In 2013, in Public Citizen v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 975 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2013) (Pfizer I),  the court considered plaintiff’s efforts to obtain, pursuant to a FOIA request, various materials two pharmaceutical companies had submitted to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services.  The submissions were made in accordance with corporate integrity agreements executed to resolve allegations of illegal off-label promotion of drugs.  The court found certain types of records exempt from disclosure, but left open other types of records as to which it sought more briefing.  The court has now ruled on those other types of records.  Public Citizen v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 66 F. Supp. 3d 196 (D.D.C. 2014) (Pfizer II).  In Pfizer II, the court found the additional records to be exempt.  Those records which were found to be exempt include: Reportable Event summaries, which describe basic business operations and techniques, including internal training exercises and promotional activities; Disclosure Log summaries, which describe interactions with customers, compensation and discipline of employees, and details about internal investigations and the conduct of the company’s compliance program; documents relating to detailing sessions with customers; and documents relating to screening for ineligible persons.   The court found that these materials fell within FOIA’s Exemption 4, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), protecting records that are “commercial” and “confidential.”  The court found that these documents would provide “a free roadmap as to what works in pharmaceutical marketing without violating the legal framework of regulatory enforcement and laws that govern the industry, and what activities to avoid, and release of this roadmap would allow competitors to avoid incurring the experiential or monitoring costs Pfizer and Purdue did in gaining the information.”  The court rejected arguments by plaintiff that Exemption 4 cannot apply where the records may pertain to illegal activity and that there is no “competitive market for information about suspected or confirmed unlawful policies and practices.”  The court noted the highly regulated and nuanced environment in which the companies operate, and reiterated its holding in Pfizer I, that “the overall commercial nature of an undertaking is not altered when some aspect of that activity is suspected to constitute, or actually results in, a violation of a rule, regulation or statutory requirement.”