Title: State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 89 Ohio St.3d 396, 2000-Ohio-
207.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BESSER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY ET 
AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 396.] 
Public records — Trade secrets — Mandamus sought to compel Ohio State 
University to make available for inspection all records concerning or 
relating to university’s acquisition of Park Medical Center, a private 
Columbus hospital — Writ granted in part and denied in part. 
(No. 99-394 — Submitted May 9, 2000 — Decided August 9, 2000.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
 
On February 18, 1999, relator Kenneth R. Besser (“Besser”), an attorney, 
sent a letter to respondent Ohio State University (“OSU”), stating that he 
represented his wife, relator Susan L. Besser, M.D., and Bexley Family Medicine 
in their lawsuit against OSU, and that he was requesting under R.C. 149.43, 
Ohio’s Public Records Act, that OSU make available for inspection “all records 
of OSU concerning or relating to OSU’s acquisition of Park Medical Center,” a 
private Columbus hospital.  OSU had created and collected records concerning 
the acquisition. 
 
On February 23, the Bessers filed this action for a writ of mandamus to 
compel respondents, OSU, OSU Hospitals Board, Manuel Tzagournis, M.D., 
OSU Vice-President for Health Sciences, OSU Hospitals Board, Grayce M. Sills, 
Chairperson of the OSU Hospitals Board, and R. Reed Fraley, M.D., Secretary of 
the OSU Hospitals Board and Executive Director of the Ohio State Hospital 
Systems (collectively referred to as “OSU”), to provide access to the requested 
records under R.C. 149.43.  The Bessers then voluntarily dismissed their pending 
lawsuit against OSU in the Court of Claims, and OSU provided them with access 
 
 
2 
to requested minutes of OSU Hospitals Board and OSU Strategic Planning 
Committee meetings relating to the acquisition. 
 
The matter was referred to the court’s mediation program, and during that 
process, on April 8, 1999, OSU publicly announced its acquisition of Park 
Medical Center.  Following mediation, the matter was returned to the regular 
docket, and we granted an alternative writ and issued a schedule for the 
presentation of evidence and briefs.  86 Ohio St.3d 1439, 713 N.E.2d 1050.  We 
also dismissed as moot the Bessers’ claims relating to OSU Hospitals Board and 
OSU Strategic Planning Committee minutes.  Id. 
 
The parties clarified the scope of the Bessers’ records requests and OSU 
provided them with some responsive records relating to the Park Medical Center 
acquisition.  OSU withheld the remainder of the requested records, claiming that 
R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(p) (now R.C. 149.43[A][1][q] [see Am.Sub.S.B. No. 55, 
Baldwin’s Ohio Legislative Service Annotated (Vol.7, 1999), L-904]) and 
149.43(A)(1)(m) and (5) exempted them as trade secrets, intellectual property, 
and attorney-client privileged material.  The Bessers claimed that (1) although 
former R.C. 1333.51 exempted the disclosure of trade secrets under R.C. 149.43, 
the repeal of former R.C. 1333.51 in 1996 removed any trade secrets exemption, 
(2) public entities like OSU could not have trade secrets, and (3) OSU had not 
established that the records withheld from the Bessers constituted trade secrets. 
 
Upon a consideration of the evidence and briefs, we held that “trade 
secrets remain exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(p) (now R.C. 
149.43[A][1][q]) and that governmental entities like OSU can have trade secrets, 
but that respondents should submit the records they claim to be exempt as trade 
secrets and intellectual property records to the court under seal for an in camera 
review.”  State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ. (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 535, 543, 
721 N.E.2d 1044, 1051.  We also ordered OSU to submit records that they have 
already provided to the Bessers in response to their public records request, upheld 
 
 
3 
OSU’s claimed exemption for two of the requested records because they were 
privileged attorney-client records, and denied the Bessers’ request for attorney 
fees.  Id., 87 Ohio St.3d at 542-543, 721 N.E.2d at 1050-1051. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon our in camera review of the 
records. 
__________________ 
 
