22. An agency must show “beyond material doubt” that it conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents in response to a FOIA request. Id. (quoting Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C.Cir.1983)). The adequacy of an agency’s search for responsive records is measured by “the reasonableness of the, effort in light of the specific request.” McKinley v. F.D.I.C., 807 F.Supp.2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 869 (D.C.Cir.2009)). An agency is not obligated to search every record system. See Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 952-53 (D.C.Cir.1986) (noting a search is not presumed unreasonable simply because it fails to produce all relevant material); see also Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 (D.C.Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Here, EPIC’s only argument challenging the
holding that where the relevance and resulting prejudice from destruction of documents cannot be clearly ascertained because the documents no longer exist  the culpable party can hardly assert any presumption of irrelevance as to the destroyed documents holding that where original documents were illegally seized those documents as well as all copies had to be returned holding that the documents contents supported a finding of authenticity since these documents were addressed to the defendants coconspirator and several were responsive to the coconspirators faxes holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist