148 (D.D.C.2010) (rejecting “the plaintiffs’ arguments that defendant’s failure to produce any documents until after litigation commenced is evidence of bad faith or an inadequate search”). The court notes that approximately ten months elapsed between when the plaintiff claims to have submitted his amended request to the CIA in March 2008, and when this court ordere rovided sufficient details and facts to support that its search was reasonable under the amended request. See generally Classified Dimaio Deck; see also Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 890 (requiring that an agency’s affidavit set forth sufficient information for the court to determine whether a search is reasonable (citing Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68)); cf. Morley v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 508 F.3d 1108, 1122 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court concludes that the CIA
holding that the court must find that the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or the decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise holding that the sanction the agency imposed was not rationally arrived at on this record and was wholly disproportionate to the error petitioner committed where inter alia the agency did not explain why it had not taken the same position  in similar circumstances in the past holding that an agency declaration was insufficient because it provided only a general explanation of how the agency responds to all foia requests and did not  identify  the terms searched or explain  how the search was conducted  quoting oglesby 920 f2d at 68 holding that when a plaintiff has no pending foia request with an agency and has not averred that he intends to make foia requests to the agency in the future any claim of future injury is simply too speculative and remote to give him standing holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding