that [it has] pending FOIA requests that are likely to implicate the policy or practice.” Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA (“NSC II”), 931 F.Supp.2d 77, 93 (D.D.C.2013) (emphasis added). In NSC II, for instance, Judge Howell reasoned that an organization “had standing to pursue its policy-or-practice claims” because of its “clear intent” to file further FOIA requests — an intent that “was only concretely apparent because of the outstanding FOIA requests that [the organization] was still pursuing with the [agency], which were themselves - likely to implicate 'the challenged policies in the future.” Id. at 93 (emphasis added); see also Ctr. for Study of Servs. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Civ. No. 14-498 (GK), 130 F.Supp.3d 1, 8, 2015 WL 5110939, at *5 (D.D.C. July 1, 2015) (<HOLDING>); Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. CIA (“NSC I”), 898
holding that the government cannot waive foia exemption 6 on behalf of the individual whose privacy interests the exemption protects holding that unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption holding that a plaintiff adequately described an ongoing injury where he had already requested  data that an agencys policy or practice would lead it to withhold under a foia exemption holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3