Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): being threatened or impaired, a finding of irreparable injury is mandated. In other words, the first factor of the four-factor preliminary injunction inquiry — whether the plaintiff shows a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits — should be addressed first insofar as a successful showing on the first factor mandates a successful showing on the second factor— whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm. See id.; see also Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir.1998) (finding that “[wjhen a party seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a potential violation of the First Amendment, the likelihood of success on the merits often will be the determinative factor”); Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The district court erred in this regard 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records (B) holding that if the constitutional right of privacy is either threatened or in fact being impaired this mandates a finding of irreparable injury (C) holding that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that a former employee is working for a direct competitor no finding of irreparable injury is necessary to support a permanent injunction to protect trade secrets because irreparable injury is established as a matter of law (D) recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records (E) holding that evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill supports a finding of irreparable harm
Output (English): holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records