court properly concluded that an exemption should apply. Minier v. CIA 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir.1996). The district court’s decision had an adequate factual basis because the EEOC presented declarations demonstrating that it had never had custody or control of the document Gaines sought and Gaines failed to rebut this evidence. See Marks v. U.S., 578 F.2d 261, 262-63 (9th Cir.1978). Therefore, the district court properly concluded that the EEOC had no disclosure obligation pursuant to FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(B) (granting district courts jurisdiction to enjoin disclosure of “agency records”); 552(f)(2) (defining “record” as information “maintained by an agency”); Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150-51, 100 S.Ct. 960, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980) (<HOLDING>). We reject Gaines’ remaining contentions as
holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation holding that section 12309 is a condition precedent to the accrual of rights against a municipality holding agency must have had custody and control of document as condition precedent to improperly withholding it under section 552a4b holding the trial court may determine issue of condition precedent to enforcement of agreement to arbitrate holding that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract