Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Omaha Public Power Dist., s. 88-2571
| Decision Date | 01 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | 88-2608,Nos. 88-2571,s. 88-2571 |
| Citation | 888 F.2d 1228 |
| Parties | , 17 Media L. Rep. 1048 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee, v. OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, Appellee. Appeal of NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT and Nebraska Public Power District, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James A. Eske, Lincoln, Neb., for appellant.
Steven Reed, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Burlington Northern Railroad Company's contract to transport coal for Omaha Public Power District was held to be a trade secret under the Nebraska Public Records Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. Sec. 84-712.05 (Reissue 1987), and therefore not subject to public disclosure as sought by Nebraska Public Power District. Nebraska Power appeals and argues that Omaha Power did not raise the issue of whether the contract contained trade secrets, and that this issue was not relevant to its cross-claim against Omaha Power, particularly when Burlington's arguments to prevent disclosure had been rejected by the district court. Alternatively, Nebraska Power asserts that the terms of the contract are not trade secrets, and therefore are not exempt from public disclosure. Burlington cross-appeals, arguing that the district court should be affirmed on grounds of preemption or, alternatively, that Burlington should be permitted to litigate its claims under the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act and the takings clause of the Constitution. We do not reach Burlington's arguments as we affirm the judgment of the district court. 1
Burlington contracted with Omaha Power to transport coal by rail to Omaha Power's electric generating stations in Nebraska City and Omaha, Nebraska. As required by federal law, the contract was filed under seal with the Interstate Commerce Commission. The contract contained a confidentiality clause which required Omaha Power to notify Burlington if disclosure of the contract was requested, and to not comply with the request if Burlington brought suit to block disclosure within thirty days. On December 16, 1987, Nebraska Power wrote to Omaha Power requesting disclosure of Burlington's rate tariff and any associated contract pertaining to coal delivery to the Nebraska City station. Omaha Power notified Burlington of Nebraska Power's request for disclosure and Burlington brought this action against both Omaha Power and Nebraska Power to prevent disclosure of the contract.
Burlington claimed that disclosure was prohibited by section 208 of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, codified at 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 10713 (Supp.1989), the ICC regulations implementing the Act, and the trade secrets exemption to the Nebraska Public Records Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. Sec. 84-712.05(3). 2 In a cross-claim against Omaha Power, Nebraska Power claimed that the Nebraska Public Records Act required Omaha Power to disclose the terms of its contract with Burlington. Nebraska Power reasoned that since both Nebraska Power and Omaha Power were public bodies, and contracts entered into by public bodies were public records, disclosure was required. Furthermore, Nebraska Power asserted that if Omaha Power denied the request for disclosure, the denial must be accompanied by a written statement of the basis for denial. See Neb.Rev.Stat. Sec. 84-712.04(1).
Burlington requested a temporary restraining order, which was denied following an ex parte hearing. The district court then heard Burlington's motion for a preliminary injunction, examined the contract in camera, and denied that motion also. The district court found that Burlington had shown little likelihood of success on either its claim of preemption or its claim that disclosure was prohibited under the trade secret exemption to the Nebraska Public Records Act.
On August 24, 1988, the district court entered the order which is the subject of this appeal and cross-appeal. The court first denied Burlington's request for leave to amend its complaint to include a cause of action based on the recently enacted Nebraska Trade Secrets Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. Secs. 87-501 to 87-507 (Supp.1988), because Burlington's cause of action arose before the effective date of the Act. As to Burlington's claim against Nebraska Power, the court granted Nebraska Power's motion for judgment on the pleadings because it found that the Nebraska Public Records Act was not preempted by the Staggers Act, and that the Nebraska Public Records Act did not provide a cause of action for Burlington to prevent disclosure.
The district court then considered Nebraska Power's cross-claim against Omaha Power seeking disclosure of the contract under the Nebraska Public Records Act. The court recited in detail its reasons for concluding that the contract was a trade secret, and held the contract was therefore exempt from the disclosure provisions of the Act. The court noted that Burlington had provided the evidence on the trade secret issue for the benefit of Omaha Power and concluded that Omaha Power's burden of proving that the contract was a trade secret had been met by the greater weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the court denied Nebraska Power's motion for summary judgment on its cross-claim against Omaha Power. The court then ordered the contract sealed against disclosure except for purposes of appeal.
Both Burlington and Nebraska Power sought reconsideration of the district court's decision. The court denied both motions. It again refused to allow Burlington leave to amend its complaint to allege a cause of action based on the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act because it found that amendment would present new factual issues which would alter the issues raised by Burlington's motion for summary judgment. Nebraska Power sought reconsideration because of the court's holding that the trade secret exemption applied, which had the effect of prohibiting Omaha Power from disclosing the contract, even though Omaha Power had never raised the issue of exemption. In response, Omaha Power asserted that it had not raised the issue earlier because it had preferred to let the court determine the issue, but now that the court had determined that the contract was indeed a trade secret, Omaha Power would abide by that determination and refuse to disclose the contract. It offered to file its own motion for summary judgment in order to cure any procedural defects; however, the court found such an action to be unnecessary. This appeal followed.
