Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Impact Statements and forest plans were at least partially privileged. The Court reached this decision only after the forest service had already released redacted copies of the drafts and after the withheld Information had been reviewed in camera. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d at 1115-6. In summarizing the D.C. Circuit’s approach to the deliberative process privilege, however, the Ninth Circuit quoted the D.C. Circuit’s broad statement that the deliberative process privilege “cover[s] all ‘recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions and other subjective doc will not reveal the mental processes of the agency, however, the Ninth Circuit has explicitly rejected the argument that whatever is not the “final agency position” must be deliberative. See Carter, 307 F.3d at 1092 (<HOLDING>) (citing Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that release discharges only persons named in or sufficiently described by terms of release (B) holding that where a foia plaintiff seeks sensitive foreignaffairs information the court should give substantial weight to a government affidavit that the information is exempt from foia but nevertheless consider contrary evidence presented by the plaintiff (C) holding that foia compelled the department of commerce to release census data that adjusted for systemic undercounts and stating any concerns with public confusion caused by release of erroneous information could be allayed by warning foia requesters that the information is unofficial and disclaiming responsibility for any errors or gaps (D) holding that when a plaintiff has no pending foia request with an agency and has not averred that he intends to make foia requests to the agency in the future any claim of future injury is simply too speculative and remote to give him standing (E) holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents
Output (English): holding that when a plaintiff has no pending foia request with an agency and has not averred that he intends to make foia requests to the agency in the future any claim of future injury is simply too speculative and remote to give him standing