Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge. The plaintiff National Security Counselors (“NSC”) brought these three related actions against six federal agencies pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, claiming that the defendant agencies have violated the FOIA in numerous ways. NSC’s claims run the gamut, including challenges to: the withholding of specific information; the adequacy of the agencies’ search efforts; the refusal to process FOIA requests; the refusal to produce responsive records in an electronic format; and certain policies or practices which the plaintiff claims are ongoing and systematic FOIA violations. Although six agencies are named as defendants, the vast majority of the plaintiffs claims relate to the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) in processing and responding to FOIA requests. The defendants previously moved to dismiss many of the plaintiffs claims, which this Court previously granted in part and denied in part. See Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA (“NSC /”), 898 F.Supp.2d 233 (D.D.C.2012). The defendants now move for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs remaining claims, and the plaintiff has also cross-moved for summary judgment on a portion of those claims. Additionally, the plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions in one of the related cases and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint in another. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs cross-motions for summary judgment, denies the plaintiffs motion for sanctions, and denies the plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Table of Contents I. Background.............................................................118 A. 2009 FOIA Requests.................................................119 1. Count Twenty in No. 11-444: September 25, 2009 FOIA Request to the CIA.....................................................119 2. Count Eight in No. 11-445: October 22, 2009 FOIA Request to the DOJ..........................................................119 3. Counts One, Five and Six in No. 11-445: December 1, 2009 FOIA Requests to the CIA, DIA, and ODNI.............................120 B. 2010 FOIA Requests.................................................121 1. Counts Seven, Nine and Ten in No. 11-445: February 6, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA, State Department, and NSA............121 2. Counts Two and Three in No. 11-445: February 9, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA............................................122 3. Count Seventeen in No. 11-444: May 4, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA.......................................................123 4. Count Three in No. 11-443: May 12, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA..........................................................124 5. Count Nine in No. 11-444: May 13, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA.....125 6. Count Eight in No. 11-444: July 5, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA.....125 7. Count One in No. 11-444: August 8, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA..........................................................126 C. 2011 FOIA Requests.................................................127 1. Count Eighteen in No. 11 — 144: January 26, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA.......................................................127 2. Count Thirteen in No. 11-445: February 11, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA.......................................................127 3. Count Ten in No. 11-144: February 16, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA..........................................................127 D. Facts Related to the Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions......................128 E. Procedural History...................................................130 II. Legal Standards.........................................................131 A. FOIA ..............................................................133 B. Summary Judgment..................................................133 C. Leave to File Amended Complaint .....................................133 III.Discussion...............................................................134 A. Motion for Leave to Amend...........................................134 B. Motion for Sanctions .................................................136 C. Policies or Practices..................................................137 1. Assignment of Rights Policy.......................................137 2. Document-Level Exemption Policy.................................149 D. Adequacy of Search Efforts...........................................151 1. Count Eighteen in No. 11-444: January 26, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA.......................................................151 2. Count Twenty in No. 11-444: September 25, 2009 FOIA Request to the CIA.....................................................153 3. Count Nine in No. 11-445: February 6, 2010 FOIA Request to the State Department..............................................154 4. Count Ten in No. 11^445:, February 6, 2010 FOIA Request to the NS A..........................................................155 E. Refusals to Process Requests..........................................157 1. Count Nine in No. 11-444: May 13, 2010 FOIA Request to the Cl.....157 2. Count Eight in No. 11-444: July 5, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA.....158 3. Count One in No. 11-444: August 8, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA..........................................................161 4. Count Ten in No. 11-444: February 16, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA..........................................................161 F. Exemption 1 ........................................................164 1. Exemption 1 Withholdings in No. 11-445 (CIA and DIA) ..............165 2. Exemption 1 Withholdings in No. 11-443 ............................168 G. Exemption 2 ........................................................172 H. Exemption 3 ........................................................173 1. CIA............................................................174 2. DIA............................................................185 3. ODNI...........................................................186 I. Exemption 5 ........................................................187 1. Deliberative-Process Privilege.....................................189 2. Attorney-Client Privilege..........................................192 3. Attorney Work-Product Doctrine...................................200 J. Electronic Records...................................................201 1. CIA............................................................202 2. State Department................................................204 K. Segregability........................................................206 IV. Conclusion ..............................................................208 I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff has twenty-four claims remaining in these related actions. Since twenty-one of the plaintiffs remaining claims relate to specific FOIA requests, the Court will briefly summarize the timing and content of those requests, the agency’s processing of and response to those requests, and the aspects of the agency’s processing and responses that are challenged by the plaintiff. In summarizing the specific FOIA requests at issue, the Court will proceed in chronological order, rather than in the order the requests are pleaded in the plaintiffs complaints. In this regard, the Court will organize its discussion by the year in which the FOIA requests were first submitted. The Court will also discuss the factual and procedural background related to the plaintiffs motion for sanctions. The plaintiffs two other remaining claims relate to policies or practices of the CIA that the plaintiff alleges are in violation of the FOIA, which claims the Court summarized, along with other policy and practice claims, in its previous memorandum opinion in these related cases. See NSC I, 898 F.Supp.2d at 243-44, 248-49. Specifically, as labeled in the Court’s previous opinion, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s Assignment of Rights Policy and its Document-Level Exemption Policy. See id. A. 2009 FOIA Requests 1. Count Twenty in No. 11-444: September 25, 2009 FOIA Request to the CIA In a letter dated September 25, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking “all [CIA] records, including cross-references, pertaining to guidelines for attorneys in the Office of General Counsel (‘OGC’) for the conduct of civil cases, especially pertaining to interactions between OGC attorneys and Department of Justice (‘DOJ’) attorneys.” See Deck of Martha M. Lutz (Dec. 13, 2011) (“First Lutz Deck”) Ex. T at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4. By letter dated October 28, 2009, the CIA acknowledged this request and informed NSC that the CIA would “search for records existing through the date of this acceptance letter.” First Lutz Deck Ex. U at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4. By letter dated January 10, 2011, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiffs September 25, 2009 FOIA request, informing the plaintiff that “[w]e did not locate any records responsive to your request.” First Lutz Deck Ex. V. at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4. The plaintiff administratively appealed the adequacy of the CIA’s search efforts with respect to this request by letter dated January 21, 2011. See First Lutz Deck ¶ 57. By letter dated March 15, 2011, the CIA’s Agency Release Panel (“ARP”) denied the plaintiffs appeal, concluding that the CIA’s search efforts were adequate. See id. ¶ 59. In Count Twenty of No. 11-444, the plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the CIA’s search efforts in response to the plaintiffs September 25, 2009 request, including the CIA’s use of an allegedly improper search cut-off date. See First Am. Compl. (“444 FAC”) ¶¶ 104-110, No. 11-444, ECF No. 6; Mem. in Supp. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. on Counts 1, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, & 20 (“Deffs First 444 Mem.”) at 10-11, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20. 2. Count Eight in No. 11-445: October 22, 2009 FOIA Request to the DOJ On October 22, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), seeking “copies of all [DOJ] [OLC] opinions concerning the FOIA or the Privacy Act.” Deck of Paul P. Colborn (Oct. 2, 2012) (“Colborn Deck”) Ex. A, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-11. By e-mail dated October 25, 2009, the plaintiff expanded the scope of this request to include opinions concerning the Federal Records Act, the Presidential Records Act, or agency records retention policies. See Colborn Deck Ex. B, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-11. On March 27, 2012, the OLC provided a final response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request, producing twenty records in full and withholding all remaining responsive records under FOIA Exemption 5 because “[t]hey are protected by the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.” Colborn Decl. Ex. C, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-11. On July 6, 2012, the OLC sent another letter to the plaintiff, advising it that the OLC was “releasing ... one of the withheld records because [OLC] discovered that it was previously released.” Colborn Decl. Ex. D, 11-445, ECF No. 29-11. After releasing that one record, the OLC informed NSC that it continued to withhold fifty-eight records responsive to its request. Id. In Count Eight of No. 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the DOJ’s determination to withhold sixteen of the responsive OLC opinions under FOIA Exemption 5. See First Am. Compl. (“445 FAC”) ¶¶ 62-67, No. 11-445, ECF No. 7; Colborn Decl. Ex. F at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-11. 3. Counts One, Five, and Six in No. 11-445: December 1, 2009 FOIA Requests to the CIA, DIA, and ODNI On December 1, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for “all [CIA] records referencing FOIA and Privacy Act requests submitted by [ten listed parties] that contain remarks, comments, notes, explanations, etc. made by CIA personnel or contractors about the processing of these requests (and appeals, if appropriate), the invocations of exemptions, or related matters.” See Decl. of Martha M. Lutz (Sept. 26, 2012) (“Third Lutz Decl.”) Ex. A at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1; id. Ex. B at 1, No. 11 — 445, ECF No. 52-1. On December 8, 2009, the plaintiff limited the scope of this request by notifying the CIA that it could “limit [its] search for requests submitted by Michael Ravnitzky to only requests submitted in 2006 and 2009” and that it could “limit [its] search to the last four years in which requests were received from [each] requester.” See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. A. On September 22, 2010, the CIA produced seventy records to the plaintiff in part with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and/or 6, and the CIA also notified the plaintiff that the CIA was withholding seventy-four other responsive records in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and/or 5. See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. B at 1. In Count One of No. 11-445, the plaintiff challenges all of the CIA’s withholding determinations made under FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and/or 5. See 445 FAC ¶¶ 10-17; Mem. in Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 (“Defs.’ First 445 Mem.”) at 2, No. 11-45, ECF No. 29; Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 (“PL’s First 445 Opp’n”) at 23 n. 19, No. 11-445, ECF No. 33. Also on December 1, 2009, the plaintiff submitted FOIA requests to the Defense Intelligence Agency (“DIA”) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) for substantially the same category of records sought in the December 1, 2009 FOIA request to the CIA. The only difference was that, instead of records containing processing notes from “CIA personnel or contractors,” the request to the DIA sought processing notes from “DIA personnel or contractors” and the request to the ODNI sought processing notes from “NSA personnel or contractors.” See Decl. of John F. Hackett (Oct. 1, 2012) (“Hackett Deck”) Ex. A at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-8; Decl. of Alesia Y. Williams (Oct. 1, 2012) (“First Williams Deck”) Ex. A at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 53-1. The plaintiff also narrowed its processing notes requests to the DIA and the ODNI on December 8, 2009 in the same manner it limited its processing notes request to the CIA. See Hackett Decl. Ex. B, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-8; First Williams Decl. Ex. B, No. 11—445, ECF No. 53-1. The ODNI produced responsive records to the plaintiff on May 27, 2010 and June 21, 2010, releasing a total of thirty-four pages, in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 2, 3, 5, and 6. See Hackett Deck ¶¶ 11-12, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-8. The DIA produced additional responsive records to the plaintiff in six separate releases from July 25, 2012 to September 28, 2012. See First Williams Decl. ¶¶ 8-13, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-12. In total, the DIA released 86 records in full, released 215 records in part, and withheld 45 records in full, with withholdings made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and/or 6. See id.; see also First Williams Decl. Exs. D-I, ECF No. 53-1. In Counts Five and Six of No. 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the DIA’s and the ODNI’s withholding determinations, respectively, made under FOIA Exemptions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. See 445 FAC ¶¶ 38-54; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 4-6; Pl.’s First 445 Opp’n at 6, 17-22, 24. B. 2010 FOIA Requests 1. Counts Seven, Nine, and Ten in No. 11-445: February 6, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA, State Department, and NSA On February 6, 2010, the plaintiff submitted three substantially identical FOIA requests — one to the CIA, one to the State Department, and one to the National Security Agency (“NSA”). The request to the CIA sought “all current training handbooks, manuals, guidelines, checklists, worksheets, and similar documents provided to [CIA] FOIA and Privacy Act analysts (both agency employees and contractors).” See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. G at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1. The plaintiffs requests to the State Department and the NSA were identical, except that they sought training materials provided to State Department and NSA FOIA and Privacy Act analysts, respectively. See Deck of Sheryl L. Walter (Oct. 1, 2012) (“First Walter Decl.”) Ex. 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10; Decl. of Pamela N. Phillips (Sept. 28, 2012) (“Phillips Decl.”) Att. 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-13. All three requests also limited the scope of the request to “documents in current use as of 6 February 2010.” See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. G at 1; Walter Decl. Ex. 1, at 1; Phillips Decl. Ex. 1, at 1. The first agency to issue a response to the plaintiffs requests was the CIA. On May 26, 2010, the CIA issued a final response to the plaintiff, in which it released two documents in full and withheld twenty-nine other responsive documents in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 2, 3, and/or 5. See Third Lutz Decl. ¶ 11, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-1. In Count Seven of No. 11-445, the plaintiff challenges all of the CIA’s withholding determinations under FOIA Exemptions 1, 2, 3, and/or 5. See 445 FAC ¶¶ 55-61; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 7. The next agency to respond to the plaintiffs February 6, 2010 FOIA requests was the NSA. On April 22, 2011, the NSA issued a final response to the plaintiff, in which it released, in part, over 500 pages of responsive records, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, and/or 7; the NSA also withheld one document in its entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5. See Phillips Decl. ¶ 7; Phillips Decl. Att. 3, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-13. In Count Ten of No. 11^445, the plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the NSA’s search efforts in responding to the February 6, 2010 FOIA request, and in particular the plaintiff challenges the NSA’s failure to locate templates that are responsive to the request. See 445 FAC ¶¶ 73-77; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 10. The State Department was the final agency to respond to the plaintiffs February 6, 2010 FOIA requests. The State Department produced responsive records to the plaintiff in two initial releases on October 20, 2011 and January 26, 2012. See First Walter Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. In these two initial releases, the State Department produced a total of 108 records in whole or in part, with redactions made to seven documents pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and/or 6. See First Walter Decl. Exs. 5-6, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10. By e-mail dated February 4, 2012, the plaintiff requested that the State Department search for certain records referenced in a document produced in the first two State Department releases. See First Walter Decl. Ex. 8, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10. In response to this request, the State Department conducted further searching, and on March 9, 2012 released sixteen responsive records to the plaintiff, in whole or in part. See First Walter Decl. Ex. 9, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10. By letter dated September 26, 2012, after “a further search,” the State Department released one more responsive document to the plaintiff in full. See First Walter Decl. Ex. 10, No. 11-445, ECF No. 29-10. These four productions, totaling the release, in whole or in part, of 120 records, however, were not the final correspondence from the State Department in response to the plaintiffs FOIA request. On March 1, 2013, the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security responded to the plaintiff’s February 6, 2010 FOIA request, releasing twenty-six responsive records which had not been previously released. See Notice of Recent Development Regarding Count 9, at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 49. According to the State Department, this was “an inadvertent release of records,” which occurred because “at some point in the processing of Plaintiffs FOIA request, it was mistakenly sent to [the Bureau of Diplomatic Security].” See Third Decl. of Sheryl L. Walter (June 18, 2013) (“Third Walter Decl.”) ¶ 3, No. 11-445, ECF No. 51-1. In Count Nine of No. 11-445, the plaintiff challenges three aspects of the State Department’s response to its February 6, 2010 FOIA request: (1) the withholding of certain information from one responsive record pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3; (2) the adequacy of the State Department’s search efforts; and (3) the failure of the State Department to release responsive records in an electronic format. See 445 FAC ¶¶ 68-72; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 9. 2. Counts Two and Three in No. 11-445: February 9, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA On February 4, 2010, the CIA informed the plaintiff that, with respect to his December 1, 2009 FOIA request for FOIA processing notes related to previous FOIA requests, the CIA could not retrieve FOIA requests by an organization’s name, but only by a person’s name. See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. C at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1. In response, the plaintiff submitted a letter to the CIA on February 9, 2010, asking the CIA to search for records related to specific previous FOIA requests submitted by individuals associated with four organizations, including NSC and the James Madison Project (“JMP”). Id. With respect to JMP, the plaintiff requested that the CIA search for records of processing notes related to twenty-seven specific FOIA requests submitted by Mark Zaid, Bradley Moss, and Kelly McClanahan. Id. Likewise, with respect to NSC, the plaintiff requested that the CIA search for records of processing notes related to seven specific FOIA requests submitted by Kelly McClanahan. See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. C at 1. The CIA considered these two new FOIA requests and assigned each of them a separate request identifier number. See Third Lutz Decl. ¶¶ 9-10. On July 30, 2010, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiff’s request regarding previous FOIA requests submitted by Kelly McClanahan on behalf of NSC. See Third Lutz Decl. Ex. F, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1. The CIA released three responsive documents in full and thirty responsive documents in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and/or 6. Third Lutz Decl. ¶ 10. The CIA also withheld seventeen responsive documents in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 5, and/or 6. Id. In Count Three of No. 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s decision to withhold information responsive to this request pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5. See 445 FAC ¶¶ 25-31; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. At 4; PL’s First 445 Opp’n at 23 n. 19. On September 29, 2010, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiffs request regarding previous FOIA requests submitted by Mark Zaid, Bradley Moss, and Kelly McClanahan on behalf of JMP. See Third Lutz Deck Ex. D, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1. The CIA produced 14 responsive documents in full and 106 responsive documents in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and/or 6. Third Lutz Decl. ¶ 9. The CIA also withheld 215 responsive documents in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and/or 5. Id. In Count Two of No. 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s decision to withhold information responsive to this request pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5. See 445 FAC ¶¶ 18-24; Defs.’ First 445. Mem. At 3; PL’s First 445 Opp’n at 23 n. 19. 3. Count Seventeen in No. 11-444: May 4, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA By letter dated May 4, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for two categories of records: (1) “The 15 FOIA requests received by the [CIA] during Fiscal Year 2008 that were classified as ‘full denials’ because the ‘Records were not Reasonably Described’ in ... [the CIA’s] 2008 Annual Report,” and (2) “The 18 FOIA requests received by the CIA during Fiscal Year 2006 that were classified as ‘full denials’ on the grounds of ‘records not reasonably described’ in ... [the CIA’s] 2006 Annual Report.” See First Lutz Decl. Ex. Y at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4. Also on May 4, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to the CIA, which sought three other categories of similar records: (1) “The 510 FOIA requests received by the [CIA] during Fiscal Year 2009 that were classified as ‘full denials’ because they were considered ‘Improper FOIA Requests for Other Reasons’ in ... [the CIA’s] 2009 Annual Report,” (2) “The 290 FOIA requests received by the CIA during Fiscal Year 2008 that were classified as ‘full denials’ because they were considered ‘Improper FOIA Requests for Other Reasons’ in ... [the CIA’s] 2008 Annual Report,” and (3) “The 79 FOIA requests received by the CIA during Fiscal Year 2006 that were classified as ‘full denials’ because they were considered ‘not proper FOIA requests for some other reason’ in ... [the CIA’s] 2006 Annual Report.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. Z at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4. For both of these requests, the plaintiff specified that “[o]nly the initial request letters and the return CIA correspondence stating that the requests do not reasonably describe the records sought should be considered responsive to this request.” First Lutz Decl. Exs. Y; see id. Ex. Z., On August 7, 2010, the plaintiffs counsel sent a facsimile to the CIA stating “it would probably be easier to just consolidate the two requests [submitted on May 4, 2010]” and “I would not object if you chose to combine them and treat them as a single request.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. AA, No. 11^444, ECF No. 20-4. Hence, on November 17, 2010, the CIA informed the plaintiff that the CIA was combining the two FOIA requests sent on May 4, 2010 into a single request. See First Lutz Decl. Ex. BB, No. 11 — 444, ECF No. 20-4. On August 31, 2011, the CIA provided a final response regarding this combined FOIA request, in which it released five responsive documents in full, released 1,010 responsive documents in part with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and/or 6, and withheld three documents in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and/or 6. See First Lutz Decl. Ex. CC at 2, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-4; First Lutz Decl. ¶ 68. After the plaintiff requested by e-mail to the DOJ that the CIA confirm the totality of its production, the CIA provided ten additional responsive documents in part with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6. See First Lutz Decl. ¶ 69. In Count Seventeen of No. 11-444, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s decision to withhold information responsive to this combined request pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 5. See 444 FAC ¶¶ 87-93; Def.’s First 444 Mem. at 8; Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. on Counts 1, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 20 (“PL’s First 444 Opp’n”) at 30-35, No. 11-444, ECF No. 26. In Count Seventeen, the plaintiff also challenges the failure of the CIA to release responsive records in an electronic format. See PL’s First 444 Opp’n at 39-10. 4. Count Three in No. 11-443: May 12, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA On May 12, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, which sought “all Tables of Contents (‘TOCs’) from the [CIA] in-house journal Studies in Intelligence.” See Decl. of Martha M. Lutz (Aug. 8, 2012) (“Second Lutz Decl.”) Ex. A at 1, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1. Via telephone on June 4, 2010, the plaintiff clarified that it was requesting “all classified ‘TOCs,’ and any unclassified ‘TOCs,’ that were not available on the CIA website.” Second Lutz Decl. Ex. B at 1, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1. On December 5, 2011, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiffs May 12, 2010 FOIA request, releasing 43 responsive documents in full and 131 responsive documents in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1 and/or 3. See Second Lutz Decl. Ex. C at 1, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-I. By e-mail on December 30, 2011, the plaintiff notified the CIA’s counsel that it believed there were several records missing from the CIA’s production. See Second Lutz Decl. ¶ 9, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1. In response, the CIA conducted a supplemental search and, by letters dated February 7, 2012 and February 14, 2012, the CIA released to the plaintiff twenty-nine additional responsive TOCs, in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. See Second Lutz Decl. ¶ 9; Second Lutz Decl. Exs. D-E, No. 11-443, ECF No. 27-1. In its February 7, 2012 communication, the CIA also released to the plaintiff certain information that had been redacted from previously released documents. See Second Lutz Decl. Ex. D at 2. In Count Three of No. 11-443, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s withholding of information responsive to the May 12, 2010 FOIA request under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. See Compl. (“443 Compl.”) ¶¶ 29-33, No. 11-443, ECF No. 1; Mem. in Supp. Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. on Count Three (“Def.’s First 443 Mem.”) at 1, ECF No. 27. 5. Count Nine in No. 11-444: May 13, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA By letter dated May 13, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, which sought “a representative sample of [CIA] analytical reports and memoranda presenting psychological analyses or profiles of foreign government officials, terrorist leaders, international criminals, business figures, and other intelligence targets prepared by the Medical and Psychological Analysis Center (‘MPAC’) or its predecessor Office of Leadership Analysis (‘OLA’).” First Lutz Decl. Ex. M, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3. In this letter, NSC provided “guidelines” to the CIA regarding “what we consider a ‘representative sample,’ ” which included (1) “[o]nly final official reports or memoranda that discuss an MPAC/OLA analyst’s conclusions about a target’s psychology,” (2) “[n]o more than twenty reports/memoranda for each year,” (3) “[f]our reports/memoranda for each year (unless less were created that year) for individuals in each category of intelligence target,” and (4) “Reasonable variety in the intelligence targets wherever possible (e.g., foreign government officials should be from a variety of foreign governments, terrorist leaders should be from different terrorist organizations, etc.).” Id. at 1-2. As to the fourth guideline, NSC further stated that “[f|or the foreign government officials, we would also appreciate if possible a variety of the type of officials (e.g., some heads of state, some intelligence officials, some law enforcement officials, some financial officials, etc.).” Id. at 2. The plaintiffs letter also stated “[y]ou may limit your search to records created since 2000, but we do not have any particular intelligence targets in mind, since the purpose of this information is to analyze the style and methodology of the CIA’s leadership analysts.” Id. at 1. The CIA provided a final response to the plaintiffs request on June 23, 2010, stating “[w]e cannot accept your FOIA request in its current form, because it would require the Agency to perform an unreasonably burdensome search.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. N at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3. Citing “the breadth and lack of specificity of [NSC’s] request,” the CIA informed the plaintiff that “[t]he FOIA does not provide a mechanism to perform research.” Id. The CIA also “encourage[d] [NSC] to refine the scope of [its] request (such as including a narrower time frame for, and more specific descriptions of, the information you seek) to enable [the CIA] to conduct a reasonable search for responsive information.” Id. In Count Nine of No. 11-444, the plaintiff contends that the CIA improperly refused to process this May 13, 2010 FOIA request. See 444 FAC ¶¶ 46-50; PL’s First 444 Opp’n at 16-18. 6. Count Eight in No. 11-444: July 5, 2010 FOIA Request to the CIA On July 5, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for “a record that would indicate the ten individuals responsible for the most FOIA requests submitted (each) in Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010.” See First Lutz Decl. Ex. K at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-2. “In other words,” the plaintiff continued, “we seek a list, index, printout, or similar document from which we could determine which individual submitted the most FOIA requests each year, which individual submitted the second most FOIA requests each year, and so forth down to the tenth most prolific requester.” Id. In addition to (1) an index of the ten most prolific FOIA requesters, the plaintiff also proposed to the CIA three alternative means by which to obtain the same information: (2) “[a]n index including all requesters for each year,” (3) “FOIA request letters from the ten most prolific requesters for each year,” or (4) “[a]ll FOIA request letters submitted to the CIA for each year.” Id. at 1-2. On July 22, 2010, the CIA responded to this request, stating “[w]e ... have determined that our record systems are not configured in a way that would allow us to perform a search reasonably calculated to lead to the responsive record without an unreasonable effort.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. L at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3. As a result, the CIA informed the plaintiff “we must decline to process this request.” Id. On February 29, 2012, however, “the CIA advised plaintiff that it reconsidered [the July 5, 2010 FOIA request],” and “advised that it could process plaintiffs fourth option, ie., all FOIA requests submitted to the Agency for each of the three requested years, in paper form.” Decl. of Martha M. Lutz (Mar. 18, 2013) (“Seventh Lutz Decl.”) ¶ 7, No. 11^44, ECF No. 43-1. The CIA also “determined that NSC constituted an ‘all other’ requester for fee category purposes and stated that ... plaintiff would be required to pay the duplication costs associated with processing the request, which were estimated to exceed $950.” Id. In connection with these duplication costs, “[t]he Agency advised plaintiff that a commitment to pay fees and an advance payment of $250 were required ‘prior to the processing of [its] request.’ ” Id. (emphasis in original). Finally, the CIA’s letter stated that “if the Agency did not received the fee commitment and advance payment within 45 days it would administratively close the request.” Id. NSC never provided a fee commitment or an advance payment, and therefore the CIA closed the request. Id. In Count Eight of No. 11-444, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s refusal “to produce the record requested as ‘option 2’ in NSC’s request,” ie., “an index including all requesters for each year.” See Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. on Counts Eight & Twenty-One (“PL’s Second 444 Opp’n”) at 3-4, No. 11-444, ECF No. 46; see also 444 FAC ¶¶ 41^5. 7. Count One in No. 11-444: August 8, 2010 FOIA Requests to the CIA By letters dated August 8, 2010, the plaintiff submitted four FOIA requests to the CIA, seeking “a database listing of all the FOIA requesters from FY 2008-pres-ent that [the CIA has] classified as” either “educational or scientific,” “commercial,” “all other,” or “news media.” See First Lutz Decl. Exs. A-D, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-2. Each request sought a database listing as to each of the four fee requester categories. See id. By letters dated September 30, 2010, the CIA refused to process these requests, stating that “[t]he FOIA does not require federal agencies to create a record, collect information, conduct research, or analyze data.” See First Lutz Deck Exs. E-H, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-2. By facsimile dated October 2, 2010, the plaintiff administratively appealed the CIA’s refusal to process these four FOIA requests, contending “the CIA has already tacitly admitted that it possesses the ability to sort its FOIA database by requester category, as evidenced by the publication in its FOIA Electronic Reading Room of the FY 2003 ‘commercial’ requesters.” See First Lutz Decl. Ex. I at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-2. The CIA responded on October 21, 2010, stating for each of the four FOIA requests that, “since we did not provide you with appeal rights, we cannot accept your appeal.” First Lutz Decl. Ex. J, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-2. In Count One of No. 11-444, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s refusal to process its August 8, 2010 FOIA requests. See 444 FAC ¶¶ 5-10; PL’s First 444 Opp’n at 10-14. C. 2011 FOIA Requests 1.Count Eighteen in No. 11-444: January 26, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA By letter dated January 26, 2011, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA seeking “a copy of all [CIA] records pertaining to the search tools and indices available to the Office of Information Management Services (‘IMS’) for conducting searches of its own records in response to FOIA requests.” See First Lutz Decl. Ex. Q at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3. The plaintiff clarified later in this request that it was seeking “records that describe or discuss the search tools and indices that the IMS (as a CIA component) can choose between when devising a search strategy for IMS records.” Id The plaintiff further specified that the request was “limited to only those search tools and indices that would be personally used by IMS personnel to search IMS records systems.” Id Finally, the plaintiff specified two categories of records that would be responsive to the request: (1) “Records which describe the search tools and indices,” and (2) “The actual contents of the indices.” Id On May 26, 2011, the CIA provided a final response to the plaintiffs request. See First Lutz Deck Ex. S, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3. The CIA located three documents responsive to the plaintiffs request, one of which it released in full, and two of which it released in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3. See id In Count Eighteen of No. 11-444, the plaintiff challenges three aspects of the CIA’s response to the plaintiffs January 26, 2011 FOIA request: (1) the decision to withhold information under FOIA Exemption 3; (2) the adequacy of the CIA’s search efforts; and (3) the failure of the CIA to release responsive records in an electronic format, as requested. See 444 'FAC ¶¶ 94-98; PL’s First 444 Opp’n at 24-26, 35-40. 2.Count Thirteen in No. 11-445: February 11, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA On February 11, 2011, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, which sought “all [CIA] records associated with the administrative processing of [two specific FOIA requests], which were referred to the CIA by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” See Third Lutz Deck Ex. I at 1, No. 11-445, ECF No. 52-1. On October 7, 2011, the CIA provided a final response to this request, releasing two responsive records in part, with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3, and withholding seven responsive records in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 5. See Third Lutz Deck ¶ 12; Third Lutz Deck Ex. J at 1, No. 11^45, ECF No. 52-1. In Count Thirteen of No. 11-445, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s decision to withhold responsive information pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 5. See 445 FAC ¶¶ 88-92; Defs.’ First 445 Mem. at 10-11. 3.Count Ten in No. 11-444: February 16, 2011 FOIA Request to the CIA Finally, by letter dated February 16, 2011, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, seeking “a copy of all [CIA] records pertaining to the IBM supercomputer Watson.’ ” First Lutz Deck Ex. O at 1, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3. On March 2, 2011, the CIA responded to the plaintiff that “[w]e cannot accept your FOIA request in its current form because it would require the Agency to perform an unreasonably burdensome search.” See First Lutz Deck Ex. P, No. 11-444, ECF No. 20-3. Citing “the breadth and lack of specificity of [the plaintiffs] request” and “the way in which [the CIA’s] records systems are configured,” the CIA concluded that “the Agency cannot conduct a reasonable search for information responsive to your request.” Id. The CIA “encourage[d] [the plaintiff] to refine the scope of [its] request (such as contracts, if they exist, which would explain records pertaining to ‘Watson’) to enable [the CIA] to conduct a reasonable search for responsive information.” Id. In Count Ten of No. 11-444, the plaintiff challenges the CIA’s refusal to process it February 16, 2011 FOIA request. See 444 FAC ¶¶ 51-55; Pl.’s First 444 Opp’n at 19-24. D. Facts Related to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions In December 2011, an unidentified third party provided the plaintiffs counsel with two CIA documents, which counsel concluded may contain classified information. See PL’s Mot. to Compel Production (“PL’s First Mot. to Compel”) at 1, No. 11 — 443, ECF No. 26. Since the documents were ostensibly relevant to the plaintiffs claim in Count Three of No. 11-443, challenging the CIA’s withholding of responsive information from tables of contents for the CIA’s in-house journal Studies in Intelligence, see supra Part I.B.4, plaintiffs counsel contacted government counsel for the CIA, who referred plaintiffs counsel to the FBI. See PL’s First Mot. to Compel at 1. In January 2012, an FBI field agent met with plaintiffs counsel, at which time plaintiffs counsel signed a non-disclosure agreement as to any classified material contained in the two CIA documents and also turned over paper and electronic versions of the two records to the FBI. See id. at 2. In that meeting, plaintiffs counsel requested that the FBI return to him redacted versions of the two documents, with all classified information deleted. Id. In a later meeting held in June 2012, the FBI informed plaintiffs counsel that they would not be releasing redacted versions of the documents to him. See id. Since plaintiffs counsel wished to submit the non-elassified portions of the two documents to the Court, the plaintiff filed a motion on August 3, 2012 to compel the CIA to “provid[e] [plaintiffs counsel] with redacted copies” of the two documents in question. See id. at 4. The CIA opposed the relief sought by the plaintiff, contending that “[plaintiffs counsel’s] alleged interactions with the FBI are well outside the scope of this action” since “[t]he FBI is not a party to this case” and “the FBI’s interactions were with [plaintiffs counsel] in his individual capacity.” Def.’s Opp’n to PL’s Mot. to Compel at 1-2, No. 11-443, ECF No. 28. On August 15, 2012, the Court granted the plaintiffs motion to compel over the CIA’s objection and directed the CIA to provide the plaintiff “a copy of each of the two CIA documents referenced in the plaintiffs motion, if possible, with all classified information redacted therefrom.” See Minute Order dated Aug. 15, 2012, No. 11-443. On September 3, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion, asking the Court “to compel CIA to comply with [the Court’s] earlier Order.” See PL’s Mot. to Compel Compliance with Court’s 15 Aug. 2012 Order (“PL’s Second Mot. to Compel”) at 2, No. 11-443, ECF No. 31. In that motion, the plaintiff stated that “[i]nstead of redacting only the classified information,” the CIA “redacted all information it considered exempt under [FOIA] Exemptions (b)(1) and/or (b)(3).” Id. at 1-2. Therefore, the plaintiff asked the Court to order the CIA to produce “copies of these records with only the classified information redacted, as the Court ordered.” Id. at 2. On September 21, 2012, the Court granted the plaintiffs motion in part and ordered the CIA to produce redacted versions of the two documents to the plaintiff, clearly indicating on each document which portions of the document were classified — and therefore redacted pursuant to FOIA Exemption 1 — and which portions were redacted pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3. See Order dated Sept. 21, 2012. The Court did not order the CIA to release any information from these two documents that the CIA believed were protected from disclosure by the CIA Act or by Executive Order 13,525 as classified in the interest of national security. The CIA produced redacted versions of the two documents as instructed, yet the parties continued to disagree about whether the CIA had complied with the Court’s Order. See Joint Status Report at 1, No. 11-443, ECF No. 35. Specifically, the plaintiff complained, on September 3, 2012, that the CIA had marked certain information as being exempt under Exemption 3, which the CIA’s Vaughn index had stated was classified, and vice-versa. See id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs counsel had notified the CIA’s counsel of this inconsistency in an email five days before the plaintiff brought the issue to the attention of the Court. See Pl.’s Reply to Opp. To Mot. To Compel Ex. D, No. 11-443, ECF No. 33-2 (Aug. 29, 2012 e-mail from plaintiffs counsel to CIA’s counsel stating “I think you must have [the classified material and the CIA Act redactions] backwards”). The CIA, however, maintained that “[t]he documents the CIA produced in response to the Court’s order reflect the current status of the information they contain.” See Joint Status Report at 2. In light of the apparent discrepancy, the plaintiff once again asked for relief, seeking an order directing the CIA “to take whatever steps are necessary to make its redactions in these releases consistent with its previous presentations to the Court.” Id. at 4. To resolve this ongoing dispute, the Court held a status conference on October 12, 2012. At that status conference, plaintiffs counsel once again asserted that the CIA had gotten the two categories of redactions “backwards.” See Tr. of Status Conference (Oct. 12, 2012) at 13:1-2, No. 11-443, ECF No. 69; see also id. at 16:9-Í2 (“[E]verything that is listed as classified ii\ the documents is listed as unclassified [in the Vaughn index]. It looks like it was a simple administrative error.”). The CIA’s counsel, however, maintained once again that “we’ve clearly identified for [plaintiffs counsel] in our Vaughn index and in the two documents that we produced pursuant to the Court’s order exactly what’s classified and what’s subject to the CIA Act.” Id. at 19:15-19. The Court asked the CIA’s counsel in this regard: “Do you need to update your Vaughn index?” to which he replied “I need to check with my client agency, but I don’t believe so.” Id. at 26:18-21. The Court further stated, “[a]s officers of the court, if [the CIA’s lawyers] find out that some information that’s been presented is incorrect, they have an ongoing and continuing obligation to correct themselves.” Id. at 26:1-4. Following the October 12, 2012 status conference, and based on CIA counsel’s representations that the redactions were correctly designated, the Court entered a minute order stating that “the plaintiff is entitled to rely on the designations of information in the two ... indices at issue, as provided by the defendant, regarding whether redacted information in those documents is either classified or subject to protection under the CIA Act.” Minute Order dated Oct. 12, 2012, No. 11-443. On October 22, 2012, the CIA submitted a notice to the Court, stating that “[i]n [the CIA’s] earlier production, redactions were marked with either a ‘1’ or ‘2,’ which appears to have created some confusion as to whether the redacted information was withheld because it is classified, subject to the CIA Act, or both.” See Notice at 1, No. 11-443, ECF No. 40. Thus, ostensibly “[i]n order to clarify the issue and provide Plaintiffs counsel with clear documents upon which he can rely ... [the CIA] now produced copies of the two records with each redaction marked clearly as ‘Classified’ or ‘CIA Act’ protected.” Id. The CIA stated that it was “hopeful the updated marking will resolve any lingering confusion.” Id. at 1. In the versions of the two documents attached to the CIA’s October 22, 2012 notice, however, the CIA had reversed its designations, as compared to its September 27, 2012 filing. Compare ECF Nos. 35-1, 35-2, with ECF Nos. 40-1, 40-2. The CIA’s notice did now acknowledge that its previous representations had been in error but, just as plaintiffs counsel had warned two months earlier, information that had earlier been marked as classified was now marked as withheld under the CIA Act, and viceversa. See id. As a result, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the CIA, contending that the CIA had “engaged in an extended campaign of misrepresentation to both [the plaintiff] and the Court regarding the nature of the information it redacted from the two documents at issue.” See Pl.’s Mot. for Sanctions at 1, No. 11 — 143, ECF No. 50. The CIA opposed the motion and submitted, at the Court’s direction, two sworn declarations explaining what had caused the CIA mistakenly for weeks to defend the accuracy of its designations. Specifically, the CIA’s chief of its Litigation Support Unit, Martha Lutz, stated that the CIA’s error “was the product of internal miscommunication rather than bad faith.” See Decl. of Martha M. Lutz (Feb. 25, 2013) (“Sixth Lutz Deck”) ¶4, No. 11-443, ECF No. 61-1. Ms. Lutz explained that, when the CIA’s information review officer (“IRO”) reviewed the two documents in question, she used a notation system in which she wrote “(b)(3) methods” in the margins of the documents next to certain redacted information. See id. ¶ 7. These notations were intended to convey that the specified redactions were protected under the National Security Act as classified intelligence sources or methods — and thus also protected by FOIA Exemption 1 as classified information — but the CIA’s counsel “interpreted this notation system to mean that redactions marked ... as ‘(b)(3) methods’ were those protected by FOIA Exemption (b)(3)” under the CIA Act. See id. ¶¶ 7-8. “Based on this misunderstanding, the CIA attorney incorrectly cited some of the justifications for redacting the material to the DOJ attorney, who in turn shared that information with plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 9. E. Procedural History The plaintiff filed the Complaints in each of these three actions on February 28, 2011, and, shortly thereafter, filed a First Amended Complaint in Nos. 11-444 and 11-445 on March 21, 2011. On May 20, May 27, and June 3, 2011, the CIA filed partial motions to dismiss in No. 11-443, 11-444, and 11-445, respectively. These three motions, filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), collectively moved for dismissal of twenty-five of the forty-five claims originally alleged by the plaintiff, and the motions became ripe on July 21, 2011. While these three motions to dismiss were pending, the Court ruled on ten other, nondispositive motions, including motions to stay, to compel, and to bifurcate. On October 17, 2012, in a lengthy opinion, the Court granted in part and denied in part the CIA’ three partial motions to dismiss. See NSC I, 898 F.Supp.2d 233. Specifically, the Court dismissed all but three of the plaintiffs twenty-four policy- or-practice claims — including all of the plaintiffs claims under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. See id. at 290. In addition to denying the government’s motion to dismiss with respect to three of the plaintiffs policy-or-practice claims (the Assignment of Rights Policy, the Cut-Off Date Policy, and Document-Level Exemption Policy), the Court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss with respect to Count One in No. 11-443, which challenged the CIA’s refusal to process a FOIA request that was assigned to the plaintiff by an organization called the James Madison Project. See id. at 290-91. On March 21, 2013, this Court stayed all three actions until all dispositive motions were fully briefed. Between December 20, 2011 and May 17, 2013, a total of eight motions or cross-motions for summary judgment were filed across these three related actions by all parties. The last of these motions became ripe on June 11, 2013. Additionally, on November 21, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in No. 11-445, and on January 11, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions in No. 11-443. Thus, currently pending before the Court in these related actions are ten motions: eight motions or cross-motions for summary judgment, one motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and one motion for sanctions. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ six motions for summary judgment, grants the plaintiffs cross-motions for summary judgment, denies the plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and denies the plaintiffs motion for sanctions. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. FOIA Congress enacted the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, “ ‘to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’ ” Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C.Cir.2011) (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976)). The Supreme Court has explained that the FOIA is “a means for citizens to know ‘what their Government is up to.’ This phrase should not be dismissed as a convenient formalism. It defines a structural necessity in a real democracy.” Nat’l Archives & Records Admin, v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 171-172, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978). As a result, the FOIA requires federal agencies to release all records responsive to a request for production. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). Federal courts are authorized under the FOIA “to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” Id. § 552(a)(4)(B). This strong interest in transparency must be tempered, however, by the “legitimate governmental and private interests [that] could be harmed by release of certain types of information.” United Techs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 601 F.3d 557, 559 (D.C.Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 975 F.2d 871, 872 (D.C.Cir.1992) (en banc). Accordingly, Congress included nine exemptions permitting agencies to withhold information from FOIA disclosure. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). “These exemptions are explicitly made exclusive, and must be narrowly construed.” Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1259, 1262, 179 L.Ed.2d 268 (2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 869 (D.C.Cir.2010) (“FOIA allows agencies to withhold only those documents that fall under one of nine specific exemptions, which are construed narrowly in keeping with FOIA’s presumption in favor of disclosure.” (citations omitted)). When a FOIA requester properly exhausts its administrative remedies, it may file a civil action challenging an agency’s response to its request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Wilbur v. CIA 355 F.3d 675, 677 (D.C.Cir. 2004). Once such an action is filed, the agency generally has the burden of demonstrating that its response to the plaintiffs FOIA request was appropriate. When an agency’s response to a FOIA request is to withhold responsive records, either in whole or in part, the agency “bears the burden of proving the applicability of claimed exemptions.” Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Def. (“ACLU/DOD”), 628 F.3d 612, 619 (D.C.Cir.2011). “The government may satisfy its burden of establishing its right to withhold information from the public by submitting appropriate declarations and, where necessary, an index of the information withheld.” Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 852 F.Supp.2d 66, 72 (D.D.C.2012) (citing Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827-28 (D.C.Cir.1973)). “If an agency’s affidavit describes the justifications for withholding the information with specific detail, demonstrates that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption,” and “is not contradicted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of the agency’s bad faith, then summary judgment is warranted on the basis of the affidavit alone.” ACLU/DOD, 628 F.3d at 619. “Ultimately, an agency’s justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.’ ” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 862 (D.C.Cir.2009)). When a requester challenges an agency’s response based on the adequacy of the search performed, “[t]o prevail on summary judgment ... the defending ‘agency must show beyond material doubt ... that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.’ ” Morley v. CIA 508 F.3d 1108, 1114 (D.C.Cir.2007) (quoting Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C.Cir.1983)). “In order to obtain summary judgment the agency must show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.” Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.Cir.1990). “Summary judgment may be based on affidavit, if the declaration sets forth sufficiently detailed information ‘for a court to determine if the search was adequate.’ ” Students Against Genocide v. Dep’t of State, 257 F.3d 828, 838 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C.Cir.1995)). Finally, the D.C. Circuit has recognized that, separate from claims seeking relief for specific requests made under the FOIA, requesting parties may also assert a “claim that an agency policy or practice will impair the party’s lawful access to information in the future.” Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 491 (D.C.Cir.1988) (emphasis in original); accord Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 684 F.3d 160, 164 (D.C.Cir.2012). The Court in Payne held that a policy-or-practice claim is viable “[s]o long as an agency’s refusal to supply information evidences a policy or practice of delayed disclosure or some other failure to abide by the terms of the FOIA, and not merely isolated mistakes by agency officials.” Payne, 837 F.2d at 491. B. Summary Judgment “ ‘FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment.’ ” Georgacarakos v. FBI, 908 F.Supp.2d 176, 180 (D.D.C.2012) (quoting Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F.Supp.2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009)). With respect to the applicability of exemptions and the adequacy of an agency’s search efforts, summary judgment may be based solely on information provided in the agency’s supporting declarations. See, e.g., ACLU/DOD, 628 F.3d at 619; Students Against Genocide, 257 F.3d at 838. With respect to policy-or-practice claims, the moving party must establish “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Crv.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is properly granted against a party who, “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, ... fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is an “absence of a genuine issue of material fact” in dispute. Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and shall accept the nonmoving party’s evidence as true. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Court is only required to consider the materials explicitly cited by the parties, but may on its own accord consider “other materials in the record.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). For a factual dispute to be “genuine,” the non-moving party must establish more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of [its] position,” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, and cannot rely on “mere allegations” or conclusory statements, see Veitch v. England, 471 F.3d 124, 134 (D.C.Cir.2