Nebraska Power asserts that the district court committed procedural errors which render the court's judgment invalid. It argues that it was improper to deny its cross-claim against Omaha Power based on the exemption for trade secrets both because Omaha Power had never raised the issue of its contract with Burlington containing trade secrets, and because that issue was irrelevant to deciding Nebraska Power's cross-claim. Nebraska Power argues that Omaha Power was willing to disclose the contract except for the fact that Burlington had filed suit to prevent disclosure. Once the district court found Burlington's assertions to be without merit and dismissed its suit, Nebraska Power argues that Omaha Power should have disclosed the contract. Nebraska Power asserts that the district court, by proceeding on its own motion to grant summary judgment to Omaha Power on Nebraska Power's cross-claim, 3 effectively prevented Nebraska Power from gaining access to the contract. Nebraska Power insists that Omaha Power's prior failure to assert that the contract was exempt from disclosure under the Nebraska Public Records Act makes its current refusal to disclose contrary to the plain language and intent of the Act. We reject these arguments of Nebraska Power.
We see no failure on the part of Omaha Power that prevents the district court from entering its order. It is not contested that Omaha Power sought the aid of the court in deciding whether disclosure should be made. When Burlington filed suit, Omaha Power answered by saying that it was for the court to determine whether to require public disclosure of the Burlington Northern and Omaha Power rail transportation contract. In answering Nebraska Power's cross-claim, Omaha Power stated that it would comply with any order of the court regarding disclosure of the contract. The Nebraska Public Records Act neither precludes a public body from seeking judicial guidance nor dictates that a public body provide written notice of denial to parties requesting disclosure before seeking a judicial determination. See Neb.Rev.Stat. Secs. 84-712.01 to 84-712.09. In fact, the Act grants courts significant power in an action such as this by providing for de novo judicial review of disclosure determinations. Id. Sec. 84-712.03. The court is not required to give any deference to the custodian of records' conclusions pertaining to disclosure issues. Id. In light of these statutory provisions, we must reject Nebraska Power's contention that Omaha Power was required to take a position on the disclosure issue prior to the court's determination.
The parties do not appear to challenge the district court's definition of the term "trade secrets" contained in the Nebraska Public Records Act. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Multi-Tech Systems v. Hayes Microcomputer Products
...an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not access to such information. See Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 888 F.2d 1228, 1231-32 (8th Cir.1989) (citing the Restatement of the Law of Torts for the definition of a trade secret); Cherne Indus., Inc. ......
-
Doe v. Tenet
...(no waiver of attorney-client privilege by submitting documents to the court for in camera review); Burlington N.R. Co. v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 888 F.2d 1228, 1232 (8th Cir.1989) (contract alleged to be trade secret could be reviewed in camera without revealing trade secret); see also An......
-
Newkirk v. GKN Armstrong Wheels, Inc.
...of material fact to be tried and the party granted judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law.” Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist ., 888 F.2d 1228, 1231 n. 3 (8th Cir.1989). Here, although the John Does defendants have not yet appeared, summary judgment may be granted in th......
-
Jeffers v. Tucker
...summary judgment. Johnson v. Bismarck Public School Dist., 949 F.2d 1000, 1004-05 (8th Cir.1991); Burlington Northern v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 888 F.2d 1228, 1231 n. 3 (8th Cir.1989). This is because "when there has been a motion but no cross-motion, the judge already is engaged in dete......
-
Using Traditional Privileges
...Under the right circumstances, even a contract might be shielded from discovery. See Burlington N. R. Co. v. Omaha Public Power District, 888 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir. 1989). 69 See §1060 of the California Evidence Code. 70 Uniroyal Chemical Co. Inc. v. Syngenta Crop Protection , 224 F.R.D. 53 (D......
-
Private sector business records
...each case weighed their claim to privacy against the need for disclosure. Frequently, they have been afforded a limited protection. 170 888 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir. 1989). 171 The Honorable Edwin Edwards is presently serving a lengthy term. 172 See Nugent v. Phelps , 816 So.2d 349 (La.App., 2002......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...each case weighed their claim to privacy against the need for disclosure. Frequently, they have been afforded a limited protection. 152 888 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir. 1989). 153 The Honorable Edwin Edwards is presently serving a lengthy term. 154 See Nugent v. Phelps , 816 So.2d 349 (La.App., 2002......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...each case weighed their claim to privacy against the need for disclosure. Frequently, they have been afforded a limited protection. 164 888 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir. 1989). 165 The Honorable Edwin Edwards is presently serving a lengthy term. 166 See Nugent v. Phelps , 816 So.2d 349 (La.App., 2002......