Epstein Secrets

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

FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York. New York 10007 EFTA00071584 Case 1:20-cv

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

FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2715

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

FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Assistant United States Att

rio, 540 N.Y.S.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989) eccceessccscentsccscseeeecesnseeeseseseeesnseseeesnseseeesnsesceesnsesecesnseeceesnseeeeeanseeceeanseees Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S_A., No. CV-06-0702, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72649 (E.D.NLY. Oct. 5, 2006) v.cccsseseesseensen Sys. v. Masterson Mktg., No. 11-CV

fendants’ provision of material support to al-Qaeda was knowing or, at the very least, reckless. The reasonableness of this inference is supported by the D.C. Circuit’s judicial review of habeas petitions brought on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainees. See, e.g., Al Alwi v. Obama, 653 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Uthman