April 18, 1995; City of Bigfork
4/18/1995 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity which requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.
On March 7, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated March 3, 1995, from Rodney Otterness, an attorney for the City of Bigfork. In his letter, Mr. Otterness requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion as to whether the Bigfork Municipal Liquor Store's detail inventory is trade secret information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37. A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Mr. Otterness noted that attached to his letter was a copy of two letters. One letter, dated January 30, 1995, from citizen John Undem, was a request to the Bigfork City Council for specific government data relating to the Bigfork Municipal Liquor Store. As part of his request, Mr. Undem asked for records relating to inventory statements or documentation. The other letter, dated February 9, 1995, was addressed to Karen Lakso, Bigfork City Clerk, from Debra Sakrison, a CPA, whom apparently had been consulted about Mr. Undem's request. In her letter, Ms. Sakrison stated, ...Disclosing the information [contained in the liquor store detail inventory] would be damaging to the liquor store because you would be disclosing information that would allow calculation of your pricing formula and other details such as your product mix and product cost. Release of this type of information would be beneficial to your competitors and only harmful to the City.... Also attached to Mr. Otterness' letter was a copy of the Liquor Store's inventory and sales report which appears to be dated December 31, 1994. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Otterness was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.) Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Otterness asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The question raised by Bigfork is whether certain sales and inventory information relating to its municipal liquor store are classified as not public data because they fit the definition of trade secret data in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37, subdivision 1 (b). In subdivision 1 (b) of Section 13.37, trade secret information is defined as the following: Trade secret information means government data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by the affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. (Emphasis added.) From the language in Section 13.37, it is clear that data can be classified as trade secret only if each criterion of the definition is satisfied. The definition of trade secret in Section 13.37 is derived from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325C. The language in Section 325C.01, subdivision 5, is as follows: Trade secret means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under circumstances to maintain its secrecy. A comparison of the language in the two statute sections reveals that Section 13.37 contains one criterion not included in Chapter 325C. The additional requirement is that government data can be classified as trade secret only if the data have been supplied by the affected individual or organization. The adoption of this additional language by the Legislature demonstrates, for general purposes, the Legislature's intent that a claim for trade secret protection for certain data can be made only if the data were supplied to the government by an entity outside the government. In light of this intent, the discussion regarding the classification of the Bigfork Municipal Liquor Store's inventory and sales report data should focus on whether these data were supplied to Bigfork by an affected individual or organization outside of Bigfork. If this criterion is not satisfied, the data cannot be classified as not public pursuant to the trade secret exemption in Section 13.37. Accordingly, since the data claimed to be trade secret by Bigfork were generated by the City itself and were not supplied by an outside organization or individual, it appears that the data cannot be appropriately classified as trade secret. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Otterness is as follows:
Signed: Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: April 18, 1995 |
Trade secret
Legislative authority and intent
Trade secrets
Supplied by the affected individual or organization
