Decl.”) ¶ 6. On the basis of this additional review, the agency determined that declassification was warranted for four pages, which it subsequently released, and that the remaining pages still qualified for “Secret”-level classification. Id. The Court is therefore satisfied with the FBI’s “plausible assertion that information [was] properly dassified[.]” Shapiro, 239 F.Supp.3d at 121, 2017 WL 908179 at *13. Turning to Exemption 3, the FBI applied this exemption to redact information that would either “reveal classified intelligence sources and methods [also] protected by Exemption 1 .., [or] unclassified intelligence sources and methods [that] were employed as law enforcement techniques,’ procedures or guidelines[.]” First Hardy Decl. ¶ 57; see Sims, 471 U.S. at 176, 105 S.Ct. 1881 (<HOLDING>). Reacting to the FBI’s somewhat concluso-ry
holding performance not deficient because counsel gathered a substantial amount of information and then made a reasonable decision not to pursue additional sources holding that even when the information is crucial to a litigants case reporters should be compelled to disclose their sources only after the litigant has shown that he has exhausted every reasonable alternative source of information holding as a matter of federal law that  1681eb at least sometimes covers  incomplete information as well as technically inaccurate information holding that the nsa covers unclassified information regarding intelligence sources and methods holding that the right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments