Epstein Secrets

gically and plausibly explains the relationship between the documents and those pending criminal cases. Plaintiff also relies on a decision by Judge Torres in Noel, but this decision and subsequent proceedings in that case cut against plaintiff's position. The Government has already disclosed to the No

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

ey had not done so. (The focus of those prosecutions is on the false certifications they are alleged to have signed.) A June 9, 2020 order by Judge Torres, denying Thomas's motion to compel "disclosure of `reports generated by 7 The Government's vague allegations of the impact of disclosure on juror te

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 (

gically and plausibly explains the relationship between the documents and those pending criminal cases. Plaintiff also relies on a decision by Judge Torres in Noel, but this decision and subsequent proceedings in that case cut against plaintiff's position. The Government has already disclosed to the No

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

ey had not done so. (The focus of those prosecutions is on the false certifications they are alleged to have signed.) A June 9, 2020 order by Judge Torres, denying Thomas's motion to compel "disclosure of `reports generated by 7 The Government's vague allegations of the impact of disclosure on juror te

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 (

gically and plausibly explains the relationship between the documents and those pending criminal cases. Plaintiff also relies on a decision by Judge Torres in Noel, but this decision and subsequent proceedings in that case cut against plaintiff's position. The Government has already disclosed to the No

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