 3 t hey3 s ay , These a f f i d a v i t s show th e comple te f a c t u a l con t ex t4 o f compl iance wi th th e d ete rm in at io n by th e At to rney5 Gene ra l . 67 Honor .

F i r s t o f all that s no t enough Your a re e n t i t l e d to ge t all th e in fo rm a tio n we

8 asked fo r , no t j u s t what was de t e rm ined by th e AG.9 But it s ays , To th e ex t en t o f mat e r i a l s

10 w ith in th e cus tody o r c o n t r o l o f th e C ity o f EI Paso .11 Tha t i s a more narrow s ta nd ard fo r which12 r e co r d s t h ey a re r equ i r ed to p roduce , t h an th e Pub lic13 In fo rma t i on Act de f i n i t i o n t h a t i n c l ud e s all i n fo rma t i on14 t h ey own o r have a r i g h t o f acce s s t o .15 Now as f a r as Mr. Or t e g a s , we h av en t16 go t t en t h e r e ye t , bu t I d id in c lud e an ob j e c t i o n in our17 r e sponse we f i l e d t oday to pa rag raph 4 o f ou r18 re sp on se to da y, on page 2 we s a i d , Aya l a ob j e c t s to19 Or t e g a s a f f i d a v i t as be ing i n comp l e t e as to whe the r he20 has o r w i l l t u r n ove r all r eco rd s re spo n s iv e to A ya la s21 open r e co r d s r equ e s t o f September 5 th and Octobe r th e22 5 th .23 THE COURT: Okay. S ince I h a v e n t 2425

so -- bu t Mr. Or t e g a s i sMR ALESHIRE:

okay .Tha t s on th e motion to


49/70

Arguments by Mr Alensh i r eovem er 25 2013 36

quash But t hey a l s o in clu ded th e same a f f i d a v i t s th e2 t h r e e a f f i d a v i t s from th e Ci t y in add i t i o n to one by3 Mr Or t ega

And my po i n t to you he re Your Honor i s5 we have had d i s ag r eemen t from day one as to what6 c on s t i t u t e s pub l i c i n fo rma t i on t h a t shou ld have been t u rned ove r in th e first p l a c e Tha t p e r s i s t s he r e8 t o d ay9 And what you have i s a f f i d a v i t s u s in g th e

10 wrong l e g a l s t a nda r d fo r what c on s t i t u t e s pub l i c11 i n f o rma t i on It does no t say in th e Pub l i c I n f o rma t ion12 Act t h a t pub l i c i n fo rma t i on i s on ly in fo rm at ion in th e13 cus tody o r con t r o l of th e C ity It s b ro ad er th an t h a t14 As th e AG r u l e d it i n c l ude s any15 i n fo rma t i on t h a t th e Ci ty owns o r has a r i g h t of acce s s16 t o Tha t i n c l ude s pub l i c government r e co rds unde r th e17 Loca l Government Code t h a t cou ld be in th e po s s e s s i on of18 p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s And they have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to19 go g e t it20 I j u s t need t o f in d ou t th rough21 gen t l eman ly depo s i t i o n s of Mr Or t ega j u s t l i k e th e22 o t h e r t h r e e to de te rmine fo r su r e t h a t t hey have g iven23 all th e r e c o r d s t h a t we asked f o r no t j u s t th e i s s u e s24 t h a t t hey chose to r a i s e wi th th e A tto rney G ene ra l25 THE COURT: Okay For th e At to rney


50/70

TAB 4[CR 413 23]Allala s Evidence Missing Records


51/70

CAUSE NO D-I-GV-12-001731CITY OF EL PASO TEXASPlaintiffv.Gl{E:G ABBOTT ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXASDefendantv.STEPHANIE TOWNSEND ALLALAIntervenor

12 4 2 139:26: 2 AMAmalia Rodriguez MendozDistrict ClerkTravis CountyD 1 GV 12 1731IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

