Click for home page
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT
image

 

February 15, 2012

Ms. Retha E. Karnes

General Counsel

Alamo Colleges

201 West Sheridan, Building D

San Antonio, Texas 78204-1429

OR2012-02391

Dear Ms. Karnes:

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# 446000.

The Alamo Community College District (the "district") received a request for all solicitations, awarded contracts, cost and technical proposals submitted, award evaluations and score sheets, and award letters related to Request for Proposal No. 11A-019. Although you take no position on the public availability of the requested information, you state the requested information may implicate the proprietary interests of third parties. Accordingly, you inform us, and provide documentation showing, you notified Blackboard Transact ("Blackboard"); The CBORD Group, Inc.; Heartland Payment Systems; Higher One, Inc.; ITC Systems USA, Inc.; and NuVision Networks, Corp. of the request and of their right to submit comments to this office as to why the requested information should not be released to the requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.305(d); see also 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 under the Act in certain circumstances). We have received comments from Blackboard. We have considered the submitted arguments and reviewed the submitted information.

We note 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 letter, we have only received comments from Blackboard explaining why the company's submitted information should not be released. Therefore, we have no basis to conclude the remaining third parties have protected proprietary interests in the submitted 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 district may not withhold any portion of the submitted information on the basis of any proprietary interest the remaining third parties may have in it.

Blackboard argues some of its information is marked "confidential" and it is the company's expectation that parties to the company's contracts will maintain the confidentiality of that information. However, information is not confidential under the Act simply because the party submitting the information anticipates or requests that it be kept confidential. Indus. Found. v. Tex. Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 677 (Tex. 1976). In other words, a governmental body cannot, through an agreement or contract, overrule or repeal provisions of the Act. Attorney General Opinion JM-672 (1987); Open Records Decision Nos. 541 at 3 (1990) ("[T]he obligations of a governmental body under [the predecessor to the Act] cannot be compromised simply by its decision to enter into a contract."), 203 at 1 (1978) (mere expectation of confidentiality by person supplying information does not satisfy requirements of statutory predecessor to Gov't Code § 552.110). Consequently, unless the information falls within an exception to disclosure, it must be released, notwithstanding any expectations or agreement specifying otherwise.

Next, Blackboard asserts some of its information is excepted from public disclosure because its release would "give advantage to competitors or bidders resulting in harm to the marketplace interests of all Texas government entities." Thus, we understand Blackboard to raise section 552.104 of the Government Code, which excepts "information that, if released, would give advantage to a competitor or bidder." Gov't Code § 552.104(a). This exception protects the competitive interests of governmental bodies such as the district, not the proprietary interests of private parties such as Blackboard. See Open Records Decision No. 592 at 8 (1991) (discussing statutory predecessor). In this instance, the district does not raise section 552.104 as an exception to disclosure. Therefore, the district may not withhold any of the submitted information under section 552.104 of the Government Code.

Section 552.110 of the Government Code 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, which holds a trade secret to be:

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 Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. 1958). 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) 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).

Blackboard asserts that its submitted information contains trade secrets. Upon review, we find that Blackboard has failed to demonstrate any of its submitted information meets the definition of a trade secret, nor has Blackboard demonstrated the necessary factors to establish a trade secret claim for this information. We further note pricing information pertaining to a particular proposal or contract is generally not a trade secret because 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." See Restatement of Torts § 757 cmt. b (1939); Huffines, 314 S.W.2d at 776; ORDs 319 at 3, 306 at 3. Accordingly, the district may not withhold any of Blackboard's information under section 552.110(a) of the Government Code.

Blackboard also argues its information contains commercial information the release of which would cause it competitive harm. Upon review, we find Blackboard has demonstrated that release of the its pricing information would result in substantial damage to its competitive position. Accordingly, the district must withhold the pricing information we have marked under section 552.110(b) of the Government Code. However, we find Blackboard has made only conclusory allegations that the release of any of its remaining information would result in substantial harm to its competitive position. See ORDs 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 (1998) (because costs, bid speculations, 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. Accordingly, none of Blackboard's remaining information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.110(b).

We note some of the information 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. 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 district must withhold the pricing information we have marked under section 552.110(b) of the Government Code. The remaining information must be released, however, any information subject to copyright may be released 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,

Kathryn R. Mattingly

Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Division

KRM/som

Ref: ID# 446000

Enc. Submitted documents

c: Requestor

(w/o enclosures)


Footnotes

1. 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 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
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer


Home | ORLs