KEAN MILLERL„
A TTORNEYS

AT

LAW

JUDITH A. MEYER, PARTNER
PH 713.844.3068
JUDITH.MEYER@KEANMILLER.COM

November 2, 2018
Mr. Justin Gordon
Chief, Open Government Division
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
209 West 14th St., 6th Floor
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78701-2548
Re:

City of Austin Open Records Request from Lucas Larson
(PIR # C010907)

Dear Mr. Gordon:
On behalf of Social Bicycles LLC, d/b/a JUMP Bikes ("Jump Bikes"), a subsidiary of
Uber Technologies, Inc., we are responding to the letter from the City of Austin ("City" or
"Austin") notifying us of your review on whether the information responsive to Mr. Larson's
request is excepted from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act ("PIA"), Texas
Government Code Chapter 552. Jump Bikes objects to the release of the Requested Information
for the reasons described below.
Jump Bikes provides electric bike-sharing and scooter-sharing in Austin. Bike- and
scooter-sharing are environmentally-friendly responses to urban congestion. Jump Bikes places
specially-designed electric bikes and scooters at locations around the City. Customers download
the Jump or Uber application on their phone, make a reservation, unlock a bike or scooter at
their starting point, and ride to their destination, where they return the bike or scooter to a rack.
See Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Vincent Campo, General Manager of Jump Bikes, ¶ 2.
Jump Bikes is a dockless mobility or transportation system regulated and licensed under
Chapter 14-9 of the Austin Municipal Code. See Section 14.9.23. See also Ex.1, Campo Aff., 114. Dockless mobility systems include electric bikes and scooters. Id. A license under this
Chapter can be suspended if the licensee does not report and maintain correct and current
information with the City regarding its operations. Section 174-9.25 (B)(1). See also Ex. 1, id.
The City also enacted Emergency Rule No. R161-19.09(e) on May 7, 2018, which established
additional, detailed rules for the operation of dockless systems. See Ex.1, Campo Aff., ¶ 4, and
Exhibit 1-A. A Dockless Mobility License can be suspended if the licensee does not report and
maintain correct and current information with the City regarding its operations. § 174-9.25
(B)(1); Ex. 1-A, p. 9, Section 7.G.
I 713.844.30001F 713.844.3030
711 Louisiana, Suite 1900 South Tower 1Houston, Texas 77002
keanmiller.com

 Mr. Justin Gordon
November 2, 2018
Page 2

Mr. Larson has requested various information regarding electric scooters (e-scooters),
including applications by electronic scooter companies to operate within city limits, with all
attachments, data sharing agreements between the City and e-scooter operators, and scooter
impound logs. Mr. Larson notes that dockless e-scooters are operated by "a variety of private
companies, including but not limited to Bird Rides, Inc., Neutron Holdings Inc. dba Lime
(formerly LimeBike), Spin, Scoot, Ofo, Razor, Hopr(formerly CycleHop), USSCotter, JUMP (a
subsidiary of Uber), Lyft, GOAT, and Ridecell." He says his request is "not being made for
commercial purposes," but also states that "the requested documents will be made available to
the general public...."
In response to Mr. Larson's request, the City would produce the following documents:
1. Jump Bikes' application to the City, with Jump Bikes' cover letter summarizing its
proposal and its operating relationship with Uber. The Application includes the
following appendices:
A. Jump Bikes' insurance policy, with insurer, policy number,
amount of premium, and coverage information.
B. Hardware and software specifications, including design
specifications for bikes, charging system, and docking station; a
description and lay-out of the mobile application for using the
units; and a description of the system's abilities to monitor the
units, evaluate data, and communicate with riders.
C. Unit inventory list, by unit identification number and serial
number.
D. Jump Bikes' safety plans and customer service features.
E. Jump Bikes' marketing and outreach plans, including details on
how it will identify communities for its bikes, address barriers,
educate people on bike and scooter transportation, and provide
equitable access to underserved communicates, and photographs
of its work on these plans.

