With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and if those grounds are reasonable and consistent with the applicable law, the district court should uphold the government’s position.” Ingle, 698 F.2d at 265 (quoting Cox, 576 F.2d at 1312). Rugiero v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 543-544 (6th Cir.2001) (emphasis supplied). See also Ray, 502 U.S. at 179, 112 S.Ct. 541 (“We generally accord Government records and official conduct a presumption of legitimacy.”). In light of the Defendants’ reliance on this presumption, we note that it is not meant to supplant the burden that is otherwise placed on the agency by sanctioning sweeping and conelusory affidavits. It is not a surrogate for the evidence required for a court to conduct its review de novo. See Berman v. C.I.A., 501 F.3d 1136, 2007 WL 2472858, 1139-41 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Wiener, 943 F.2d at 983 n. 19. A district

A: holding that even where deference is broad the cia must do more than show simply that it has acted in good faith
B: holding that benefiting fiduciary must show he acted in good faith and that transactions were fair and equitable
C: holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims
D: holding that the nonmoving party must do more that simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts
A.