Holding that information voluntarily given to the government must be "of a kind that would customarily not be released to the public by the person from whom it was obtained" to be confidential
Holding an agency's litigation strategy "does qualify as 'high 2' material because its disclosure would risk circumvention of statutes or agency regulations"
Concluding that the term drug “is plainly intended throughout the Act to include entire drug products, complete with active and inactive ingredients” and must “include more than just active ingredients ... unless subsection (D) is to be superfluous”
Holding that "documentation of the health and safety experience of [a company's] products" was commercial because such documentation was "instrumental in gaining marketing approval for their products"
Holding that disclosure of a government report containing figures from which information obtained from a company could be extrapolated would disclose information obtained from a person and came within Exemption 4
Recognizing that the "pharmaceutical industry is a highly competitive market where companies routinely attempt to discover a possible advantage over their competitors"
Holding that "in the absence of a particularized FOIA request" implicating a challenged regulation, the regulation's validity was not ripe for judicial review
Concluding that “[i]t has long been accepted” that a suit to enjoin a federal official from ultra vires action is an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,200 times 556 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party