In the case of Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks, 145 Ohio St.3d 408, 2016-Ohio-1192 the Ohio Supreme Court found that the Metroparks’ customer list constitutes a trade secret and, as such, is exempt from disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act.
Salemi, a competitor of the Metroparks’ golf courses, sent a series of public records requests aimed at obtaining the marketing program for the Metroparks golf courses. The Metroparks denied the requests “stating that it was not required to disclose these records because they contained trade secrets.” Salemi at ¶2. Salemi brought a mandamus action seeking to compel the Metroparks to disclose this information.
The Public Records Act exempts from disclosure requirements “[r]ecords the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.” R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v). “Trade secrets are exempt from disclosure pursuant to this provision.” Salemi at ¶ 23. “Customer lists have been held to constitute trade secrets.” Salemi at ¶ 26. “However, to be a trade secret, a customer list must contain more than a list of names, when the identity of the customers is ‘readily ascertainable through ordinary business channels or through classified business or trade directories.’” Salemi at ¶ 26 (omitting quotations). “Rather, it must contain information not generally known to or readily ascertainable by the public.” Salemi at ¶ 26.
Applying a multi-factor test, the Supreme Court “conclude[d] that Metroparks’ customer list constitutes a trade secret.” Salemi at ¶ 27. Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that (1) the list is not available to the public; (2) the Metroparks limits access to the list to only a few employees; (3) the list had economic value as the Metroparks uses it for marketing efforts; and (4) the Metroparks expended time and money developing the list.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.