205, Will County, Illinois, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). Under Pickering, we generally balance "the interest of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." Id. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731; Fazio, 125 F.3d at 1331. 19 . 272 F.3d 1114, 1131-32 (9th Cir.2001). 20 . Id. at 1131 (quoting Biggs, 189 F.3d at 994-95). 21 . Id. at 1132. 22 . Id. at 1131. 23 . Id. at 1132. 24 . Id. 25 . Id. (citing United States v. City of Spokane, 918 F.2d 84, 86 (9th Cir.1990)). 26 . Branti, 445 U.S. at 518, 100 S.Ct. 1287. 27 .Id. at 519, 100 S.Ct. 1287; see also Vazquez Rios v. Hernandez Colon, 819 F.2d 319, 324-26 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 28 . Fazio, 125 F.3d at 1333 (alteration in
holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential holding that confidential business information is property protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes holding that access to confidential information didnt transform janitorial staff into confidential employees under branti holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information holding that presumption of access to and knowledge of confidential information between attorney and former client notwithstanding attorneys declarations to the contrary may not be rebutted