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

gically and plausibly explains the relationship between the documents and those pending criminal cases. Plaintiff also relies on a decision by Judge Torres in Noel, but this decision and subsequent proceedings in that case cut against plaintiff's position. The Government has already disclosed to the No

(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

ey had not done so. (The focus of those prosecutions is on the false certifications they are alleged to have signed.) A June 9, 2020 order by Judge Torres, denying Thomas's motion to compel "disclosure of `reports generated by 7 The Government's vague allegations of the impact of disclosure on juror te

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

gically and plausibly explains the relationship between the documents and those pending criminal cases. Plaintiff also relies on a decision by Judge Torres in Noel, but this decision and subsequent proceedings in that case cut against plaintiff's position. The Government has already disclosed to the No

(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

ey had not done so. (The focus of those prosecutions is on the false certifications they are alleged to have signed.) A June 9, 2020 order by Judge Torres, denying Thomas's motion to compel "disclosure of `reports generated by 7 The Government's vague allegations of the impact of disclosure on juror te

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

gically and plausibly explains the relationship between the documents and those pending criminal cases. Plaintiff also relies on a decision by Judge Torres in Noel, but this decision and subsequent proceedings in that case cut against plaintiff's position. The Government has already disclosed to the No