258, 265-66 (D.D.C.2010) (finding that movant had failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if its trade secrets were not immediately ordered returned to it because movant had offered nothing to indicate that the non-movant was “unwilling or unable to protect whatever secrets it still has until this case is decided”). Plaintiffs also appear to claim that the very fact of the disclosure of the employee information to the Union will cause the employee plaintiffs irreparable harm, but the cases they rely upon do not stand for the proposition that the disclosure of private contact information automatically constitutes irreparable injury. See Pl.’s Mem. at 12, citing U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 501-02, 114 S.Ct. 1006, 127 L.Ed.2d 325 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91,
holding that individual has privacy interest in medical information including diagnosis holding that even if a particular privacy interest is minor nondisclosure remains justified where  the public interest in disclosure is virtually nonexistent holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act recognizing as a privacy right the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters