they were to retrieve “any documents that were transmitted by Region 1 to Headquarters to respond to the scientific misconduct allegations.” Id. Those were then provided to counsel, who “reviewed the potentially responsive documents to determine whether they were in fact responsive to the revised FOIA request and, furthermore, whether any of the information contained therein was exempt from disclosure.” Id., ¶ 14. This human-centered approach is entirely proper. Indeed, it is reasonable for an agency to limit its search to asking staff members familiar with all aspects of a government program to find the relevant documents. See Roman v. Dep’t of Air Force, 952 F.Supp.2d 166, 175 (D.D.C.2013); see also Anderson v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 661 F.Supp.2d 6, 11 n. 2 (D.D.C. 2009) (<HOLDING>). EPA’s efforts, therefore, were “reasonably
holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding that reasonably detailed affidavits or declarations must set  forth the search terms and the type of search performed and avert  that all files likely to contain responsive materials if such records exist were searched holding that mjanually searching  records without using specific search terms could reasonably be expected to produce the requested information given  that those conducting the search were familiar with the request holding that a request for search constitutes an interrogation holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises