Epstein Secrets

0/21 Page 9 of 15 criminal case to an unfair trial." United States v. Martoma, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182959, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2013) (citing Neb. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of

e documents appear to be largely factual in nature and therefore are not subject to a blanket withholding under Exemption 5. (Pl.'s Br., at 19); see Grand Central P 'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Purely factual material not reflecting the agency's deliberative process is not protected.")

0/21 Page 9 of 15 criminal case to an unfair trial." United States v. Martoma, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182959, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2013) (citing Neb. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of

e documents appear to be largely factual in nature and therefore are not subject to a blanket withholding under Exemption 5. (Pl.'s Br., at 19); see Grand Central P 'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Purely factual material not reflecting the agency's deliberative process is not protected.")

0/21 Page 9 of 15 criminal case to an unfair trial." United States v. Martoma, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182959, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2013) (citing Neb. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of

e documents appear to be largely factual in nature and therefore are not subject to a blanket withholding under Exemption 5. (Pl.'s Br., at 19); see Grand Central P 'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Purely factual material not reflecting the agency's deliberative process is not protected.")