United States District Court, District of Columbia. In re INTERESTED PARTY 1 and In re Interested Party 2, In the Matter of United States v. Qantas Airways Limited. Misc. No. 07-567(JDB). Jan. 9, 2008. Background: Employees of air carrier brought action challenging disclosure of their names in plea agreement reached by Department of Justice (DOJ) and carrier to resolve alleged criminal violations of the Sherman Act, which provided immunity for offenses described in the agreement for all of carrier's employees except for those employees identified by name. Employees applied for injunction enjoining the government from disclosing their names in the plea agreement, and requested temporary stay of any adverse decision pending appeal. Holdings: The District Court, John D. Bates, J., held that: (1) disclosure of employees names did not violate rule prohibiting disclosure of a matter occurring before the grand jury; (2) disclosure of employees names did not violate due process; (3) disclosure of employees names did not violate United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) directive; and (4) temporary stay pending appeal was not warranted. Ordered accordingly. West Headnotes Ill Injunction 212 9 212 Injunction 212I Nature and Grounds in General 2 I 2I(B) Grounds of Relief 212k9 k. Nature and Existence of Right Requiring Protection. Most Cited Cases The standard for granting a permanent injunction is much like the standard for a preliminary injunction, and requires consideration of the following factors: (1) success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) whether, balancing the hardships, there is harm to the respondent or other interested parties; and (4) whether the public interest supports granting the requested injunction. [21 Injunction 212 9 212 Injunction 212I Nature and Grounds in General 2 I 2I(B) Grounds of Relief 212k9 k. Nature and Existence of Right Requiring Protection. Most Cite