Epstein Secrets

epartment having control over the requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry v. F.D.I.C., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Final Decision Exempted from Privilege — Any deliberative process privilege would only cover onl

rative process is at issue) that have not been proven by any materials in the record. Accordingly, these assertions of privilege are inadequate. See Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown v. City of Margate, 842 F.Supp. 515, 520 Should the Court allow the Government to assert pri

having control over the requested information who must explain in detail why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry' 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 4 EFTA00208759 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2013 Page 5 of 11 Inves

Government has not provided factual material identifying who is the attornex, who is the client, and how the communications were confidential. See Bogle I McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting privilege holders not As the Court is aware, the victims have alleged that U.S. Attorney's

epartment having control over the requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry v. F.D.LC., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Final Decision Exempted from Privilege — Any deliberative process privilege would only cover only

e Government has not provided factual material identifying who is the attorney, who is the client, and how the communications were confidential. See Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). 13. Deliberative Process Privilege Privilege Not Properly Invoked - Any deliberative process pri