Epstein Secrets

071 (RPP), 1995 WL 329307 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 19 95) 5 Garcia v. U.S. Dept ofJustice, 181 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 5 Grand Cent. P .ship v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) 13, 14 Hopkins v. U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Dev., 929 F.2d 81 13 Human Rights Watch v BOP, No. 13-CV-7360 (J

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

134482 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020) 9 iii EFTA00071626 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 29 Grand Central p'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) 18, 19 Gray v. United States Anny Crim. Investigation Command, 742 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2010) 9 Hopkins v. U.S.

0-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 29 interfere with enforcement proceedings. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 236 (1978); see also, e.g., Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Affidavits must contain more than mere concl

071 (RPP), 1995 WL 329307 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 19 95) 5 Garcia v. U.S. Dept ofJustice, 181 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 5 Grand Cent. P .ship v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) 13, 14 Hopkins v. U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Dev., 929 F.2d 81 13 Human Rights Watch v BOP, No. 13-CV-7360 (J

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

134482 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020) 9 iii EFTA00088703 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 29 Grand Central p'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) 18, 19 Gray v. United States Anny Crim. Investigation Command, 742 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2010) 9 Hopkins v. U.S.

0-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 29 interfere with enforcement proceedings. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 236 (1978); see also, e.g., Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Affidavits must contain more than mere concl

071 (RPP), 1995 WL 329307 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 19 95) 5 Garcia v. U.S. Dept ofJustice, 181 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 5 Grand Cent. P .ship v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) 13, 14 Hopkins v. U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Dev., 929 F.2d 81 13 Human Rights Watch v BOP, No. 13-CV-7360 (J

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