Epstein Secrets

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

rative process privilege: it "must be both 'predecisional' and 'deliberative.' Grand Cent P'ship v. Cuomo,166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp.,421 U.S. 168, 184 (1975)). A document is "predecisional" when it is "prepared in order to assist an agency decisio

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

rative process privilege: it "must be both 'predecisional' and 'deliberative.' Grand Cent P'ship v. Cuomo,166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp.,421 U.S. 168, 184 (1975)). A document is "predecisional" when it is "prepared in order to assist an agency decisio

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

rative process privilege: it "must be both 'predecisional' and 'deliberative.' Grand Cent P'ship v. Cuomo,166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp.,421 U.S. 168, 184 (1975)). A document is "predecisional" when it is "prepared in order to assist an agency decisio