Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Problem:cannot conclude based on the information in the record that the CIA's search fulfilled these requirements as to item 6. The Koch Declaration explains that the CIA's Public Information Programs Division "manages the processing of FOIA requests, including any assessment of fees associated with FOIA requests," so the administrative files of that division are "most reasonably likely to contain documents or information pertaining to the assessment of fees associated with Hall's requests." Koch Deck 32. But the Declaration does not state that other divisions, such as those that performed searches, are unlikely to have any records related to Hall's requests or the Agency's fee assessments. Such a statement is necessary to determine that a search was reasonable. See Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68 (<HOLDING>). Therefore the Court denies summary judgment
Holding statements: (A) holding that reasonably detailed affidavits or declarations must set forth the search terms and the type of search performed and avert that all files likely to contain responsive materials if such records exist were searched (B) holding that the agency did not have an obligation to search for and produce the documents the plaintiff claimed entitlement to because the plaintiffs foia request gave no indication that she sought those particular documents (C) holding that the sanction the agency imposed was not rationally arrived at on this record and was wholly disproportionate to the error petitioner committed where inter alia the agency did not explain why it had not taken the same position in similar circumstances in the past (D) holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist (E) holding that summary judg ment was not appropriate where the agency limited its search to one record system without making clear that the single system was the only possible place that responsive records are likely to be located and stating that at the very least the agency was required to explain in its affidavit that no other record system was likely to produce responsive documents
Solution:
(E)