 Mr. Justin Gordon
November 2, 2018
Page 3
F. Details on Jump Bikes' maintenance, cleaning, repair, and waste
management plans.
G. Jump Bikes' performance bond, with the name of the surety, the
bond number and the premium amount.
H—J. The test results and certificate of conformance for Jump Bikes'
Units on compliance with applicable regulations.
2. A two-page description of Jump Bikes' marketing and outreach plan.
3. A three-page description of the design, mechanical and electronic specifications of
Jump Bikes' e-scooter.
4. A blank application for an Austin dockless mobility license.
Jump Bikes objects to the disclosure of items 1-3, above, collectively the "Requested
Information," which is excepted from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act
("PIA") for three reasons. First, disclosure of the Requested Information is prohibited under
§ 552.104 of the PIA and the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court in Boeing v. Paxton, 466
S.W.3d 831 (Tex. 2015). Second, the Requested Information is commercial or financial
information the release of which would cause Jump Bikes substantial competitive harm, and so
must be withheld under § 552.110(b) of the PIA. Third, the Requested Information constitutes
Jump Bikes' trade secret information and is therefore excepted under § 552.110(a) of the PIA.
We set forth these reasons in more detail below.
The Requested Information must be withheld under § 552.104(a) and Boeing.
The Requested Information is excepted from disclosure under Boeing and § 552.104(a).
Section 552.104(a) of the PIA protects from disclosure information "that, if released, would give
advantage to a competitor or bidder." In Boeing Co. v. Ken Paxton, 466 S.W.3d 831 (Tex.
2015), Boeing raised this provision to prevent the disclosure of its lease with the Port of San
Antonio. The Texas Supreme Court clarified the legal test for claiming this PIA exemption.
First, the Court held that private parties have standing to assert this PIA exception. Boeing, 466
S.W.3d at 838-39. Second, the Court rejected the Attorney General's argument that § 552.104
requires a showing of specific competitive harm to a particular pending bid, finding that it was
sufficient to make a broader showing that releasing financial details "would give advantage to a
competitor or bidder." Id. Third, the Court rejected the arguments that Boeing was not entitled

 Mr. Justin Gordon
November 2, 2018
Page 4
to assert § 552.104 because the presumptive misuse of the data was too speculative, and that
Boeing had not proven that release of the data would trump other factors in causing a particular
competitor's bid to prevail. 466 S.W.3d at 840-41. The Court declared that a private party has
standing to invoke § 552.104 without having to prove it more likely than not that future business
will actually be lost: "the test under § 552.104 is whether knowing another bidder's
[information] would be an advantage, not whether it would be a decisive advantage." 466
S.W.3d at 838-39 at 841 (emphasis added).
The facts presented here are similar to those in Boeing, and strongly favor Jump Bikes in
this case. First, Boeing competed in an "intensely" competitive industry, bidding on
government contracts to maintain and overhaul older aircraft. Boeing, 466 S.W.3d at 839. As in
Boeing's industry, the market for bike-share and scooter-share riders is Austin is "extremely
competitive." See Ex.1, Campo Aff., ¶ 3. As explained by Vincent Campo, General Manager
of Jump Bikes in Austin, two nation-wide competitors have established bike-share businesses in
Austin, others are considering entering the market, and at least two scooter companies have
plans to enter Austin. See Ex.1, Campo Aff., ¶ 3. Mr. Larson's request confirms the
competitive nature of the dockless mobility industry for e-scooters by naming 12 companies that
operate around the country, two of which have already operate in Austin or have plans to enter
the Austin market. See supra, p. 2.
Second, the Court held that information contained in Boeing's lease would permit a
competitor to reverse engineer bids by Boeing, and enable the competitor to undercut Boeing's
bids. 466 S.W.3d at 834, 839-40. In Boeing, this useful information included not just costs and
overhead, but also provisions and details in the contract, such as the amount of Boeing's
insurance, the liquidated damages provision, details on shared costs, and contractual incentives.
466 S.W.3d at 834 n.2, 839. The Requested Information provides all the information a
competitor would need to establish an e-bikes and e-scooter operation, or fine-tune their
business plans for an existing operation: what kind of bikes and scooters to get; exactly how
many they should buy; where to have them certified; what kind of app to develop and what
features to provide to riders; what data sharing programs to offer to attract riders; what analytics
to build into the system to monitor and evaluate system operations; where and how to market to
attract riders; how to perform community outreach and education to capture underserved
markets; unique ideas to expand ridership; what kind of safety and maintenance programs to set
up; and where and how to acquire the financial responsibility instruments the City requires, and
how much to expect to pay. See Ex.1, Campo Aff., tri 7-11. The marketing and community
outreach plans would be especially valuable to competitors, enabling them to avoid the effort
and expense of developing and trying their own such strategies. Moreover, by simply adopting
Jump Bikes' marketing and outreach plans, competitors would cause Jump Bikes to lose the

