Epstein Secrets

U.S. 168, 184 (1975)). A document is "predecisional" when it is "prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision." Grumman, 421 U.S. at 184. While a document is predecisional if it "precedes, in temporal sequence, the `decision' to which it relates," Grand Cent. P 'ship

sion" made by the agency to establish the predecisional nature of a particular record. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck,421 U.S. 132, 151 n.18 (1975); accord Tigue v. U.S. Dep't ofJustice, 312 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2002). Rather, so long as the document "was prepared to assist [agency] decisionmaking on a speci

U.S. 168, 184 (1975)). A document is "predecisional" when it is "prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision." Grumman, 421 U.S. at 184. While a document is predecisional if it "precedes, in temporal sequence, the 'decision' to which it relates," Grand Cent. P'ship,

2, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) 17 United States ex r

U.S. 168, 184 (1975)). A document is "predecisional" when it is "prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision." Grumman, 421 U.S. at 184. While a document is predecisional if it "precedes, in temporal sequence, the 'decision' to which it relates," Grand Cent. P'ship,

2, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) 17 United States ex r

U.S. 168, 184 (1975)). A document is "predecisional" when it is "prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision." Grumman, 421 U.S. at 184. While a document is predecisional if it "precedes, in temporal sequence, the 'decision' to which it relates," Grand Cent. P'ship,

2, 2016) 22 SafeCard Sens., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 5 Shapiro v. U.S. Dept oflustice, 37 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) 9 Tigue v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002) 13 U.S. Dep 't of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) 17 United States ex r