predecisional nor deliberative and, therefore, do not implicate the deliberative-process privilege. These eight documents are: CE523-524, CE555, CE580-585, CE3720, CE2539-2588, CE6838, CE6871-6873, and CE6899. Because the government did not meet its burden of showing that these documents fall within Exemption 5, it must disclose them to the plaintiff. Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 305; Summers, 140 F.3d at 1080. As to documents CE523-524, CE555, CE3720, CE6838, CE6871-6873, and CE6899, all or portions of them appear- to be neither predecisional nor deliberative. When conducting an in camera review, the court is at a disadvantage because it reviews the documents outside the context in which they were generated. See Johnson v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 775 (D.C.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). It is imperative, therefore, that the
holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants recognizing that to meet its burden the government may need to explain the exemptions relevance in addition to simply statfing which exemption the agency claims for each withheld document recognizing burden holding that an agency carries its burden of proof by providing affidavits to explain why documents are subject to an exemption