Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the Ohio State University's (OSU) refusal to disclose certain records requested under Ohio's public records law, R.C. 149.43, claiming they were protected as intellectual property and trade secrets. The court examined whether OSU's withheld records, including a preliminary business plan and draft asset purchase agreement, qualified for these exceptions. The court found that the records primarily contained financial and administrative information, which are not protected as intellectual property. For trade secret claims under R.C. 1333.61(D), OSU failed to demonstrate the economic value of the secrecy of the records since the information was either publicly available or tied to a specific transaction without future competitive value. The court ruled that most records must be disclosed, except for a page listing top patient-volume physicians, which was deemed a trade secret due to its potential competitive advantage. Consequently, the court issued a writ of mandamus for the release of the majority of the records, underscoring the mandate for open government and narrow interpretation of exceptions to public records disclosure.
Legal Issues Addressed
Intellectual Property Exception under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(m)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: OSU's withheld records do not qualify as intellectual property records as they are deemed financial records, not protected from disclosure.
Reasoning: OSU's preliminary business plan and pro forma for the Park Medical Center are deemed financial records, containing financial calculations and administrative decisions related to the acquisition, thus not qualifying for the intellectual property exception.
Mandamus for Disclosure of Recordssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court grants a writ of mandamus for disclosure of most records, except those found to be trade secrets.
Reasoning: The court emphasizes the principle of favoring public access to records and concludes by granting a writ of mandamus for disclosure of most withheld records, except for the specific page of the business plan and the staff list.
Public Records Disclosure under R.C. 149.43subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasizes the narrow interpretation of exceptions to public records disclosure, requiring the custodian to prove any claimed exceptions.
Reasoning: The fundamental policy of R.C. 149.43 is to promote open government, requiring that exceptions to public records disclosure be narrowly interpreted against the custodian of records, who bears the burden of proof for any claimed exceptions.
Trade Secret Protection under R.C. 1333.61(D)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: OSU failed to demonstrate that the memorandum and draft agreement possess economic value as trade secrets, making them subject to disclosure.
Reasoning: OSU failed to provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that the draft agreement has independent economic value that is not easily ascertainable by competitors, as required by R.C. 1333.61(D)(1).
Trade Secrets and Customer Listssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A customer list can be a trade secret if protected adequately; a single page listing physicians is exempt from disclosure.
Reasoning: A customer list is recognized as an intangible asset and can be considered a trade secret if the owner takes steps to protect it from unauthorized disclosure.