261s1 JUDIClAL DISTRICT

TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS

INTERVERNORfPLAINTIFF ALLALA8REPLY TOCITY OF PASO S PLEATOTHE JURISDICTIONANDSTEVE ORTEGA S MOTION QUASII1 : ThelIono:rableOrlindaNarl:llljQ Judge 419 th District Court:

After heing afforded apopportunity to review documel lts submitted to the parties bywitness Steve Ortega aft er the last hearing on November 25 IntervenorAllala asks the Court tocortsider the following additional evidence and argllmentsllPporting Allala s request that theCourt postpone acting on the City s Plea to the Jurisdiction andpennit depositions of keywitnesses to proceed on the issue ofwhether all documents (local government records) requestedhyMs Allala pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) (particularly that are ownedby or that [the City] has a right ofaccess to ) have beendisc1osed.

FACTS Ms Allala s open records requests of September 5th andOctoberSth, 2012 were for:

E-mails (including emails written using personal email accounts), letters,memoranda, notes, or other forms of written communication re.garding any matterof public business of the City ofHI Paso from you to (or copied to, or blindcopied to) any council representative(s) or the Mayor or the City Manager frOm

AHala s Supplemental Reply toElPaso s Plea to the Judsdiction and Ortega sMotion to QuashPage lof

413o_ _ _ . ~ ~ _ ~ . _ . ~ _ __._ ._ ._ ___ . __ _ _ ; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


52/70

January 1,2012 to the date of this request. This request includes all such writtencommunication regardless of whether other persons also were sent thecommtmication.2. From January 1 2012 to the date of this request, E-mails; letters> memoranda,

notes, or other forms of written commtmication regarding pUblic bUSiness of theCity of El Paso from You to (or copied to or blind-copied to), or from thefollowing persons to You (or copied to, or blind-copiedto You):a. Paul L.Foster;b. Scott D. Weaver;c. Joshua W. m:mt;d. L.Htmt;e. Mountain Star Sports Group LLC or anY representative orattorney thereof; .f. FranklinMountain Sports Otoup LLC Or any representativeOr attorneY thereof;g. Hunt Holdings Spotts Group LLC of any representative or

attorney thereof;This request includes all suchvvrittencommunication regardless ofwhether otherpersons also Were seht the communication.

2. An email (bates ORTOOOQ34 attached sJlPplied by Mr. Ortega reveals that El Paso CityManager has either not disclosed to the City, or the City hasnotdisc1osed toMs Allala, all oftheemails she created or received within the scope of Ms. AllaJa' open l'ecords request.Attached ORT000034. Counsel for Ms. Allala tm a computer search 011 every document theCity of El Paso has provided in response to Ms. Allala'sopen records request, and this email,between Ms. Joyce Wilson (using her personal email address beginning with Joya917 ) andJosh Hunt,was not provideciby the City. 1 This email was within in the scope ofthe October 52012 request (second part) as correspondence between the City Manager and Mr. Hunt.

Counsel's search ternTS were Joya917 ; Septemher 11 ; McGinnis ; emd J o ~ h2 The newspaper article referred to was an opinion piece by Mr. McGinnis etitical of theCity's decision to demolish the City HaH and publicly finance a basehall stadium for Mr. Huntand his associates. The City Manager's reply was that one of her employees, Alan waspteparing a response to the McGinnisa1'ticle.AlIala's SupplementalReply to EI Paso's Plea to the JurisdictiOtl emd Oliega'sMotion to QuashPage 20f7

414


53/70


54/70

Plea a t 2, paragraph 3 Cc1aim,scompliance ...to the extent of materials within the custody orcontrol of the City of El P a s o . ~ ; Affidavit of Kristen Lynn Hamilton at paragraph 3( documents ,.. that Were located on City servers or within the physical control oIchy employeesor officials; ); at paragraph 11 allmaterials within the City s custody or control were locatedand assimilated by my office. ).7. There is a pending issue of whether the City had authority under TP1A section 552.137(permitting redaction of certain email addresses of members of the public ) to redact the emailaddresses of the City Council Representatives, and. City Manager they used for correspondencewith each other or in the transaction of official business. This pending issue, alone,prec1udesgranting the City S plea to the jlldsdiction.

