Epstein Secrets

applies a more practical approach, the documents at issue were still compiled for law enforcement purposes. See BOP MOL at 8-10. Specifically, the Christenson and Supplemental Christenson declarations explain how the records were compiled to help BOP take "proactive steps designed to prevent criminal activ

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

termination that any responsive records were exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, under FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(E), and/or 7(F). Christenson DecL ¶ 7. 3 EFTA00071562 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 30 The Times subsequently sent BOP two additional FOIA req

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

termination that any responsive records were exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, under FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(E), and/or 7(F). Christenson DecL ¶ 7. 3 EFTA00075445 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 30 The Times subsequently sent BOP two additional FOIA req

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

applies a more practical approach, the documents at issue were still compiled for law enforcement purposes. See BOP MOL at 8-10. Specifically, the Christenson and Supplemental Christenson declarations explain how the records were compiled to help BOP take "proactive steps designed to prevent criminal activ

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

termination that any responsive records were exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, under FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(E), and/or 7(F). Christenson DecL ¶ 7. 3 EFTA00088679 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 30 The Times subsequently sent BOP two additional FOIA req

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