Epstein Secrets

2020) 9 Neb. Press Ass 'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) 4, 5 ii EFTA00105601 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 42 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 15 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 2 Schiller v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4285 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2007) 8 Seife v. Dep'

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

2020) 9 Neb. Press Ass 'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) 4, 5 ii EFTA00071611 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 42 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 15 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 2 Schiller v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4285 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2007) 8 Seife v. Dep'

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

2020) 9 Neb. Press Ass 'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) 4, 5 ii EFTA00088562 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 42 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 15 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 2 Schiller v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4285 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2007) 8 Seife v. Dep'

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