In that case, the lawyer had even identified the client by name, stating that “ ‘[i]n order to help determine my status to assess fees, you should know that I am an attorney representing Three Forks Ranch Corp ...’” Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted). The Court held that even this reference was not sufficient because the FOIA request did not also explicitly specify that the FOIA request was being made “on behalf of’ Three Forks Ranch Corporation. See also Burka v. United States Dep’t. Of Health & Human Services, 142 F.3d 1286, 1290-91 (D.C.Cir.1998) (finding that undisclosed client could not be real party in interest in FOIA case, and discussing dangers inherent in recognizing an “undisclosed” client as the real plaintiff); MAXXAM Inc. v. FDIC, 1999 WL 33912624 at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Lamb v. I.R.S., 871 F.Supp. 301, 303
holding that where a foia plaintiff seeks sensitive foreignaffairs information the court should give substantial weight to a government affidavit that the information is exempt from foia but nevertheless consider contrary evidence presented by the plaintiff holding that when attorney representing unigard submitted a foia request in his own name unigard lacked standing because its name did not appear on the request itself holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents holding that only the person or entity whose name appears in the foia request is the real party in interest and thus has standing to bring subsequent foia enforcement action 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