Epstein Secrets

sfies this obligation by explaining why those categories of records do not contain reasonably segregable non-exempt information. See, e.g.,Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd, LLP v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, No. 3:14-CV-2197, 2016 WL 950995, at *9 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2016) (citing examples). Mor

56 U.S. 595, 602 (1982). Under Exemption 6, a court considers whether the "public interest in disclosure outweighs the individual privacy concerns." Nat'l Assoc. of Hoinebuilders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 35 (D.C. Cr. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). But the "only relevant public interest in disclosu

sfies this obligation by explaining why those categories of records do not contain reasonably segregable non-exempt information. See, e.g.,Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd, LLP v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, No. 3:14-CV-2197, 2016 WL 950995, at *9 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2016) (citing examples). Mor

56 U.S. 595, 602 (1982). Under Exemption 6, a court considers whether the "public interest in disclosure outweighs the individual privacy concerns." Nat'l Assoc. of Hoinebuilders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 35 (D.C. Cr. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). But the "only relevant public interest in disclosu

sfies this obligation by explaining why those categories of records do not contain reasonably segregable non-exempt information. See, e.g.,Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd, LLP v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, No. 3:14-CV-2197, 2016 WL 950995, at *9 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2016) (citing examples). Mor

56 U.S. 595, 602 (1982). Under Exemption 6, a court considers whether the "public interest in disclosure outweighs the individual privacy concerns." Nat'l Assoc. of Hoinebuilders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 35 (D.C. Cr. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). But the "only relevant public interest in disclosu