redacted or withheld this information from Request No. 2011-1886. 59 . The BOP redacted or withheld this information from Request Nos. 2011-1886 and 2011-7619.. 60 . The BOP redacted or withheld this document from Request No. 2011-1886. 61 . The BOP redacted or withheld this information from Request No. 2012-975 62 . Pinson also cursorily argues that the BOP’s claims “about endangering inmate safety or in some way revealing its practices and techniques [are] contradicted by its public policies which identify 'disruptive groups.’ ” See Pinson Decl. ¶ 7. However, as explained previously, Exemption 7(F) does not operate as a balancing test, but as an absolute ban against disclosure of certain information. See Raulerson, 271 F.Supp.2d at 29; see also Sanchez-Alaniz, 2016 WL 1222214, at *8 (<HOLDING>). Nor has Pinson demonstrated that the precise
holding the governments prior disclosure of requested information could not waive individuals privacy interests under exemption 6 and collecting cases involving exemption 7c holding that the names of thirdparty inmates within memoranda were categorically exempt from disclosure absent compelling evidence of illegal activity by the bop holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a violation of the fcra based on extraneous information where it was alleged that the document included broad language regarding disclosure of the information the accuracy of the information the consequences of providing a false statement and the effect of a photocopy holding that the bop properly withheld information under exemption 7f where the bop determined that disclosure of the redacted information would endanger the life or physical safety of inmates and staff members named withindie report holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant