5
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
10 / 5
Mentions
C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078-TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 19 N.L.R.B v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978
't of Justice, 726 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. 1989), rejected general descriptions of wiretapping and related surveillance methods as too publicly known. Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078- TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011), rejected the withholding of a video of a prison riot and dis
ordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. See, 668 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir 2011) 6 Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State, 875 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Insti
mmerce, 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 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 21 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71300 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 21 Lawyers Conun. for Human Rights v. INS, 721 F. Supp. 552 (S.
1989) (rejecting the government's invocation of Exemption 7(E) where there was "nothing exceptional or secret about the techniques it described"); Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71300, at *34 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) (holding that tactical maneuvers used during prison riots
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 (
C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078-TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 19 N.L.R.B v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978
't of Justice, 726 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. 1989), rejected general descriptions of wiretapping and related surveillance methods as too publicly known. Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078- TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011), rejected the withholding of a video of a prison riot and dis
ordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. See, 668 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir 2011) 6 Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State, 875 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Insti
mmerce, 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 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 21 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71300 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 21 Lawyers Conun. for Human Rights v. INS, 721 F. Supp. 552 (S.
1989) (rejecting the government's invocation of Exemption 7(E) where there was "nothing exceptional or secret about the techniques it described"); Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71300, at *34 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) (holding that tactical maneuvers used during prison riots
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 (
C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078-TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011) 19 N.L.R.B v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978
't of Justice, 726 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. 1989), rejected general descriptions of wiretapping and related surveillance methods as too publicly known. Kubik v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-6078- TC, 2011 WL 2619538 (D. Or. July 1, 2011), rejected the withholding of a video of a prison riot and dis
ordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. See, 668 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir 2011) 6 Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State, 875 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Insti
Entities connected to both Kubik and Judicial Watch, Inc.

United States
LOCATION
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Doherty
PERSONRadcliffe
PERSON
Hopkins
ORGANIZATION
Human Rights Watch
ORGANIZATIONRobbins Tire & Rubber Co.
ORGANIZATION
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
ORGANIZATIONFavish
PERSONTova Noel
PERSONNicholas Tartaglione
PERSOND.C. Cir
ORGANIZATIONNicole McFarland
PERSONthe D.C. Circuit
ORGANIZATION
Audrey Strauss
PERSONU.S. Fed
ORGANIZATIONFreedom of the Press
ORGANIZATION
Torres
PERSON
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONGarcia
PERSON