Epstein Secrets

nd withholding of the Returned Records have not substantially changed the legal issues to be resolved by the Court. The Supplemental Declaration of Nicole McFarland and the Supplemental Declaration of Kara Christenson also correct and clarify certain information discovered or determined since the Government's A

ordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. See, 668 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir 2011) 6 Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State, 875 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Insti

the Central Office, individual staff at the MCC conducted searches for records responsive to the Times's request. As detailed in the Declaration of Nicole McFarland, BOP staff conferred to determine which MCC staff members would be likely to have records responsive to the Times's request and identified eight suc

4, 17 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1 989) 4 Jordan v. U.S. Dep .t of Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C

l (`OIG') on or about August 22, 2019," and therefore "the BOP is no longer in possession of the log books" (Christenson Decl. 1 13; Declaration of Nicole McFarland, ECF No. 23 [hereinafter "McFarland Decl."], at ¶ 8). But, as BOP concedes, BOP received a FOIA request from The Times on August 13, 2019, seeking

d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 19 Human Rights Watch v. Dep't ofJustice & Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123592 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 9 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2019) 20 Knight First Amendment Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (

the Central Office, individual staff at the MCC conducted searches for records responsive to the Times's request. As detailed in the Declaration of Nicole McFarland, BOP staff conferred to determine which MCC staff members would be likely to have records responsive to the Times's request and identified eight suc

4, 17 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1 989) 4 Jordan v. U.S. Dep .t of Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C

nd withholding of the Returned Records have not substantially changed the legal issues to be resolved by the Court. The Supplemental Declaration of Nicole McFarland and the Supplemental Declaration of Kara Christenson also correct and clarify certain information discovered or determined since the Government's A

ordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. See, 668 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir 2011) 6 Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State, 875 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Insti

l (`OIG') on or about August 22, 2019," and therefore "the BOP is no longer in possession of the log books" (Christenson Decl. 1 13; Declaration of Nicole McFarland, ECF No. 23 [hereinafter "McFarland Decl."], at ¶ 8). But, as BOP concedes, BOP received a FOIA request from The Times on August 13, 2019, seeking

d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 19 Human Rights Watch v. Dep't ofJustice & Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123592 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 9 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2019) 20 Knight First Amendment Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (

the Central Office, individual staff at the MCC conducted searches for records responsive to the Times's request. As detailed in the Declaration of Nicole McFarland, BOP staff conferred to determine which MCC staff members would be likely to have records responsive to the Times's request and identified eight suc

4, 17 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1 989) 4 Jordan v. U.S. Dep .t of Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C