Opinion ID: 737484
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government's Alleged Failure To Carry Its Burden of Proof

Text: 13 Audubon argues that the Forest Service has failed to carry its statutory burden of proof that the redacted materials fall within the scope of exemption 5. The Forest Service does not counter this argument directly but emphasizes that the district court engaged in its own in camera review of the redacted materials and therefore had an adequate factual basis on which to conclude that they were exempt. Although an agency may not satisfy its burden of proof simply by producing the withheld materials for in camera review, 2 we conclude that the Forest Service has met its burden through the introduction of the materials that were adduced in open court. Indeed, we doubt that the agency could have introduced further proof without revealing the actual contents of the withheld materials. 14 The Thomas declaration clearly explains the purpose and nature of Dr. Jahn's report. The record indicates that the Forest Service furnished appellants with not only the redacted documents, but also a copy of the allegations in response to which both the report and letter were prepared. Even in redacted form, the report and letter detail the substance and background of each allegation, and in many instances, the subjective conclusions of the authors remain discernible. Because the nature and subject matter of the withheld materials were entirely clear to appellants as well as to the district court, we turn to the merits. 3