Kenneth R. Besser, for relators. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Mark R. Weaver, Special 
Counsel to the Attorney General, Lisa Wu Fate and Jan Alan Neiger, Assistant 
Attorneys General, for respondents. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In reviewing the records withheld by OSU, the precept 
guiding our analysis is that the inherent, fundamental policy of R.C. 149.43 is to 
promote open government, not restrict it.  State ex rel. The Miami Student v. 
Miami Univ. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 168, 171, 680 N.E.2d 956, 959.  Consistent 
with this policy, exceptions to disclosure must be strictly construed against the 
public records custodian, and the custodian bears the burden to establish the 
applicability of an exception.  State ex rel. McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. 
Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 518, 519, 678 N.E.2d 1388, 1389. 
 
With these guidelines in mind, we initially consider OSU’s assertion that 
two of the withheld records are excepted from disclosure as intellectual property 
records under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(m).  The intellectual-property-record exception 
was designed to prevent private persons from using the Public Records Act to 
appropriate intellectual property for private gain.  State ex rel. Rea v. Ohio Dept. 
of Edn. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 527, 533, 692 N.E.2d 596, 602.  R.C. 149.43(A)(5) 
defines “intellectual property record” as “a record, other than a financial or 
administrative record, that is produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of a 
state institution of higher learning in the conduct of or as a result of study or 
 
 
4 
research on an educational, commercial, scientific, artistic, technical, or scholarly 
issue, regardless of whether the study or research was sponsored by the institution 
alone or in conjunction with a governmental body or private concern, and that has 
not been publicly released, published, or patented.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
In construing R.C. 149.43(A)(5), the words used must be construed in 
accordance with rules of grammar and common usage.  Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of 
Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 102, 702 N.E.2d 70, 72.  Financial 
records relate to the business system of managing money and investments, and 
administrative records concern the management and performance of the executive 
duties of a government, institution, or business.  See Garner, Black’s Law 
Dictionary (7 Ed.1999) 44 and 644; Webster’s Third New International 
Dictionary (1986) 28 and 851. 
 
Under R.C. 149.43(A)(5), financial and administrative records do not 
constitute intellectual property records that are exempt from disclosure under R.C. 
149.43.  The two records claimed by OSU to be intellectual property records are 
OSU’s preliminary business plan and pro forma for the Park Medical Center 
transaction, which include charts and tables outlining financial calculations and 
projections.  These records are both financial records.  They contain financial 
calculations concerning the acquisition of Park Medical Center, as well as 
administrative records, i.e., they concern OSU’s administrative decision to 
acquire the hospital. 
 
Therefore, 
the 
intellectual-property-record 
exception 
of 
R.C. 
149.43(A)(1)(m) and (A)(5) does not exempt these records from disclosure. 
 
OSU next contends that all of the withheld records, including the 
preliminary business plan and the pro forma, are exempt from disclosure under 
R.C. 149.43 because they are trade secrets.  Trade secrets are exempt from 
disclosure under the “state or federal law” exemption of R.C. 149.43.  Besser, 87 
Ohio St.3d at 540, 721 N.E.2d at 1049. 
 
 
5 
 
R.C. 1333.61(D), part of Ohio’s adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets 
Act, defines “trade secret” to include “any information, including * * * any 
business information or plans, financial information, or listing of names * * * that 
satisfies both of the following: 
 
“(1) It 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. 
 
“(2)  It is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances 
to maintain its secrecy.” 
 
We have also adopted the following factors in analyzing a trade secret 
claim: 
 
“(1)  The extent to which the information is known outside the business; 
(2) the extent to which it is known to those inside the business, i.e., by the 
employees; (3) the precautions taken by the holder of the trade secret to guard the 
secrecy of the information; (4) the savings effected and the value to the holder in 
having the information as against competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money 
expended in obtaining and developing the information; and (6) the amount of time 
and expense it would take for others to acquire and duplicate the information.”  
State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 513, 
524-525, 687 N.E.2d 661, 672, citing Pyromatics, Inc. v. Petruziello (1983), 7 
Ohio App.3d 131, 134-135, 7 OBR 165, 169, 454 N.E.2d 588, 592. 
 
