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

07 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) 6 Nat? Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) 11, 13, 14 New York Times Co. v. Dep't of Justice, No. 1

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

Raza v. Dep't ofJustice, 411 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2005) 6 iv EFTA00071627 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 29 NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 227 (1978) 9, 10 NRDC v. EPA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124353 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019) 20 Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir

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

07 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) 6 Nat? Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) 11, 13, 14 New York Times Co. v. Dep't of Justice, No. 1

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

Raza v. Dep't ofJustice, 411 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2005) 6 iv EFTA00088704 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 29 NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 227 (1978) 9, 10 NRDC v. EPA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124353 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019) 20 Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir

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

07 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) 6 Nat? Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) 11, 13, 14 New York Times Co. v. Dep't of Justice, No. 1