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

quotation marks and brackets omitted); see ACLU v. DOJ, 844 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2016); NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc. v. U.S. Dell? of Haus. & Urban Dev., No. 07 Civ. 3378 (GEL), 2007 WL 4233008, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2007) ("Draft documents, by their very nature, are typically predecisional

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

quotation marks and brackets omitted); see ACLU v. DOJ, 844 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2016); NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc. v. U.S. Dell? of Haus. & Urban Dev., No. 07 Civ. 3378 (GEL), 2007 WL 4233008, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2007) ("Draft documents, by their very nature, are typically predecisional

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

quotation marks and brackets omitted); see ACLU v. DOJ, 844 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2016); NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc. v. U.S. Dell? of Haus. & Urban Dev., No. 07 Civ. 3378 (GEL), 2007 WL 4233008, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2007) ("Draft documents, by their very nature, are typically predecisional