that the release of the names will provide, we must conclude that the records at issue here are individual records generally subject to the guardians’ authorization requirement contained in the federal P&A statutes. Concluding, however, that the records DRW seeks are individual records does not necessarily preclude the agency from access to at least some of the infor mation. See Ala. Disabilities Advocacy Prog. v. J.S. Tarwater Dev. Ctr., 97 F.3d 492, 497 (11th Cir.1996) (concluding that “it is clear that the [federal P&A statutes] providef] express authority for P&A’s to gain broad access to records, facilities and residents to ensure that the [statutes’] mandates can be effectively pursued”); Miss. Protection & Advocacy Sys., Inc. v. Cotten, 929 F.2d 1054, 1058-59 (5th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). DRW repeatedly argues that it is circular to
holding that facilities have an affirmative duty to implement policies and practices that promote effective pa access holding that negligent misrepresentation is not affirmative defense regarding avoidance of life insurance policies holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant