how (absent the submission of false prices) the energy company manipulated — that is, corrupted rather than just affected — the price index, is also inapposite. It does not rebut the Commission’s argument that the Commission must, to carry its case against the energy company, demonstrate the latter’s ability to influence the natural gas prices through submission to Inside FERC. McGraw-Hill’s argument is, furthermore, confused because it appears to assert that the Commission must first establish how the trades, manipulated (corrupted) prices before demonstrating how the trades affected prices at all through their publication in Inside FERC. Sequential submission of proof of the elements of a violation is not, however, a condition of establishing the need for information. See id. (<HOLDING>). The court notes that this conclusion accords
recognizing a qualified privilege for confidential sources in a libel suit recognizing a libel plaintiffs need for documents to prove both falseness of statements and malice holding that when a plaintiff attaches documents to her complaint containing statements by the defendant that conflict with the plaintiffs allegations the plaintiff is not required to adopt every word in the documents as true holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist holding that producing party need only make requested documents available for inspection and need not pay for copying costs