Epstein Secrets

4 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 5 Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass 'n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) 17 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) 12, 14 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) 13 Ell v. U.S. Dru

xemption 7(E) generally covers only "investigatory records that disclose investigative techniques and procedures not generally known to the public," Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49, 52 n.4 (2d Cir. 1985), "even commonly known procedures may be protected from disclosure if the disclosure co

f 25 reasonable explanations are closely tethered to the purpose of Exemption 5 and indeed are similar in kind and specificity to anticipated harms the D.C. Circuit has held support withholdings under Exemption 5. See Elec. Frontier Found., 739 F.3d at 6, 13. D. BOP Properly Withheld Information Pursuant to FO

(2001) 18 Dep't ofJustice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) 2 Diamond v. FBI, 707 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1983) 14 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 21 Envt 'I Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973) 19 Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501

risk circumvention of the law." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). The exemption protects only techniques and procedures "not generally known to the public." Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49, 52 n.4 (2d Cir. 1985). Thus, where the agency fails to establish that "the material being withheld truly emb

P records qualify as law enforcement records. But, as the Government cannot help but acknowledge, courts in this circuit—like the Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit—have squarely rejected that per se approach, instead requiring a rational nexus to enforcement of a federal law. See Human Rights Watch v. Dep't of

4 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 5 Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass 'n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) 17 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) 12, 14 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) 13 Ell v. U.S. Dru

xemption 7(E) generally covers only "investigatory records that disclose investigative techniques and procedures not generally known to the public," Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49, 52 n.4 (2d Cir. 1985), "even commonly known procedures may be protected from disclosure if the disclosure co

f 25 reasonable explanations are closely tethered to the purpose of Exemption 5 and indeed are similar in kind and specificity to anticipated harms the D.C. Circuit has held support withholdings under Exemption 5. See Elec. Frontier Found., 739 F.3d at 6, 13. D. BOP Properly Withheld Information Pursuant to FO

(2001) 18 Dep't ofJustice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) 2 Diamond v. FBI, 707 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1983) 14 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 21 Envt 'I Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973) 19 Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501

risk circumvention of the law." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). The exemption protects only techniques and procedures "not generally known to the public." Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49, 52 n.4 (2d Cir. 1985). Thus, where the agency fails to establish that "the material being withheld truly emb

P records qualify as law enforcement records. But, as the Government cannot help but acknowledge, courts in this circuit—like the Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit—have squarely rejected that per se approach, instead requiring a rational nexus to enforcement of a federal law. See Human Rights Watch v. Dep't of

4 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 5 Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass 'n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) 17 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) 12, 14 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) 13 Ell v. U.S. Dru

xemption 7(E) generally covers only "investigatory records that disclose investigative techniques and procedures not generally known to the public," Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49, 52 n.4 (2d Cir. 1985), "even commonly known procedures may be protected from disclosure if the disclosure co

f 25 reasonable explanations are closely tethered to the purpose of Exemption 5 and indeed are similar in kind and specificity to anticipated harms the D.C. Circuit has held support withholdings under Exemption 5. See Elec. Frontier Found., 739 F.3d at 6, 13. D. BOP Properly Withheld Information Pursuant to FO