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

September 21, 2000

Ms. Ann Dillon
General Counsel
General Services Commission
P.O. Box 13047
Austin, Texas 78711-3047


Dear Ms. Dillon:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 140501.

The General Services Commission (the "commission") received a request for copies of all proposals submitted to the commission in response to RFP 303-0-1201, Property Management - Ramirez State Office Building, Houston, TX. You state that the commission received three proposals in response to RFP 303-0-1201, including the proposal submitted by the requestor, and has released information relating to one of the other two proposals. You assert no exception to the release of the remaining proposal, submitted by Tarantino Properties ("Tarantino"), nor do you submit any arguments against its disclosure. However, you notified Tarantino of the request by a letter dated August 22, 2000, in compliance with section 552.305 of the Government Code. 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 Gov't Code 552.305 permits governmental body to rely on interested third party to raise and explain applicability of exception in Public Information Act in certain circumstances). Tarantino responded to the notice and claims its information is excepted from public disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.110 of the Government Code.

Initially, we note Tarantino's assertion that in order to protect its privacy, its proposal was marked "Confidential" when submitted to the commission. However, information is not confidential under the Public Information Act (the "Act") simply because the party submitting the information anticipates or requests that it be kept confidential. Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 677 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 931 (1977), see Open Records Decision Nos. 479 (1987) (information is not confidential under Public Information Act simply because party submitting it anticipates or requests that it be kept confidential), 203 (1978) (mere expectation of confidentiality by individual supplying information does not properly invoke section 552.110). In other words, a governmental body cannot, through a contract, overrule or repeal provisions of the Act. Attorney General Opinion JM-672 (1987). Thus, the information at issue is subject to disclosure under the Act.

We next address Tarantino's claim under section 552.110. 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. 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. Restatement of Torts 757 cmt. b (1939).(1) 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).

After reviewing the information at issue and the arguments set forth by Tarantino, we conclude that Tarantino has not established a prima facie case for withholding section 4 of the proposal, "List of Current References," section 7, "Management Information Reports," or section 10, "Standard Emergency Procedures," under section 552.110 as trade secrets.

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). After reviewing the information at issue and the arguments set forth by Tarantino, we conclude that Tarantino has made only conclusory arguments as to why the submitted information should be withheld, and thus we conclude that the information may not be withheld under section 552.110 as commercial or financial information.

Section 552.101 excepts from required public disclosure information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision and incorporates the doctrine of common law privacy. For information to be protected from public disclosure under the common law right of privacy, the information must meet the criteria set out in Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). Information may be withheld from the public when (1) it is highly intimate and embarrassing such that its release would be highly objectionable to a person of ordinary sensibilities, and (2) there is no legitimate public interest in its disclosure. Id. at 685; Open Records Decision No. 611 at 1 (1992).

Upon review of the information submitted, we conclude that the documents contained in section 8 (Insurance), section 12 (Staffing Requirements) and section 13 (Financial Management/Management Fee Structure) may not be withheld under section 552.101 as information made confidential by law. See Open Records Decision Nos. 620 (1993)(company has no privacy interest in its financial information).

We note, finally, that the company here also asserts a copyright interest in a portion of the materials at issue. 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).

To summarize, the submitted information may not be withheld as a trade secret or commercial or financial information under section 552.110, nor may it be withheld under section 552.101 under common law privacy. Therefore, it must be released to the requestor. To the extent the requested information is copyrighted, however, the commission need only provide access to the information, it need not furnish copies.

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.


Michael A. Pearle
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division


Ref: ID# 140501

Encl. Submitted documents

cc: Mr. Michael Moorhead
Business Development Manager
Meridian Management Corporation
818 A1A North, Suite 300
Ponte Verda Beach, Florida 32082
(w/o enclosures)

Mr. Anthony Tarantino, CPM
Tarantino Properties
7887 Dsn Felipe, Suite 237
Houston, Texas 77063
(w/o enclosures)



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 (1982) at 2, 306 (1982) at 2, 255 (1980) at 2.

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