 Mr. Justin Gordon
November 2, 2018
Page 5
value of all its work on those plans, and force it to again incur costs of develop marketing plans.
Competitors would thus cuts their own costs significantly and at the same time increase those of
Jump Bikes, unfairly gaining a substantial advantage in a very competitive business. See Ex.1,
Campo Aff., ¶ 12. The Requested Information could also help competitors raise funds and
attract investors more effectively, another way that the release of the Requested Information
could reduce Jump Bikes' ability to compete in a competitive market. See Ex.1, Campo Aff., id.
The Requested Information is the product of all of Jump Bikes' experience, obtained
through the commitment of significant money and effort, distilled into its business plan for the
competitive Austin market. See Ex.1, Campo Aff., TT 13-14. Jump Bikes has competitors in
Austin, and more competitors are considering establishing operations in Austin. See Ex.1,
Campo Aff., ¶ 3. See also Lucas statement, supra p. 2. Release of the Requested Information
would provide competitors with a blue-print for competing with Jump Bikes. See Ex.1,
Campo Aff., TT 13-14. Competitors would use the Requested Information as free market
research to jumpstart an entry into the Austin market or fine-tune their operating and marketing
plans, while avoiding the considerable time and expense that Jump Bikes has invested to
develop its business in Austin. Id. Jump Bikes would have done all the work and its
competitors would reap the benefit, and take Jump Bikes' business. Id.
In short, as in Boeing, competitors could use the Requested Information to reverse
engineer their own successful bike and scooter share program, undercut the effect of Jump
Bikes' efforts in the Austin market, and take business away from Jump Bikes.
Third, at issue in Boeing was not simply that Boeing's competitor would take away its
lease with the Port of San Antonio, but that another city or state would lease premises to a
competitor at a rate that undercut Boeing's lease at the Port, enabling Boeing's competitor to
gain an advantage in this way also. Boeing, 466 S.W.3d at 840. The same issue is presented
here: the City of Austin can limit the number of dockless mobility units, can reduce the number
of units in an area, and will reduce the number of units if each unit does not have 2 rides per
day. Ex. 1-A, Rule Section 3.A — E; Chapter 14-9-23(C). Thus, every ride that a competitor
takes from Jump Bikes could force the reduction of Jump Bikes' fleets and its business, and
increase the fleet of a competitor, further damaging Jump Bikes' business.
As the Boeing Court noted, it is not necessary to show specific competitive harm to a
particular pending bid in order to invoke § 552.10, nor is the possibility of future misuse of the
data too speculative to support application of the exception. See supra, pp. 2-3. The Texas
Supreme Court found that the very same types of information as that contained in the Requested
Information would give an advantage to a competitor, and so constitute information "that, if
released, would give advantage to a competitor or bidder" under § 552.104(a). The Court's

 Mr. Justin Gordon
November 2, 2018
Page 6
reasoning applies with equal force to Jump Bikes' arguments against disclosure in this case.
Release of Jump Bikes' Requested Information would enable its competitors to start or fine-tune
a competing business without the expenditure of money and effort invested by Jump Bikes,
obtain bikes, set up an application, program data analyses, market and conduct community
outreach. The Requested Information would give competitors an advantage over knowing none
ofthat information, so this information must be withheld from disclosure under § 552.110(a).
The Requested Information must be withheld under § 552.110(b) because the
release of that information would cause substantial competitive harm to Jump Bikes.
Section 552.110(b) excepts from disclosure "[c]ommercial or financial information for
which it is demonstrated based on specific factual evidence that disclosure would cause
substantial competitive harm." TEx. Gov'T. CODE § 552.110(b). In Miller Paper Co. v.
Roberts Paper Co., 901 S.W.2d 593, 602 (Tex.App. Amarillo 1995, no writ), the court
identified competitive harm in plain terms: when a competitor "could easily start a new
company" with the plaintiff's information, or use the information to grow their company
at the plaintiff's expense, then the information is confidential or a trade secret, and an
injunction prohibiting the disclosure of the information is proper. A company's governmental
filings that would enable a competitor to evaluate the company's "strengths and
weaknesses" in a given area, to "inform the competitor's decision to do business in that
area," and to "use this information in their marketing strategies," is exempt from release
under the PIA. Center for Economic Justice v. Am. Ins. Ass'n, 39 S.W.3d 337, 345
(Tex.App. Austin 2001, no pet.).
The Requested Information constitutes Jump Bikes' business plan for the Austin area,
and is the very type of information protected by Texas courts, for the very reason it demands
protection here: as described by Mr. Campo, a competitor could copy or use Jump Bikes' plans
to take business away from Jump Bikes. This is the "substantial competitive harm" identified in
§ 552.110(b)ofthe PIA, and the Trip Data must be withheld.
The Requested Information is Jump Bikes' trade secrets under § 552.110(a).
The PIA also provides that trade secrets are excepted from disclosure. TEX. GOv'T.
CODE § 552.110(a). Trade secrets may consist of any formula, pattern or compilation of
information which is used in a person's business, and which gives him a competitive advantage.
In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735, 739-40 (Tex. 2003); Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763, 776
(Tex. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 (1958). Any data about a company's business can be a
trade secret. For example, when a competitor could learn from information in a report filed

