the Government fairly describes the content of the material withheld and adequately states its ground for non-disclosure, and if those grounds are reasonable and consistent with the applicable law, the district court should uphold the Government’s position. The court is entitled to accept the credibility of the affidavits, so long as it has no reason to question the good faith of the agency. Barney v. IRS, 618 F.2d 1268, 1272 (8th Cir.1980) (quotation omitted). “Boilerplate affidavits,” without more, are insufficient to show that no genuine issue of fact exists, but a court may rely on affidavits “giving reasonably detailed explanations why any withheld documents fall within an exemption.” ACLU v. DOJ, 681 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2012); see also Wilner v. NSA 592 F.3d 60, 73 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Exemption 5 FOIA Exemption 5 protects from
holding that different justifications for an adverse action are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment when those reasons are not incompatible holding that an agency carries its burden of proof by providing affidavits to explain why documents are subject to an exemption holding affidavits must include competent evidence and affidavits are not competent if they fail to show a basis for actual person knowledge or if they state conclusions without the support of evidentiary facts holding that affidavits are sufficient if they describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith holding that the prosecutors nondisclosure of material evidence affecting a witnesss credibility which goes uncorrected falls within the requirements of brady