on the basis of perjured testimony that the Government might well have been able prevent through its own investigation, compliance with its Brady obligations, or both. Third, while it is both reasonable and consistent with this Circuit’s case law to assume that some portion of the responsive records may implicate the privacy interests of Lopez and others who may be mentioned in them, see, e.g., Davis, 968 F.2d at 1281 (persons involved in law enforcement investigations “have a substantial interest in seeing that their participation remains secret”), this does not supply a basis to withhold the records in their entirety. The DEA puts forth no reason why redactions or selective withholding will not suffice to protect any existing privacy interests. See Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 896 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). In sum, given the
holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds holding that an agency is not permitted to exempt from disclosure all of the material in an investigatory record solely on the grounds that the record includes some information which identifies a private citizen holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record