Case 1:12-cv-00127-BJR Document 40 Filed 03/04/15 Page 14 of 22 have acted “within [their] principal function of law enforcement, rather than merely engaging in a general monitoring of private individuals’ activities.” 9 Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d at 420. Moreover, there is no support for the notion that Defendants’ investigation into the unauthorized publishing of classified material on WikiLeaks is pretext and that Defendants are conducting illegal investigations of innocent WikiLeaks supporters. The FBI specifically states that it “is not investigating individuals who simply support or have an interest in WikiLeaks,” and “does not . . . maintain lists of individuals who have demonstrated support for or interest in WikiLeaks, and thus has no records responsive to this portion of Plaintiff’s request.” Hardy 1st Decl. ¶ 19 n.3; see also Hardy 4th Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. Moreover, CRM’s in camera submission demonstrates to the Court that its responsive documents do not pertain to an investigation of individuals who “simply support” WikiLeaks. See Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 6. After reviewing the Defendants’ declarations and exhibits attached thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s speculation fails to rebut the presumption of good faith that is afforded to agency declarations. See Nat’l Whistleblower Ctr., 849 F. Supp. 2d at 22 (quoting SafeCard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (stating that the presumption of good faith afforded to agencies’ sworn statements “cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents”). 2. Interference with Enforcement Proceedings To make a successful Exemption 7(A) claim, the government must further “demonstrate that disclosure (1) could reasonably be expected to interfere with (2) enforcement proceedings 9 The D.C. Circuit has recently clarified that records are “compiled for law enforcement purposes” not only when they are related to an investigation and prosecution after a violation of the law, but also when the records are generated in an effort to “prevent criminal activity and to maintain security.” Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2043, at *8-9 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 14