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

C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078-TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 19 N.L.R.B v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978

't of Justice, 726 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. 1989), rejected general descriptions of wiretapping and related surveillance methods as too publicly known. Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078- TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011), rejected the withholding of a video of a prison riot and dis

(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

mmerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2019) 20 Knight First Amendment Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 21 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71300 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 21 Lawyers Conun. for Human Rights v. INS, 721 F. Supp. 552 (S.

1989) (rejecting the government's invocation of Exemption 7(E) where there was "nothing exceptional or secret about the techniques it described"); Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71300, at *34 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) (holding that tactical maneuvers used during prison riots

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

C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078-TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 19 N.L.R.B v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978

't of Justice, 726 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. 1989), rejected general descriptions of wiretapping and related surveillance methods as too publicly known. Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078- TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011), rejected the withholding of a video of a prison riot and dis

(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

mmerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2019) 20 Knight First Amendment Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 21 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71300 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 21 Lawyers Conun. for Human Rights v. INS, 721 F. Supp. 552 (S.

1989) (rejecting the government's invocation of Exemption 7(E) where there was "nothing exceptional or secret about the techniques it described"); Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71300, at *34 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) (holding that tactical maneuvers used during prison riots

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

C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078-TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 19 N.L.R.B v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978

't of Justice, 726 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. 1989), rejected general descriptions of wiretapping and related surveillance methods as too publicly known. Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078- TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011), rejected the withholding of a video of a prison riot and dis