Court Opinion

ID: 9723802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:32:52.648692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:52.133474
License: Public Domain

KAUS, P. J.
I concur in the result, but have nagging doubts concerning some of the court’s reasoning.
1. I cannot agree that the definition of market data contained in subdivision (b) of section 408 does not include the information here involved: the subdivision speaks of “any information.” What saves appellant is, I believe the last proviso—that the “assessor shall not display any document relating to the business affairs... of another.” Obviously this prohibition cannot be circumvented by withholding the *417document and displaying copies or summaries containing the same information.
2. I do not believe the court’s reliance on section 408.1, subdivision (c)(7) is warranted or necessary. That subsection refers to information available to the general public, as distinguished from taxpayers engaged in litigation with the assessor.
3. Nevertheless the result of the court’s opinion is manifestly correct, not only because it accords with the spirit of the Revenue and Taxation Code, but also because, I believe, the information involved is a trade secret. (See Evid. Code, § 1060; Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (i).)
Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 14, 1980.