for records under for it the bureau of prisons withheld completely a video showing another indeed assaulting evans with a screwdriver and refused to search for records that could show how that screwdriver made it into the prison but it failed to provide various facts needed to establish that withholding or not searching for those records was lawful leaving the district court with a legally insufficient basis to greer's summary judgment s critical facts are missing from the record namely whether the cameras are hidden and whether footage from even one camera were disclosed but spots the three features on which the government relies aren't enough that the footage shows several different camera angles that it demonstrates the location of cameras and that it shows the field of view during the assault government's submission was then you're absolutely right about that but why isn't it on most self evident that the tape would show what the government what the prison camp can see and therefore would also think that's the when as this court actually said it in the campbell case where there is a question of this sort of about whether the record is sufficient the solution is record could either have been some supplemented by an adequate declaration that substantiated the threat or supervision it could also have been supplemented by the court reviewing the video we don't have the video the court didn't have the video and so we are entirely dependent on the bureau which does have the video to explain what can be seen here i point that perhaps chief judge powell could or should have looked at this more closely but on the other hand i mean there's a little bit of unfairness to her when we have very competent counsel on appeal coming in and making a set of arguments that weren't presented to her below when this issue was teed up to her  want the video for a specific purpose which can be controlled it doesn't need to be put out in the public can be privately viewed so she never had a chance to consider any of that the angle of the cameras in the field of view during the assault are true of all video cameras the consequence of affirming on that record is to categorically exempt prison surveillance video that means that video showing exactly if there are a concern to abide by that something that could be put in the record this is this visiting our friends are concerned about disclosing whether or not there are blind spots in the declaration i'm sorry he doesn't even reference i can see why they might want to say we greatest formulation in the seventy paragraphs you also have in paragraph ten and they say the video shows several different camera angles it seems a little bit closer responded to the assault so presumably there were guards either in or outside the dining hall and they were able to respond to the assault as i said i wanted to turn to say reality i want to make sure  to touch on that the government's other explanation for put fully with holding the entire video is that it can't blur the faces in the video and so must withhold all the footage under both exemption s said it after i think both of the seven c and f concerns would be addressed if you could lurk the images the only external assume that the concern is circumvention law enforcement circumvention that there are multiple camera angle showed i think one option as well would be to only show video from one of the cameras instead of for most of the cameras and then there would be knowledge that there were still other cameras it's not one of their tools it's not something they know anything about or any paperwork about and that's the end of that well so your honor i'm going to get into the weeds of what i think mr evans who i don't represent who i think what his theory is and why i think he would want an opportunity to develop the adequate search record on this issue the affidavit that was submitted in that litigation was from the tool office or the tool room office or mr evans the theory appears to  be that this is an accessory to maintenance or recreation equipment and it may be that person most familiar with meeting recreation equipment in the prison is not the tour of officer but is someone who manages the ma that the bureau agrees is wrong which is that requesting existing records in the form of question is still request for existing records and then let this other issue a search be developed factually below just back to the video  nd on the question of remedy you made a couple of references to things the district court might do on reaming and so would you be satisfied if we were to  set aside the district court opinion send it back and leave open for her the question of whether to ask the government for a more elaborate affidavit or view the video in camera or whatever as opposed to just an outright reversal which says turn over the video so i want to be careful how i answer your honor the because what we know from the video what we know from the record is that disclosure of the video will reveal multiple camera angles and the dying all we know because mr evans requested our response the videos  reason because the bureau surveillance system attempts to capture activity in the dining hall from multiple angles if we reveal multiple security angles even if it does not reveal a blind spot it would allow a inmate to direct their activity away declaration says that the videos would reveal the location of the cameras which indicates i believe that the cameras are not visible but what is what is really the concern and this is expressed in the declaration i'm sorry are not visible that's correct because it does say that it would reveal their location but what is really concerning this is expressed in the declaration was the concern is that revealing the area captured by the cameras would permit a inmate to modify their behavior to avoid detection and that doesn't necessarily have to be finding of lies about it could simply be directing activity away from the from the several camera angles that we've been revealed by rivers by releasing the democrats usually in this forum as well i'm sorry i don't usually guard those farmers it's kind of a about whether guards are there to where we do know that there were guards really how come really likely is that you're able to hide behind and may well be but i just don't know what the record is that shows someone can really circumvent detection under the standard under well i mean not just a camera on you you're in trouble as opposed to coverage is perfect well we certainly would know that at least if you're able to avoid