applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a), (b). Congress enacted FOIA to “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108, 1114 (D.C.Cir.2007) (quoting Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976)). Because disclosure rather than secrecy is the “dominant objective of the Act,” the statutory exemptions are “narrowly construed.” See McKneely v. United States Dept. of Justice, 132 F.Supp.3d 44, 49 (D.D.C.2015) (internal citations omitted). The government bears the burden of justifying nondisclosure, either through declarations or an index of information withheld. See e.g., Consumers’ Checkbook, 554 F.3d 1046, 1057 (D.C.Cir.2009) and Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (<HOLDING>). Agency affidavits and declarations must be
holding actual possession of or access to information by the irs is not an absolute bar to enforcement of a summons for that information recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause holding that an indexing system was necessary in foia cases to 1 assure that a partys right to information is  not submerged beneath governmental obfuscation and mischaracterization and 2 permit the court system effectively and efficiently to evaluate the factual nature of disputed information holding that where a foia plaintiff seeks sensitive foreignaffairs information the court should give substantial weight to a government affidavit that the information is exempt from foia but nevertheless consider contrary evidence presented by the plaintiff