discovered that the energy company does not have “the universe of documents that were exchanged between it and [McGraw-Hill].” App.’s Mot. at 19. One office of the energy company is missing the trade report from September 2005; some reports omit the year the trades were executed; and McGraw-Hill’s receipt of the trade reports exactly as submitted by the energy company can only be confirmed by the reports in McGraw-Hill’s possession. Id. at 20; App.’s Reply at 18; see Whitney, 441 F.Supp.2d at 69 (finding that the documents are necessary to “confirm not only that [they were] transmitted, but also that [they were] received and used by [McGraw-Hill]”). Moreover, only McGraw-Hill’s records can confirm the submission procedures and price index formulas used to publish Inside FERC. See id. (<HOLDING>). The court certifies that the Commission’s
holding that a person violates  10b and rule 10b5 when he misappropriates confidential information  in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information holding that mcgrawhill is the only source of the information contained in the instructions and formulas for the inside ferc price index holding that in the absence of public disclosure the court need not address whether relator was original source of the information holding that it was clearly permissible for the district court to condition the reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the defendants willingness to provide information identifying the drug source holding that not all subsequent profits are subject to disgorgement only those based upon the price of the stock a reasonable time after public dissemination of the inside information