The Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., provides public access to information held by public authorities. The Act provides that public authorities are obligated to publish certain information about their activities, and members of the public are entitled to request that information from them.

Since the enactment of the FOIA and its processes, courts have been uniform in providing that "FOIA exemptions should be narrowly construed to favor disclosure." Cf. Hanson v. U.S. Agency for Intern. Development, 372 F.3d 286, 290 (4th Cir. 2004). In other words, information held by public authorities can only be withheld when it is "specifically exempted from disclosure by [another] statute" where the relevant statute either "requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue" or where the relevant statute "establishes [a] particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i), (ii) (2013).

The situation at issue in this case focuses on whether the records provided to the Petitioner, Julian Okeayainneh, through the FOIA process sufficiently complied with the FOIA's disclosure requirements and, equally important, whether those records were in full compliance with the attestation requirement denoting the records' authenticity and reliability as set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Whether the records provided to the petitioner through the FOIA process sufficiently complied with the FOIA's disclosure requirements and whether those records were in full compliance with the attestation requirement denying the records' authenticity and reliability