RGUM NT lJTlIORlTI SR To be entitled t plea to the jurisdiction based on mootness, without affording Ms.Allala an opportunity for her targeted discovery, the City s burden is toprovea am tt r Oft wthat all of the requested public information hasb,een diSClosed. A genuine issue ofmaterial

fact as to whether all of the requested public information has been disclosed is raised by:Ca the fact that the September 11, 2012 Joyce Wilson email to Josh Hunt Was not

disclosed byMs. Wilson or the City;,(b) the fact that the Cityhas never offered any .sWOITl testimony or affidavit that the City

has disclosed all of the tecordsMs. Allala requested within the TP s definition of publicinformatiOn (including information the City owns or has a right of access to) as opposed toclaiming it had disclosed only infoITllation inits physical possession;

(c) the fact that the City has neverofferecl any sworn testimony or affidavit attestingto complete disclosure of the requested records from the City officials (Council Representatives

Allala s SupplementalReply toEI Paso s Plea to the Jurisdiction and. Ortega s Motion to QuashPage 4 of7

6


55/70

and City Manager} who, as Custodians of their records, personally created or received andcollected, assembled or maintained the local government goVetnments that are included in th erequested pUblic information;

Cd the fac,t that Mr. Ortega's affidavit fails to swear that he has disclosed all of therequested public information that he created or received, as opposed to claiming that he doesnot h v any other r l v nt e--mails and no other r sponsiv documentsorinforrnation...,(emphasis addetl).Mr. Ortega's affidavit does not claim that he could not obtain, from Yahoofor example, ernails even if he deleted them. Ortega does not define what he means byqualifying terms such as re1evanf'emailsor responsive documents. Furthermore, the Yahooemails he disclosed show that he ha d placed 99+emails in his Yahoo pam folder and 9 inTrash that his affidavit indicates he did not search before his i n ~ c o u r t d i s c l o s u r e o f records hehad previously withheld.

(e) the fact that the Gity'sP}ea ignores the peildingissue of whether, under TPIAsection552.137, the City can redact email addresses o f mE\mbers of the City Councilor of th e City

Manager.9. For the reasonBo previOUSly briefed to th e Court, Ms. Allala asks the Court to postpone adecision on the City's Plea to the Jurisdiction until Ms. AHala is afforded an opporttlility todepose key witnesses about the 'central issue: whether public information within the scope ofAllala 's open records requests have been disclosed. Ms. Allala asks the Court to deny Mr.Ortega's motion to quash. I f the depositions reveal that such public infonnation does sti1lexist,Ms. AHala intends to ask the Court to issue a writ of mandamus for the City to Use its authorityobtain and disclose th e local government records th epublic information ) the City owns or hasa right of access to.Allala's u p p l ~ m e n t l Reply to El Paso s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Ortega's Motionto QuashPage 5 of7

417


56/70

PR Y RFor these reasons,. IntervenorlPlaintiff Allala asks the COUlt to postpone acting on the

City s Plea to the Jurisdiction until Intervenor is afforded an opportunity to conguct itsdepositions On the question of whether all requested public information has been disclosed and,if not, where suchadditionall ecords ma y be obtained. In addition, Ms. Allala asks the Court todeny Steve Ortega s Motion to Quash, and grant any other reliefin equity or law to which she isentitled.

R : ~ ~ ~ t l O O / L J ~ /Bill AleshireTexas BarNo. 24031810RIGGS ALESHIRE P.C700 Lavaca, Suite 920Austin, Texas 78701Telephone: 512) 5 7 ~ 9 8 6Facsimile: 512) 457 -9066

A l e s h i r e @ R ~ A L a w c o m

Allala s Supplemental Replyto ElPaso s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Ortega s Motion to QuashPage 6 7

~ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~ . _ . - ~ - - - - - - - . _ ~ - - - - _ . - - _ . _ - - ~ _ , _._--- __ _ _ . .. '. . - _ _ . ~ ~ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ ~ ~ _. _._-_ .._ .418


57/70

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that true an d correct copy of the foregoing docUtnel1t has been s e r v e d ~onDecember 3; 2013, on the following:

BY E ~ S E R V I C EGEORGE E HYDEState Bar No. 45006157ERIN HIGGINBOTHAMState BarNo. 24065418Denton, Navart o, Rocha Bernal2500 W.Williatn Cannon Dr., Suite 609Austin, Texas 78745Telephone: 512) 7 9 ~ 6 4 3 ]Facsimile: 512) 7 9 ~ 6 4 3 8wrge.hyde@tarnpage aus.com

e r i n h i g g i l 1 b o t h a m @ r a : t n p a ~ e a u s c o mA TTOlli jEYS FO R PLAINTIFFBY KSE:RVICEMS KIM ERLY L FUCHSChief: Open Records LitigationAdministrative Law Division300 West 15th Street, 10th floorAustin, Texas 78701Telephone: 512) 475-4195Fax: 512) 320-0167

k i m b e r 1 y f u c h s @ t e x a s a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l g o ~

~ - - - - - - - = : . . . - - -ATTORNEY FORINTERYENOR

ATTORNEYS FORWITNESS E SERVICECarlos Evaristo FloresAttorney at LawPerson,Whitworth,Botchers Morales, LLP602 East CaltonRd. 2nd Floor 78041)P o Box 6668Laredo, Texas 78042-6668Telephone 956) 727-4441Facsimile 95 6) 727-2696Email: cf:[email protected] NEYFORSTEVEORTEGA

Allala s Supplemental Reply to El Paso sPlea to the Jurisdiction and Ortega s Motion to QuashPage10f7

419


58/70

u b j ~ e t :Atlal:bmel1t5: FW:McGlnnls 9 est r ; : o l u m n i ~ t i n today s EP TimesSales andlistiilgsoffice Downtown.xls

From: Stf::le OrtegaSetlt:Tbursdi=lY NoVE:mhe.. i4 2 0 1 3 5 d ~ f p MTo: Carlos F l p ~Subject:FW: MCGinnis guest C o l u l T 1 n i ~ In tQday s EP Tlmes

On TuesdlilY. s ~ l ? t e l T l b e r 2012 8:56AM, Josh Hunt w r o t ~ :

.-OriginalMessag ---From: Josh HuntSent: Tuesday, S e p t ~ I l 1 P ~ r 1 1 2012 8:55 AMTo:'Joya917';. .Sli,bject: R ~ : M c G i n h i s 9 u ~ s f 'ColUmnIst in todayiS EP TimesTl1anks'Joyce. fthink the cIty needs to come out strongfyaQainstdistortions (lies) made byfhe likesofMcGinnis Sa,fazarwitnc'aims like CityHall is valued at 38M. If I hl:lye my sq. footage tight forcity hall that puts is at 160/sq ft which is laughable. ~ . three mostsignificantdowhtoWnofflcebLJildIngs aU traded in the l.ast5 ye.ars and these are betterdesigneq and ml:lintained buildings thanCity Hall. Chase (strtlcturedparking), Wells Fargo ~ t r u c t u r e d parking)and S t ~ n t o n T o w ~ r a U tradedfor'lessthan c 4Q/sq.ft. At 40/sq.ft., City Han would beVal.ued ~ t 9 5 M w h i c h is basically worththe land itsits on.

~ -.. Original Message---From: JQya9fT. ~ : ~ ~ 1 1 , 2 0 1 2 3 : a A MOc:Josh'HlJlltt .Subject:Re: Mc(3innisguestColulllnistin today's EP Times

- ,

Alan is working en response t(){jay.---Original Messag&---From: Goodman, Leonard

b ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ n .ent: un, SepS. ZOt28:Z6am .Subject: McGinnis gLiesfColumnist in today's I:P Times

Ol{ f:Ol)00

420


59/70

F F . ) I n ~S ~ n t :To:t :S bJed:

BW

Sc;ott TSchirhart Seott.TscAirhart@r:ampage-ilUS- cOfll>Mpnday, December02, 20135:11 PMBi I AleshireLowellDenton { oweH.d'enton@rampage'-'sctcom);George Hyde; Christy B u r k ~ itflpfes@p,ersonwhitworth,corn; Hope Avila;: ki tWeatherwaxRE: DOcument Production

iorepeat T h i s e ~ m i l j l Was not on the City serverswhen the search was made. We do riot h;;lV,ear.ly eVidence to indicatethat rtWtilS ever onthe City servers.However, if it had been on the f ty servers at th e titTle of th e search, it would have been .picked up by the search criteriause4 to fioathe docurnetlts responsive to cYU( Octoher5 2012 request.

S c o t t ~ 1 . 1 ~ e h i ~ h a r tDentiLlllt NaVafTO Rocba .Bernat.A Professional Corporation5 V l William Catlli.on Drivt , Suite 609.l\:llstin. Texas 78745Phone: (5J2) 2.79-:6431Fax: (512) 7 9 ~ 6 4 gEliJaH: S e o t c r ~ c h i t b ~ r t : @ r a n l R a g ~ ~ ~ U J s . c m l lRllmpagelaw.com

CQNFIDENTIAl-ITY NOTICE

Tbis transmission is intended for the irldividualQrentitytoWhich it isaddtessed andmay beinformaijonthat is FiRIVll.eGtD CONFIDtNT1Al. lfyQu.arenot the Ifltel lded recipient, or tile employee or agent responsible fo r delive,rintHhe messClQe to theintendetfr e ~ l p i t i l n t and'l)ave received this information inerrof,yoIJarebereby nQtified that any dissemination, d i ; s t r l ~ u t t o n Q r copying Qf this

~ Q m t n u t l i c a t i o n is p r o h j i ~ d ffyou hli lV19received this .comlllLlnicati.on in error, pleasE/notifyus immediately by teplyingtothemessage anddeletingIHroluypur computer. Thankyou .

rom BillAleshire { m a i l t o ~ a l e s h i r e @ r - a l a w . c o m ]'Sent:'Monday, December' 2 2 134:46PMTo Scott TschirhartCc Lowell Denton(Iowell.denton@)rampage-sa.com); GeorgeHyde; Christy Blirke; dlores@personwhi1;v'lorth,com; Hope'AvIla; Kit Weatherwax UbjetlRe: Document Pro(juctiPnSoyo tl agree.thateitherMs. Wilsondid notdisdoseittP t ~ } i t Y Q t i t w . a s missed in the-search-the City ~ l ) n d u t t e d rBill Aleshire'R'iggsAleshire RayPC700. ll;l-vaca, Su.i-te 920AUstin, Texas 78701S12 457-9838 direct EXfUSITIZ.- / I

421


60/70

Z 750-5854 cell512457.,.9066 faxAleshire@E:ALaw.coruOn Dec 2 13; a t 4:42' PM,ScottTschirl1art < S c o t t . T s c h i r h a r t @ r a m p a g e ~ a u s , c Q m > wrote:

Bm,was out of town lest weekforthe holiday; but we and the City follovveQupon the aUegatiol1s made inyourecmaU of November26 and weare glad that you had us check on it before YOU made anyrepresentati611S to the COLIft.it apPf:ars that t l T ~ NllaH you attached (and which is attached here as w ~ ~ H is a September 11, 2012cOnlrnIJf\k


61/70

Attached is one of the emaUs Mr, Orwga disdosedafterthe hearing yesterday. his emaHsbehveen Joyce Wilson, apparently using her CityofBl Pasoenmiladdress,andJosh Hunt, pins otherswhose identity has been completely redacted.This email shpuid have hef:l1 produced by the City because it fit Within the scope of Ms. AIlal;;i sOctober 5 2012 req: lest Bvt 1have conducted a search or 7,209 pages of records provided by the City inresponse t ( ) M s . A h ~ l 1 a s requestsaJld 1do not find this s e t o f e m a i l s . M s ~ Nilson alsoc1aiuled, in herunsworn statementto the City Council on A.ugust 29; 2013 thatshe had fJ.miedover to the City aHcrrHiilsYvithil1the scope of Ms. AHala s andothers ).requesUol records.

1 intend to inform the Judge ofthe findings of search, but out an abundanCf ; of cantlon, lmnproviding you this information and asking that yon provide Inc with the Bates Page Numbcl of theS.eptember 11. 2.012 enlails between Josh HWlt and Ms. \,Vilsonifthey have previously been provided tottS. T\ voutd ask you to do so bydose of business Decernber2Hct.~ t . ~iggs Aleshire y PC700 lavaca, Suite 920AUstin Texas 78701512. 457-9838 direct512750-5854 cell512 457-9066 fax

A ~ ~ s h l r e R A t a w ~ c o m

423


62/70

TAB 5Tex Loc ov t Code 201 003

Definitions of Custodian and Local Government Record


63/70

RECORDSTitle 6

in the lives of allis necessary to

permanent value isconcerning their

on well-establishedand practicesmanagement

the assistancefor the mainte

of local government

vised as Chapteror microfilm

legislation,?onflict. In 1975

p t ~ r 181), autho. ~ t i b n of recordst ~ ~ t repealed >repeals was

de r Articlef [he change

RE OR S PROVISIONS GENERALLY 201 003 h 2 1 2 1 3 Definitions

In this subtitle: Commission means the Texas State Library and Archives Commission.2 Custodian means the appointed or elected public officer who by thestate constitution, state law, ordinance, or administrative policy is in chargeof an office that creates or receives local government records.3 Designee means an employee of the commission designated by thedirector and librar ian as provided by Section 441.167, Government Code.4 Director and librarian means the executive and administrative officerof the Texas State Library and Archives Commission.5 Essential record means any local government record necessary to theresumption or continuation of government operations in an emergency ordisaster, to the re-creation of the legal and financial status of the government,or to the protection and fulfillment of obligations to the people of the state.(6) Governing body means th e court, council, board, commission, or

other body established or authorized by law to govern the operations of alocal government. In those instances i n which authority over an office ordepartment of a loca l government is shared by two or more governing bodiesor by a governing body and the state, the governing body, for the purposes ofthis subtitle only, is the governing body that provides most of the operationalfunding for the .pffice or department.7 Local government means a county, including all district and precinctoffices of a county, muniCipality, public school district, appraisal district, orany other special-purpose district or authority.(8) Local government record means any document, paper , letter, book,map, photograph, sound or video recording, microfilm, magnetic tape, electronic medium, or o ther information recording medium, regardless of physical form or characteristic and regardless of whether public access to it isopen or restricted under the laws of the state, created or received by a localgovernment or any of its officers or employees pursuant to law, including anordinance, or in the tr ansac tion of public business. The term does no tinclude:

A extra identical copies of documents created only for convenience ofreference or research by officers or employees of the local government;(B) notes, journals, diaries, and similar documents created by an officeror employee of the local government for the officer s or employee s personal convenience;C blank forms;D stocks of publications;(E) library and museum materials acquired solely for the purposes ofreference or display;

173


64/70

2 1 3 RE OR S itle

F) copies of documents in any media furnished to member s of thepublic to which they are entitled under Chapter 552, Government Code, orother state law; or

G) any records correspondence notes, memoranda or documents,o ther than a final writ ten agreement described by Section 2009.054 c),Government Code, associated with a matter conducted under an alterna-tive dispute resolution procedure in which personnel of a state departmentor institution, local government special district, or other political subdivis ion of the s ta te par ti cipa ted as a party facilitated as an impartial thirdparty or facilitated as the administrator of a dispute resolution system ororganization.9) Off ice means any office, department division, program commission,

bureau board committee or similar entity of a local government.10) Permanent record or record of permanent value means any local

government record for which t he ret en tion per iod on a records retentionschedule issued by th e commission is given as permanent.

