You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,

                       Plaintiff,

                       v.                         Case No. 17-cv-0916 (CRC)

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

                       Defendant.

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This case involves another request made under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)

for documents concerning the infamous “Trump Dossier,” a “collection of memoranda prepared

by former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential election

concerning then-candidate Donald J. Trump.” James Madison Project v. Dep’t of Justice, 2018

WL 294530, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2018), appeal docketed (Jan. 25, 2018). Judicial Watch, Inc.

submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for documents related to the

FBI’s relationship with Mr. Steele. When the FBI failed to timely respond, Judicial Watch filed

suit. The FBI ultimately refused to confirm or deny the existence of any such documents, issuing

a so-called “Glomar response.” Both parties have now moved for summary judgment. Because

the FBI’s Glomar response was proper and Judicial Watch has failed to carry its burden to show

public acknowledgment of the requested documents, the Court will grant the Department’s

motion and deny Judicial Watch’s.

 I.    Background

       As reported extensively by the media, during the 2016 election former British

intelligence operative Christopher Steele compiled a 35-page dossier on then-candidate Donald

Trump. James Madison Project, 2018 WL 294530, at *1. The dossier allegedly includes
“allegations that the government of Russia possesses compromising personal and financial

information about President Trump.” Id. The question of who commissioned and paid for the

Trump Dossier has been a subject of much contention in media and political circles.

         On February 28, 2017, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had once intended to

pay Steele to continue looking into ties between then-candidate Trump and the Russian

government.1 The story concluded that the FBI did not pay Steele and noted that the FBI

declined to comment on the report. Eight days later, on March 8, 2017, plaintiff Judicial Watch,

Inc. filed a FOIA request with the FBI seeking three categories of documents related to the Post

story:

         1. Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or
            representative of the FBI and Steele.

         2. Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the proposed, planned,
            or actual payment of any funds to Steele and/or his company Orbis Business
            Intelligence.

         3. Any and all records produced in preparation for, during, or pursuant to any
            meetings or telephonic conversations between any official, employee, or
            representative of the FBI and Steele and/or any employee or representative of
            his company Orbis Business Intelligence.

Hardy Decl. Ex. A, at 1.

         When the FBI failed to respond to this request in a timely fashion, Judicial Watch filed

suit under FOIA against the Department of Justice, the parent agency of the FBI. See Compl.

¶¶ 7, 11. That same day, on May 16, 2017, the FBI issued a letter that asserted a Glomar




         1
         See Tom Hamburger & Rosalind S. Helderman, FBI Once Planned to Pay Former
British Spy who Authored Controversial Trump Dossier, Wash. Post (Feb. 28, 2017),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-once-planned-to-pay-former-british-spy-who-
authored-controversial-trump-dossier/2017/02/28/896ab470-facc-11e6-9845-
576c69081518_story.html?utm_term=.db8d68d38f3c.

                                                  2
response to Judicial Watch’s request, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive

documents on the basis of six separate FOIA exemptions. Hardy Decl. Ex. C, at 1. The parties

subsequently filed briefs for summary judgment.

  II.   Legal Standard

        Congress enacted FOIA “to promote the ‘broad disclosure of Government records’ by

generally requiring federal agencies to make their records available to the public on request.”

DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). But Congress also

recognized that legitimate governmental and privacy interests could be harmed by the release of

documents and thus carved out nine exemptions from FOIA’s reach. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

These exemptions are to be narrowly construed, and the agency has the burden of justifying any

withholding it makes. DiBacco, 795 F.3d at 183–84.

        The courts have also recognized that “[i]n certain cases, merely acknowledging the

existence of” records responsive to a FOIA request “would itself ‘cause harm cognizable under

[a] FOIA exception.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. NIH (“PETA”), 745 F.3d

535, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted) (second alteration in original). When such situations

arise, an agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records by

issuing what is known as a “Glomar response.” Id.2 A Glomar response is appropriate “if the

fact of the existence or nonexistence of agency records falls within a FOIA exception.” Id.

(citation omitted). In assessing the validity of a Glomar response, the Court can rely on agency

affidavits. Id.




        2
        This name is derived from the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny records related to the
Hughes Glomar Explorer, a ship used in a classified CIA project to raise a sunken Soviet
submarine for U.S. intelligence analysis. PETA, 745 F.3d at 540.

