Court Opinion

ID: 9722721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:47:23.326496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:39.282612
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Judge,
concurring in result with separate opinion.
I concur in result with the majority's opinion. Relying on the ITURC's categorization of the information that the Wireless Carriers sought to keep confidential, the majority concluded that such information constituted confidential information filed with a public agency and was subject to disclosure pursuant to Indiana Code Seetion 5-14-3-4(a@)(5). I disagree with the majority's assertion that confidential financial information filed with a public agency is subject to disclosure even if that same information constitutes a trade secret.
Indiana Code Section 5-14-84(a)(4) provides that public records containing trade secrets generally may not be disclosed by a public agency. Indiana Code Section 5-14-38-4(a2)(5) provides that confi*1145dential financial information may not be disclosed unless it is filed with a public agency. I read these two sections to mean that public records containing trade secrets may not be disclosed and that confidential financial information, which does not rise to the level of a trade secret, may be subject to disclosure if it is filed with a public agency. Thus, I would conclude that if a record contains a trade secret, it may not be disclosed even if it may also be categorized as confidential financial information.
Although I disagree with the majority in this regard, I concur in result because I do not believe the Wireless Carriers have established that this information is in fact a trade secret. Indiana Code Section 24-2-3-2 defines a trade secret as:
information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(1) 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
(2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
A protectable trade secret has the following characteristics: (1) information, (2) that derives independent economic value, (8) is not generally know, or readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (4) the subject of efforts reasonable under the cireumstances to maintain its secrecy. Harvest Life Ins. Co., v. Getche, 701 N.E.2d 871, 876 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied (1999). Whether information is a trade secret depends on the facts of each case. Id.
The Wireless Carriers submitted affidavits to the TURC in support of the nondisclosure of their intrastate revenues. The multiple affidavits generally contain summary assertions in an attempt to categorize this information as a trade secret. Even if the bare assertions of the affidavits are sufficient to determine whether the requested intrastate revenues constitute trade secrets, the Wireless Carriers have not established that this information has independent economic value.
All of the affiants assert that his or her company's intrastate revenues are of economic value to its competitors because this information is indicative of their respective market shares. However, based on the limited assertions in the affidavits, it appears that this information is indicative of their respective market shares only as it relates to the other companies' intrastate revenues. In other words, one could only determine market share of one company by comparing its intrastate revenues with that of the various companies' intrastate revenues. Thus, I cannot conclude that each company's intrastate revenues alone derive independent economic value to its competitors. Without demonstrating that the information has independent economic value, the Wireless Carriers cannot establish that the information is a protectable trade secret.
Based on the minimal contents of the affidavits provided by the Wireless Carriers, they have not established that the intrastate revenues are protectable trade secrets subject to the disclosure exception in Indiana Code Section 5-14-3-4(a)(4). For this reason, I concur in result.