11) Record means a local government record.12) Records control schedule means a document prepared by or underthe authority of a records management officer listing the records maintained

by a local government or an elective county office, their retention periods,and other records disposition information that t he records managementprogram in each local government or elective county office may require.

13) Records management means the application of management techniques to the creation use, maintenance retention, preservation and disposal of records for th e purposes of reducing the costs and improving theefficiency of recordkeeping. The term includes the development of recordscontrol schedules, the management of filing and information retrieval systems, the protection of essential and permanent records the economical andspace-effective storage of inactive records control over the creation anddistribution of forms, reports and correspondence and the management ofmicrographics and electronic and other records storage systems.

14) Records management officer means the person identified underSection 203.001 or designated under Section 203.025 as the records manage-ment officer.

15) Records retention schedule means a document issued by the TexasState Library and Archives Commission under authority of Subchapter J,Chapter 441, Government Code,l establishing mandatory retention periodsfor local government records.

16) Retention period means the minimum time that must pass after thecreation recording or receipt of a record or the fulfillment of certain actionsassociated with a record before it is eligible for destruction.

Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1248, eff. Sept. 1989; Acts 1995, 74th Leg.,ch. 76, 5.95 90), eff. Sept. 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 31, 3, eff. Sept. 1997;Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1352, 3, eff. Sept. 1999.174


65/70

TAB 6Tex Lac ov t Code 2 1 5Records as Public Property


66/70

Research References

Library References

Treatises an d Practice AidsBrooks , 22 Tex. P rac. Series 7.07, Micro-

film.

Library References l S Criminal La w 449. l S Records 60, 62 to 65, 67 to 93, 95.

Historical and Statutory NotesActs 1947, 50th Leg., p . 84, ch 58, 1.Vernon s Ann.Civ.St. art. 6574b, 3.Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch 149, 1.

Historical and Statutory NotesActs 1947, 50th Leg. p. 84, ch. 58, 1.Vernon s Ann.Civ.St. art 6574b, 2.Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, 1.

Records e: >30 to 35.WestlawTopic No. 326.

EncyclopediasTX lur 3d Records Recording Laws 3,Books or Other. Media in Which RecordsKept. .

Former Sections:A former section, relating to duplication stan-dards an d deleted by Acts 1989, 71s t Leg., ch.1248, I, was derived from:

Former Sections:A former section, r el at in g t o duplication ap-proval. an d deleted by Acts 1989, 70th Leg., ch.1248, 1 wa s derived from:

Research ReferencesEncyclopedias Treatises an d Practice AidsTX lur 3d Records Recording Laws 4, Brooks, 22 Tex. Prac Series 7.06, LocalPublic Access; Copies. Government Records Act.176

Records e: >3.Westlaw Topic No. 326. l S Records 4.

Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1248, 1 eff. Sept 1989.V.T.C.A., Government Code 441.151 et seq.

201 004 RECORDSTit le 6

provision ma y be maintained on microfilm or stored electronically in accor-dance w it h t he r eq ui re me nt s o f C ha pt er s 2 04 an d 205 an d r ules adopted underthose chapter s unles s th e la w specifically prohibits those methodsAmended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1248, 1 eff. Sept. 1 1989.

201 005 Declaration of Records as Public Property; Access(a) Local g ov er nm en t r ec or ds created or re cei ve d i n th e transaction ofofficial busine

Documents

Candy recipe