Upon termination of the Office of Independent Counsel, the active independent counsel was obligated to transfer all records which had been created during its tenure to the Archivist of the United States (“Archivist”), 28 U.S.C. § 594(k)(l), and was to “clearly identify which of [those] records [were] subject to rule 6(e),” In re North, 16 F.3d at 1244 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 594(k)(l)). Furthermore, the Archivist is “responsible for the custody, use, and withdrawal of records transferred to him.” 44 U.S.C. § 2108 (2012). A FOIA analysis of whether to disclose records that have been transferred to the Archives is conducted as if the records remain in the possession of the agency that created them. See Cause of Action v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., 753 F.3d 210, 216 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); see also Fund for Const. Gov’t, 656 F.2d at
holding that although the defendant was able to impeach the prosecution in certain respects the suppressed information was material under brady because there was a significant difference between the suppressed material and the information to which the defense had access holding that because the district court has authority under the foia to order production of the unredacted documents plaintiff seeks the foia clearly provides an alternate adequate remedy in court and thus triggers  704s bar on claims brought under the apa holding that material prejudice was not present under the facts however an agency of the state was not a party to the action holding that transfer of possession to the archives did not affect the documents status under the foia because the court was confident that congress did not intend to expose  material to foia simply because the material had been deposited with the archives holding that purely factual material may be withheld from disclosure under exemption 5 if that material would expose the deliberative process of an agency