Opinion ID: 1027758
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inter-agency or intra-agency Documents

Text: R & HW contend the Agencies improperly withheld or redacted documents that are not inter-agency or intraagency documents, as required to claim Exemption 5. Cf. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Although Exemption 5's inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letter requirements is not disputed as often, it is no less important than Exemption 5's other requirements. Klamath, 532 U.S. at 9, 121 S.Ct. 1060. Among the documents R & HW identify in support of this inter-agency, intra-agency argument are the at least 334 documents that do not identify the author or recipient. We do not address the merits of Exemption 5 as to those entries because we have already determined that those entries were factually inadequate to reach that issue, supra section III.B.1. We have reviewed the three remaining document entries on the Vaughn index and the redacted versions of the documents that R & HW challenge on this basis and find their contentions to be without merit. [27] Although Document 568 indicates that someone at the Department of Justice (DOJ) was in communication with an RIM attorney, the contents of the e-mail discussion do not support R & HW's assertion that the redacted information in the e-mails was ever communicated to anyone outside the USPTO. (J.A. 1042-43.) Similarly, there is no evidence that the redacted material in Documents 618 or 619, which consist of e-mail discussions between USPTO employees, contains information originating from or communicated to RIM attorneys. (J.A. 1053-57.) The district court did not err in granting summary judgment as to these three entries.