Executive Order 12958, and (4) disclosure of the withheld information “reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security.” Id. ¶¶9, 14-16; see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1). Thus, the court concludes that the CIA has met the procedural requirements needed to invoke Exemption 1. Substantively, the CIA’s classified declaration describes in sufficient detail why the withheld information “logically falls” within one of the classification categories outlined in Section 1.4 of Executive Order. Hayden, 608 F.2d at 1387; see generally Classified Dimaio Decl. The court need not inquire “further into [the classified declaration’s] veracity,” having already determined that neither contradictory evidence nor bad faith was present. See supra Part III.B.2.b; Hayden, 608 F.2d at 1387 (<HOLDING>). Although the plaintiff contends the CIA erred
holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that a district court need not inquire into the veracity of a classified affidavit unless the information it provides is insufficient or contradicted by the record or there is evidence of bad faith on behalf of the agency holding that the veracity of an agencys affidavit need not be questioned if no bad faith or contradictory evidence is found recognizing that a defendants good reputation for truth and veracity may be introduced when he was impeached by evidence of bad reputation for truth and veracity holding that improper motive is element of bad faith