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

ordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. See, 668 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir 2011) 6 Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State, 875 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Insti

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

d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 19 Human Rights Watch v. Dep't ofJustice & Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123592 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 9 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2019) 20 Knight First Amendment Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (

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

ordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. See, 668 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir 2011) 6 Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State, 875 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Insti

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

d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 19 Human Rights Watch v. Dep't ofJustice & Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123592 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 9 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2019) 20 Knight First Amendment Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (

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

ordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. See, 668 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir 2011) 6 Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State, 875 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Insti