Trade secrets under the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA); MCL 445.1902(d)(i) & (ii); Herald Co, Inc v Tax Tribunal; Radiant Global Logistics, Inc v Furstenau (ED MI); Independent economic value; Giasson Aerospace Sci, Inc v RCO Eng’g, Inc; Protective order; MCR 2.302(C)(8); Whether information under a protective order constituted a trade secret; Closed session under the Open Meetings Act (OMA); MCL 15.268(1)(h); Appellate jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(B); Tax Tribunal (TT); Taxable value (TV)

The court held that the TT abused its discretion by (1) finding that petitioner’s confidential documents did not derive independent economic value and were not trade secrets under the MUTSA, and (2) denying the parties’ stipulated motion to hold a closed session under the OMA. Petitioner challenged respondent’s TV assessment and later moved for a protective order in response to a request for discovery, which was granted. The TT later “issued an order stating that trade secrets submitted to the []TT were exempt from disclosure, but because petitioner’s confidential information did not derive independent economic value, it did not fall within the definition of trade secrets under the MUTSA, and a closed hearing under OMA was not warranted.” On appeal, the court agreed with petitioner that the TT erred by finding its confidential materials were not trade secrets under the MUTSA, and thus, by denying the parties’ stipulated motion to hold the hearing as a closed session under the OMA. The record supported petitioner’s argument and showed that the information afforded it “a competitive advantage because it has value to petitioner and potential competitors.” The TT’s “factual findings that petitioner’s information did not derive independent economic value was not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.” In addition, “the fact that two factors did not weigh in petitioner’s favor did not necessarily mean that petitioner’s information did not fall within the definition of a trade secret under the MUTSA.” Further, the “fact that the confidential information qualifies as a trade secret under MUTSA— a state statute—and is, therefore, exempt from disclosure, means that the []TT, as a public body, may meet in a closed session to consider such material.” Finally, the court rejected respondent’s argument that petitioner did not properly seek relief and that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant petitioner’s application for leave to appeal. Reversed and remanded.