three camera angles that's three less camera angles that the bureau has to investigate when you keep emphasizing a low bar and then you say let's rely on implicit stuff and read between lines that seems to really dilute your burton to virtually not book i don't need to do that all right do you think it's black and white in the declaration that this would reveal multiple camera angles that over what is when you have you have been in paragraph twenty one which is specific to around a little bit to find paragraph ten which is not specific to seventy but even if we give you that one that says the video shows several different camera of a little bit more but still a good bit less than what you say in your appellate brief which is areas under surveillance and even not doesn't have a lot of meat to it i think that is captured your honor in the last sentence of paragraph twenty one where it says that the release of this information could result in prisoners modifying criminal behavior to prevent detection detection and circumvention of the methods of law enforcement officers use to discover the existence of an investor gets on here just asserting the legal conclusion that we would then write in the opinion granting of holding a seventy exemption it sounds like right that's the legal test we do we need that the facts  therefore disclosing something will cause bad consequence cause them to avoid detection it's got to be a little more meat on the bones doesn't well i think the conclusion in the last part of twenty one there does have to be more meat on the bones than just making that conclusion crack if all we had was the well i think it flows naturally from the two that you read judge passes so we know that this would reveal multiple pretty camera angles right we also doesn't things that are just sort of noble of a parent we know that this is this is all of the cameras that capture this particular salt because we produce they included the information there are multiple camera angles we don't hear only that it would be all the camera angles that capture this assault and we know inherently from the nature of the video of the video footage it would be revealed both the angle and the outer boundaries captured by each of those that's really just showing one thing as far as i'm concerned not two things and then as you said these are your only got what you wish you collected in response to this fire request sensibly was only the video cameras that covered the show anything about the songs is there any assertion here that says that will disclose all the video cameras in this area know you're going to but i think to clear the test established by blackwell mayor brown we don't have to show that that the disclosure would not i mean seems like that should be the kind of thing that you have to explain if it's true well i think i mean i think it is an inherent in the nature of the video that would be revealed that would obviously but here's the whole of what he is or class number the rule for you is disclose the maximum that you can without revealing information that will disclose what you're concerned about the maximum sentence that he has to come in and say here's the minimum i want you have to disclose the maximum and anything you don't disclose you will have to justify as implicating this interest and if you see what happens as agencies go we can give you seventy percent and here's i think absolutely right think there's a big tip for a couple of cases number one is there's a big difference in the privacy that a person is someone not knowing that they are present in prison i think there is a there is a much deeper invasion of privacy so that the image of that they were these seventy plus people are going to be individually identifiable no you don't because i think it i think it's flows naturally that an image of a personal as that person we identify the image of that is it is the image of my back and inmate from their back perhaps because of body type perhaps because of the tattoo perhaps because of a haircut but yes an image of a person from anywhere and your argument as to why you can let's assume it's identifying all seventy people  are in the area actually identifying them to the public because i think the interest is identification of the public not to people who saw you there and already knew you were there right well sever here's the documents request and we can't turn any of the documents over because we don't have black markers you know certainly not very good you'd be expected to go spend some time and was not the money to buy the black marker shore the adobe nowadays or some of the some other means of where is it showing here that the acquisition of the technology needed to blur faces or block them out was not something readily available to be oki put your client's burden to put that in the record all that the record says is that and i think this meets the the requirement for a reason to detail tech aeration but it does say that they do not have that that would be the same thing we don't have any markers criminal activity associated with investigations that some witnesses on the outside maybe victims those types of cases where i've seen it is the privacy interests of just not being associated with this whole thing the government's doing which seems to me a little bit of a stretch to say that's going to go by people in prison but but again you are it's not just people in prison that there was an actual law enforcement situation captured by the video and that's why it's response there was an inmate only made assault there was officer a specific evidence showing that there that was in fact or that a reasonable person could afford a good four absolutely or is no families just different because this is a balancing test which the district court didn't do what you ha there had already been extensive disclosures how extensive studies extensive reports and it was in that context when someone said well i still don't believe it all i want to see it that the supreme court said you've got to hem up with interests that were identified correct and then what was asserted as a public interest on the other side was well i just i want to test i don't believe what the government's telling me that's my public interest i want to school i want i want to see that private information to show the government's not telling me the truth in the face of already substantial disclosures studies reports and investigations by the government here you're trying to say it's an upfront burden before we even asked we just record to do balance and there