Boeing Co. v. Paxton, 466 S.W.3d 831

Background

Boeing leased 1.3 million sq. ft. at Kelly Air Force Base (1998), performing military aircraft maintenance; lease contains detailed financial terms Boeing treats as competitively sensitive.
A former Boeing employee requested records under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA); Boeing redacted portions of the lease and objected to disclosure.
The Texas Attorney General issued an open-records ruling ordering disclosure; Boeing sued for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Trial court and court of appeals held Boeing lacked standing to invoke PIA § 552.104 and ordered disclosure; a concurring opinion disagreed about standing.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed: it held § 552.104 may be invoked by private parties and found Boeing proved that disclosure "would give advantage to a competitor or bidder," so the redactions could be withheld.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 552.104 can be asserted by a private third party (standing)	Boeing: § 552.104 contains no textual limit; third parties may invoke exceptions protecting their privacy/property and seek judicial review under the Act	AG/Port: Historical AG construction limits § 552.104 to governmental bodies; governmental waiver rules should apply	Held for Boeing: § 552.104 applies to both government and private parties; third parties may invoke it in judicial review under the PIA
Whether the Port’s failure to raise § 552.104 before the AG waived Boeing’s claim	Boeing: When a third party’s interests are implicated, the governmental body need not raise the exception; the third party may pursue protection	Port/AG: Exception is discretionary for government and may be waived if not raised in administrative process	Held for Boeing: PIA § 552.305 allows governmental bodies to defer to third parties; Port’s inaction did not waive Boeing’s right to assert § 552.104
Whether disclosure “would give advantage to a competitor or bidder” (merits)	Boeing: Lease details reveal overhead components (rent, maintenance share, insurance, incentives, termination penalties); in tight-bid aerospace contracts, that information would let competitors undercut Boeing	AG: Boeing’s harm is speculative; § 552.104 requires particularized, ongoing competitive harm; other cost factors dilute any advantage	Held for Boeing: Record (undisputed industry context and Boeing testimony) permits only one reasonable inference that disclosure would give competitors advantage; Boeing met § 552.104 standard

Key Cases Cited

Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, 343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) (PIA guarantees access to public information subject to exceptions)
In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001) (public information definition and disclosure framework under PIA)
City of Dallas v. Abbott, 304 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2010) (deference to Attorney General interpretations limited by unambiguous statutory text)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reasonable inferences from undisputed evidence)
City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (burden on party resisting disclosure)
Canadian Commercial Corp. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 514 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (federal FOIA protection of contract pricing information)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (FOIA exemption applied to pricing and cost data)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 180 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (FOIA exemption for line-item prices, overhead, labor rates)
Gulf & W. Indus., Inc. v. United States, 615 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (historical FOIA precedent on commercial-financial confidentiality)
Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske, 438 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. 2014) (statutory interpretation and absurd-results canon)