Task: Text Completion
Input (English): That case dealt with whether the deletion of certain details before disclosure was proper under the PDA’s “unreasonable invasion of personal privacy” exception, former ROW 42.17.260(1) (1975); it too does not alter our analysis here. 14 The Washington PDA closely parallels FOIA, and when construing similar provisions, judicial interpretations of that act are helpful in construing the PDA. Hearst Corp., 90 Wn.2d at 128. See also Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 791. The Newspapers argue that, because the provisions of FOIA and the PDA do not differ as to the proposition that disclosure to some is the equivalent of disclosure to all, FOIA cases are helpful. But in fact, neither the PDA nor FOIA contains such a provision. 15 See, e.g. Naturalization Serv., 721 F. Supp. 552, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (<HOLDING>); Cooper v. Internal Revenue Serv., 450 F. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agency could not claim national security disclosure exemption where documents already released to the press (B) holding that documents concerning how to respond to ongoing inquiries from the press and congress about the entry of a government witness and mexican national into the united states fell under the deliberative process privilege (C) holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist (D) holding that unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption (E) holding the governments prior disclosure of requested information could not waive individuals privacy interests under exemption 6 and collecting cases involving exemption 7c
Output (English): (A)