contained in the documents. Also, the court in Citizens for Responsibility, found fault with the defendant’s failure to specify how many documents were being withheld pursuant to Exemption 3. Id. But, in this case, the Archives has stated that it is withholding 238 documents responsive to the plaintiffs FOIA request. Therefore, unlike the declarations in Citizens for Responsibility, Ms. Murphy’s declarations do not merely state in a conclusory fashion that Rule 6(e) material has been withheld, but instead specifies the precise nature of the contents of the draft indictments, sufficiently demonstrating that the withheld material is of the type intended to be protected by Rule 6(e). The plaintiff further devotes a significant portion of its argument di ase, 192 F.3d at 1002-03 (<HOLDING>). When, however, an entity possesses
holding that new york law did not preclude an arbitrators award of punitive damages despite a new york choice of law provision because there was no indication in the contract that the parties intended to limit their remedies in arbitration holding mere general statements by office of independent counsel prosecutors to the new york times regarding their belief on the direction of their own investigation did not constitute rule 6e material holding that the district where the defendant attorneys office was located was the proper venue because the defendants omissions related to their failure to communicate from their office in savannah the details of the ongoing case recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding that even though lehman banks executive officers were in new york and its board of directors met exclusively in new york lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york because the term principal office is a term of art