For clarity, I use a “confidentiality agreement” in the sense that it is used, for example, by the Equal Opportunity Committee of the House of Commons. That is, an agreement that contains a confidentiality clause – for example, as in the case of Angus Sinclair. I am not using the somewhat strange definition published last week by the Commission. Cohen v. Cohen v. Kessler, 95-6140, underpants op. at 12 (D.N.J. 25 Nov. 1996); See also Herrick v.
Garvey, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1329 (D. Wyo. 2000) (finding that when the company revoked its prior authorization to disclose documents claimed as “business secrets” and certain documents had not been made public previously, there was “no waiver of exemption 4 protection”), aff`d for other reasons, 298 F.3d 1184, 1193-95 – n.10 (10. Cir. 2002) (declaring that the “w]aiver” doctrine is different from the argument that was actually made by the applicant — who challenged the applicability of the protection of business secrecy. first, when the company that submitted, through the Agency`s authorization, permission to disclose the information, which clearly means “no longer intends” to be “secret” — and then agreed” without deciding that it was possible to revoke the authorization and restore the secret nature of the documents , which was done). 308. See e.g..B. Trans-Pac., 1998 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 7800, to 10-11 (protection of harmonized tariff positions otherwise published when related to certain shipments of goods, because a “competent person may use numbers to identify the nature, cost, profit margin and origin of shipments”); Lederle Lab. v. HHS, 88-0249, slip op. at 22-23 (D.C July 1988) (protection of the scientific tests and identities of agency auditors, as disclosure would allow the applicant to “indirectly obtain what is directly excluded from disclosure”); Timken Co. v. United States Customs Serv., 491 F. Supp. 557, 559 (D.C 1980) (data-based sales protection between a parent company and its subsidiary, because even if disclosure of such data alone “was not sufficient to calculate production costs, these costs would be safe in combination with other information.” The third application received its first thorough judicial analysis and acceptance by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
(452) In 9 to 5 organizations for office workers in office v. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the First Circuit, specifically cautioned against the use of the two major national park bodies as “exclusive criteria for determining confidentiality” and found that the relevant investigation focused on whether the public disclosure of the information prejudiced “an identifiable private or state interest that Congress sought to protect through the granting of foiA exemption 4.” (453) 220.