* Articles Editor, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2001–02. Prior to law school, Ms. Goldenson worked as a scientist for four years at Amgen, Inc. manufacturing human therapeutics.
1 5 U.S.C. � 552 (1994).
2 See generally 33 U.S.C. �� 1251–1376 (2000).
3 See generally United States v. Hallmark Constr. Co., No. 97-C3682, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11892 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 1998).
4 See generally Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 844 F. Supp. 770 (D.D.C. 1993).
5 See Deitchman v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, 740 F.2d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 1984). In referring to the defendant scientist, the Deitchman court acknowledged that “[h]is real and deepest objection is that he must be allowed to divulge to the public the results of his studies only in his own time and way.” Id.
6 See Dow Chem. Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1276 (7th Cir. 1982). The Allen court refrained from forcing academic researchers to disclose their preliminary results, finding that such disclosure
would leave the researchers with the knowledge throughout continuation of their studies that the fruits of their labors had been appropriated by and were being scrutinized by a not-unbiased third party whose interests were arguably antithetical to theirs. It is not difficult to imagine that that realization might well be both unnerving and discouraging. . . . In addition, the researchers could reasonably fear that additional demands for disclosure would be made in the future. . . . To these factors must be added the knowledge of the researchers that even inadvertent disclosure of the . . . data could jeopardize both the studies and their careers.
Id.
7 See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 478 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1973).
8 See generally 5 U.S.C. � 552 (2000).
9 See, e.g., Allen, 672 F.2d at 1262; Smith v. Dow Chem. Co., 173 F.R.D. 54 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
10 See generally Metallurgical Indus., Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., 790 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1986); Rywkin v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., No. 95 Civ. 10008, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9570 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 1999); Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 175 F.R.D. 321 (D. Kan. 1997).
11 See discussion infra Part II.A.
12 See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(3)(A).
13 See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1988).
14 See Forsham v. Califano, 587 F.2d 1128, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
15 See Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1286–87 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Although Exemption Four of FOIA does protect “trade secrets” from disclosure, this protection is limited to commercial or financial information used for trade purposes, and thus does not extend to experimental research initiated and conducted by internal government scientists. See id.; see also Margaret Witherup Tindall, Breast Implant Information as Trade Secrets: Another Look at FOIA’s Fourth Exemption, 7 Admin L.J. Am. U. 213, 223–24 (1993). Exemption 4 is also restricted to information “obtained from a source outside the government.” Robert B. Kelso, A Practitioner’s Guide to “Confidential Commercial and Financial Information” and the Freedom of Information Act, 1990 Army Law. 10, 11 n.16 (1990).
16 See 5 U.S.C. � 552(b).
17 See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 478 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1973).
18 See generally Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d 1114; Pfeiffer v. CIA, 721 F. Supp. 337 (D.D.C. 1989); Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 600 F. Supp. 114 (D.D.C. 1984).
19 See generally Dow Chem. Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir. 1982); Smith, 173 F.R.D. at 54.
20 EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973); see CIBA-GEIGY Corp. v. Mathews, 428 F. Supp. 523, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).
21 Mink, 410 U.S. at 80 (citation omitted).
22 5 U.S.C. � 552(a) (2000); see Mink, 410 U.S. at 80.
23 Mathews, 428 F. Supp. at 526.
24 Forsham v. Califano, 587 F.2d 1128, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
25 5 U.S.C. � 552(b). These exemptions cover a variety of agency records: Exemption 1 protects national defense and foreign policy secrets; Exemption 2 protects information “related solely to internal personnel rules;” Exemption 3 protects records otherwise exempt by statute; Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information; Exemption 5 protects inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda; Exemption 6 protects personnel and medical files where disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy; Exemption 7 protects records “compiled for law enforcement purposes;” Exemption 8 protects records related to “regulation or supervision of financial institutions;” and Exemption 9 protects geological data concerning wells. Id. at � 552(b)(1)–(9).
