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

New York Times Co. v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 12 NYCLU v. DNS, 771 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) 19 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 6 Summers v. DOJ, No. CV 98-1837(RWR), 2004 WL 7333532 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2004) 14 iii EFTA00071587

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

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. 1982) 9 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 10 United States v. Noel, No. 19-CR-00830-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020) 13 U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Ta

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

New York Times Co. v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 12 NYCLU v. DNS, 771 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) 19 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 6 Summers v. DOJ, No. CV 98-1837(RWR), 2004 WL 7333532 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2004) 14 iii EFTA00088608

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

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. 1982) 9 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 10 United States v. Noel, No. 19-CR-00830-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020) 13 U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Ta

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

New York Times Co. v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 12 NYCLU v. DNS, 771 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) 19 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 6 Summers v. DOJ, No. CV 98-1837(RWR), 2004 WL 7333532 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2004) 14 iii EFTA00099601