Search Site
Menu
Boeing Co. v. Paxton – Private Rights Despite Open Government

Adopted in 1973, and codified at Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code, the Texas Public Information Act (the “Act”) provides public access to certain information possessed by governmental entities in order to allow the general public to remain informed of those entities’ activities.  Because the Act requires the disclosure of all “public information,” which is defined as “information that is written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business… by a governmental body,” almost all information held by governmental entities is subject to the Act, with limited exceptions.  One of those exceptions, provided in Section 552.105 of the Act, allows for the exclusion from disclosure information that, “if released, would give advantage to a competitor or bidder.”

Historically, the right to use this limited exception has only been made available to the governmental entity actually possessing the information.  This application of the law has left many of the actual private parties whose information was subject to disclosure relying on the governmental entity to employ the exception.  Because of this, those private parties that submit bids to governmental entities are placed at a potentially severe competitive disadvantage due to the fact that others who may have submitted bids, or who had hopes of bidding in the future, could possibly obtain confidential, proprietary information (e.g. pricing and specifications) that would allow them to undercut the bidding position of the winning bidder on future jobs.  Additionally, governmental entities are burdened with the concern of potentially harming the same private parties with which it conducts business by disclosing their confidential information to potential competitors. Recently though, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion that may soften the effects of the Act, particularly as it relates to the competitive bidding exception.

In Boeing Co. v. Paxton, No. 12-1007, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 583 (Tex. June 19, 2015), the Court found that the statutory language providing the exception is not, on its face, limited solely to the government.  In a shift from historical interpretation, the Court concluded that in addition to governmental entities, private parties also have standing to directly employ the exception.  The Court’s analysis found that when another party’s privacy or property interests are at issue, that party has a right to protect its own interests by raising the exception itself, notwithstanding the governmental entity’s failure to do so.  This turnaround in thinking could spur dramatic effects within the open government environment, both for the governmental entities subject to the Act and for the private parties conducting business with them.

For governmental entities, the concern of protecting private party information is now lessened, since those parties have an outlet to protect the information themselves.  The governmental entities can now anticipate that if a private party deems its information to be exempt from disclosure, the private party will likely act on its own behalf without the need for the governmental entity to intervene.   Likewise, private parties may now have greater confidence in their ability to provide more detailed information in their bidding and proposals with governmental entities, since they can now protect their own interests if their confidential information becomes subject to a public information request.  Both parties, however, should be mindful that while this opinion may provide a new tool for protecting confidential information, the legal scrutiny, both of the courts and of the Attorney General, will be high in determining whether or not the information argued to be exempt actually fits within the exception itself, namely, that the requested information, if disclosed, would give a competitive advantage, not just a likelihood of it.  Still though, this case provides a significant step in limiting the broad scope of the Act and the burdens on both the government and private parties.

Brian Albert

Phone: 281-367-1222

Fax: 281-210-1361

[email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Contact a Dedicated Texas Business Lawyer To Schedule a Consultation
Call 281-367-1222 or contact us online to schedule a meeting.

Strong In Action

  • Spring 2019

    The Strong Firm represents borrower in $42.3 million HUD construction loan for multifamily real estate development in Walton County, Florida.

    Read More
  • Spring 2019

    The Strong Firm acts as legal counsel for borrower in $32.1 million HUD construction loan for multifamily real estate development in Conroe, Texas.

    Read More
  • Spring 2019

    The Strong Firm aids borrower in $31.7 million HUD construction loan for multifamily real estate development in Nueces County, Texas.

    Read More
  • Spring 2019

    The Strong Firm represents borrower in the refinancing of a $3.57 million commercial mortgage-backed security for a commercial office facility in Montgomery County, Texas.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  • Peer Rated 2019 Award

Recent Blog Posts

2019 Legislative Update – Texas POA Laws

In odd numbered years, Texas property owners associations (POAs) must consider any new laws affecting POAs that became effective following the Texas legislative session earlier that year. For 2019, a few such laws recently went into effect specific to residential POAs (but excluding condominium associations). HOUSE BILL 234 – Protection of
Read More
2019 Legislative Update – Texas POA Laws

Wrapping Up a Decade: Meaningful New Year’s Resolutions

As 2019 comes to a close, it’s a good opportunity to reflect on what we’ve accomplished and make resolutions for what we hope to do in 2020. I have never been a fan of New Year’s resolutions as they often seem like short-term, immeasurable goals. Things like “I am going
Read More
Wrapping Up a Decade: Meaningful New Year’s Resolutions

Not Worth the Paper It’s Written On

We have all heard the saying that something is “not worth the paper it is written on.”  This is usually said about a contract that is unenforceable or even if enforceable, it may have no value because the party has no ability to pay or perform under the contract.  Many
Read More
Not Worth the Paper It’s Written On

“So…What Happens to My Bitcoin When I Die?” Modern Estate Planning for Digital Assets and Cryptocurrencies

Millennials have complicated everything. Socializing in person wasn’t enough, so they created Facebook. Dollars weren’t enough, so they created Bitcoin. Every new app, technology or cryptocurrency brings with it more uncertainty legal uncertainty around these digital assets. Are they currency? Are they property? Can they be gifted? Can they be
Read More
“So…What Happens to My Bitcoin When I Die?” Modern Estate Planning for Digital Assets and Cryptocurrencies
  • Video Vault


    Watch videos done by our legal team to gain a better understanding of your legal needs. Our lawyers give video insight into areas such as Real Estate, Business Law, Mergers & Acquisitions and much more.

Pay Retainer Online

Use our easy-to-use and secure online payment feature.
We accept all major credit cards.

Pay Your Retainer

Contact us

Quick Contact Form