Is there any case law where a district court found that unredacted information provided only a limited public benefit?

^[3] Schoenberg also argues the district court contradicted itself. We disagree. The district court described the unredacted information as "significant to the public," but later said that the public benefit was "limited." These statements are not inherently contradictory. It was well "within [the] broad range of permissible conclusions" to conclude that the unredacted information, while holding some quantum of public significance, conferred only a limited public benefit. See Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citation omitted).