However, contrary to DOJ’s understanding, the agreements provide that confidential documents are those that contained “proprietary or trade secret information.” (Emphasis added.) That is, the agreements provide for protection of “proprietary” information beyond “trade secrets.” Thus, DOJ’s contention that the agreements obligate it to apply only the OPRL exemptions related to trade secrets is unavailing.
The success of [DOJ’s] syllogism depends on the correctness of DOJ’s predicate premise that the exhibits are nothing more than examples of conduct described in the publicly available documents to which it refers. . . . [W]e conclude that that premise is incorrect as to the great majority of the exhibits.. . .Even as redacted, those exhibits reveal more than generic examples of conduct. In other words, the specific, underlying details in those exhibits have not been revealed by the publicly available sources on which DOJ relies–and it is that underlying detail that Pfizer contends is a trade secret. Accordingly, . . . we reject DOJ’s contention that the “information had already been made public or that similar information was readily available.”