An entity claiming trade secret status bears the burden to identify and 
demonstrate that the material is included in categories of protected information 
under the statute and additionally must take some active steps to maintain its 
secrecy.  See Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 
171, 181, 707 N.E.2d 853, 862. 
 
We apply the foregoing factors in determining OSU’s trade secret claims 
regarding the various records it has withheld from the Bessers. 
 
 
6 
2/4/99 Memorandum to OSU Officials from OSU Employee Regarding Asset 
Purchase Agreement for Park Medical Center and Draft Asset Purchase 
Agreement 
 
OSU claims that the memorandum is a trade secret because of a 
conclusory statement in an affidavit of the executive director of Ohio State 
Hospitals Systems that it “derives potential economic value from not being 
generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable to, persons who can 
obtain economic value from its disclosure.”  The memorandum, however, in and 
of itself, does not disclose any information that retains any potential economic 
value for either OSU or its competitors.  See Plain Dealer, 80 Ohio St.3d at 527, 
687 N.E.2d at 674.  Instead, it merely references a copy of an asset purchase 
agreement without disclosing its terms.  Id. 
 
OSU also withheld the draft asset purchase agreement referred to in the 
memorandum.  The draft agreement relates to the since-completed acquisition of 
Park Medical Center by OSU.  In Plain Dealer, we relied on commentary from 
the Restatement of Torts to hold that “[i]nformation related to a single, ephemeral 
event in the conduct of a business does not meet the requirement that a trade 
secret be ‘a process or device for continuous use in the operation of the business.’ 
”  Id., 80 Ohio St.3d at 526, 687 N.E.2d at 673, quoting Restatement of the Law, 
Torts (1939), Section 757, Comment b; see, also, Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. 
Pub. Serv. Comm. of Wisconsin (1983), 110 Wis.2d 530, 329 N.W.2d 178, 
holding that documents relating to draft contracts, bids, and letters of negotiation 
are not trade secrets. 
 
The Commissioners on Uniform State Laws who drafted the Uniform 
Trade Secrets Act, as adopted in Ohio, noted “[t]hat the definition of ‘trade secret’ 
[in the Uniform Act] contains a reasonable departure from the Restatement of 
Torts (First) definition which required that a trade secret be ‘continuously used in 
one’s business.’ ”  Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Sec. 1, Comment (1990), 14 
 
 
7 
U.L.A. 437, 439; Minuteman, Inc. v. Alexander (1989), 147 Wis.2d 842, 852-853, 
434 N.W.2d 773, 777.  The broader definition in the Act, as well as R.C. 
1333.61(D), “extends protection to a plaintiff who has not yet had an opportunity 
or acquired the means to put a trade secret to use” and “includes information that 
has commercial value from a negative viewpoint, for example the results of 
lengthy and expensive research which proves that a certain process will not work 
could be of great value to a competitor.”  (Emphasis sic.)  14 U.L.A. 439. 
 
Therefore, the mere fact that the draft asset purchase agreement relates to 
a single event, i.e., OSU’s acquisition of a private hospital, and is not 
continuously used in OSU’s business does not preclude it from being a trade 
secret that is exempt from disclosure. 
 
But there still must be evidence that the draft agreement constitutes a trade 
secret.  OSU did not introduce sufficient evidence to establish that the draft 
agreement retains potential, independent economic value from not being readily 
ascertainable by proper means by competitors.  R.C. 1333.61(D)(1).  In fact, even 
OSU’s conclusory affidavit statement covers only the February 4, 1999 
memorandum and not the draft agreement to which it refers.  There is also no 
evidence that the draft agreement was actually adopted or which, if any, of its 
terms have potential economic value in future transactions involving OSU. 
 
