to present' concrete plans showing their intent to file those requests. One way for a plaintiff to make this showing -is to “dem upp.2d 233, 262 (D.D.C.2012) (“Recent cases have clarified that, where a FOIA requester challenges an alleged ongoing policy or practice and can demonstrate that it has pending claims that are likely to implicate that policy or practice, future injury is satisfied.”). By the same token, in Citizens for Responsi-bilityand Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Lamberth held that no case or controversy existed in part because “CREW [did] not allege anywhere ... that it has a FOIA request pending with the [agency].” 527 F.Supp.2d 101, 106 (D.D.C.2007); see also Coleman, 134 F.Supp.3d at 306-08, 2015 WL 5730707, at *8-9 (<HOLDING>). If a plaintiff does not have a separate FOIA
holding that the agency did not have an obligation to search for and produce the documents the plaintiff claimed entitlement to because the plaintiffs foia request gave no indication that she sought those particular 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 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 foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents