Epstein Secrets

20 Eil v. U.S. Drug Enf 't Admin., 878 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2017) 19 EFTA00071556 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 30 Ferguson v. FBI, 957 F.2d 1059 (2d Cir. 1992) 8 Ferguson v. FBI, No. 89 Civ. 5071 (RPP), 1995 WL 329307 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 19 95) 5 Garcia v. U.S. Dept o

y communications about how to interact with the public may be subject to the deliberative process privilege and concluding, including by relying on the Second Circuit's decision in ACLU, 844 F.3d at 133, that "[a's long as communications are pre-decisional and deliberative, internal agency communications about publ

20 Eil v. U.S. Drug Enf 't Admin., 878 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2017) 19 EFTA00075439 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 30 Ferguson v. FBI, 957 F.2d 1059 (2d Cir. 1992) 8 Ferguson v. FBI, No. 89 Civ. 5071 (RPP), 1995 WL 329307 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 19 95) 5 Garcia v. U.S. Dept o

y communications about how to interact with the public may be subject to the deliberative process privilege and concluding, including by relying on the Second Circuit's decision in ACLU, 844 F.3d at 133, that "[a's long as communications are pre-decisional and deliberative, internal agency communications about publ

20 Eil v. U.S. Drug Enf 't Admin., 878 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2017) 19 EFTA00088673 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 30 Ferguson v. FBI, 957 F.2d 1059 (2d Cir. 1992) 8 Ferguson v. FBI, No. 89 Civ. 5071 (RPP), 1995 WL 329307 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 19 95) 5 Garcia v. U.S. Dept o

y communications about how to interact with the public may be subject to the deliberative process privilege and concluding, including by relying on the Second Circuit's decision in ACLU, 844 F.3d at 133, that "[a's long as communications are pre-decisional and deliberative, internal agency communications about publ

e law of this Circuit. See United States v. Joseph, 542 F.3d 13, 21-22 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 276 n.14 (2d Cir. 2011) (recognizing that social science research "cannot have the exactness of hard science methodologies, and expe

nment to identify the co-conspirator statements it plans to use at trial in its initial round of pretrial motions. There, the defendant argued that the Second Circuit's practice of conditional admission of co-conspirator statements at trial would prejudice her because "any cautionary instruction would be of doubtful