Epstein Secrets

. 352, 372 (1976)). The "requirement that disclosure be `clearly unwarranted' instructs [courts] to tilt the balance . . . in favor of disclosure." Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal marks omitted). "[U]nder Exemption 6, the presumption in favor of disclosure is as strong

d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 19 Human Rights Watch v. Dep't ofJustice & Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123592 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 9 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2019) 20 Knight First Amendment Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (

. 352, 372 (1976)). The "requirement that disclosure be `clearly unwarranted' instructs [courts] to tilt the balance . . . in favor of disclosure." Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal marks omitted). "[U]nder Exemption 6, the presumption in favor of disclosure is as strong

d 81 (2d Cir. 1991) 19 Human Rights Watch v. Dep't ofJustice & Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123592 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) 9 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2019) 20 Knight First Amendment Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (

10, 21aM.1987). Larson v. Dept. of State, 565 F.3d 857, 862 Cir. 2009) (citing Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374-75 M . Cir. 2007). 1° See, e.g., Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1126 I n . Cir. 2007) (remanding for agency to "substantiate its Glomar response"); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Se

. Cir. 2007). 1° See, e.g., Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1126 I n . Cir. 2007) (remanding for agency to "substantiate its Glomar response"); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 579 F. Supp. 2d 182, 185-86 (=. 2008) (invalidating agency's Glomar response on basis that agency's proffered harms justifyi