enforcement proceedings as the cause or causes of the disaster are investigated.” Id. ¶ 8. Further, as the Page Declaration sufficiently states, “[r]eleasing the transcript of a key witness such as Mr. Hardman, before other witnesses are called back or interviewed for the first time, may compromise the integrity of the investigation as these witnesses would have access to Mr. Hardman’s information and conclusions on enforcement activities at the Upper Big Branch Mine.” Id. Because the defendants asserted Exemption 7(A) to prevent interference from ongoing investigations and enforcement proceedings, defendants properly asserted the Exemption. See North, 881 F.2d at 1097; Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 243, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978) (<HOLDING>). C. FOIA Exemption 7(C) Exemption 7 applies to
holding that the release statements of witnesses would necessarily interfere with enforcement proceedings holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that criminal defendants are entitled to obtain for impeachment purposes statements made by government witnesses to government agents that relate to the subject matter of the witnesses direct testimony holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them holding that the doctrine of commonlaw privilege that grants immunity to witnesses in quasijudicial proceedings does not extend to disciplinary proceedings against a state employee who makes false statements in the course of an official investigation