With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 499 U.S. at 362, 111 S.Ct. at 1296. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the selection process used to prepare Mid America’s Title Commitment No. 125266 fails to meet this minimal level of creativity. Selecting which facts to include in this compilation of data was not a matter of discretion based on Mid America’s personal judgment or taste, but instead it was a matter of convention and strict industry standards. As the affidavits introduced by Kirk suggest, all title examiners preparing a proper title commitment for the Frankfort property would have referred to the same sources of information and ultimately would have selected the same facts to include in their title commitments. See Victor Lalli Enterprises v. Big Red Apple, Inc., 936 F.2d 671, 672 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In essence, Mid America’s selection of the

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 betting charts are not sufficiently original to merit copyright protection because ujnless a publisher were to make a mistake the information in the charts does not vary in the slightest as between publishers and is derived from commonly ascertainable sources
C: holding that confidential sources need not be named provided they are described in the complaint with sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied by the source would possess the information alleged
D: holding that the right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments
B.