n.2; see also Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum at 5 n.3. The Court finds, however, that the Plaintiffs have misread the Military Audit Project decision.
In Military Audit Project, the Government elected to release 2000 pages of materials relating to the Glomar Explorer Project that it had previously withheld on national security grounds. See 656 F.2d at 735. This change of mind arose when the Carter Administration took office, bringing with it a new view on "'whether the fact of CIA's past involvement in the Glomar Explorer program still required protection from disclosure on national security grounds.'" Id. at 735 n.27 (quoting Letter from Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Attorney General, to Hon. Gerhard A. Gesell (July 15, 1977)). Thus, while the Plaintiffs are correct that there was a change in policy, that change was the Carter Administration's conclusion that the Government's earlier determination that the 2000 pages must be withheld was in error. The Military Audit Project plaintiffs then argued that this confession of error established that the Government's later exemption determinations could not be trusted. See 656 F.2d at 753-54.
The Plaintiffs in this case make an almost identical argument: Because the Government's earlier exemption determinations were incorrect in part, this Court should not defer to later claims that materials are properly redacted or withheld. The critical internal step of logic is the same in both instances, namely, that because the Government earlier made mistakes, there is a good chance it is making mistakes again. It is that proposition that the Court of Appeals so "emphatically rejected" in Military Audit Project, 656 F.2d at 754.
The Plaintiffs assert that this interpretation of Military Audit Project is belied by Meeropol v. Meese, 252 U.S. App. D.C. 381, 790 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986). They specifically invoke that portion of the Meeropol opinion holding that "the substantial number of errors revealed by examining a sample of the agency's claims . . . 'must be understood as calling into question the validity of all exemptions, total and partial, claimed' by the agency." Plaintiffs' Reply in Support at 3-4 (quoting Meeropol, 790 F.2d at 960).
In quoting Meeropol, however, the Plaintiffs conspicuously omit the remainder of the Court of Appeals' sentence, which clearly refers only to those exemptions claimed "during that  time period." That caveat is crucial because this section of the Meeropol opinion dealt only with a specific set of records that the FBI had not reprocessed despite its admission that its original processing scheme had resulted in substantial errors. See 790 F.2d at 960 ("The FBI has never been required to reexamine those documents, and only chose to reexamine those pages included in the [in camera] sample" from which the errors had been discovered) The Court of Appeals remanded with instructions that the agency itself reprocess those documents, subject to oversight by the District Court. Id.
The Defendants in this case, in contrast, have fully complied with Meeropol in that they have rereviewed each of the documents in light of the Plaintiffs' claims. See Third Declaration of Davis S. Van Tassel, supra, passim. And, as discussed in the July 28, 1995 Memorandum Opinion, this Court is satisfied that the relevant Vaughn indices and supporting affidavits now sufficiently, accurately, and correctly reflect the application of the FOIA's exemption standards.
The relevant holding of Meeropol therefore is set forth in an entirely separate section of the decision. Earlier in its Opinion, the Court of Appeals discussed the Government's release of over 8000 pages of additional materials only after the plaintiffs protested that seemingly relevant files had not been produced. 790 F.2d at 952. To the plaintiffs' argument that the Government's acts suggested that it could not be trusted to characterize materials accurately as exempt, the Court in Meeropol, relying on Military Audit Project, supra, explained:
We find the incidents cited by [plaintiffs] suggest not bad faith, but rather that the FBI was cooperating with [plaintiffs] by meeting with them repeatedly, responding to their inquiries, conducting numerous additional searches, and producing records when error was discovered.