I understand your position but I disagree. If I were trying to predict whether the government is going to win in court, I think reading what the government's own lawyers think about the case would be valuable. If it were possible to pay for this I think people would, that's why I think it is material. Some random person's opinion is not relevant information, but the opinion of people directly involved in a case is.

The non-publicly known strategy they intend to use in court is “information”

Is a lawyer working on a case allowed to short the stock of his client?

Why not?

(Hint: it creates a perverse incentive to see your side lose the legal argument for your own personal gain.)

And in this case, it's the actual secretary doing it. Who has significant influence on the outcome of the case (largely in the negative - nothing he can do can make the government more likely to win it, but stuff he did has the capacity to make the government more likely to lose it.)

The Lebowski conjecture.