Epstein Secrets

& Exch. Comm'n, No. 3:14-CV-2197, 2016 WL 950995 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v.

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

& Exch. Comm'n, No. 3:14-CV-2197, 2016 WL 950995 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v.

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

& Exch. Comm'n, No. 3:14-CV-2197, 2016 WL 950995 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v.

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that