320 P.3d 222
Wyo.2014Background
- Appellants sought public records from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission identifying chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.
- Wyoming amended rules in 2010 to require disclosure of additives, CAS numbers, and concentrations for well stimulation; information could be withheld as trade secrets.
- The Supervisor denied disclosure under WPRA trade secret exemption; the district court affirmed under APA review.
- Appellants appealed, arguing WPRA procedures apply and the information is not per se trade secret.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court adopted FOIA-style trade secret definitions for the WPRA and remanded for independent, case-by-case determinations of trade secret status.
- The court also held that district court must apply WPRA procedures (including potential show-cause proceedings) rather than review the decision as an APA administrative action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by applying APA review instead of WPRA procedures. | Powder River contends WPRA governs disclosure and requires an independent finding. | WOGCC and Halliburton contend APA review suffices for judicial oversight. | Yes; WPRA procedures apply and require independent findings. |
| Whether the WPRA should adopt FOIA’s definition of trade secrets. | Appellants favor narrower or Restatement-based definitions. | Supervisor argues traditional WPRA standards apply. | Court adopts FOIA-like definition of trade secrets with direct relation to the productive process. |
| Whether the record supports treating individual hydraulic fracturing ingredients as trade secrets. | Identity of ingredients could be revealed without disclosing formulas. | Disclosing ingredients risks reverse engineering and competitively sensitive information. | Unable to determine on current record; remand for case-by-case factual findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allsop v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., 39 P.3d 1092 (Wy. 2002) (WPRA open-records framework and de novo statutory interpretation guidance)
- Sheridan Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Sheridan, 660 P.2d 785 (Wyo. 1983) (open records philosophy; narrow construction of exemptions)
- Miley v. Miley, 942 P.2d 1101 (Wyo. 1997) (statutory interpretation guiding WPRA purposes)
- Anderson v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 907 F.2d 936 (10th Cir. 1990) (FOIA trade secrets definition shaping WPRA approach)
- Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (FOIA trade secrets definition as a controlling standard)
- Freudenthal v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., 233 P.3d 933 (Wyo. 2010) (WPRA procedures for challenging denial of access)