With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Corp., 33 F.3d at 1113). The Department at least created a genuine issue of fact as to whether most of its redactions qualified for Exemption 4. The Department submitted a declaration from Sikorsky’s director of supply management (1) identifying the entities with which Sikorsky competes for government defense contracts and (2) averring that those entities coüld use the redacted information to gain a significant competitive advantage over Sikorsky. Nothing more is required to gain protection from disclosure under Exemption 4, and the district court erred in ruling otherwise. See G.C. Micro Corp., 33 F.3d at 1111 (indicating that information similar to the redacted information here would be subject to Exemption 4); Bowen v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 925 F.2d 1225, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). 2. The Department also created a genuine

A: holding that it was impossible for the court to say that the information met the definition of a trade secret because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the information derived economic value from an element of secrecy that is known only to plaintiff and its employees
B: holding that an affidavit with the following description of sensitive information was sufficiently specific to trigger exemption 4 trade secret information regarding the manufacturing formulas arid processes as well as quality control and internal security measures of private business eritities
C: holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a violation of the fcra based on extraneous information where it was alleged that the document included broad language regarding disclosure of the information the accuracy of the information the consequences of providing a false statement and the effect of a photocopy
D: holding that contact list based on inter alia information that was publicly available did not qualify as trade secret
B.