Title: State ex rel. Luken v. Corp. for Findlay Market of Cincinnati

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Luken v. Corp. for Findlay Market of Cincinnati, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-
1532.] 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-1532 
THE STATE EX REL. LUKEN, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. 
CORPORATION FOR FINDLAY MARKET OF CINCINNATI, APPELLEE AND CROSS-
APPELLANT; THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Luken v. Corp. for Findlay Market of Cincinnati, 
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1532.] 
Public records—Trade secrets of public office not subject to disclosure—R.C. 
149.43(A)(1)(v) and 1333.61(D)—Public office as commercial landlord—
Lease terms as trade secrets. 
(No. 2012-0992—Submitted January 22, 2013—Decided April 24, 2013.) 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, 
No. C-100437, 2012-Ohio-2074. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is the appeal and cross-appeal of a public-records mandamus 
case, filed initially in the First District Court of Appeals in Hamilton County.  
Relator-appellant/cross-appellee, Kevin P. Luken, seeks records from respondent-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
appellee, the city of Cincinnati, and respondent-appellee/cross-appellant, 
Corporation for Findlay Market of Cincinnati.  Findlay Market is a public market 
historically owned and operated by the city until 2004, when the city and the 
corporation entered into lease and management agreements under which the 
corporation was to manage the market for the city. 
{¶ 2} Luken wants unredacted copies of the lease agreements between 
the corporation and merchants who sublease retail space at the market.  Luken has 
received copies of the leases from the city, but the term and rent provisions have 
been redacted by the corporation. 
{¶ 3} The corporation claims that it is a private entity not subject to 
Ohio’s Public Records Act because, first, it is not a public entity under the 
functional-equivalency test of State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 
110 Ohio St.3d 456, 2006-Ohio-4854, 854 N.E.2d 193, and, second, because it is 
not an entity responsible for public records under State ex rel. Cincinnati 
Enquirer v. Krings, 93 Ohio St.3d 654, 758 N.E.2d 1135 (2001).  The corporation 
further argues that even if it were a public entity or responsible for public records, 
the redacted provisions are trade secrets under R.C. 1333.61 and therefore not 
public records under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) and State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State 
Univ., 89 Ohio St.3d 396, 732 N.E.2d 373 (2000). 
{¶ 4} Even were the corporation a public entity or an entity responsible 
for public records, the redacted portions of the record are trade secrets and not 
public records. Luken has not established that he is entitled to the unredacted 
records, and therefore we affirm. 
Facts 
{¶ 5} The city of Cincinnati has historically owned and run public 
markets in various neighborhoods of the city.  At one time, the city owned as 
many as nine such markets.  Before 2004, the city had owned and operated 
Findlay Market and leased market spaces to farmers and other merchants for more 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
than 150 years.  Before leasing Findlay Market to the corporation, the city 
invested substantial amounts of public money to renovate Findlay Market. 
{¶ 6} In 2000, at the city’s request, the corporation was formed to 
operate and manage Findlay Market “to preserve and promote the historical, 
traditional and cultural aspects of Findlay Market as a treasured living landmark 
of the greater Cincinnati community.”  The corporation is a private, nonprofit 
corporation, and no member of the board of directors is or was a councilman, 
mayor, or city employee at the time he or she was on the board. The city has no 
direct governing control over the corporation.  The trustees at the time of 
incorporation were not on the payroll of or serving as employees of the city. 
{¶ 7} The city and the corporation entered into a management agreement 
that granted the corporation exclusive rights to manage and operate Findlay 
Market according to the terms of the management agreement.  Specifically, 
according to the agreement, the corporation may establish reasonable rules and 
regulations in its discretion to operate Findlay Market.  Section 6(a) of the 
agreement provides that the city has assigned its right to contract with subtenants 
who occupy space in the market: 
 
The City assigns its rights under existing contracts with subtenants 
at the Market to [the corporation].  [The corporation] shall enter 
into license or lease agreements with existing and new subtenants 
regarding occupying space in the Market and the Market Facilities.  
[The corporation] shall have the discretion to determine the 
amounts of consideration to be paid, and the responsibility for 
collecting these amounts and using the revenues to pay for Market 
Operations. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
The agreement also provides that the city has oversight over the corporation’s 
operation of the market: 
 
[The corporation] shall maintain a complete set of books and 
records, in a form and manner approved by the City, showing all 
revenue collected and all expenditures made in connection with the 
operation of the Market Facilities along with such supporting data 
and documents as prescribed by the City.  Such books and records 
shall be kept in such a manner as to make them easily reconcilable 
with the reports and forms to be submitted to the City by [the 
corporation]. The City shall have the right at any time to examine 
the records, books, data and documents kept by [the corporation] 
regarding the operation and maintenance of the Market Facilities. 
[The corporation] shall provide its annual audited financial 
statement to the City by September 15th of each year.  On a 
quarterly basis, [the corporation] shall deliver to the City a report, 
in a format acceptable to the City, by no later than the 30th day of 
the month following the end of each quarter. 
 
{¶ 8} The corporation, under the management agreement, is expected to 
manage Findlay Market efficiently, but also to promote it “as a catalyst for 
economic development in the Over-the-Rhine section” of the city.  Policy 
objectives for the management agreement include compliance with various parts 
of the city’s Municipal Code, including those promoting equal employment 
opportunities, enhancement of the Small Business Enterprise Program, and 
compliance with the city’s living-wage ordinance.  Funds for operations are 
obtained in part from support payments from the city.  The city leases the physical 
market to the corporation for one dollar per year. 
January Term, 2013 
 
5
{¶ 9} The corporation has discretion in management and operation of 
Findlay Market; it sets the terms of lease agreements with tenants, including the 
consideration paid, and has the responsibility to collect the amounts and to use the 
revenues to pay for operations.  Current funding from the city to the corporation 
for the operation of Findlay Market is approximately 40 to 45 percent of total 
revenue.  However, the city reimburses the corporation for a large part of its 
operating expenses, including wages and benefits for employees, cost of 
contractual services including security, taxes, utilities, insurance, preventive 
maintenance, accounting and office expenses, approved operating equipment, and 
other items approved by the city. 
{¶ 10} Luken requested various records from the corporation under 
Ohio’s Public Records Act.  The corporation declined to provide the records, 
asserting that it is not subject to the act.  However, it directed Luken to request the 
records from the city. 
{¶ 11} Luken then requested that the city obtain the documents on his 
behalf.  The city provided Luken the records it had already received from the 
corporation.  Among these records were lease agreements between the 
corporation and merchants who operate in the Findlay Market.  But the agreed 
terms and rents for various spaces at the market had been blacked out, apparently 
by the corporation, and the city provided the corporation’s reasons for the 
redactions.  The corporation stated that the redacted information constituted a 
trade secret and was therefore within an exception to the Public Records Act. 
{¶ 12} Luken filed an original action in mandamus in the First District 
Court of Appeals.  After the parties submitted a stipulated record, that court 
denied all motions for summary judgment and referred the matter to a magistrate 
for trial.  After trial, the magistrate issued a decision denying the writ.  Luken 
filed objections. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 13} The court of appeals ruled first that the corporation was not a 
public institution under State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio 
St.3d 456, 2006-Ohio-4854, 854 N.E.2d 193.  However, the court did hold that 
the corporation was an entity responsible for public records and therefore subject 
to the Public Records Act under State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings, 93 
Ohio St.3d. 654, 758 N.E.2d 1135 (2001).  Finally, the court ruled that the 
unredacted documents contained trade secrets as defined in R.C. 1333.61(D) that 
were exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v).  Luken appealed to this 
court on the issues of whether the corporation is a public institution and whether 
the unredacted leases are trade secrets. The corporation cross-appealed the 
holding that it is an entity responsible for public documents under Krings. 
{¶ 14} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the 
merits. 
Legal Analysis 
Mandamus 
{¶ 15} “Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with 
R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.”  State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for 
Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 
2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6; R.C. 149.43(C)(1).  Although the Public 
Records Act is accorded liberal construction in favor of access to public records, 
“the relator must still establish entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief by 
clear and convincing evidence.”  State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. 
Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139, 2012-Ohio-4246, 976 N.E.2d 877, ¶ 16.  
Clear and convincing evidence is “that measure or degree of proof which is more 
than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such 
certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which 
will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the 
January Term, 2013 
 
7
facts sought to be established.”  Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 
118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. 
Records:  Redactions to the lease agreements 
{¶ 16} All the requested documents have been produced by the city to 
Luken, with the exception of the redactions to the lease agreements between the 
corporation and various tenants in the Findlay Market.  Therefore, the ultimate 
question is whether the contents of the redacted lines on the lease agreements 
constitute a trade secret and therefore should not be released to Luken by the 
corporation or the city. 
The terms and amounts of subleases for Findlay Market tenants are trade secrets 
and thus exempt from public-records law 
{¶ 17} The redactions in the records are trade secrets and thus are not 
public records subject to disclosure.  R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) excepts from the 
definition of “public records” “[r]ecords the release of which is prohibited by state 
or federal law.”  R.C. 1333.62 allows for an injunction against misappropriation 
of trade secrets.  We have held that a public office’s own trade secret, in its 
possession, is a record “the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.”  
State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 87 Ohio St.3d 535, 721 N.E.2d 1044 
(2000).  “Trade secret” is defined as 
 
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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
(2) It is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the 
circumstances to maintain its secrecy. 
 
