USSC today:
As we have noted, the balancing exercise in some other case might require us to make a somewhat more precise determination regarding the significance of the public interest and the historical importance of the events in question. We might need to consider the nexus between the documents and the purported public interest served by disclosure. We do not need to do so her, however. Favish has not produced any evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred to put the balance in play.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals July 12, 2000:
Favish, in fact, tenders evidence and argument which, if believed, would justify his doubts; but it is not the function of the court in a FOIA proceeding to weigh such evidence or adjudicate such arguments. See Washington Post Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, 865 F.2d 320, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
ML/NJ (reasonable person, but there are limits)
I always thought I was a reasonable person. I guess the SC doesn't think so.