Consequently, the February 4, 1999 memorandum and the draft agreement 
do not constitute trade secrets and are subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43. 
1/28/99 OSU Preliminary Business Plan for Park Medical Center 
 
OSU claims that the preliminary business plan drafted by Arthur Andersen 
Healthcare Services for OSU’s proposed acquisition of Park Medical Center is 
also a trade secret.  Like the other withheld records, OSU relies on conclusory 
affidavit statements to support its claims.  For example, OSU provided affidavit 
evidence that “[r]elease of strategic plans and other negotiation information 
surrounding The Ohio State University’s purchase of Park Medical Center even 
 
 
8 
after the conclusion of negotiations would put The Ohio State University 
Hospitals at a significant economic disadvantage.”  (Emphasis sic.) 
 
OSU argues that based on this evidence, if it enters into any future 
negotiations similar to the Park Medical Center transaction, opposing parties 
could use these secrets to determine OSU’s valuation process, negotiating style, 
and internal process for making and receiving offers, and that competitors can use 
this information even now to attack, undermine, and circumvent OSU’s business 
strategies. 
 
Notably lacking, however, is any factual evidence to support these 
conclusory statements and argument.  The assumptions made as well as the 
process of valuing Park Medical Center’s future five-year financial performance if 
acquired by OSU are restricted to that transaction, based mainly on interviews 
with the hospital’s staff.  There is no credible evidence that this specific valuation 
process would in any way benefit OSU in future transactions involving the 
acquisition of other private hospitals or that the assumptions underlying OSU’s 
valuation of a potential purchase target would be comparable in future purchases.  
Nor is there evidence that the valuation process is sufficiently unique in the 
hospital industry that competitors would obtain a cognizable economic benefit 
from its disclosure.  In fact, OSU has already publicly disclosed a detailed 
appraisal of Park Medical Center that OSU used in its acquisition determination.  
The disclosed appraisal also includes a projection of income and expenses for 
Park Medical Center for five years and beyond. 
 
In addition, a record is entitled to trade secret status “ ‘only if the 
information is not generally known or readily ascertainable to the public.’ ”  State 
ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 166, 173, 724 N.E.2d 411, 418, quoting Plain Dealer, 80 
Ohio St.3d at 529, 687 N.E.2d at 675.  Some of the information contained in the 
preliminary business plan is already readily ascertainable to the public from 
 
 
9 
financial reports and other public sources, e.g., Ohio Hospital Association 
records. 
 
Further, the plan contains seven pages of numerical “service-line 
definitions,” and there is no evidence that OSU retains any economic benefit in 
keeping these numerical designations private. 
 
There is, however, one page of the preliminary business plan  that satisfies 
the definition of a trade secret.  This page lists the names of the top patient-
volume physicians of Park Medical Center and their characteristics.  The 
disclosure of this page would permit OSU’s competitors to determine which 
physicians affiliated with Park Medical Center produce the most revenue, and 
competitors could target these physicians in order to increase their revenues, to 
the detriment of OSU.  This list is similar to a business’s customer list, which 
constitutes an intangible asset that is presumptively a trade secret when the owner 
of the list takes measures to prevent its disclosure in the ordinary course of 
business to persons other than those selected by the owner.  State ex rel. Toledo 
Blade Co. v. Univ. of Toledo Found. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 258, 264, 602 N.E.2d 
1159, 1163; see, also, 1 Milgrim on Trade Secrets (1999), 1-475-476, Section 
1.09[8][g], noting that the effectiveness and good performance of key sales and 
other personnel can be protected trade secrets. 
 
Therefore, aside from one page of the preliminary business plan 
containing the names and characteristics of the high-patient-volume physicians of 
Park Medical Center, the plan does not contain trade secrets. 
1/5/99 Outline of Emergency Department Staffing Contract and Profit/Loss 
Analysis 
 
OSU contends that the outline, which it used to negotiate the emergency 
department staffing contract for the Park Medical Center transaction, is a trade 
secret.  Again, however, OSU failed to meet its evidentiary burden to establish 
how disclosure of this information, specific to the completed transaction, would 
 
 
10
benefit OSU’s competitors.  There is also no evidence that the proposed 
contractual terms in the outline were actually included in any finalized staffing 
contract.  These records must be disclosed. 
Summaries Describing Goals for Park Medical Center Transaction 
 
OSU claims that its summaries concerning its goals in acquiring Park 
Medical Center are exempt from disclosure as trade secrets.  But the majority of 
the information in these summaries has already been disclosed to the Bessers 
through previously released summaries or, like the preliminary business plan, 
does not retain potential, independent economic value from not being readily 
ascertainable by proper means by OSU’s competitors. 
December 2, 1998 Electronic Mail 
 
This electronic mail message specifies the average nursing salary, square 
footage, and total acreage for Park Medical Center before its acquisition by OSU.  
The message contains information that is either readily ascertainable from other 
sources or that does not possess potential, independent economic value following 
the completion of the acquisition of Park Medical Center by OSU.  The document 
must be disclosed. 
Pro forma for the Acquisition 
 
OSU next asserts that its pro forma created for the transaction is exempt as 
a trade secret.  The pro forma contains financial projections and the assumptions 
made in calculating the projections.  Like the preliminary business plan, which 
contains comparable assumptions and financial projections, the pro forma is 
restricted to the transaction, and there is no specific, credible evidence that the 
methodology used in the acquisition of Park Medical Center would be useful in 
future transactions, i.e., the methodology does not appear to have potential, 
independent economic value to OSU’s competitors either now or in the future.  
Therefore, the pro forma must be disclosed. 
2/5/99 Status Report on Park Medical Center Transaction 
 
 
11
 
The next document for which OSU claims trade secret status is a status 
report on the acquisition of Park Medical Center. This document contains 
information that has already been publicly disclosed by OSU in other records as 
well as information that would not provide potential, independent economic 
benefit to OSU’s competitors.  The status report is not a trade secret. 
Printed Notes of OSU Transaction Meetings, Lists of Team Members and 
Working Assumptions 
 
The printed notes of OSU meetings concerning the transaction and related 
records also do not constitute trade secrets.  Knowledge of this information, 
including working assumptions for the operation of Park Medical Center in 
relation to OSU, is either readily ascertainable, e.g., the configuration of the board 
of trustees of Park Medical Center after it was acquired by OSU, or not of any 
cognizable benefit to OSU’s competitors. 
January 11, 1999 Memorandum Regarding List of Park Medical Center Staff and 
Top Admitters 
 
The memorandum and related list reveal the names of the top patient-
volume members of the medical staff at Park Medical Center.  Like the one page 
of OSU’s preliminary business plan containing similar information, these records 
constitute trade secrets and are therefore exempt from disclosure under R.C. 
149.43. 
Note and Research on Potentially Comparable Hospitals 
 
Finally, OSU asserts that research on two New York City hospitals 
specializing in certain surgeries is a trade secret and, hence, not subject to 
disclosure.  This research, however, appears to have been taken from sources 
readily available to the public, e.g., American Hospital Association Guide, 
magazine articles, and financial reports.  And there is no evidence concerning 
either the amount of effort or money expended in obtaining and developing this 
 
 
12
information.  Pyromatics, 7 Ohio App.3d at 135, 7 OBR at 169, 454 N.E.2d at 
592.  Therefore, these records are subject to disclosure. 
Conclusion 
 