R.C. 1333.61(D).  The court has also adopted other factors for 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. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 89 Ohio St.3d 396, 399-400, 732 N.E.2d 
373 (2000), quoting State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 80 Ohio St.3d 
513, 524-525, 687 N.E.2d 661 (1997), closely paraphrasing 4 Restatement of the 
Law, Torts, Section 757, comment b (1939). 
{¶ 18} The entity claiming trade-secret status, in this case the corporation, 
“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.”  Id. at 400, citing Fred Siegel Co., 
L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171, 181, 707 N.E.2d 853 (1999). 
{¶ 19} Applying these factors to the facts here, the corporation has 
satisfied the first part of the Besser analysis.  The corporation put on an expert 
who testified that the term and rental rate for subleases in the commercial context 
January Term, 2013 
 
9
are secrets closely guarded by property managers and that knowledge of these 
items about competitors would be invaluable to property managers.  Moreover, if 
such knowledge became public, it would impair the landlord’s ability to get and 
keep tenants and “create a poisonous environment” among the tenants, who would 
inevitably compare notes.  Disclosure of the information would put the 
corporation and Findlay Market at a competitive disadvantage. 
{¶ 20} Thus, the redacted information derives independent economic 
value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by others who 
might obtain economic advantage from knowing the information. 
{¶ 21} The second factor of the Besser analysis is a closer call.  On one 
hand, the corporation keeps the only unredacted copies of the leases in a locked 
filing cabinet and allows access only to employees who need the information.  
While the leases do not require tenants to keep the information secret, the 
corporation’s expert testified that most tenants do not divulge the information, 
because they realize that it is to their benefit not to disclose. 
 
{¶ 22} On the other hand, the corporation could have done more to keep 
the information secret. It has a number of written work policies directed at its 
employees, for example, on sexual harassment, on conflicts of interest, and on 
whistleblowers, but not one on keeping lease terms and amounts secret.  It does 
not require that tenants keep the information secret, and apparently some of them 
have told other vendors their lease terms.  For example, the owner of the Taste of 
Belgium business apparently had knowledge of the rent paid by another tenant.  
However, the corporation’s expert testified that the precautions used by the 
corporation are standard for commercial property managers.  Luken provided no 
evidence to contradict this testimony. 
{¶ 23} While the corporation could have taken more care in keeping the 
information secret, it is within the purview of the court to determine whether or 
not such measures were adequate:  “Applying the statute, a trial court should 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
examine those facts which show the extent to which information is known outside 
the business and the precautions taken to guard the secrecy of information.”  
Water Mgt., Inc. v. Stayanchi, 15 Ohio St.3d 83, 86, 472 N.E.2d 715 (1984).  The 
undisputed evidence available on the record indicates that the precautions taken 
were standard for the industry. 
{¶ 24} Although it is a close question, the corporation has taken 
reasonable measures to keep the lease terms a secret under the standard 
precautions for the industry.  Therefore, we hold that the redacted terms are trade 
secrets under the Besser analysis and exempt from public records. 
{¶ 25} Luken has not established his entitlement to relief in mandamus for 
the unredacted leases, as they are trade secrets and not public records.  Therefore, 
the question of whether the corporation is a public entity for purposes of public 
records or an entity responsible for public records cannot affect Lukin’s 
entitlement to the unredacted records and is moot.  The “ ‘cardinal principle of 
judicial restraint—if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to 
decide more’ ”—counsels against deciding issues rendered moot by our 
determination that the redacted information constitutes trade secrets.  State ex rel. 
Asti v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 107 Ohio St.3d 262, 2005-Ohio-6432, 838 
N.E.2d 658, ¶ 34, quoting PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Drug 
Enforcement Administration (D.C.Cir.2004), 362 F.3d 786, 799 (Roberts, J., 
concurring in part and in the judgment). 
{¶ 26} We affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Kevin P. Luken, pro se. 
January Term, 2013 
 
11
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, L.L.P., Felix J. Gora, and Ann K. 
Schooley, for appellee and cross-appellant. 
John P. Curp, City Solicitor, and Terrance A. Nestor, Assistant Solicitor, 
for appellee. 
_____________________