mistaken belief infected every aspect of its response to lewis's for your question new explains why things sen has improperly asserted exemption five claims over for example minutes of meetings with its foreign counterparts when the law is clear that those minutes would be factual in nature and not privilege it casts further doubt upon finn's earns a claim under exemption seventy eight dollars that its production of any withheld information could reasonably reasonably be expected to interfere with unidentified foreign proceedings and it certainly calls into question the credibility if insense  claim under exemption seventy that it withheld documents in full soley to protect the identities of confidential informants in along similar lines its misunderstanding of its  a new shepherd ability review was required based upon a proper understanding of its obligations and that is the situation we have here with finn since burden on summary judgment to demonstrate that there were no material facts in dispute and no contradictory evidence in the record since and not meet that burden with respect to any of its claimed exemptions just it just illustrate how the various exemptions have been respect to exemption five all it tells us is that exemption is a pleasurable because the background material discusses ongoing future agency action related to b p a well there's no category of described as the exchange of information with foreign government agencies which it tells us as it is exempt from the reason stated in the elk indeed operation but my st observations at the index doesn't even say that the records and this is a quote concern issues related to pending proceedings involving b p a in a quote that because that's a boilerplate description offense and used in seventeen other concerned issues related to ending proceedings secondly all the l hindi declaration tells us is that the documents relate to b p a and that there are ongoing investigations of proceedings concerning that the circumstances characteristically support an inference that disclosure would interfere with a pending enforcement proceeding because the threshold issue before you can to get to a is some showing that the information in the documents is even relevant to the ongoing proceeding and so for example and in crew it was it was a wide ranging multifaceted investigation arising out of the average scandal and then you had a request for documents concerning tom de lay in the government said well wait the princeton has taken here doesn't do that because all they say is that what the declaration not say that there is ongoing investigations it says there are ongoing investigations but it provides no description of them and all it says is that they relate to b p a well what issues what types of investigations what it what information is in the documents that is relevant to whatever ongoing investigation there may be because if you go back to  example the rule making procedure they would talk about all different types of wrongdoing in different parts of the world and so on and there has to be some linkage that  in this maybe the withheld information is relevant to that maybe it's not there's no underlying showing of relevance with when they refused to provide any information about the proceedings or about the documents exceptionally two black boxes and you have one box says the documents one box has some unidentified proceedings we can see into the boxes the court can see into the boxes and there's no way of evaluating the actual degree of because there's no linkage between the in the withheld information and the proceeding and  especially acute issue here because you know in the typical case that was discussed in crew for example the agency is actually the same agency that's conducting the investigation and here there's no indication that finns and even best efficient knowledge about the specifics of these investigations should be able to conclude reasonably conclude or enable this court to conclude that yeah the release of this informants who have expressed the requested confidential treatment of their information well that's not a basis for withholding under seven date events and is only allowed to withhold information that would reveal the identity of the confidential source in this index entry makes no such claim with respect to those records all it says is that we're withholding it because the sources requested us to s nd drive seventy one for the for the proposition that as long as you can demonstrate that the information was provided in confidence then both the identity of the source and the information he or she provided will be immune from disclosure and then in opposition lewis pointed out that vinson was misreading dow jones because dow jones was was a case involving the nd prong of the confidential source now even on that issue it it says that information is often singular in nature that's why would it would reveal the s but doesn't say it's always singular in nature and there's no indication that the information that's reflected in this briefing paper is information that  singular in nature and to the senate's not entitled to it unless some other exemption applies in the same this is just an illustration the same issues arise throughout the  seventy eight purposes in the emails do contain information which if disclosed could be said you know expected to interfere with ongoing proceedings that are pending now that inference seems you know specially attenuate if when you're i would suggest that you should require a fence and to go back review all of the withheld records with a correct understanding of its foyer obligations redo it severed ability analysis based aside segregate military for a moment if the court concludes that either exemption a or exemption d c was properly invoked in this case the court does not need to reach any other issue plaintiffs does not challenge other bases for withholding such as exemption seven or the attorney client privilege under the action five and these protections together with either exemption a seven day or seventy cover all of the documents that issue in this case except for one record which plaintiff addresses in but that five of his opening bri confidential source and the planet doesn't challenge whether or not these sources qualify as confidential sources i don't think that's an argument that's really preserved in a case and sense that their actions explain that because the information of financial intelligence units who joined together for a long foresman efforts to combat international money laundering and they only agreed to provide information to each other subject to an explicit agreement of appendix limits talks about the scope of the holdings and particularly in paragraph sixty of this page of the joint appendix it explains that you know often that confidential sources here are for a financial intelligence unit and it says that the information exchanged is so closely tied to these four interest expense and their sources that revealing even the substance of the information exchange would reveal the identities of the sources so for example in a more typical case if the confidential for earth is like an individual providing information let's say to the f b i if the information is something like you know there are illegal drugs path that kind of information is not so closely tied to the source like it could have been a number of individuals who say that but here in this you know fairly unique situation where the confidential sources often a foreign agency or for law enforcement authority and they private provided information that something like you know at this particular financial institution in this particular is providing its information so that would reveal the confidential source documents within a group that are not  and the government hasn't indicated that they are not such documents what is your response to that charge so i would point to the courts he'll page from one british make clear that that specific records in this case are related to the particular ongoing long foresman proceedings so we're not just saying that you know  correct your honor if all of the documents at issue are related to the particular ongoing proceeding and fence and its expert judgment has said that release of these  declarations by the government we would not find the district courts or would we refusal to conduct it camera spec and abuse of discretion i'm trying to understand and it must be that in those other cases d there simply was a this kind of search and by the government that's what i'm trying to be clear about your honor where was the government has submitted sworn dr a friends explain that there is an ongoing on a force an investigation are proceeding and that the documents to issue are related to that specific ongoing law enforcement investigation or procedure and and disclosure but interfere with that the court provides a presumption of good faith to the government declare ends and it defers to the agency is prediction of the harm that would occur and this court is also sad that the decision about whether to conduct in camera reveal is left to the broad discretion of the district court and here i think the district court explained its reasonings for not doing and can reveal and there is no reason launderers who are involved in organized crime corruption and smuggling and fraud that's right if there's no case law that says we have to provide any further details about these investigations and  at this court in boyd rejected basically this argument in boise but that's an important point that it's not just paragraph twenty but it's looking at the record that is available and we have this rule making so that program twenty have understood in that context yes that's that's correct your honor would emphasize that exceptions of an essay is intended to protect the integrity of the investigations and that the government is not required to provide specific details about who the targets are and who is being investigated as i could interfere with the investigation this court addressed incur not in boy boy lloyd was what crew called the typical case where you have been in a proceeding and you have the agency that's conducting the proceeding that's not what's going on here if you go look at the three hundred and eleven rule making and then see how many different aspects there are to it in different people involved i think the logical question would be to ask ok now tell me not always what often could reveal their identities so the the issue here isn't whether the sources are confidential the issue is whether it's sufficient that they asked for the confidential treatment of their information even if the information would not reveal there's their identity and that is what sin sent is doing here because it