not argued that either Estrella's own privacy interests or the Sablans' privacy interests are implicated. 6 . Many of the other cases on which PLN relies for its argument that the public domain doctrine should apply here, including decisions of this court, are inapposite. Rather than concluding records are exempt but under the public domain doctrine must be released anyway, those cases recognize that in some circumstances the public availability of information renders the exemption inapplicable at the outset. See, e.g., Trentadue v. Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1236 (10th Cir. 2007) (concluding there was no privacy interest in certain readily available information and the records therefore did not fall within Exemption 7(C)); Herrick v. Garvey, 298 F.3d 1184, 1193-94 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential recognizing medical records contain the same protected confidential information as a physicians direct testimony about the communications 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 foia exemption 4 did not apply because agency did not meet burden of showing that desired information consisted of trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or confidential