 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
May 12, 2006 Mr. Rashaad V. Gambrell
OR2006-04951 Dear Mr. Gambrell: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Public Information Act (the "Act"), chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 248810. The City of Houston (the "city") received a request for information "relating to the proposal and selection for Telecommunications Services Concession for the City of Houston Convention and Entertainment Facilities Department, TC-6-0489-019-20806." You claim that portions of the submitted information may be excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.104, 552.110, 552.113, 552.131, and 552.133 of the Government Code, but take no position as to whether this information is excepted under these exceptions. However, pursuant to section 552.305 of the Government Code, you notified Priority Networks, Inc. ("Priority"), Phonoscope, and Smart City Networks, L.P. ("Smart City"), the interested third parties, of the request and of their opportunity to submit comments to this office. See Gov't Code § 552.305 (permitting interested third party to submit to attorney general reasons why requested information should not be released); Open Records Decision No. 542 (1990) (determining that statutory predecessor to section 552.305 permits governmental body to rely on interested third party to raise and explain applicability of exception to disclosure in certain circumstances). We have received comments from Priority and Smart City. The city has submitted the requested information for our review. We have considered Priority's and Smart City's comments and reviewed the submitted information. An interested third party is allowed ten business days after the date of its receipt of the governmental body's notice under section 552.305(d) to submit its reasons, if any, as to why information relating to that party should be withheld from public disclosure. See Gov't Code § 552.305(d)(2)(B). As of the date of this decision, Phonoscope has not submitted to this office any reasons explaining why its information should not be released. Therefore, this interested third party has provided us with no basis to conclude that it has a protected proprietary interest in any of the submitted information. See, e.g., Gov't Code § 552.110(b) (to prevent disclosure of commercial or financial information, party must show by specific factual or evidentiary material, not conclusory or generalized allegations, that it actually faces competition and that substantial competitive injury would likely result from disclosure); Open Records Decision Nos. 552 at 5 (1990) (party must establish prima facie case that information is trade secret), 542 at 3 (1990). Accordingly, we conclude that the city may not withhold any portion of Exhibit 3 on the basis of any proprietary interest Phonoscope may have in the information. Priority and Smart City contend that portions of the submitted information are excepted from disclosure under section 552.110 of the Government Code. Section 552.110 protects: (1) trade secrets, and (2) commercial or financial information the disclosure of which would cause substantial competitive harm to the person from whom the information was obtained. See id. § 552.110(a), (b). Section 552.110(a) protects the property interests of private parties by excepting from disclosure trade secrets obtained from a person and privileged or confidential by statute or judicial decision. See id. § 552.110(a). A "trade secret" may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives [one] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. It may be a formula for a chemical compound, a process of manufacturing, treating or preserving materials, a pattern for a machine or other device, or a list of customers. It differs from other secret information in a business in that it is not simply information as to single or ephemeral events in the conduct of the business, as for example the amount or other terms of a secret bid for a contract or the salary of certain employees. . . . A trade secret is a process or device for continuous use in the operation of the business. Generally it relates to the production of goods, as for example, a machine or formula for the production of an article. It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business, such as a code for determining discounts, rebates or other concessions in a price list or catalogue, or a list of specialized customers, or a method of bookkeeping or other office management. Restatement of Torts § 757 cmt. b (1939); see also Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763, 776 (Tex. 1958); Open Records Decision Nos. 255 (1980), 232 (1979), 217 (1978). There are six factors to be assessed in determining whether information qualifies as a trade secret: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of [the company's] business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in [the company's] business; (3) the extent of measures taken by [the company] to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to [the company] and to [its] competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by [the company] in developing this information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. Restatement of Torts § 757 cmt. b (1939); see also Open Records Decision No. 232 (1979). This office must accept a claim that information subject to the Act is excepted as a trade secret if a prima facie case for exemption is made and no argument is submitted that rebuts the claim as a matter of law. Open Records Decision No. 552 (1990). However, we cannot conclude that section 552.110(a) is applicable unless it has been shown that the information meets the definition of a trade secret and the necessary factors have been demonstrated to establish a trade secret claim. Open Records Decision No. 402 (1983). Section 552.110(b) protects "[c]ommercial or financial information for which it is demonstrated based on specific factual evidence that disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm to the person from whom the information was obtained[.]" Gov't Code § 552.110(b). This exception to disclosure requires a specific factual or evidentiary showing, not conclusory or generalized allegations, that substantial competitive injury would likely result from release of the information at issue. See id.; see also National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Open Records Decision No. 661 (1999). Upon review of Priority's and Smart City's submitted briefs and the information at issue, we find that the information we have marked must be withheld by the city under subsections 552.110(a) and 552.110(b). However, we determine that neither Priority nor Smart City have demonstrated that any portion of the remaining information constitutes trade secret information or commercial or financial information, the release of which would cause it substantial competitive harm. See Open Records Decision Nos. 552 at 5-6 (1990), 661 (1999) (must show by specific factual evidence that substantial competitive injury would result from release of particular information at issue), 509 at 5 (1988) (because costs, bid specifications, and circumstances would change for future contracts, assertion that release of bid proposal might give competitor unfair advantage on future contracts is too speculative); see also Restatement of Torts § 757 cmt. b (1939) (information is generally not trade secret if it is "simply information as to single or ephemeral events in the conduct of the business" rather than "a process or device for continuous use in the operation of the business"). Therefore, pursuant to section 552.110 of the Government Code, the city must withhold only those portions of the submitted information that we have marked. Priority also claims section 552.104 of the Government Code. Section 552.104 excepts from disclosure "information that, if released, would give advantage to a competitor or bidder." Gov't Code § 552.104. However, section 552.104 is a discretionary exception that protects only the interests of a governmental body, as distinguished from exceptions which are intended to protect the interests of third parties. See Open Records Decision Nos. 592 (1991) (statutory predecessor to section 552.104 designed to protect interests of a governmental body in a competitive situation, and not interests of private parties submitting information to the government), 522 (1989) (discretionary exceptions in general). As the city does not seek to withhold any information pursuant to section 552.104, the city may not withhold any of the information at issue pursuant to section 552.104 of the Government Code. See Open Records Decision No. 592 (1991) (governmental body may waive section 552.104). Priority also claims section 552.128 of the Government Code. This section provides as follows: (a) Information submitted by a potential vendor or contractor to a governmental body in connection with an application for certification as a historically underutilized or disadvantaged business under a local, state, or federal certification program is excepted from [required public disclosure], except as provided by this section. (b) Notwithstanding Section 552.007 and except as provided by Subsection (c), the information may be disclosed only: (1) to a state or local governmental entity in this state, and the state or local governmental entity may use the information only: (A) for purposes related to verifying an applicant's status as a historically underutilized or disadvantaged business; or (B) for the purpose of conducting a study of a public purchasing program established under state law for historically underutilized or disadvantaged businesses; or (2) with the express written permission of the applicant or the applicant's agent. (c) Information submitted by a vendor or contractor or a potential vendor or contractor to a governmental body in connection with a specific proposed contractual relationship, a specific contract, or an application to be placed on a bidders list, including information that may also have been submitted in connection with an application for certification as a historically underutilized or disadvantaged business, is subject to required disclosure, excepted from required disclosure, or confidential in accordance with other law. Priority does not represent, nor does it appear from reviewing the remaining information at issue, that any of it was provided to the city by a potential contractor or vendor in order to become certified as a historically underutilized or disadvantaged business under a certification program. Consequently, we find that section 552.128 is inapplicable to the submitted information, and it may not be withheld on this basis. We note the submitted information contains insurance policy numbers. Section 552.136 of the Government Code provides in relevant part: (a) In this section, "access device" means a card, plate, code, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrument identifier or means of account access that alone or in conjunction with another access device may be used to: (1) obtain money, goods, services, or another thing of value; or (2) initiate a transfer of funds other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a credit card, debit card, charge card, or access device number that is collected, assembled, or maintained by or for a governmental body is confidential. Gov't Code § 552.136. The city must withhold the insurance policy numbers we have marked pursuant to section 552.136 of the Government Code. We note that some of the materials at issue may be protected by copyright. A custodian of public records must comply with the copyright law and is not required to furnish copies of records that are copyrighted. Attorney General Opinion JM-672 (1987). A governmental body must allow inspection of copyrighted materials unless an exception applies to the information. Id. If a member of the public wishes to make copies of copyrighted materials, the person must do so unassisted by the governmental body. In making copies, the member of the public assumes the duty of compliance with the copyright law and the risk of a copyright infringement suit. See Open Records Decision No. 550 (1990). In summary, the city must withhold the information we have marked pursuant to section 552.110 of the Government Code. The city must also withhold the marked insurance policy numbers pursuant to section 552.136 of the Government Code. The remaining information must be released to the requestor. However, any copyrighted material may only be released in accordance with copyright law. This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances. This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id. § 552.321(a). If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the statute, the attorney general expects that, upon receiving this ruling, the governmental body will either release the public records promptly pursuant to section 552.221(a) of the Government Code or file a lawsuit challenging this ruling pursuant to section 552.324 of the Government Code. If the governmental body fails to do one of these things, then the requestor should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at (877) 673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e). If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ). Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to Hadassah Schloss at the Office of the Attorney General at (512) 475-2497. If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days of the date of this ruling. Sincerely, Jaime L. Flores
c: Mr. Ryan J. Burton, Esq.
Mr. David M. Penny
Mr. Leo Cook, CEO
Mr. Christopher B. Gilbert
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |