When the parties met and conferred, the Government informed Armstrong that it would produce the documents Armstrong seeks consistent with a protective order after one has been entered by this Court. See ECF No. 190-20, at *2. The Government explained that this approach is necessary because the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), generally prohibit the Government from sharing private information in its possession concerning individuals and non-governmental entities except as specifically authorized by law. In particular, the Trade Secrets Act makes it a criminal offense for Government employees to disclose private information where disclosure would “cause potential harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.”

Q at 2; see also Pleasants v. Allbaugh, 208 F.R.D. 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2002) (explaining that an agreed-upon protective order resolved objections regarding confidentiality). The government has asserted two federal statutes as a basis to withhold documents: the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. See Jacob Decl.

Some of the information submitted by Luminant was confidential business information that is protected from public disclosure by federal statutes. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4); 18 U.S.C. § 1905. For this reason, the government’s complaint, which incorporated some of this confidential business information, was properly filed under seal.

Related Federal Statues Concerning Possession and Disclosure of Documents There are other related crimes for which the alleged DOJ source(s) face the possibility of prosecution and for which Ashenfelter, too, “could” be prosecuted based upon a conspiracy, aiding and abetting or accessory after the fact theory. For instance, these officials may be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1905, which criminalizes the disclosure of various forms of confidential government information. An individual violates § 1905 if “(1) the defendant was an officer or employee of the United States; (2) the defendant disclosed confidential information; and (3) the defendant knew that the information so disclosed was confidential 'in the sense that its disclosure is forbidden by agency official policy (or by regulation or law).”

at 660. Here, leading experts in the field, such as former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, have publically stated that criminal charges were justified for Defendant Clinton’s wrongful acts.7 Former Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani spoke of “16 crimes he believes the evidence suggests [Defendant Clinton] is already guilty of,” including: (1)  18 U.S.C. § 201 – Bribery (2)  18 U.S.C. § 208 – Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest (3)  18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy (4)  18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False Statements (5)  18 U.S.C. § 1341 - Frauds and Swindles (6)  18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Fraud by Wire (7)  18 U.S.C. § 1349 – Attempt and Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud) (8)  18 U.S.C. § 1505 – Obstruction of Justice (9)  18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Destruction (Alteration or Falsification) of Records in Federal Investigations or/and Bankruptcy (10)   18 U.S.C. § 1621 – Perjury (11)   18 U.S.C. § 1905 – Disclosure of Confidential Information (12)   18 U.S.C. § 1924 – Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material 7 Michael Mukasey, Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge is Justified, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 21, 2016, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158 Case 1:16-cv-01606-ABJ Document 30 Filed 11/18/16 Page 5 of 10 6 (13)   18 U.S.C. § 2071 – Concealment (Removal or Mutilation) of Government Records (14)   18 U.S.C. § 7201 – Attempt to Evade or Defendant a Tax (Use of Clinton Foundation Funds for Personal or Political Purposes) (15)   18 U.S.C. § 7212 – Attempts to Interfere with Administration of Internal Revenue Laws8 Importantly, James Comey, current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, publically stated that Defendant Clinton was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified informati

In order to protect any and all confidential information in the administrative record as opposed to draft labeling specifically, Intervenor-Defendants suggest that the confidentiality markings be adjusted to read “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” rather than making them specific to labeling. Further, if the Court enters a protective order with scope that extends beyond labeling, Intervenor-Defendants suggest the following definition for confidential information: “For purposes of this Protective Order, ‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION’ includes any document, correspondence, or other material, and includes all documents, correspondence, and materials of the type FDA customarily maintains in confidence pursuant to any statute, regulation, or agency practice, including but not limited to 21 U.S.C. § 331(j), 18 U.S.C. § 1905, 21 C.F.R. § 314.430, 21 C.F.R. § 20.

The                                                              14 The imperative that federal agencies protect businesses’ confidential information from public disclosure is embodied in criminal statute by the Trade Secrets Act. See 18 U.S.C. 1905 (“Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7). This is consistent with the requirements of the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1905). In this case, Abbott seeks to file under seal the following “Highly Confidential” documents: • Portions of Abbott Laboratories’ Sur-Reply to Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

Indeed, public policy favors the protection of a person’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information. See, e.g., Champion v. Super. Court, 201 Cal. App. 3d 777, 789-90 (1988) (granting application to seal entire file of case in action seeking declaration of rights and duties of partners under partnership agreement); see also, Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (party would be irreparably harmed by disclosure of confidential business information, supporting sealing, even though documents dealt with business information dating back several years); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1905 (Trade Secrets Act) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) (trade-secret and commercial or financial-information exemption to Freedom of Information Act). The “disclosure of confidential information is the quintessential type of irreparable harm that cannot be compensated or undone by money damages.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7). This is consistent with the requirements of the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1905). In this case, Abbott seeks to file under seal the following “Highly Confidential” documents: • Portions of Abbott’s Opposition To Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification; • Portions of the Declaration of Joel Hay in support of Abbott’s Opposition to Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; • Declaration of Joseph Serio in support of Abbott’s Opposition to Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and exhibit attached thereto; • Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Charles B. Klein in support of Abbott’s Opposition to Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.