Click for home page Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
John Cornyn
image
 

November 14, 2000

Ms. Nancy L. Harlan
Administrative Officer
San Antonio Independent School District
141 Lavaca Street
San Antonio, Texas 78210-1095

OR2000-4414

Dear Ms. Harlan:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 141243.

The San Antonio Independent School District (the "district") received two written requests for "the proposal submitted by EOS Claims Services, Firm Solutions and Phillips and Akers that was accepted by [the district] to become effective on or about September 01, 2000." You do not contend that the requested information is excepted from disclosure, but rather have sought a decision from this office pursuant to section 552.305 of the Government Code, which authorizes a governmental body to rely on the arguments of third parties with a privacy or property interest in the information to make arguments for non-disclosure.

You have submitted to us the two requested proposals. This office has not received, however, any arguments from the law firm of Phillips and Akers as to why their proposal should be withheld from the public. This office therefore has no basis on which to conclude that this proposal is excepted from public disclosure. Consequently, we conclude that the district must release the Phillips and Akers proposal in its entirety.

On the other hand, this office has received a response from the EOS Group, f/k/a FIRM Solutions, arguing that portions of its proposal are excepted from public disclosure under section 552.110 of the Government Code, which protects the property interests of private persons 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 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. The EOS Group contends that both branches of section 552.110 apply to portions of its proposals.

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.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 (1958); see also Open Records Decision No. 552 at 2 (1990). 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) Id. This office has held that if a governmental body takes no position with regard to the application of the trade secret branch of section 552.110 to requested information, we must accept a private person's claim for exception as valid under that branch if that person establishes a prima facie case for exception and no argument is submitted that rebuts the claim as a matter of law. Open Records Decision No. 552 at 5-6 (1990). The commercial or financial branch of section 552.110 requires the business enterprise whose information is at issue to make a specific factual or evidentiary showing, not conclusory or generalized allegations, that substantial competitive injury would result from disclosure. See Open Records Decision No. 661 (1999); see also National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

After reviewing the arguments made by the EOS Group and the records at issue, we conclude that the EOS Group has made an adequate demonstration to this office that only a few of the portions of its proposal that it claims to be confidential may be withheld under section 552.110. Specifically, the EOS Group has demonstrated that only the following information is excepted from public disclosure: the response to Item Numbers 3 and 4 on pages 2-3, pertaining to former clients, and the response to Item 7 on pages 4-6, which discusses an "on-line access system." The district must release the remaining portions of the proposal to the requestor.

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, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, 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 Department of Public 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 the General Services Commission 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,

E. Joanna Fitzgerald
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division

EJF/RWP/seg

Ref: ID# 141243

Encl. Submitted documents

cc: Mr. Randy McNeal
Harris & Harris
P.O. Box 162443
Austin, Texas 78716-2443
(w/o enclosures)

Mr. Mark Robinson
EOS Claims Services
400 N. Loop 1604 E #130
San Antonio, Texas 78232
(w/o enclosures)

Mr. James A. Fishback, Esq.
Vice President - Legal and Secretary
EOS Group
153 Technology
Irvine, California 92618
(w/o enclosures)


 

Footnotes

1. The six factors that the Restatement gives as indicia of whether information constitutes a trade secret are: "(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of [the company]; (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 [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
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer


Home | ORLs