                                                 3
       An agency may not issue a Glomar response, however, if it has already publicly

acknowledged the existence of the records sought. American Civil Liberties Union v. CIA

(“ACLU”), 710 F.3d 422, 427 (D.C. Cir. 2013). A plaintiff bears the burden of proving such

public acknowledgment. Id. To meet this burden, a plaintiff in a Glomar case “must pinpoint an

agency record that both matches the plaintiff’s request and has been publicly and officially

acknowledged by the agency.” Moore v. CIA, 666 F.3d 1330, 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see also

James Madison Project, 2018 WL 294530, at **5–6 (continuing to apply this specificity

requirement after the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACLU).

 III. Analysis

       The FBI has asserted six separate FOIA exemptions that it contends justifies its Glomar

response.3 Judicial Watch does not challenge the applicability of any of these exemptions,

except for a brief argument that the Department has failed to “demonstrate the production of the

records could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.” Pl.’s

Mem. P. & A. Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.’s MSJ”) at 5. Even if that were so, at least

three of the six exemptions asserted—Exemptions 1, 3, and 6—do not require that the release of

documents would interfere with ongoing investigations. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), (3), (6). In




       3
         The six exemptions are: Exemption 1 (which protects classified documents), Exemption
3 (which protects documents exempted from disclosure by certain statutes), Exemption 6 (which
protects personnel and similar files whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy), Exemption 7(A) (which protects law enforcement records whose disclosure
would interfere in an ongoing enforcement proceeding), Exemption 7(C) (which protects law
enforcement records whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy), and Exemption 7(D) (which protects law enforcement records whose disclosure could
be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source). Hardy Decl. ¶ 14; see 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(b).

                                                4
any event, the Department has provided a detailed affidavit from an FBI employee that

sufficiently justifies all of the asserted exemptions. See generally Hardy Decl.

       Instead, Judicial Watch mainly argues that the FBI has publicly acknowledged the

requested records’ existence, thereby defeating its Glomar response. Pl.’s MSJ at 3–5. As

evidence of public acknowledgment, Judicial Watch points exclusively to an October 21, 2017

tweet from President Trump’s personal Twitter account that reads: “Officials behind the now

discredited ‘Dossier’ plead the Fifth. Justice Department and/or FBI should immediately release

who paid for it.” Pl.’s MSJ at 4. Judicial Watch argues that this tweet acknowledged the

existence of records responsive to its FOIA request. Id. at 4–5.4

       As noted, a plaintiff must “pinpoint an agency record that both matches the plaintiff’s

request and has been publicly and officially acknowledged by the agency.” Moore, 666 F.3d at

1333. Clearly, this tweet does not publicly and officially acknowledge the existence of any

documents related to the first and third parts of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request—which sought

records of communication between the FBI and Mr. Steele and records produced in preparation

for any meetings or conversations between the FBI and Mr. Steele, see Hardy Decl. Ex. A. The

tweet makes no reference to any meetings or communications between the FBI and Steele. As

such, it does not constitute a public acknowledgment of the existence of any documents within

the scope of the first and third parts of Judicial Watch’s request.

       Nor does it constitute an official acknowledgment of any documents within the scope of

the second part of Judicial Watch’s request, which seeks documents related to “the proposed,



       4
         While the public acknowledgment must come from the specific agency the FOIA
request is made to, the D.C. Circuit has stated that an acknowledgment of records’ existence by a
parent agency—such as the President as head of the Executive Branch—is imputed to its
component agencies. See ACLU, 710 F.3d at 429 n.7.

                                                  5
planned, or actual payment of any funds to Mr. Steel and/or Orbis Business Intelligence,” Hardy

Decl. Ex. A, at 1. Given the Washington Post story that inspired Judicial Watch’s FOIA request,

the FBI has consistently and reasonably interpreted that request as seeking documents related to

payments by the FBI to Mr. Steel or his company. See Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 19–21, 41; Def.’s Mem.

P. & A. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 7–8; Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Pl.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J. at 4–5.

Judicial Watch has never contested this characterization of its FOIA request before the FBI or in

this Court. While the President’s tweet could arguably suggest that the FBI has some records

concerning who paid for the Trump Dossier, it does not acknowledge that there are records that

the FBI paid for it. Because Judicial Watch must point to a public acknowledgment of the

specific records it seeks, see, e.g., Moore, 666 F.3d at 1333, this tweet is insufficient to constitute

public acknowledgment.

       Since there has been no public acknowledgment of the existence of any specific records

responsive to Judicial Watch’s request (as reasonably construed by the FBI), the FBI’s assertion

of a Glomar response was appropriate in this case. The Court will therefore grant the

Department’s motion for summary judgment and deny Judicial Watch’s cross motion. A

separate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.




                                                               CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                               United States District Judge

Date: February 5, 2018




                                                  6