Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): investigation. Disclosure of this information, Durney declares, “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or safety” of such persons, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F), and “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” see id. § 552(b)(7)(C), since release of such information would expose them to the risk of physical harm, harassment, and identity theft. Durney Decl. ¶ the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government on its Exemption 7(A) claim and this court issued its order in August’s first appeal. In light of the substantiation of the important third-party interests at stake, it seems quite likely that the Government’s failure to invoke Exemptions 7(C ted States Secret Serv., 72 F.3d 897, 903-04 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Schanen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court erred in refusing to grant the secret services fedrcivp 60b motion to rehear arguments about the applicability of foia exemptions 7c and 7d in light of the secret services belatedly proffered proof of a promise of confidentiality noting that the case was not the ordinary one since it involves not only the interests of the secret service but that of a third party whose identity and information are expressly protected by foia (B) holding that disclosure of trade secret without protection of express confidentiality agreement was not fatal to trade secret protection where disclosure occurred during sale negotiation (C) holding that it was impossible for the court to say that the information met the definition of a trade secret because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the information derived economic value from an element of secrecy that is known only to plaintiff and its employees (D) holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents (E) holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status
Output (English): holding that it was impossible for the court to say that the information met the definition of a trade secret because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the information derived economic value from an element of secrecy that is known only to plaintiff and its employees