Epstein Secrets

782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 19 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 13 North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 19 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 13 North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 19 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 13 North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that