Epstein Secrets

ded "greater access to agency investigatory files" that would bear on the prosecution than he would under the rules of criminal procedure. New York Times Co. v. Dep't of Justice, 390 F. Supp. 3d 499, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). But, as to least one important category, emails of Tartaglione's counsel, he already

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r

ded "greater access to agency investigatory files" that would bear on the prosecution than he would under the rules of criminal procedure. New York Times Co. v. Dep't of Justice, 390 F. Supp. 3d 499, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). But, as to least one important category, emails of Tartaglione's counsel, he already

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r

ded "greater access to agency investigatory files" that would bear on the prosecution than he would under the rules of criminal procedure. New York Times Co. v. Dep't ofJustice, 390 F. Supp. 3d 499, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). But, as to least one important category, emails of Tartaglione's counsel, he already h

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r