7(D), and 7(F) was not an effort to gain a tactical advantage, as August argues, but rather stemmed from its ultimately mistaken but reasonable belief that it would have an opportunity to raise these exemptions if the law-enforcement proceedings against August ended before his FOIA case. Nothing in Maydak requires that we order disclosure solely to deter the Government from playing “cat and mouse games” where, as here, not only did the Government’s behavior result from a mistake, but doing so would endanger the safety and privacy of third parties — who, after all, bear no responsibility for the Government’s litigation strategy. The law does not require that third parties pay for the Government’s mistakes. Cf. Sherman v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 244 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Computer Prof’ls for Soc. Responsibility v.
holding that unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption holding the governments prior disclosure of requested information could not waive individuals privacy interests under exemption 6 and collecting cases involving exemption 7c holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 holding that the government cannot waive foia exemption 6 on behalf of the individual whose privacy interests the exemption protects holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption