Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
320 P.3d 222
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- In 2010 Wyoming required operators to disclose chemical additives, compound names, CAS numbers, and concentrations used in hydraulic fracturing to the Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC).
- Operators could request trade-secret/confidential protection; the WOGCC Supervisor developed procedures to review such requests and redacted certain chemical identities and CAS numbers as trade secrets under the Wyoming Public Records Act (WPRA).
- Environmental groups (Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Earthworks, Center for Effective Government) requested chemical identities and CAS numbers that had been withheld; the Supervisor denied disclosure and justified the denials in writing.
- Petitioners challenged the Supervisor’s denials in district court but filed under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rather than pursuing the WPRA’s required show-cause procedure.
- The district court reviewed under the APA, upheld the Supervisor’s trade-secret determinations, and the Supreme Court reversed, holding the WPRA’s show-cause procedure was required and adopting a FOIA-based, narrow definition of “trade secret” for WPRA cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural route for contesting a WPRA trade-secret denial | Plaintiffs sought APA review of the Supervisor’s decision | Supervisor/WOGCC treated denial as administrative action subject to APA | Plaintiffs must follow WPRA show-cause procedure in district court; APA review was improper; reverse and remand |
| Burden and nature of court review of trade-secret claims | Custodian’s determinations must be independently evaluated by the court on evidence | Custodian’s policy and determinations should be reviewed under deferential administrative standards | Court must make independent, record-based determinations whether records are exempt; custodian bears burden to prove exemption |
| Definition of “trade secret” under the WPRA | Plaintiffs argued CAS numbers/names are not trade secrets | WOGCC/Halliburton argued disclosure of chemical identities enables reverse engineering and loss of competitive advantage | Court adopts FOIA/federal test: narrow definition — secret, commercially valuable plan/formula/process/device directly tied to productive process arising from innovation or substantial effort |
| Whether individual hydraulic-fracturing ingredient identities qualify as trade secrets | Plaintiffs: individual chemical identities are not trade secrets here | Defendants: identities can enable reverse-engineering and thus qualify | Court: unresolved on present record; factual determination required on remand (expert evidence, credibility, in-camera procedures may be needed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Department of Health & Human Services, 907 F.2d 936 (10th Cir.) (endorsing narrow FOIA definition of trade secret and remanding for findings)
- Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Food & Drug Administration, 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir.) (adopts narrow FOIA-focused definition of trade secret tied to productive process)
- Sheridan Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Sheridan, 660 P.2d 785 (Wyo. 1983) (WPRA exceptions construed narrowly; custodian bears burden to justify withholding)
- Sublette County Rural Health Care Dist. v. Miley, 942 P.2d 1101 (Wyo. 1997) (applies FOIA test to confidential commercial information under WPRA)