26 Mink, 410 U.S. at 80.
27 See id.; 5 U.S.C. � 552(b)(6).
28 Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992); see 5 U.S.C. � 552(b)(5).
29 See Mink, 410 U.S. at 80. “[A]s its underlying purpose, the FOIA seeks to ensure a citizenry informed about the inner workings of its government—a goal vital to the proper functioning of a democratic society.” Pully v. IRS, 939 F. Supp. 429, 432 (E.D. Va. 1996).
30 Mink, 410 U.S. at 80.
31 Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 478 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1973).
32 See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1988).
33 Id.
34 Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 997 F. Supp. 56, 60 (D.D.C. 1998).
35 Id.; see also Senate of P.R. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 823 F.2d 574, 585 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (stating that “‘conclusory assertions of privilege will not suffice to carry’ the agency’s burden”) (citation omitted).
36 See generally Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d at 1114; Senate of P.R., 823 F.2d at 574; Pub. Citizen Health Research Group, 997 F. Supp. at 56.
37 See Forsham v. Califano, 587 F.2d 1128, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
38 5 U.S.C. � 552(f)(2) (2000).
39 See DeLorme Publ’g Co. v. Nat’l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., 907 F. Supp. 10, 12 (D. Me. 1995).
40 See id.
41 5 U.S.C. � 552(f)(1).
42 See Forsham, 587 F.2d at 1135.
43 Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
44 See CIBA-GEIGY Corp. v. Mathews, 428 F. Supp. 523, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (citation omitted).
45 Id. at 526.
46 5 U.S.C. � 552(b)(5).
47 Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1988).
48 Id.
49 Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 600 F. Supp. 114, 117 (D.D.C. 1984).
50 Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1434.
51 See, e.g., Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508, 516 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1434; Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n, 600 F. Supp. at 116.
52 See, e.g., Burka, 87 F.3d at 510; Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1434; Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n, 600 F. Supp. at 116.
53 Burka, 87 F.3d at 516.
54 See, e.g., Hollar v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 95–1882, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12846, at *10 (D.D.C. Aug. 7, 1997).
55 See Burka, 87 F.3d at 516.
56 See Hollar, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12846, at *10.
57 Id. at *13.
58 See id.
59 See id.; Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 252 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
60 McErlean v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 97-Civ-7831, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15544, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 1999) (citation omitted) (finding agency properly withheld documents which were created by INS trial attorneys in connection with deportation proceedings against plaintiff).
61 See McErlean, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15544, at *19–21.
62 See id.
63 See Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508, 516 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
64 See id.
65 See Forsham v. Califano, 587 F.2d 1128, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
66 See Burka, 87 F.3d at 516.
67 Fed. R. Evid. 501. Rule 501 provides, in relevant part:
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.
Id. This rule allows courts to grant rights of privilege on a case by case basis in order to prevent sensitive relationships from being harmed by mandatory disclosure of information which would otherwise remain confidential. See, e.g., Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 715 F.2d 331 (7th Cir. 1983).
68 See University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 715 F.2d at 335.
69 See Consumer Union of U.S., Inc. v. Veterans Admin., 301 F. Supp. 796, 804 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).
70 Wilkinson v. FBI, 111 F.R.D. 432, 438 (C.D. Cal. 1986) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 501).
71 University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 715 F.2d at 335 (citation omitted).
72 See Wilkinson, 111 F.R.D. at 440.
73 See Dow Chem. Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1265 (7th Cir. 1982).
74 Wilkinson, 111 F.R.D. at 438.
75 See id. at 441.
76 See Smith v. Dow Chem. Co., 173 F.R.D. 54, 56 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
77 See id. at 57.
78 See generally Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 715 F.2d 331 (7th Cir. 1983); Allen, 672 F.2d 1262; Wilkinson, 111 F.R.D. 432.
79 See Wilkinson, 111 F.R.D. at 440. See generally University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 715 F.2d 331; Allen, 672 F.2d 1262.
80 See, e.g., University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 715 F.2d at 331; Allen, 672 F.2d at 1262; Wilkinson, 111 F.R.D. at 432.
81 See Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508, 521 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
82 See 672 F.2d at 1265, 1274.
83 See id. at 1265.
84 See id. at 1278; see also Deitchman v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, 740 F.2d 556, 559 (7th Cir. 1984) (finding that irrelevant records are not discoverable under the rules of civil discovery).
85 Allen, 672 F.2d at 1273.
86 See id. at 1276.
87 See 173 F.R.D. 56, 58 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
88 See id. at 57.
89 750 F.2d 223, 225 (2d Cir. 1984).
90 Compare id., with Smith, 173 F.R.D. at 57.
91 See Allen, 672 F.2d at 1273.
92 See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 750 F.2d at 225; Allen, 672 F.2d at 1278; Smith, 173 F.R.D. at 58.
93 See, e.g., Allen, 672 F.2d at 1265.
94 Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
95 See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 750 F.2d at 225.
96 See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1988).
97 See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1434; Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 600 F. Supp. 114, 116 (D.D.C. 1984).
98 See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1433.
99 See, e.g., Consumer Union of U.S., Inc. v. Veterans Admin., 301 F. Supp. 796, 804 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).
100 See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d at 1118–20; see generally Senate of P.R. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 823 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
101 Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 256 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
102 Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63, 67 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
103 See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 93 (1973); Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1436.
104 Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d at 1119.
105 See, e.g., Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508, 521 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 600 F. Supp. 117-18 (D.D.C. 1984).
106 See Mink, 410 U.S. at 91.
107 Train, 491 F.2d at 67.
108 See id.
109 See id.
110 See 5 U.S.C. � 552(b)(5) (2000).
111 See, e.g., Mink, 410 U.S. at 91; Train, 491 F.2d at 67.
112 See, e.g., Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1988); Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 844 F. Supp. 770, 783 (D.D.C. 1993).
113 See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 478 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1973).
114 See id.
115 5 U.S.C. � 552(b).
116 See id.; Train, 491 F.2d at 68.
117 See 5 U.S.C. � 552(b); Ethyl Corp., 478 F.2d at 50.
118 See Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1437-38 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
119 478 F.2d at 48.
120 See id. at 48, 50.
121 Id. at 50 (citation omitted).
122 See 491 F.2d at 64–65.
123 Id. at 68.
124 See id.
125 See id.
126 See generally Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 844 F. Supp. 770 (D.D.C. 1993).
127 See Ethyl Corp., 478 F.2d at 48.
128 See, e.g., Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63, 64 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
129 See 478 F.2d at 48.
130 See generally Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1988); Senate of P.R. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 823 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
131 See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d at 1117.
132 See Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 259 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
133 See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d at 1117; Senate of P.R., 823 F.2d at 585.
134 See Pfeiffer, 721 F. Supp. at 339.
135 See id. at 339–40.
136 See 844 F. Supp. 770, 782 (D.D.C. 1993).
137 See id. at 774, 782.
138 See id. at 782–83.
139 See id. at 782.
140 See Pfeiffer, 721 F. Supp. at 339–40.
141 See, e.g., Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, 844 F. Supp. at 782.
142 See id. at 782.
143 Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1988).
144 See Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
145 Id.
146 Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d at 1118.
147 Id. at 1118–19 (citation omitted).
148 See id. at 1118.
149 See 600 F. Supp. 114, 119 (D.D.C. 1984).
150 See id. at 117–18.
151 Id. at 118.
152 See 976 F.2d 1429, 1438-39 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
153 See id. at 1436–37.
154 Id. at 1438.
155 See id.
156 See id. at 1437–38.
157 See, e.g., Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1988).
158 Compare Parke, Davis & Co. v. Califano, 623 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1980); and Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 478 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1973), with Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 600 F. Supp. 114 (D.D.C. 1984).
159 See, e.g., Parke, Davis & Co., 623 F.2d at 6.
160 See Ethyl Corp., 478 F.2d at 50.
161 See Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 844 F. Supp. 770, 782 (D.D.C. 1993); Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n, 600 F. Supp. at 118.
162 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.
163 See discussion supra Part II.A.3.b.
164 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.a.
165 See, e.g., Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1988).
166 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.a.
167 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.
168 See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973).
169 See discussion supra Introduction.
170 See discussion supra Part I.
171 See generally Int’l News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918); Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997).
172 See generally Metallurgical Indus., Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., 790 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1986).
173 See generally Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 175 F.R.D. 321 (D. Kan. 1997) (addressing whether scientific tobacco research disclosed to defendant’s attorney was protected by attorney-client privilege).
174 See generally Rywkin v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., No. 95 Civ. 10008, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9570 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 1999) (addressing whether scientific research was relevant to plaintiff’s ability to show quality of work prior to termination).
175 See Robert P. Merges, et al., Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age 796 (Aspen Law & Business 2000). This tort was first established by the Supreme Court in Int’l News Serv. See 248 U.S. at 215.
176 See Int’l News Serv., 248 U.S. at 236.
177 See id. at 239–40.
178 See id.
179 See id. at 245–46.
180 See id. at 232.
181 Id. at 239, 246.
182 Int’l News Serv., 248 U.S. at 240.
183 105 F.3d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1997). The Nat’l Basketball Ass’n court vacated a preliminary injunction because Motorola’s use of its own reporters to collect and transmit game information via pager to Motorola customers did not amount to misappropriation under Int’l News Serv. See id. at 854–55.
184 Id. at 845.
185 See id. at 854.
186 See id. at 853. Plaintiff developed a system of electronically relaying basketball game statistics to customers as the games were being played. See id. at 843–44.
187 See id. at 854.
188 See Int’l News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 229 (1918).
189 See id. at 241.
190 See id.
191 See id. at 239.
192 See id. at 240.
193 See id. Without using the term “free-riding,” the Court referred to this type of practice as “unauthorized interference with the normal operation of [a] legitimate business precisely at the point where the profit is to be reaped . . . .” Id.
194 See Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1997).
195 See id.
196 Merges, et al., supra note 175, at 36.
197 Id. at 35 (citing the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, with 1985 Amendments � 1(4)). Although no single definition applies in all jurisdictions, forty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the provisions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in some capacity. Id. at 34.
198 See Uniform Trade Secrets Act, � 1(4) (amended 1985).
199 See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000) (finding that manufacturer supplied information on automobile air bags was commercially valuable and thereby protected from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4).
200 Merges, et al., supra note 175, at 35–36.
201 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) (allowing courts to grant protective orders for trade secret or other confidential research information).
202 See id.
203 See Restatement of Torts � 757, comment b (1939).
204 See Merges, et al., supra note 175, at 45; See Metallurgical Indus., Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., 790 F.2d 1195, 1201 (5th Cir. 1986); Rywkin v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., No. 95 Civ. 10008, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9570, at *4–5 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 1999).
205 See Metallurgical Indus., Inc., 790 F.2d at 1201–02.
206 See id. at 1199.
207 Id. at 1201.
208 See id.
209 See id. at 1199–1200.
210 See id.
211 See Merges et al., supra note 175, at 65. This discussion is limited to situations involving improper means. For a court opinion dealing with breach of a confidential relationship, see Smith v. Dravo Corp., 203 F.2d 369, 373 (7th Cir. 1953).
212 See Merges et al., supra note 175, at 70.
213 E.I. duPont deNemours & Co., Inc. v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir. 1970) (citing Restatement of Torts � 757, comment f (1939)) (holding that aerial photography of construction of an industrial plant constituted improper means of obtaining a trade secret).
214 See Int’l News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 231 (1918).
215 See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition � 43 (1995) (defining improper means to include “theft, fraud, unauthorized interception of communications, inducement of or knowing participation in a breach of confidence, and other means either wrongful in themselves or wrongful under the circumstances of the case.”).
216 See Merges et al., supra note 175, at 34. Most states follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act which includes this requirement. See id.
217 See discussion supra Part III.B.1.
218 See Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 890, 901 (Minn. 1983) (finding that security measures are not per se required, but that the level of effort expended to maintain secrecy must be proportional to the level of industrial espionage expected in the plaintiff’s industry).
219 See id. at 893, 903.
220 Id. at 901–02.
221 Id. at 903. In addition, two of the plaintiff’s industrial plants held open houses where the public was allowed to view manufacturing processes. Id.; see also K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 506 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1974) (finding that limited tours of a ski manufacturing plant did not destroy secrecy because it was impossible to discover the secret during the tour).
222 Electro-Craft Corp., 332 N.W.2d at 903.
223 See id. at 902–03.
224 See discussion supra Part III.B.1. While a court would accord trade secret status to economically valuable scientific research performed by scientists in commercial industries, similar research performed by government scientists (and academicians) would not be protected under this doctrine because non-commercial information is outside the scope of trade secrets. See discussion supra Part III.B.
225 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
226 See, e.g., Rywkin v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., No. 95 Civ. 10008, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9570, at *6–8 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 1999) (granting discovery order for scientific research materials because requested information was relevant to plaintiff’s ability to prove discriminatory termination).
227 See discussion supra Part II.A.3.
228 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also discussion supra Part II.A.3.
229 See discussion supra Part II.A.1.
230 See discussion supra Part II.A.2.
231 Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 175 F.R.D. 321, 327–28 (D. Kan. 1997); see also discussion supra Parts II.A.1–2.
232 175 F.R.D. at 327–28.
233 See id. at 328.
234 Id.
235 See discussion supra Part II.A.3.b.
236 See discussion supra Part II.A.3.b.
237 Recall that the researcher’s privilege provides a weak claim for private scientists and a claim of unknown success for government scientists. See discussion supra Part II.A.3.b.
238 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.
239 See discussion supra Parts III.A–C.
240 See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(3)(A) (2000) (making government information available “upon any request for records” when certain descriptions are included within the request).
241 See discussion supra Part I.
242 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
243 See id.
244 See Forsham v. Califano, 587 F.2d 1128, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
245 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7).
246 See, e.g., Dow Chem. Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1273 (7th Cir. 1982).
247 See discussion supra Part III.A.
248 See discussion supra Part III.B.
249 See 5 U.S.C. � 552(b)(2000).
250 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.
251 See Allen, 672 F.2d at 1273.
252 See Lisa Malloy Nardini, Dishonoring the Honorarium Ban: Exemption for Federal Scientists, 45 Am. U. L. Rev. 885, 891, 900 (1996).
253 See id. at 900.
254 See Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); see also discussion supra Part II.
255 In the last ten years, the Court has decided only one FOIA case which specifically addressed Exemption 5. See Dep’t of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001) (finding that FOIA Exemption 5 did not protect water allocation documents generated by Indian tribes because the documents did not constitute internal agency memoranda).
256 See discussion supra Part II.B.
257 See, e.g., Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 256 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63, 67–68 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1988); see also discussion supra Part II.A.4.a.
258 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.b.
259 See generally Thomas O. McGarity, Substantive and Procedural Discretion in Administrative Resolution of Science Policy Questions: Regulating Carcinogens in EPA and OSHA, 67 Geo. L.J. 729 (1979).
260 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.c.
261 See discussion supra Part II.A.4.c.
262 See McGarity, supra note 259, at 740–47.
263 See Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Scientists Urge Bigger Supply of Stem Cells, N.Y. Times, Sept. 11, 2001, at A1.
264 See Nicholas Wade, U.S. Moves Toward Making Anthrax Vaccine Available, N.Y. Times, Oct. 27, 2001, at B7.
265 See Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Bush’s Advisers on Ethics Discuss Human Cloning, N.Y. Times, Jan. 18, 2002, at A18.