Case 1:14-cv-09763-VM Document 44 Filed 08/28/15 Page 29 of 35 investigation." point, the targets" (Gov't Reply Government referred to Mem. assumes at too Doe_!Y in 8 n. 6.) The much, were, On more that •future accurately, was not yet closed or publicly known. 12 In any event, changed since Merrill's investigation prohibits as discussed su12ra, has the closed, Of disclosure investigation's receipt target, the of many, no not longer or identity it the NSL Government Merrill's and circumstances have all, the of the redacted investigative techniques at issue here have been disclosed strains by other credulity government that agencies. future Therefore, targets of it other investigations would change their behavior in light of the currently-redacted information, when those targets (which, according to the Government, see Perdue Deel. ~ 56) have access to much of " The Court is not holding that there <1.re r>o circumatancee in which the Government might be <t.ble to provide a •goo• reaaon" for non-diaclosure, even when that reason is keyed to authori~ed investigations to protect against international terrorism or clandes¢ine intelligence activities, generally, rather than to a particul<1.r on9oing investigation. Instead, based on the facts and s\lbmissions before it, the Government has not satief ied itB burden that there is a good reason to expect that disclosure here with these particular tactual circumstances raises a substantial risk that any of the statutorily enumerated harme would occur. - 29 -