 Mr. Justin Gordon
November 2, 2018
Page 7
with a governmental body whether the company's business was growing or declining,
make inferences about profitability, and use this information in preparing its own
marketing strategy, the information is valuable to competitors and is a trade secret.
Center for Economic Justice, 39 S.W.3d at 345. Jump Bikes' competitors could use the
Requested Information in just this manner.
The Texas Supreme Court has identified six factors to be considered in determining
whether data constitutes a trade secret.' The factors must be weighed in the context of the
surrounding circumstances, and a plaintiff need not satisfy all six elements to show that
information is a trade secret. In re Bass, at 739. Rasier's affidavits set forth specific factual
details addressing all six of the RESTATEMENT factors used to determine whether information
constitutes a trade secret, as set forth in Hyde Corp v. Huffines:
(1-2) The extent to which the information is known outside the
company's business, and the extent to which the information is
known by employees and others involved in the company's
business.2 The Requested Information is stored only on a secured
server, is password protected, is not known to most of the company
personnel, and is not revealed outside the company. This
Information is restricted to a very small number of employees, and is
not generally available to most employees in the Austin office, or in
other offices. See Ex. 1, Campo Aff., ¶ 15.
(3) The extent of measures taken by the company to guard the
secrecy of the information. Access to the Requested Information
is restricted to a very small number of employees, and is not
generally available to most employees in Austin or elsewhere. See
Ex. 1, Campo Aff., ¶ 15. This Information is stored securely, and
1

The factors are: (1)the extent to which the information is known outside of the owner's business;(2)the
extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business;(3)the extent of the measures taken
by him to guard the secrecy of the information;(4) the value of the information to him and to his competitors;
(5)the amount of effort or money expended by him in developing the information;(6)the ease or difficulty with
which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. In re Bass, at 739, citing
RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 39, cmt. D (formerly RESTATEMENT OF TORTS § 757, cmt.
B).
2
Providing information to a governmental body as required does not waive the trade secret status of the
information. Waste Management, 406 S.W.3d at 635-36; Centerfor Economic Justice, 39 S.W.3d at 346; Taco
Cabana Int'l Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 931 F.2d 113, 1124(5th Cir. 1991).

 Mr. Justin Gordon
November 2, 2018
Page 8
password protected. Id. By limiting access to the Requested
Information, storing it on secured servers, and requiring password
protection, Jump Bikes guards the secrecy of this Information. Id.
(4) The value of the information to the company and to its
competitors. By limiting access to the Requested Information,
storing it on secured servers, and requiring password protection,
Jump Bikes guards the secrecy of this Information and other
performance data. See Ex. 1, Campo Aff., ¶ 11. This Information
constitutes Jump Bikes' business plan and market strategy for
Austin. Release of this Information would outline in detail Jump
Bikes' business and permit a competitor to fine-tune a competing
business plan that would take Jump Bikes' customers and limit its
growth. See Ex. 1, Campo Aff., TT 7-12.
(5) The amount of effort or money expended by the company in
developing the information. Jump Bikes has invested significant
money and employee hours to build its business and its customer
base in Austin. See Ex. 1, Campo Aff., ¶ 14.
(6) The ease or difficulty with which the information could be
properly acquired or duplicated by others. The Requested
Information is a blue-print for competitors seeking to enter the
dockless mobility market. See Ex. 1, Campo Aff., ¶¶ 7-114.
Under Texas law, these facts are sufficient to demonstrate that the information is a trade secret.3
See, e.g., Waste Management, 406 S.W.3d at 636; Center for Economic Justice, 39 S.W.3d at
345; T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessy Motorsports, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tex.App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet).

3

As noted above, an Austin court entered a judgment, agreed to by the City and your office, holding that
trip origination data submitted to the City of Austin is exempt from disclosure under § 552.110(a). See supra,
p. 4.

 Mr. Justin Gordon
November 2, 2018
Page 9
CONCLUSION
We appreciate your consideration of our concerns about the potential release of this
information, and the potential harm that would ensue. If you require additional information
from us, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,

Judith A. Meyer
JAM:pmt
cc:

(w/o attachments): 61817-70173261grequests.muckrock.com