Committee “does not have sufficient trust in the Department of Justice to take the Department’s word on [redac-tions].” Tr. of July 30, 2015 Hearing [Dkt. # 109] at 49. The legitimacy of these privileges is not an issue that was presented in the complaint, and prudential concerns dictate that these questions are more appropriately resolved by the parties in the first instance. As for whether the redactions are what they purport to be, the Court notes that counsel for even the most disputatious parties are often called upon to trust each other, and that the judiciary relies regularly on declarations by the executive branch that matters redacted from FOIA productions are what they are described to be in the Vaughn index. See Loving v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 550 F.3d 32, 41 (D.C.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Consumer Fin. Prot.
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding trial court abused its discretion by assessing sanctions based on inadmissible document holding that district court had not abused its discretion by relying on agencys vaughn index and declaration in determining whether a disputed document contained segregable portions