request, he argues that at the time “he understood [it] to be a narrowing quite different than the eviscerating construction now advanced.” Id. at 4. In its reply, the CIA argues that the plaintiff “agreed to narrow the scope of his FOIA request such that it plainly covers only records that originate with the CIA,” and that pursuant to this narrower request, the CIA searched only CIA reports. Def.’s Reply at 4. Thus, the CIA concludes that the non-production of Department of State records does not “impugn the adequacy of the CIA’s search.” Id. at 5. As a preliminary matter, the court must decide whether the plaintiffs initial or amended FOIA request is controlling. An agency can ask a FOIA requestor to clarify or narrow an overly broad request. See Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 891-92 (<HOLDING>); Kenney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 603
holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency in the first instance to address holding that application for and denial of a permit is necessary to a ripe takings claim absent futility or a showing that the permitting procedure is so burdensome as to effectively deprive the plaintiff of his property rights holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that an agency is not required to undertake a search that is so broad as to be unduly burdensome holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency