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

ims advanced by crime victims that federal prosecutors have violated their public responsibilities under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 817 (1984) (refusing to extend work product privilege to public accountants, because they have 'a public responsibility transcending

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

aims advanced by crime victims that federal prosecutors have violated their public responsibilities under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See U.S.,. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 817 (1984) (refusing to extend work product privilege to public accountants, because they have "a public responsibility transcending

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

ims advanced by crime victims that federal prosecutors have violated thcir public responsibilities under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 817 (1984) (refusing to extend work product privilege to public accountants, because they have 'a public responsibility transcending