Epstein Secrets

(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

irection, and focus of its investigations, and thereby enable suspects to establish defenses or fraudulent alibis or to destroy or alter evidence." Maydak v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 218 F.3d 760, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 227 (1978)). The agency affida

ocal 3, Intl Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. NLRB, 845 F.2d 1177 (2d Cir. 1988) 19 Malizia v. U.S. Dep't ofJustice, 519 F. Supp. 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 9 Maydak v. U.S. Dep't ofJustice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 9, 13 Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (1977) 6 Meye

(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

irection, and focus of its investigations, and thereby enable suspects to establish defenses or fraudulent alibis or to destroy or alter evidence." Maydak v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 218 F.3d 760, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 227 (1978)). The agency affida

ocal 3, Intl Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. NLRB, 845 F.2d 1177 (2d Cir. 1988) 19 Malizia v. U.S. Dep't ofJustice, 519 F. Supp. 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 9 Maydak v. U.S. Dep't ofJustice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 9, 13 Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (1977) 6 Meye

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

direction, and focus of its investigations, and thereby enable suspects to establish defenses or fraudulent alibis or to destroy or alter evidence." Maydak v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 218 F.3d 760 (D. Cir. 2000). Here, release of the records would interfere with enforcement proceedings by revealing the F