This ruling has been modified by court action. The judgment can be viewed in PDF format here.


Click for home page
Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL
GREG ABBOTT
image

 

May 8, 2007

Ms. Alison Holland
Olson & Olson, LLP
2727 Allen Parkway, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77019

OR2007-05485

Dear Ms. Holland:

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# 277986.

The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority (the "authority"), which you represent, received a request for all information related to Kaneka Nutrients ("Kaneka") including the "analytical data recorded on the Kaneka discharge system." You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.110 of the Government Code. In addition, you state that the requested information may contain proprietary information subject to exception under the Act. Accordingly, you state that the authority notified Kaneka of the request for information and of its right to submit arguments to this office as to why the requested information should not be released. See Gov't Code § 552.305(d); see also Open Records Decision No. 542 (1990) (statutory predecessor to section 552.305 permits governmental body to rely on interested third party to raise and explain applicability of exception in the Act in certain circumstances). We have considered the submitted arguments and reviewed the submitted information.

The authority and Kaneka each claim that the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.110. Section 552.110 of the Government Code protects the proprietary interests of private parties by excepting from disclosure two types of information: (1) trade secrets obtained from a person and privileged or confidential by statute or judicial decision, 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 Gov't Code § 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.); Open Records Decision Nos. 552 at 2 (1990), 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 Nos. 319 (1982), 306 (1982), 255, 232. 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. 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. Id. § 552.110(b); Open Records Decision No. 661 (1999).

After reviewing the information at issue, we find that Kaneka has presented a prima facie claim that a portion of the submitted information qualifies as trade secret information under section 552.110(a). We have received no arguments that rebut Kaneka's trade secret claims as a matter of law. Accordingly, this information, which we have marked, must be withheld under section 552.110(a) of the Government Code. However, Kaneka and the authority have failed to demonstrate how any portion of the remaining information at issue meets the definition of a trade secret, and have failed to demonstrate the necessary factors to establish a trade secret claim for the remaining information. See ORD 552 at 5-6; 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").

Furthermore, we conclude that the authority and Kaneka have failed to demonstrate how any portion of the remaining information at issue constitutes commercial or financial information, the release of which would cause them substantial competitive harm. See Open Records Decision No. 661 (1999) (must show by specific factual evidence that substantial competitive injury would result from release of particular information at issue). Accordingly, the authority may not withhold any portion of the remaining information pursuant to section 552.110(b) of the Government Code.

In summary, the authority must withhold the information, which we have marked, pursuant to section 552.110(a). The remaining information must be released.

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,

Melanie J. Villars

Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Division

MJV/sdk

Ref: ID# 277986

Enc. Submitted documents

c: Mr. Bill Sutton

Research Services, Inc.

303 East Pershing Road #345

Decatur, Illinois 62526

(w/o enclosures)

Ms. Susan Denmon Gusky

Vinson & Elkins

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100

Austin, Texas 78746-7568

(w/o enclosures)

 

POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer


Home | ORLs