Incorrect. That's talking about the FIOA request which said that the request was urgent. The FDA acknowledged that they had the information, but claimed it wasn't urgent.
They determined that whatever the request was, was not urgent. Regardless of whether they had "information" or not. Just that a request was not deemed to be actionable.
It's your interpretation that they have stuff they are "withholding" from you. Just because you ask for something doesn't mean you will get it in the timeframe you asked for it. Are you a lawyer, an expert? Is your interpretation founded on your expertise in the matter?
Again, one lawyer says they should get X. Another lawyer says not in your timeframe. Who is right? Which lawyer? Are you equipped to say who is right?
This is not a claim that they didn't violate the specific law referenced. This is separate issue entirely. There is a federal law that states that it must be immediately available upon licensing. It is referenced in the lawsuit as well. Is there a specific response to this law by the FDA?
No, there is not. You are unable to even find a denial on this matter.
Did you look into the link I sent you regarding FDA Regulations? And how there are caveats regarding disseminating their findings? Subsequent to "immediately available upon licensing." There's a whole bunch of stuff around proprietary info, disclosures, etc. Again, you cherry pick one line in a regulatory document and leave out a whole host of context around it.
As evidenced by all of your other efforts to assert affidavits as proof of something, you're batting about .000%.