Epstein Secrets

formation by conceding that he in fact has the documents.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Dated April 18, 2003, 383 F.3d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 2004). The D.C. Circuit has recently refused to extend the act of production doctrine on facts very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Ci

Johnson from reviewing the issue in this case, the state of the law in the Eleventh Circuit was recently and carefully reviewed by Magistrate Judge Hopkins in another case. In United States v. Certain Real Property known as and Located at 6469 Polo Pointe Way, Delray Beach, Fla., 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1

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

S. Dept of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy, 181 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 15 Halpern v. F.B.I., 181 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 1999) 15 Hopkins v. HUD, 929 F.2d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 12 Human Rights Watch v. BOP, No. 13-CV-7360 (JP0), 2015 WL 5459713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 7, 21 EFTA0007

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

cting the agency's deliberative process is not protected."); Local 3, Intl Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. NLRB, 845 F.2d 1177, 1180 (2d Cir. 1988) (same); Hopkins v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 929 F.2d 81, 85 (2d Cir. 1991) (same). Accordingly, all factual 19 EFTA00071648 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Docu

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

S. Dept of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy, 181 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 15 Halpern v. F.B.I., 181 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 1999) 15 Hopkins v. HUD, 929 F.2d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 12 Human Rights Watch v. BOP, No. 13-CV-7360 (JP0), 2015 WL 5459713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 7, 21 EFTA0008

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

cting the agency's deliberative process is not protected."); Local 3, Intl Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. NLRB, 845 F.2d 1177, 1180 (2d Cir. 1988) (same); Hopkins v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 929 F.2d 81, 85 (2d Cir. 1991) (same). Accordingly, all factual 19 EFTA00088725 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Docu

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

S. Dept of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy, 181 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 15 Halpern v. F.B.I., 181 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 1999) 15 Hopkins v. HUD, 929 F.2d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 12 Human Rights Watch v. BOP, No. 13-CV-7360 (JP0), 2015 WL 5459713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 7, 21 EFTA0009