![]() ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
January 26, 2012 Mr. W. Montgomery Meitler Assistant Counsel Texas Education Agency 1701 North Congress Ave. Austin, Texas 78701-1494 OR2012-01342 Dear Mr. Meitler: 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# 443440 (TEA PIR #s 16491, 16492, 16534). The Texas Education Agency (the "agency") received three requests for information pertaining to request for proposals 701-12-003. You state the agency will release some of the requested information. Although you take no position as to whether the submitted information is excepted under the Act, you state release of the submitted information may implicate the proprietary interests of Aloe Software Group, L.L.C. ("Aloe"), Dell Marketing, L.P. ("Dell"), and eScholar, L.L.C. ("eScholar"). Accordingly, you state you notified Aloe, Dell, and eScholar of the requests for information and of their rights to submit arguments to this office as to why their submitted 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 received comments from eScholar. We have considered the submitted arguments and reviewed the submitted information. Initially, we note that 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) of the Government Code 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 letter, this office has not received comments from Aloe or Dell explaining why their requested information should not be released. Therefore, we have no basis to conclude that Aloe or Dell have protected proprietary interests in their requested information. See id. § 552.110; Open Records Decision Nos. 661 at 5-6 (1999) (to prevent disclosure of commercial or financial information, party must show by specific factual evidence, not conclusory or generalized allegations, that release of requested information would cause that party substantial competitive harm), 552 at 5 (1990) (party must establish prima facie case that information is trade secret), 542 at 3. Accordingly, the agency may not withhold any portion of the submitted information based upon Aloe's or Dell's proprietary interests. eScholar asserts some of its information is 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 Gov't Code § 552.110(a)-(b). Section 552.110(a) protects trade secrets obtained from a person and privileged or confidential by statute or judicial decision. Id. § 552.110(a). The Texas Supreme Court has adopted the definition of trade secret from section 757 of the Restatement of Torts. Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. 1957); see also ORD 552 at 2. Section 757 provides that a trade secret is: any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him 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 . . . . A trade secret is a process or device for continuous use in the operation of the business. . . . [It may] 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 Huffines, 314 S.W.2d at 776. In determining whether particular information constitutes a trade secret, this office considers the Restatement's definition of trade secret as well as the Restatement's list of six trade secret factors. (1) Restatement of Torts § 757 cmt. b (1939). This office must accept a claim that information subject to the Act is excepted as a trade secret if a prima facie case for the exception is made and no argument is submitted that rebuts the claim as a matter of law. See ORD 552 at 5. 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.; see also ORD 661 at 5-6 (business enterprise must show by specific factual evidence that release of information would cause it substantial competitive harm). Upon review, we find that eScholar has established a prima facie case that some of its information, which we have marked, constitutes trade secrets. Therefore, the agency must withhold the information we have marked pursuant to section 552.110(a) of the Government Code. We note, however, that eScholar has made the remaining customer information it seeks to withhold publicly available on its website. Because eScholar has published this information, it has failed to demonstrate this information is a trade secret. We also find eScholar has failed to demonstrate how any portion of its remaining information meets the definition of a trade secret, nor has it demonstrated the necessary factors to establish a trade secret claim. See Open Records Decision Nos. 402 (section 552.110(a) does not apply unless information meets definition of trade secret and necessary factors have been demonstrated to establish trade secret claim), 319 at 2 (information relating to organization, personnel, market studies, professional references, qualifications, and experience not excepted under section 552.110). Therefore, the agency may not withhold any of eScholar's remaining information pursuant to section 552.110(a) of the Government Code. eScholar claims that some of its remaining information, if released, would cause the company substantial competitive harm. However, because eScholar has published its remaining customer information on its website, the company has failed to demonstrate how release of this information would cause it substantial competitive harm. Furthermore, we find eScholar has not demonstrated how release of any of its other remaining information at issue would cause it substantial competitive injury. See Open Records Decision Nos. 661 (for information to be withheld under commercial or financial information prong of section 552.110, business must show by specific factual evidence that substantial competitive injury would result from release of particular information at issue), 509 at 5 (1988) (because 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), 319 at 3 (information relating to organization and personnel, professional references, market studies, and qualifications are not ordinarily excepted from disclosure under statutory predecessor to section 552.110). Consequently, the agency may not withhold any of eScholar's remaining information under section 552.110(b) of the Government Code. We note that a portion of the remaining submitted information 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. Open Records Decision No. 180 at 3 (1977). A governmental body must allow inspection of copyrighted materials unless an exception applies to the information. Id.; see Open Records Decision No. 109 (1975). 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. In summary, the agency must withhold the information we have marked under section 552.110(a) of the Government Code. The agency must release the remaining submitted information, but only in accordance with copyright law. This letter ruling is limited to the particular information 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 information or any other circumstances. This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For more information concerning those rights and responsibilities, please visit our website at http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/index_orl.php, or call the Office of the Attorney General's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at (877) 673-6839. Questions concerning the allowable charges for providing public information under the Act must be directed to the Cost Rules Administrator of the Office of the Attorney General, toll free at (888) 672-6787. Sincerely, Sean Nottingham Assistant Attorney General Open Records Division SN/agn Ref: ID# 443440 Enc. Submitted documents c: Requestor (w/o enclosures) Mr. Paul Polasek Managing Partner Aloe Software Group 106 East Forrest Street Victoria, Texas 77901 (w/o enclosures) Ms. Staci Mcdonald Regional Proposal Manager Dell Marketing, L.P. One Dell Way Round Rock, Texas 78682 (w/o enclosures) Footnotes1. The Restatement of Torts lists the following six factors as indicia of whether information constitutes a trade secret: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of [the company]; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and other 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 [its] competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by [the company] in developing the information; (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 at 2 (1982), 306 at 2 (1982), 255 at 2 (1980).
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |