In all Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA ") cases,
the federal courts apply a deferential "presumption of good
faith " to agency declarations and forego discovery unless
the requestor can show "bad faith " by the agency.

1. Are the courts violating the FOIA and its mandate to
conduct de novo review by applying the presumption in
cases which have nothing to do with national security?

2. Do the courts have any power to deny FOIA requestors the
same benefits under the Federal Rules that other civil
litigants enjoy, including the right to pre-trial discovery?

The Petitioner presented countervailing evidence of
overlooked materials that the agency failed to address in
its declarations. Despite this, the lower court granted
summary judgment to the agency and the court of appeals
summarily affirmed.

3. Did the lower court 's deference to the agency via the
presumption cause it to adopt a sham interpretation of the
requests used by the agency to circumvent Greentree and
ignore the agency 's exclusion of court records from its
searches prohibited by Tax Analysts and McGehee ?

4. Did the lower court conduct a trial by affidavit on the
agency 's summary judgment motions and did the court of
appeals clearly misapprehend summary judgment law in
light of binding Supreme Court precedent?

5. Did the lower courts violate the Magistrate Act and
reduce the litigation to an unappealable administrative
proceeding?

Are the courts violating the FOIA and its mandate to conduct de novo review by applying the presumption in cases which have nothing to do with national security?