Epstein Secrets

4, 17 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1 989) 4 Jordan v. U.S. Dep .t of Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C

92), but lbJecause the DOJ is an agency specializing in law enforcement, its claim of a law enforcement purpose is entitled to deference," Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,331 F.3d 918, 926 Exemption 7(A) also protects records that, if released, could interfere with post-trial criminal

4, 17 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1 989) 4 Jordan v. U.S. Dep .t of Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C

92), but lbJecause the DOJ is an agency specializing in law enforcement, its claim of a law enforcement purpose is entitled to deference," Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,331 F.3d 918, 926 Exemption 7(A) also protects records that, if released, could interfere with post-trial criminal

4, 17 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1 989) 4 Jordan v. U.S. Dep .t of Justice, M8 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2 011) 9, 10, 21, 22 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20, 21 Kansi v. U.S. Depst of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 1998) 8 Kay v. F.C

92), but lbJecause the DOJ is an agency specializing in law enforcement, its claim of a law enforcement purpose is entitled to deference," Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,331 F.3d 918, 926 Exemption 7(A) also protects records that, if released, could interfere with post-trial criminal

. 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

ACLU v. Dep't of Def, 389 F. Supp. 2d 547, 561, 565-66 2005) (rejecting government's Glomar response as to one part of plaintiffs' FOIA request); Nat'l Sec. Archive v. CIA, No. 99-1160, slip op. at 15-16, 19 (=. July 31, 2000) (holding that CIA had waived Glomar response by previous official disclosur