In sum, for the most part, OSU’s reliance on conclusory affidavit 
statements is insufficient to satisfy its burden to identify and demonstrate that the 
records withheld and portions of records redacted are included in categories of 
protected information under R.C. 1333.61(D).  Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., 85 Ohio 
St.3d at 181, 707 N.E.2d at 862.  OSU did not establish that these records derived 
actual or potential independent economic value from not being generally known 
to, and not being readily ascertainable to, persons who can obtain economic value 
from their disclosure.  R.C. 1333.61(D)(1).  For example, OSU did not introduce 
specific factual evidence concerning the savings effected and the value to OSU in 
having the information as against its competitors, the amount of effort or money 
expended by OSU to obtain and develop the information, and the amount of time 
and expense it would take for OSU’s competitors to duplicate the information.  
Plain Dealer, 80 Ohio St.3d at 524-525, 687 N.E.2d at 672.  Our conclusion is 
consistent with our duty in public records cases to strictly construe exemptions 
from disclosure under R.C. 149.43 and to resolve any doubts in favor of 
disclosure of public records.  See State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, 
Inc. v. Petro (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 261, 264 and 266, 685 N.E.2d 1223, 1227-
1228. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we grant a writ of mandamus to compel 
respondents to provide the Bessers with access to all portions of the withheld and 
redacted records, with the exception of the one page of the preliminary business 
plan and the memorandum and related list containing the names of the top patient-
volume medical personnel at Park Medical Center. 
Writ 
granted 
in part 
 
 
13
and denied in 
part. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.  I 
concur with the majority that the intellectual-property-record exception does not 
exempt from disclosure the preliminary business plan and pro forma because they 
are in the nature of a financial or administrative record, not the product of study or 
research.  See State ex rel. Rea v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 527, 
533, 692 N.E.2d 596, 602. 
 
However, I believe that the withheld documents constitute trade secrets 
and therefore are excepted from disclosure under R.C. 149.43.  Relators made the 
broad request for “all records of OSU concerning or relating to OSU’s acquisition 
of Park Medical Center.”  OSU produced approximately two hundred seventy-
eight documents in response to the request.  This dispute, according to OSU, 
concerns only seventeen documents from the files and documents maintained by 
Dr. Manuel Tzagournis, OSU’s Vice President for Health Sciences, that OSU 
withheld from production. 
 
OSU produced evidence in the form of affidavits that these documents are 
confidential documents made known only to certain persons within OSU who 
have a need to know the information within them.  These documents comprise a 
business plan, strategies, negotiations, and financial information utilized by OSU 
in the Park Medical Center acquisition.  They may also apply to other potential 
targets for acquisition.  Although a public entity, OSU must nevertheless compete 
in the health care market with the private sector.  OSU expended time and money, 
either internally or through outside consultants, to compile the financial and 
statistical information in these documents that is not “readily ascertainable” in the 
 
 
14
public forum.  It would take time and money for competitors of OSU to acquire 
and duplicate this information.  Disclosure of these documents would result in a 
windfall for relators and other competitors of OSU at OSU’s (and consequently, 
the taxpayer’s) expense.  See Pyromatics, Inc. v. Petruziello (1983), 7 Ohio 
App.3d 131, 134-135, 7 OBR 165, 169, 454 N.E.2d 588, 592. 
 
I believe that these documents collectively comprise a business plan from 
which OSU derives economic value because the information is not known to 
others who can obtain economic value from its disclosure and the documents are 
subject to efforts to keep them confidential.  R.C. 1333.61(D).  Consequently, 
they constitute trade secrets exempt from disclosure.  The significance of each 
document must be considered in relation to its contribution to the whole plan.  I 
believe that the trade secret status of these documents should not be analyzed on a 
piecemeal basis, but instead, they should be considered as part of a plan.  
Sometimes our quest for openness may narrowly focus on the obscure detail 
without placing it into the context of the overall picture. 
 
Once these documents are released to the public, competitors of OSU will 
become privy to OSU’s confidential strategies, plans, valuation techniques, and 
negotiating tools utilized in complex financial transactions.  These documents are 
valuable to OSU from not being generally known to or not being readily 
ascertainable by others who can obtain economic value from them.  Relators are 
Susan L. Besser, M.D., a physician, and her husband, an attorney.  They are 
potential competitors who may obtain economic value and undermine OSU’s 
investment as a result of the disclosure of these documents.  I believe this opinion 
effectively eviscerates the trade secret exemption of the Public Records Act. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.