Opinion ID: 1237924
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BALLISTIC and BREAKUP Programs

Text: Lahr made two kinds of requests relating to the BALLISTIC and BREAKUP programs. First, he sought the programs themselves. Second, he requested [a]ll records of the formulas and data entered into the computer simulations regarding the NTSB's zoom-climb conclusion. The district court ordered the government to search for and disclose, if found, the BALLISTIC and BREAKUP programs, subject to any applicable exemptions. The district court also ordered the government to review its records to locate data inputs for the BREAKUP program and disclose that information, if found. The government appeals none of these orders. The district court also found, however, that the BALLISTIC program, unlike BREAKUP, was not used in any manner in connection with the `zoom-climb conclusion,' and thus held that the data inputs for that program did not fall within the scope of Lahr's request. Lahr appeals this ruling, arguing that the flight-path of the debris descendingwhich he contends the BALLISTIC program modeledis inextricably a part of the government's theory that two-thirds of the aircraft ascended. The government's declarant stated that the BREAKUP and BALLISTIC programs were not a part of the simulation program for the main wreckage of the aircraft, which modeled the ascent of the aircraft after the separation of the nose section. Instead, these programs were used for determination of the trajectory of certain pieces of the aircraft other than the main section. The declaration provides additional detail for the BREAKUP program, indicating that it was used to determine the timing of the nose separating from the aircraft. On that basis, the district court concluded that the BREAKUP program was in fact relevant to the zoom-climb conclusion. Importantly, it was the timing of the nose separation, not the trajectory of certain pieces of the aircraft, that the district court found related to the zoom-climb theory. This conclusion makes sense, given that the zoom-climb thesis centers on the upward trajectory of the main body of the aircraft following the nose separation and has little to do with other pieces of the plane. The district court also determined, on the other hand, that the government had demonstrated that the BALLISTIC program was not used in connection with the zoom-climb conclusion. The government's declaration supports this conclusion. It states that the only way in which these programs were relevant to the flight-path simulation was by providing the timing point at which the nose separation occurred. According to the declaration, this timing information was obtained solely from the BREAKUP program. In light of this evidence, we cannot conclude that the district court's finding that the BALLISTIC program did not contribute to the zoom-climb theory was clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion that the data inputs to the BALLISTIC program were not responsive to Lahr's request.