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

nd withholding of the Returned Records have not substantially changed the legal issues to be resolved by the Court. The Supplemental Declaration of Nicole McFarland and the Supplemental Declaration of Kara Christenson also correct and clarify certain information discovered or determined since the Government's A

(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

l (`OIG') on or about August 22, 2019," and therefore "the BOP is no longer in possession of the log books" (Christenson Decl. 1 13; Declaration of Nicole McFarland, ECF No. 23 [hereinafter "McFarland Decl."], at ¶ 8). But, as BOP concedes, BOP received a FOIA request from The Times on August 13, 2019, seeking

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

nd withholding of the Returned Records have not substantially changed the legal issues to be resolved by the Court. The Supplemental Declaration of Nicole McFarland and the Supplemental Declaration of Kara Christenson also correct and clarify certain information discovered or determined since the Government's A

(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

l (`OIG') on or about August 22, 2019," and therefore "the BOP is no longer in possession of the log books" (Christenson Decl. 1 13; Declaration of Nicole McFarland, ECF No. 23 [hereinafter "McFarland Decl."], at ¶ 8). But, as BOP concedes, BOP received a FOIA request from The Times on August 13, 2019, seeking

d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 8 Cut for Nall Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 8 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487(1994) 18 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 Eil v. U.S. Drug Enf 't Admin., 878 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2017) 19 EFTA00071556 Case 1:2

the Central Office, individual staff at the MCC conducted searches for records responsive to the Times's request. As detailed in the Declaration of Nicole McFarland, BOP staff conferred to determine which MCC staff members would be likely to have records responsive to the Times's request and identified eight suc

d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 8 Cut for Nall Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 8 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487(1994) 18 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 Eil v. U.S. Drug Enf 't Admin., 878 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2017) 19 EFTA00075439 Case 1:2

the Central Office, individual staff at the MCC conducted searches for records responsive to the Times's request. As detailed in the Declaration of Nicole McFarland, BOP staff conferred to determine which MCC staff members would be likely to have records responsive to the Times's request and identified eight suc

d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 8 Cut for Nall Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 8 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487(1994) 18 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 Eil v. U.S. Drug Enf 't Admin., 878 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2017) 19 EFTA00088673 Case 1:2

the Central Office, individual staff at the MCC conducted searches for records responsive to the Times's request. As detailed in the Declaration of Nicole McFarland, BOP staff conferred to determine which MCC staff members would be likely to have records responsive to the Times's request and identified eight suc