Epstein Secrets

on: DAILY NEWS, L.P. Anne B. Carroll (AC-5322) Deputy General Counsel 450 West 33"I Street, 3n° Floor 10001 Attorneys for Daily News, L.P. and George Rush A copy was also sent via first-claim mail to Jack Alan Goldberger ATfERBURY GOLDBERG & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 FL 33

6-KAM (S. D. FIa. 2009) 4 Altemose Constr. Cot v. Building & Constr. Trades Council, 443 F. Supp. 489 (ED. Pa. 1977) 7 Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co., 178P.Id 1176, 1183 (Ariz. App. 2008) Ulrich v. Coast Dental Services. Inc., 739 So.21d 142, 144 (Fla. App. 1999) 7 Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leather

s v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1989) 14 W. Journalism Ctr. v. Office of Indep. Counsel, 926

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

.S. Dep't ofJustice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 9, 13 Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (1977) 6 Meyer v. Bush, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13626 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993) 7 Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108 (

0-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 29 interfere with enforcement proceedings. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 236 (1978); see also, e.g., Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Affidavits must contain more than mere concl

s v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1989) 14 W. Journalism Ctr. v. Office of Indep. Counsel, 926

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

.S. Dep't ofJustice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 9, 13 Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (1977) 6 Meyer v. Bush, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13626 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993) 7 Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108 (

0-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 29 interfere with enforcement proceedings. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 236 (1978); see also, e.g., Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Affidavits must contain more than mere concl

s v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1989) 14 W. Journalism Ctr. v. Office of Indep. Counsel, 926

onably foreseeable at the time of the withholding. See, e.g.,Kay v. F.C.C., 976 F. Supp. 23, 37-38 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,437 U.S. 214, 220 (1978)). The government's burden to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A) is not high; the government need only show that

justify federal interven- tion"); see also Howard W. Brill, Equity and the Criminal Law, 2000 Ark. L.

rally applied to proceedings under Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 41(e) which are summary in character, even when these are pre.indletment. Cf. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. N.L.R.B., U Cir.. 1011, 122 F.2d 450. 451, 136 A.L.R. 8S3. EFTA00191885 170 282 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES the return of property alleged t