With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for summary judgment. Without acting on appellants’ request for oral argument, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Customs. See Memorandum at 10, reprinted in App. 280. The trial court determined that Customs, by the submission of detailed affidavits, had carried its burden and demonstrated that the release of the HTS numbers, when linked by an entry number to a specific shipment of goods, presented a threat to the competitive position of the importers who provide this information. See id. The court also determined that the isolated release of HTS numbers in the past by various Customs field offices did not affect the disposition of the instant case. See id. at 9, reprinted in App. 279 (citing Medina-Hincapie v. Department of State, 700 F.2d 737, 742 n. 20 (D.C.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>)). This appeal followed. II. Analysis A. FOIA

A: holding that the work product doctrine applied to a document prepared in anticipation of litigation and was therefore protected from disclosure under foia exemption 5
B: holding that the government must provide the party seeking disclosure with a detailed index describing the documents the government claims are exempt from disclosure under foia
C: holding that the government cannot waive foia exemption 6 on behalf of the individual whose privacy interests the exemption protects
D: holding that unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption
D.