Not a lawyer or anyone involved in federal investigations, but the FOIA redactions and my understanding of the judicial system makes me think it’s a bit of both.

For example, a name may be redacted to protect a victim or witness. It may also be redacted because an investigation or trial is on-going for someone and making information public that names them may influence the jury. US v. Maxwell just had that issue come up because some lawyer was blabbing to papers that Maxwell should go free because Cosby was let go for having a similar NPA. (I suspect Maxwell’s/Epstein’s does not count because, if research proves true, Acosta was being blackmailed by Epstein when he gave Epstein the NPA in the 2000s. The blackmail would render that NPA contract null and void.)

You can also redact a name because you don’t want the plebs knowing people are committing crimes/behaving badly a la the Panama Papers. If people don’t know Senator/CEO/Representative X are associated with such activity, they won’t demand justice.

Not a lawyer or anyone involved in federal investigations, but I’d imagine it’s a bit of both.

For example, a name may be redacted to protect a victim or witness. It may also be redacted because an investigation or trial is on-going for someone and making information public that names them may influence the jury. US v. Maxwell just had that issue come up because some lawyer was blabbing to papers that Maxwell should go free because Cosby was let go for having a similar NPA. (I suspect Maxwell’s/Epstein’s does not count because, if research proves true, Acosta was being blackmailed by Epstein when Acosta gave him the NPA in the 2000s. The blackmail would render that NPA contract null and void.)

You can also redact a name because you don’t want the plebs knowing people are committing crimes/behaving badly a la the Panama Papers. If people don’t know Senator/CEO/Representative X are associated with such activity, they won’t demand justice.