ArrorNey GENERAL oF Texas GREG amnorT August 5, 2009 Ms. Neera Chatterjee (0R2000-10860 Dear Ms. Chatterjee: ‘You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Public Information Act (he “Act, chapter 552 ofthe Government Code, Your request was assigned ID# 351086, ‘The University of Texas System (the “system") received a request for signed bundled site licenses pertaining o 10 named publishers. You state you have no signed bundled site license contracts with Cambridge University Press, Emerald, Sage, or Taylor & Francis, ‘You ake no postien with respect to the public availabilty ofthe requested information, but believe thatthe request may implicate the proprietary interests of American Chemical Society (CACS"); Houston Academy of Medicine (HAM); Oxford University Pross (“Oxford”); Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. (“Springer-Verlag”): Science Direct, Div. ofReed Elsevier, Inc. (“Elsevier”); Wiley Europe ("Wiley"); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (“John Wiley"): Blackwell Publishing, Ine. (“Blackwell”), and Springer Science + Business Media, L.L.C. Springer”). Welave received comments from Springer and Elsevier. We have considered the submitted arguments and reviewed the submitted information. Initially, we note that, among other things, the requestor seeks answers to several actual questions. The Act does not require a governmental body to answer factual questions, conduet legal reseerch, or create new information in responding to a request. See Open "The Aetdoesnotroqutes governmental bytes nfrmtin at di not exis wena request fovifornaion was ened prepare new information in response toa request, Se Econ Opportnties, Dev Carp. Busamause. 862. W 28266, 207-68 (Tex. CW App Sah Aono 1978, wet den) Open Records Decision Nos. 608 a 21992), 452 a3 (108), 62 at (1983).Ms. Neera Chatteree - Page 2 Records Decision Nos, 563 at 8 (1990), $55 at 1-2 (1990). However, a governmental body must make a good faith effort to relate & request to information held by the governmental body. See Open Records Decision No. 561 at & (1990), You state that information responsive to the requestor's questions is contained in the submitted documents ‘Accordingly, wew lladdress whether the submitted information is excepted from disclosure. Next, we note the raquestor has agreed tothe redaction of P addresses. As such, those types of information are not responsive to the present request and will not be addressed by this ruling, ‘Next, we note that an interested third party is allowed ten business days after the date ofits receipt ofthe governmental body's notice under section 552.305(A) to submit its reasons, if lany, as to why requested information relating to it should be withheld from disclosure. See Gov't Code § $52.305(d)2M(B). As of the date of tis Ieter, we have not recei ccorespondence from ACS, HAM, Oxford, Springer-Verlag, Elsevier, Wiley, John Wiley, Gr Blackwell exphining why their information should not be relessed. Thus, we have 0 basis for concluding that any potion ofthe submitted information pertaining to these third partes constitutes proprietary information, and the system may not withhold any portion oF their information on that basis. See Open Records Decision Nos. 661 at 5-6 (1999) (to prevent diselosure of commetcial or financial information, party must show by specific factual evidence, not conclusory or generalized allegations, that release of requested information would eause that party substantial competitive harm), $52 at $ (1990) (party ‘must establish prima facie ease that information is trade secre), 542 at 3 (1990), ‘Springer asserts its contracts are governed by a strict confidentiality provision. Information is not confidential under the Act, however, simply because the party that submits the information anticipates or request it be kept confidential. See Indus. Found,» Tex. Indus “Accident Bd., $40 S.W.24 668, 677 (Tex. 1976). In other words, a governmental body ‘Cannot overrule o- repeal provisions of the Act through an agreement or contract. See ‘Attomey General Opinion JM-672 (1987); Open Records Decision Nos. 541 at 3 (1990) (C{T]he obligation of « governmental body under [the Act] cannot be compromised simply byits decison to exter into a contrac."), 208 at 1 (1978) (mere expectation of confidentiality by person supplying information does not satisfy requirements of statutory predecessor 10 section $52.1 10 ofthe Government Code). Consequently, unless the responsive information. tomes within an exception © disclosure, it must be released, notwithstanding any ‘expectation or agreement to the contrary Springer assertsits information should not be disclosed pursuant tothe trade seoret provision under ssction 382041 of the Health and Safety Code Section 382.041 provides inrelevant part that “a member, employee, or agent of [the Texas Commission on Environmental Section 2.04) of the Meals and Safty Code & encompassed by scion 552.101 ofthe Government Code, wick provides “foomaton i exepled fam [equed pubbe disclose) if sis (irestuuoncondraitebecunidnta bylaw thr comstatosl, statutory. or by uci deision." Govt (Code § 352101Ms. Neera Chatterjee - Page 3 Quality (the “commission”)} may not disclose information submited to [the commission] {elating fo secre! processes or methods of manufacture or production tha is identified as ‘Confidential when submitted.” Health & Safety Code § 382.041(a). By its own terms, Section 382.041 only applies to certain information submitted to the conunission, andl is Jnappliable in this instance. See Open Records Decision No. 652 (1997), Thus, none of Springer’s information may be withheld on that basis, |We understand Elevier and Springer to assert that portions of their submitted information are excepted under section 532.110 ofthe Goverment Code. Section 582.110 protects: (1) thade secrets and 2) commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which would ‘use substantial competitive harm tothe person from whom the information was obtained Gov't Code § 352. 10{a),(b). Section 552.1 10(a proteetsthe proprietary interests of private patties by excepting from disclosure trade secrets obtained froma person and privileged or Ponfidental by statute or judicial decision. See id. § 552.1 10(a), A “trade secret” say consist of any forma, pattem, device or compilation of information iyhih fs taed in one's business, and which gives fone) an opportunity co ‘htain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it, Temay be {formula for a chemical compound, a process of manufacturing, treating oF preserving materials, pater for a machine or other device, or alist of Bhstomers, It differs ftom other seeret information in a business in that i is shot simpls information a to single or ephemeral events in the conduct ofthe husiness as for example the amount or other terms of a sooret bid for @ contractor the salary of certain employees .... A trade secret is a process tr device for continuous use in the operation of the business. Generally it Telates tothe production of goods, as for example, a machine or formula for the produetion ofan article. It may, however, relate tothe sale of goods or to other operations in the business, such asa code for determining discounts, Tebates orother concessions in price list or eatalogue, or alist of specialized ‘customers, ora method of bookkeeping or other office management 314 ), 217 RESTATEMENT Ce ToRTS § 757 emt. b (1939); see also Hyde Corp. v, Hoifin §5,W.2d 763, 776 (Tex. 1958); Open Revords Decision Nos, 255 (1980), 232 (197! (1978) “There ar six factors to be assessed in determining whether information qualifies asa trade soeret (1) the entent to which the information is known outside of [the company’s] business; (2) the extent to which tis known by employees and aters involved in the company’s] business: