Epstein Secrets

ed interference with the pending criminal cases through the declarations of a supervising prosecutor within the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff's opposition fails to meaningfully engage with the substance of these declarations, and instead relies on speculation about h

emonstrate a "rational link" between the requested public disclosure and interference with ongoing or prospective investigations or proceedings. See Crooker v. Bureau of 4 Through counsel, plaintiff has also agreed not to challenge the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to such information in records withhel

ed interference with the pending criminal cases through the declarations of a supervising prosecutor within the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff's opposition fails to meaningfully engage with the substance of these declarations, and instead relies on speculation about h

emonstrate a "rational link" between the requested public disclosure and interference with ongoing or prospective investigations or proceedings. See Crooker v. Bureau of 4 Through counsel, plaintiff has also agreed not to challenge the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to such information in records withhel

ed interference with the pending criminal cases through the declarations of a supervising prosecutor within the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff's opposition fails to meaningfully engage with the substance of these declarations, and instead relies on speculation about h

emonstrate a "rational link" between the requested public disclosure and interference with ongoing or prospective investigations or proceedings. See Crooker v. Bureau of Through counsel, plaintiff has also agreed not to challenge the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to such information in records withheld