Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): be granted. However, the motion may not be granted in full because the Court, upon its in camera review of the disputed documents, has discovered a few minor instances where disclosure is required. As discussed above, under the exception for official disclosure, the Government waives the right to withhold information if: (1) “the information requested [is] as specific as the information previously released”; (2) “the information requested [matches] the information previously disclosed”; and (3) “the information requested [was] already ... made public through an official and documented disclosure.” Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 765. A disclosure is official “when the agency responsible for protecting the information discloses it.” Wilson v. McConnell, 501 F.Supp.2d 545, 559 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>). See also Frugone v. CIA, 169 F.3d 772, 774 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district court need not inquire into the veracity of a classified affidavit unless the information it provides is insufficient or contradicted by the record or there is evidence of bad faith on behalf of the agency (B) holding that in a military criminal trial the governments use of classified information without permitting the defendant or his lawyers to view the information did not violate the defendants due process rights (C) holding that order mandating disclosure of classified information to habeas petitioners counsel was an important issue entirely separate from the merits of this case (D) holding that in a designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 aedpa the governments use of classified information without permitting the organization to view the information did not violate the organizations due process rights (E) holding that a congressional publication of classified cia information does not bind the cia
Output (English): holding that in a military criminal trial the governments use of classified information without permitting the defendant or his lawyers to view the information did not violate the defendants due process rights