As we’ve discussed on our IP Law Trends blog, there is significant tension between government’s duty to give the public access to its records, and the desire of those who deal with the government to keep some of their information confidential. Yesterday, confidentiality won. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and held that the government (or those that deal with it) only need to show that records are actually “confidential” to exempt them from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled the Eighth Circuit’s (and D.C. Circuit’s) more restrictive previous test, which required an additional showing of a likelihood of substantial harm from the information’s disclosure. As now clarified by the Supreme Court, “where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated a private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is ‘confidential’ within the meaning of [FOIA] Exemption 4.”
This expansion of FOIA’s confidential information exemption will make it easier for those who deal with the government to protect their competitive information. But there are still traps for the unwary when providing such information, and laying the foundation for such protection still takes forethought and action (and state and local governments are subject to different rules). So if you are bidding on or working on a government contract, or otherwise providing information to the government, make sure you take the steps ahead of time to protect your confidential information. And if you don’t know how to do that, we’re here to help.
On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court released 
California’s coffee industry breathed a collective sigh of relief earlier this month when the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the agency charged with implementing Proposition 65, finalized a regulation that exempts coffee from the need to bear a cancer warning.
Design-build is increasingly showing up in public works projects in the Washington State. This method allows the price to be established based on a conceptual design rather than through the competitive bid process. Offsetting the lack of competitive bid, the price can be set after construction documents are completed and all the subcontracts work can be put out for bid. Design-build has unique challenges. It leads to fundamental changes in the relationships between owners, designers and contractors. As a result, concerns were expressed that public agencies may not understand the resulting changes in their responsibilities or the impacts to contractors and design professionals so the 
On March 20, 2019, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the Land Use Board of Appeals (“LUBA”) in a decision interpreting ORS 197.307(4), which is the “clear and objective” requirement of the ORS 197.295-.314 needed housing statutes. 
David Brandon and Olivia Grabacki published an op-ed in a recent issue of the Daily Journal of Commerce. The article discusses the differing benefits between 1031 Exchanges and Qualified Opportunity Zones for real estate investments. The full article is available 
Many local commercial leases use the Portland-area consumer price index (“CPI”) to calculate periodic rent adjustments. That index was discontinued in 2018. For commercial landlords and tenants whose leases rely on the now-discontinued Portland-area CPI, discussing how to handle rent adjustments now can prevent tension later.