Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Katie Phang And Her Opposition To Todd Blanche Motion For A Stay (Part 1) (9/23/26)

Transcript

Katie Phang And Her Opposition To Todd Blanche Motion For A Stay (Part 1) (9/23/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to start taking
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: a look at Katie Fang's response to Todd Blanche and
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: his attempt to sway the court into giving him a
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: stay of the proceedings that have been filed against him.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Katie Fang, plaintiff, versus Todd Blanche in his official capacity
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: as Attorney General of the United States. Case number 26-1417.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for a partial stay. Introduction.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: With less than 72 hours notice, defendant attorney general Blanche
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: asked the court to stay his deadline to comply with
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: the obligations that defendant has already flouted for nearly three months.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: On June 25th, the court granted plaintiff Katie Fang's May
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: preliminary injunction motion and ordered defendant to initiate review and
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: production of foreign language material that may be subject to
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: production under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and provide notice
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: to the court and all parties that such review is underway.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: ECF number 15, at 2. Defendant conceded, by his silence,
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: that foreign language documents are not exempt from the Epstein
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Files Transparency Act disclosure mandate. But defendant ignored that deadline,
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: leaving the court with no choice but to issue a
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: follow-up enforcement order last week mandating compliance by September 24th.
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: Defendant now seeks a stay pending appeal of the pertinent
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: portion of that enforcement order. Notably, he did not seek
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: any stay pending appeal of the prelim injunction order, the
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: order that actually imposed the obligation defendant now seeks to stay.
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: Although he requested that stay after a close of business
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: on Friday night, defendant nevertheless demands a ruling from the
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: court before a close of business on Monday. Defendant's litigation
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: conduct is irregular and his request for a stay should
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: be denied on four independent grounds. First, Local Rule 7M
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: requires that a party make a good faith effort to
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: confer before filing a non-dispositive motion. Yet defendant never sought
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: to confer here, which by itself warrants denying the motion. Second,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: the defendant seeks to stay the enforcement order pending appeal,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: not the underlying PI order, but the pertinent aspect of
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: the enforcement order cannot be immediately appealed under U.S. Code 28,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: Section 1291A1. And so a stay pending that improper appeal
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: should not be denied. Third, defendant's request for a stay
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: of obligations he incurred three months ago is untimely and inappropriate.
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: And fourth, defendant's arguments fail to clear the high bar
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: required to obtain the extraordinary remedy of stay of pending appeal.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regulations Committee D.C. Circuit, 1985. Argument 1.
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Defendant's failure to confer with plaintiff alone warrants denying the
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: request for a stay. Local Civil Rule 7M requires that
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: before filing any non-dispositive motion, counsel shall confer with opposing
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: counsel in a good faith effort to determine whether there
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: is any opposition to the relief sought, and if there is,
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: to narrow the areas of disagreement. When filing such a motion,
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: the filing party shall include in its motion a statement
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: that the required discussion occurred and a statement as to
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: whether the motion is opposed. If a party files a
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: non-dispositive motion without certifying its compliance with Rule 7M, the
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: motion will be denied. Defendant failed to confer with plaintiff
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: or otherwise provide any notice that a motion for stay
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: was forthcoming. Instead, he filed the motion at 8.46 p.m.
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: on Friday, September 18, 2026, and demanded a ruling from
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: the court by 5 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2026.
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: While occasional procedural missteps are inevitable in civil litigation, defendant
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: is the Attorney General of the United States. His disregard
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: for local rules and professional norms was particularly inappropriate here.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: The Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, which two of Plaintiff's
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: three counsel intended to observe, is this Sunday and Monday.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: Under settled precedent, defendant's violation of Local Rule 7 by
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: itself suffices to justify denying his motion. 2. Enforcement order
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: cannot be stayed pending appeal because that order is not
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: immediately appealable. Defendant moves to stay this court September 16th,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: enforcement order pending appeal, ECF No. 46-1 at 1. but
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: notably does not move to stay the underlying June 25th
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: PI order. Defendant's motion accordingly fails, as the relevant section
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: of the enforcement order is not immediately appealable. An order
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: issuing a prelim injunction is immediately appealable under U.S. Code 28,
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: Section 1291A1, but subsequent orders enforcing a prelim injunction are
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: not immediately appealable, and the court should not issue a
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: stay pending a jurisdictionally Deficient Appeal. AIDS Vaccine Advocate Coalition v. U.S.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Department of State, D.C. Circuit 2025. Granting Appealee's motion to
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: dismiss the government's appeal of a district court order enforcing
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: a temporary restraining order and denying the government's motion to
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: stay the enforcement order as moot. In this circuit, a
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: subsequent order relating to a prelim injunction is appealable only
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: where it actually changes the legal relationship of the parties.
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: Washington Metro Area Transit v. Reliable Limousine Service, quoting U.S. v.
