Epstein Secrets

f good faith," and discovery is "unnecessary if the agency's submissions are adequate on their face." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Wilner v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cr. 2009). An agency's justification for asserting an exemption "is sufficient if it appears logical and plausible." Am

92), but lbJecause the DOJ is an agency specializing in law enforcement, its claim of a law enforcement purpose is entitled to deference," Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,331 F.3d 918, 926 Exemption 7(A) also protects records that, if released, could interfere with post-trial criminal

f good faith," and discovery is "unnecessary if the agency's submissions are adequate on their face." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Wilner v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cr. 2009). An agency's justification for asserting an exemption "is sufficient if it appears logical and plausible." Am

92), but lbJecause the DOJ is an agency specializing in law enforcement, its claim of a law enforcement purpose is entitled to deference," Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,331 F.3d 918, 926 Exemption 7(A) also protects records that, if released, could interfere with post-trial criminal

f good faith," and discovery is "unnecessary if the agency's submissions are adequate on their face." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Wilner v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cr. 2009). An agency's justification for asserting an exemption "is sufficient if it appears logical and plausible." Am

92), but lbJecause the DOJ is an agency specializing in law enforcement, its claim of a law enforcement purpose is entitled to deference," Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,331 F.3d 918, 926 Exemption 7(A) also protects records that, if released, could interfere with post-trial criminal

ephony metadata and therefore the NSA's bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.") 4 Id., pages 8-9 5 Wilner v. Nat'! Sec. Agency, 592 F.3d 60, 68 (2d Cir. 2009); Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 1996). 6 See Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009, 1013

ACLU v. Dep't of Def, 389 F. Supp. 2d 547, 561, 565-66 2005) (rejecting government's Glomar response as to one part of plaintiffs' FOIA request); Nat'l Sec. Archive v. CIA, No. 99-1160, slip op. at 15-16, 19 (=. July 31, 2000) (holding that CIA had waived Glomar response by previous official disclosur