Epstein Secrets

.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 7, 8 Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp., 421 U.S. 168 (1975) 13 Robbins, Geller, Ru

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

214, 227 (1978) 9, 10 NRDC v. EPA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124353 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019) 20 Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1982) 9 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 10 United States v. Noel, No. 19-CR-00830-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020) 13 U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Ta

0-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 29 interfere with enforcement proceedings. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 236 (1978); see also, e.g., Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Affidavits must contain more than mere concl

.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 7, 8 Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp., 421 U.S. 168 (1975) 13 Robbins, Geller, Ru

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

214, 227 (1978) 9, 10 NRDC v. EPA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124353 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019) 20 Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1982) 9 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 10 United States v. Noel, No. 19-CR-00830-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020) 13 U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Ta

0-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 29 interfere with enforcement proceedings. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 236 (1978); see also, e.g., Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Affidavits must contain more than mere concl

.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 7, 8 Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp., 421 U.S. 168 (1975) 13 Robbins, Geller, Ru

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that