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: Philip Morris, 2012. In determining whether a subsequent order actually
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: changes the legal relationship of the parties, the critical inquiry
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: is whether the party challenging the order was already bound
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: by the injunction. Here, the September 16th enforcement order did
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: not change the legal relationship between the parties with respect
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: to the DOJ's obligation to review and produce foreign language documents.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: The operative foreign language direction in the enforcement order is
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: identical to that in the original PI order, save for
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: a change in dates. Compare PI order ECF number 15
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: at 2 with enforcement order ECF number 43 at 19. Accordingly,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: the enforcement order did not change the legal relationship between
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: plaintiff and defendant. All it did was confirm that the
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: court meant when it said back in June and expected
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: prompt compliance. The Attorney General argues that the original PI
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: order was inconclusive because it contemplated the defendant could show
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: cause as to at least four categories of relief and
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: did not otherwise provide a date certain by which he
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: had to provide notice immediately. that his review of the
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: foreign language material was underway. Motion at 3 and 4.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: But the PI order did not invite defendant to show
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: cause with respect to the review of the foreign language document.
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: To the contrary, it categorically commanded defendant to begin such
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: review and provided notice thereof, and contrary to defendant's assertions,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: it plainly included a date certain July 2nd. That defendant
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: elected to disregard the court's unambiguous command does not render
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: that command inconclusive. In sum, the relevant aspect of the
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: enforcement order did not change the legal relationship between the
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: parties and is not immediately appealable. Because it's not appealable,
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: defendant's request for a stay pending appeal is inappropriate and
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: should be denied. 3. Defendant's request for a stay is
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: egregiously late. Even if defendant could immediately appeal the enforcement order,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: which he cannot, defendant stay motion, which comes nearly three
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: months after he first incurred the obligation at issue, is
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: gravely untimely. His delay provides an independent basis to deny
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: the request for a stay as courts in this district
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: have long understood. This court issued its PI order on
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: June 25th, 2026. which unambiguously imposed the obligation defendant now
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: seeks to stay. Defendant did not immediately appeal the PI
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: order and defendant has not sought a stay in connection
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: with the PI order. Instead, defendant filed the instant motion
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: 85 days later and 25 days after his first notice
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: of appeal. The Supreme Court has found that a 7-day,
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: 49-day delay in filing a motion for a stay to
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: be reason to deny such a motion. Ruckelhaus said, v.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Monsanto Corporation, 1983. See also Beam v. Friends of the Earth, 1977.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: Denying motion for a stay after a 20-day delay over
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: more than a month has passed here, rendering defendant's belated
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: motion time-barred. Moreover, defendant previously sought to stay another part
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: of this court's PI order, the requirement to produce documents
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: for camera review, nearly a month ago, on August 27th,
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: He could have moved to stay the foreign language document
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: requirement at issue then, but chose not to. His deliberate
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: delay there should not be excused. Defendant's delay also diffuses
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: his unconvincing claim to face impending irreparable harm. The party
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: requesting a stay bears the burden. And self-imposed costs are
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: not improperly the subject of inquiry on a motion for stay,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: Cuomo v. NRC, 1985. To the extent that the attorney's
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: General now faces an imminent burden to comply with the
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: law and lacks adequate time to appeal, he has only
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: himself to blame. See Open, Top Sightseeing USA v. Mr.
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: Sightseeing LLC, DDC 2014. An unexcused delay in seeking extraordinary
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: injunctive relief implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: Milan Farms Inc. v. Shalala, D.C. 2000, noting that the
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: delay of two months in seeking injunctive relief militates against
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: a finding of irreparable harm. 4. Defendant is improperly attempting
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: to expand the record on appeal. Stepping back from the
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: individual reasons why defendant's motion should fail, it's important to
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: understand what the Attorney General appears to be trying to
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: do here. Defendant has filed two notices of appeal, one
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: for this court's PI order, and now one for this
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: court's enforcement order. The record on the first appeal will
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: be limited to the briefing leading up to the PI order.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: The second appeal, if we're allowed to proceed, would be
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: limited to the issue of whether the court properly enforced
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: the PI order, and the record would include subsequent briefing.
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: The defendant is clearly unsatisfied with his briefing leading up
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: to the initial PI order because he keeps filing new
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: motions and raising new arguments, seemingly as they occur, to him. Clearly,
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: defendant wishes he had not forfeited various arguments, but his strategy,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: if permitted, would prevent lawsuits from ever resolving conclusively. See
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: Cochran v. Quest Software, 2003. Litigants normally must frame the
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: issues in a case before the trial court rules. After
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: that point, a litigant should not be allowed to switch
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: from theory to theory like a bee in search of honey.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: Against this backdrop, the district court scarcely can be said
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: to have abused its discretion in refusing to reconsider its
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: decision based on the plaintiff's newly raised argument. That is
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: exactly why courts narrowly construe U.S. Code 28, Section 1292A1, narrowly,
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: lest we turn the barrier against piecemeal appeals into Swiss cheese.
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: Washington Metro Area Transit, 776 F. 3D at 9. The Attorney
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: General is a sophisticated litigant. He should not be permitted
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: to appeal an unappealable enforcement simply to shoehorn in arguments
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: he should have made when he had the chance. All right, folks,
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick up with Section 5.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.