in Adamowicz I. As a preliminary matter, in their opening brief. Plaintiffs misrepresent the applicable law for determining the adequacy of the Government’s search. Plaintiffs’ proffered legal standard for adequacy states: “a government agency must, at a minimum, submit declarations from its officers who actually supervised and conducted the search in question that contain detailed explanations of the search itself and that confirm that all files that may contain responsive materials were searched.” (Pis’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 4.) This statement is plainly misleading, and none of the cases in Plaintiffs’ lengthy string citation supports these legal requirements. Indeed, Carney—Plaintiffs’ main case in support of this proposition— clearly shows the law is otherwise. See 19 F.3d at 814 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue, first, that the search
holding deference is owed to the decisionmaker authorized to speak on behalf of the agency not to each individual agency employee holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding that there is no individual liability under title vii holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner holding that there is no need for the agency to supply affidavits from each individual who participated in the actual search