Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / DOJ Moves to End Katie Phang’s Epstein Files Lawsuit (Part 1) (10/4/26)

Transcript

DOJ Moves to End Katie Phang’s Epstein Files Lawsuit (Part 1) (10/4/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 take a
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: look at the newest filing in the lawsuit filed by
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Katie Fang against Todd Blanche and the DOJ. And this
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: time around, we're taking a look at the memorandum in
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: support of motion for summary judgment on the pleadings. Case
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: number 126-CV-01417. Katie Fang, plaintiff, first Todd Blanche in his
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: official capacity as Attorney General of the United States. Introduction.
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: Defendant Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as Attorney General
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: of the U.S. Department of Justice, respectfully moves this court
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: for a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12C of
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On November 19, 2025,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Epstein-Files
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Transparency Act, the FTA, which directed the Attorney General to
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: to release certain unclassified records in the department's possession. The
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: department quickly went to great lengths to comply with its
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: statutory obligations under the EFTA, while also applying appropriate redactions
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: to protect victim identities and other sensitive or privileged information.
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: The department further released a summary of all withheld documents
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: and its legal basis for doing so, submitted required documentation
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: to Congress under Section 2 and 3 of the EFTA,
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: and later published notification in the Federal Register to fulfill
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: its additional obligations under Section 2. Plaintiff Katie Fang brings
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: this lawsuit challenging the Department's compliance, the EFTA, thereby inserting
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: herself as a private party in the middle of Congress'
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: statutory scheme. But Congress did not provide a right of
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: action in the EFTA, and it's not otherwise privately enforceable.
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: Although Plaintiff purports to assert claims under the Administrative Procedure Act,
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: Such claims were precluded by the statutory scheme and APA
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: review would be unavailable anyway because the Freedom of Information
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Act provides an adequate remedy. Instead, Congress apparently determined that
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: the issues plaintiff raises should be resolved through the political process,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: as aided by the EFTA's congressional oversight and reporting provisions.
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: For the same reasons, plaintiff's claims of an ultraverse agency
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: action and a violation of her rights under the Declaratory
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Judgment Act likewise fails. and plaintiff plainly lacks standing to
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: seek the extraordinarily broad remedy she requests, such as the
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: appointment of a special master to supervise the department's general
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: compliance with the EFTA. Beyond those threshold issues, plaintiff does not,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: and as a matter of law cannot, meet the high
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: bar to compel agency action. Her declaratory judgment claim? Fail. Accordingly,
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: the court should enter judgment for the defendant. Background. On
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: November 19, 2025, Congress enacted the Epstein Files Transparency Act,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: with near-unanimous support from both chambers of Congress. The EFTA
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: directs the Attorney General to make all unclassified records, documents, communications,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: and investigative materials in the Department's possession publicly available, subject
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: to certain exceptions. The law gives the Attorney General the
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: discretion to withhold or redact certain categories of information. ID
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: Section 2C1A. Subject to written justification, the EFTA also mandates
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: certain reporting requirements. As the department's efforts to rapidly fulfill
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: its obligation under the EFTA unfolded, then-Deputy Attorney General Todd
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: Blanche issued a letter to Congress stating that the department
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: was producing hundreds of thousands of pages of responsive material
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: in compliance with the EFTA. Letter from Blanche to members
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: of Congress December 19th 2025. The letter explained that the
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Department is continuing to review additional documents and other items
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: for responsiveness, and would make withholdings and redactions consistent with
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: Section 2C of EFTA and applicable privileges, which EFTA did
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: not abrogate. Idea 2 and 3. Explaining that this is
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: a long-held principle that Congress speaks clearly when it intends
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: to abrogate a common law, principle, or privilege. citing Bassett v. U.S. 1890.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: The letter also explained that a privilege log will be
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: produced in due course as required under the Act. In
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: the same letter, Deputy Attorney General Blanche made clear that
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: protecting victims is the highest priority for President Trump, the
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: Attorney General, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. To
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: protect victims, the Department solicited counsel for any victims of
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein and invited counsel to provide the department with
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: names of victims whether previously identified or not. This resulted
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: in over 1,200 names being identified as victims or their relatives,
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: which the department redacted. The department immediately made disclosures on
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: the day the EFTA was enacted. It also made additional
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: disclosures in December of 2025 and on January 30, 2026,
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: accompanying the production of On January 30th, 2026, the department
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: issued a summary identifying the records that were withheld and
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: the legal basis for all the redactions it had applied.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: And it explained that various foreign language material were not
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: produced because it was impracticable for a first-level reviewer to
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: determine their responsiveness. Then, on February 14th, 2026, the department
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: sent a letter to the chairman of and ranking members
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees providing the information
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: required by the Act, and thereby fulfilling the Department's obligation
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: under Section 3 of the EFTA. See letter from Todd Blanch,
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: Deputy U.S. Attorney General. The letter included a summary of
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: redactions made and legal basis, and a list of all
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the release material. In addition to complying with the EFTA,
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: the Department has gone beyond the EFTA's requirement by inviting
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: members of Congress to view unredacted versions of the millions
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: of pages released by the Department of Justice. And multiple
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: members of Congress accepted that invitation and viewed the unredacted
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: versions of these files earlier this year. And on August 27, 2026,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: the Department fulfilled its obligation under Section 2 of the
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: EFTA to when it published the notice in the Federal
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: Register stating the basis on which documents were withheld and
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: redactions were made. See Report Under Public Law, 1-19-38, Federal
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Registration 55-356, August 27, 2026. Procedural History On April 27, 2026,
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff filed this action challenging the Department's compliance with the EFTA.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff brought two claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: that the department had acted contrary to law and in
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: an arbitrary and capricious manner in its productions, withholding, and
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: redactions of certain documents. Plaintiff also alleged the agency action
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: and the violation of her rights under the Declaratory Judgment
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: Act on the same grounds. On June 25, 2026, the
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: court entered an order styled as granting plaintiff's motion for
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: a prelim injunction. The June 25th order required defendant to
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: either produce certain documents or show cause why he cannot
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: do so. The June 25th order further required defendant to
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: initiate review and production of foreign language materials that may
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: be subject to production under the Epstein Files Transparency Act
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: and provide notice to the court and all parties that
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: such a review is underway. On July 25th, 2026, This
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: court entered an order requiring defendant to produce certain documentation
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: to support its redactions for the court's in-camera review. Shortly thereafter,
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: defendant produced such documentation along with an explanation of the
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: basis for each redaction the plaintiff had challenged in her
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: prelim injunction motion. After conducting its in-camera review of this production,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: the court issued an order for a status hearing on
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: August 13, 2026. to discuss those documents, the redacted notes
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: from an FBI interview, and the defendant's timeline for publishing
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: its notice in the Federal Register. At the August 13th
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: status hearing, defendant made additional in-camera submissions to demonstrate that
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: the redaction in question were victim names and other personally
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: identifying information. The status hearing concluded with the court ordering
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: plaintiff to submit a proposed order, after which the court
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: allowed both parties to submit written responses. The court then
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: issued another order requiring the production of further documents for
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: additional in-camera review, discharging the previous show cause order with
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: respect to the other documents, and denying plaintiff's request for
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: prelim relief on two topics. It also ordered defendant to
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: file an answer to plaintiff's complaint by September 24, 2026.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Legal Standard Under Rule 12c of the Federal Rules of
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: Civil Procedure, a party may make a motion for a
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed, but
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: early enough not to delay trial. FEDAR Civ P. 12 Rule 12c.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Motions are designed to provide means of disposing cases when
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: the material facts are not in dispute between the parties,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: and a judgment on the merits can be achieved by
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: focusing on the content, the competing pleadings, exhibits thereto, matters
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: incorporated by reference in the pleadings, whatever is central or
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: integral to the claim for relief or defense. and any
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: facts of which the district court will take judicial notice.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: Judgment on the pleadings in general, 5C, Fed, Civ, Section 1367.
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: The standard of review the court applies when considering a
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: Rule 12C motion for judgment on the pleading is the
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: same as the apply to a motion to dismiss for
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: failure of to state a claim upon which relief can
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: be granted under Rule 12b-6. Thus, under Rule 12c, motion
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: for judgment on the pleadings, the court must accept the non-movements,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: allegations as true, and should view the facts in light
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: most favorable to the non-moving party. The court shall grant
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: such a motion if the moving party demonstrates that no
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: material fact in dispute and that it's entitled to judgment
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: as a matter of law. Peters v. National Passenger Corporation, D.C. Circuit,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: 1992 All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here.
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're gonna pick up with
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: the argument. All the information that goes with this episode
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.