Epstein Secrets

ic to know and the need of the [g]overnment to keep information in confidence." John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.,493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 89-147 at 6 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2423)). The nine FOIA exemptions reflect Congress's determination that "public di

f Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 199 7) 7 Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17

released, could interfere with post-trial criminal proceedings, such as an appeaL See, e.g.,Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27-28 (D.D.C. 2007); Kansi v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 1998). 8 EFTA00071567 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 30 (

ic to know and the need of the [g]overnment to keep information in confidence." John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.,493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 89-147 at 6 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2423)). The nine FOIA exemptions reflect Congress's determination that "public di

f Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 199 7) 7 Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17

released, could interfere with post-trial criminal proceedings, such as an appeaL See, e.g.,Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27-28 (D.D.C. 2007); Kansi v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 1998). 8 EFTA00075450 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 30 (

ic to know and the need of the [g]overnment to keep information in confidence." John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.,493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 89-147 at 6 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2423)). The nine FOIA exemptions reflect Congress's determination that "public di

f Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 199 7) 7 Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17

released, could interfere with post-trial criminal proceedings, such as an appeaL See, e.g.,Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27-28 (D.D.C. 2007); Kansi v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 1998). 8 EFTA00088684 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 30 (

ic to know and the need of the [g]overnment to keep information in confidence." John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989)(quoting H.R. Rep. No. 89-147 at 6 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 5 EFTA00069316 2423)). The nine FOR exemptions reflect Congress's determination

eased, could interfere with post-trial criminal proceedings, such as an appeal. See, e.g., Kidder v. FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27-28 (D. D.C. 2007); Kansi v. U.S Dep't ofJustice, II F. Supp. 2d 42, 44 (D. D.C. 1998). 8 EFTA00069319 As a threshold matter, all of the records withheld by FBI pursuant t