Epstein Secrets

el, 554 F.3d 274 (2d Cir. 2009) 5, 9 Coleman v. FBI, 13 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 1998) 10 Dep't of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) 7 E.B. v. New York City Board of Educ., 233 F.R.D. 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 8 Gonzalez v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134482 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020) 2 G

munications protected by the privilege. See id.; Schiller v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4285, at *34 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2007); E.B. v. New York City Board of Educ., 233 F.R.D. 289, 293 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). Contrary to the Government's proposed application of Exemption 5, the deliberative process privilege "does no

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r

el, 554 F.3d 274 (2d Cir. 2009) 5, 9 Coleman v. FBI, 13 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 1998) 10 Dep't of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) 7 E.B. v. New York City Board of Educ., 233 F.R.D. 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 8 Gonzalez v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134482 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020) 2 G

munications protected by the privilege. See id.; Schiller v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4285, at *34 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2007); E.B. v. New York City Board of Educ., 233 F.R.D. 289, 293 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). Contrary to the Government's proposed application of Exemption 5, the deliberative process privilege "does no

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r

el, 554 F.3d 274 (2d Cir. 2009) 5, 9 Coleman v. FBI, 13 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 1998) 10 Dep't of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) 7 E.B. v. New York City Board of Educ., 233 F.R.D. 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 8 Gonzalez v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134482 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020) 2 G

munications protected by the privilege. See id.; Schiller v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4285, at *34 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2007); E.B. v. New York City Board of Educ., 233 F.R.D. 289, 293 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). Contrary to the Government's proposed application of Exemption 5, the deliberative process privilege "does no

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r