been ... and it need not be.” Id. 594 F.2d at 488. Similarly, a District of Columbia district court has established a legal standard for waiver of further confidential treatment of an exempt document that requires that the requester demonstrate “that the withheld information has already been specifically revealed to the public and that it appears to duplicate that being withheld.” United States Student Ass’n v. CIA, 620 F.Supp. 565 (D.D.C.1985) (emphasis added); see Dow, Lohnes & Albertson v. Presidential Comm’n, 624 F.Supp. 572 (D.D.C.1984). This standard has been affirmed generally by the D.C. Circuit. See Afshar v. Department of State, 702 F.2d 1125, 1133 (D.C.Cir.1983). Other courts have reached similar conclusions. See Stein v. Dep’t of Justice, 662 F.2d 1245, 1259 (7th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Nissen Foods, Co. v. NLRB, 540 F.Supp. 584,
recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents recognizing a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents holding that by exercising its discretion to make public some classified documents the government does not waive any right it has to withhold other properly classified documents of a similar nature holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint