For example, we have no way of knowing whether the disclosure to appellants of only four digits would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the importers. It is perfectly within our remedial authority, however, to remand to the District Court so that a record can be made on this issue, particularly when agency counsel conceded that nobody’s interests would be served by forcing appellants to pursue their request again at the administrative level. As noted above, our disposition in this case is fully consistent with previous FOIA eases in which this court has remanded for further development of the record in light of matters that did not arise until the case was in this court on appeal. See, e.g., Sinito v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 176 F.3d 512, 514 (D.C. Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In Sinito the court noted the government’s
holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted holding that a cause of action under foia survives the death of the original requestor as long as the substitute requestor is found to be the original requestors legal representative under rule 25 of the federal rules of civil procedure holding that amendment of condemnors original complaint to substitute a new and different easement route was tantamount to abandonment of the original proceeding holding that a shotgun pleading is in no sense the short and plain statement of a claim required by rule 8 of the federal rules of civil procedure