When filing an appeal against a Glomar response, focus on the agency's burden to justify their denial. This asymmetry is your leverage, as the agency must prove the record's existence would cause harm. A Glomar response sounds final. It isn't. It's an opening position — and the appeal is where you force the agency to defend it. Last lecture established that the Glomar response short-circuits the disclosure analysis entirely — and that's precisely why the appeal is so powerful. It forces the agency back into the analysis it tried to skip. Focus on the agency's burden of production: they must present concrete evidence that acknowledging the record's existence causes harm. Second is the burden of persuasion: it must convince the reviewing authority that harm is more likely than not — the civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, meaning greater than 50% probability. Vague assertions don't clear that bar. Conclusory language doesn't either. The agency must be specific, and specificity is exactly what most Glomar responses lack. Be aware of your appeal window. Procedural defects in the denial can mean the appeal clock hasn't started, giving you more time to act. Courts have held that ambiguous denial language, or language implying reconsideration is possible, does not trigger the appeal period. A Glomar response that fails to notify you of your challenge rights in plain language may be legally insufficient on its face. Document the date you received it. Document what it said — and what it didn't say. Two arguments are particularly effective in appeals against Glomar responses. First: prior public disclosure. If the existence of your complaint is already known — through a case number, a confirmation email, or any public acknowledgment — the agency cannot credibly claim that confirming the record's existence reveals new protected information. Courts have rejected Glomar responses on exactly this ground. Second: public interest. You can argue that the public's interest in understanding how the AG's office closes consumer complaints outweighs any marginal state interest in secrecy. That balancing test, Henk, is one the agency must engage with — not dismiss. Public records law presumes disclosure, placing the burden of proof on the state. If they fail, they lose. A Glomar response is not the final word. It is the agency's first move in a legal contest it is required to win on the merits. The administrative appeal is your mechanism for forcing that contest into the open. File it. Document the delay. Challenge the specificity of their justification. The wall only holds if you don't push back, Henk.