coerce, or rob employees.”). Plaintiffs do not present any evidence from which the Court could infer that the risk of misuse of this information or unauthorized disclosure by the Union or its agents is even likely, let alone “certain” or “great.” This sort of speculative injury cannot form the basis for granting emergency injunctive relief. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (“Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”); see also Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Technomedia Int’l, Inc., 699 F. & n. 2 (Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>); Tribune-Review Publ’g Co. v. Bodack, 599 Pa.
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 holding proponent of a motion for continuance should state what specific discovery is material and show why it is material holding that such information is not material under securities law holding that disclosure during discovery of certain kinds of information including privileged material trade secrets attorney work product or material involving a confidential informant could constitute a material injury of an irreparable nature holding that purely factual material may be withheld from disclosure under exemption 5 if that material would expose the deliberative process of an agency