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

purposes. See Supp. Christenson Decl. ¶ 29. ii. Disclosure of the Records Would Interfere with Pending Criminal Proceedings BOP properly withheld the Tartaglione Records' under Exemption 7(A). The Capone and Supplemental Capone Declarations explain why release of the Tartaglione Records would interfere with the Tarta

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

purposes. See Supp. Christenson Decl. ¶ 29. ii. Disclosure of the Records Would Interfere with Pending Criminal Proceedings BOP properly withheld the Tartaglione Records' under Exemption 7(A). The Capone and Supplemental Capone Declarations explain why release of the Tartaglione Records would interfere with the Tarta

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

enforcement purposes. See Supp. Decl. ¶ 29. ii. Disclosure of the Records Would Interfere with Pending Criminal Proceedings BOP properly withheld the Tartaglione Records' under Exemption 7(A). The and Supplemental Declarations explain why release of the Tartaglione Records would interfere with the Tartaglione prose