Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Judge Sullivan Denies DOJ Stay Request in Epstein Files Fight (9/25/26)

Transcript

Judge Sullivan Denies DOJ Stay Request in Epstein Files Fight (9/25/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. So
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: yesterday we were talking about Katie Fang and the lawsuit
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: that she filed against Todd Blanche. And in this latest
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: chapter of the battle, they were arguing over a stay
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: because Todd Blanche was asking the court to give him
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: a stay in the proceedings so that they could appeal
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: and move to the next level. Well, that request has
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: been denied and by the judge. So today, we have
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: an article from the International Business Times, and we're going
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: to talk a little bit more about this denial. Headline,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Judge denies Blanche's bid to hide Epstein foreign language documents
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: after DOJ skipped required legal talks. This article was authored
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: by Chris Nell Longino. A federal judge has rejected Todd
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: Blanche's attempt to pause an order requiring the Justice Department
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: to begin reviewing and producing foreign language material from the
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Epstein files, leaving the DOJ facing another court deadline in
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: a closely watched transparency case. I mean, how many deadlines
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: are going to come and go, though? At some point,
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: it's time to start spanking an ass. And I think
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: that Todd Blanche certainly needs to be reprimanded by the court.
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: And I think at this point, contempt is probably the
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: way to go. This man refuses to do what he's
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: been ordered to do not only by the Epstein Files
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Transparency Act and Congress, but by the court itself. U.S.
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: District Judge Emmett Sullivan denied Blanche's motion for a partial
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: stay on the 22nd of September, finding that the Justice
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: Department had failed to follow a local rule requiring parties
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: to confer before filing certain motions and saying the request
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: would also fail on its merits. So not only was
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: it a technicality that led to the failure, but according
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: to the judge, The motion itself was meritless and would
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: have failed anyway. So that's a gigantic strike against the
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: DOJ and Todd Blanche. And isn't it embarrassing to be
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: the top lawman in the country, but yet not following
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: the local rule requiring parties to confer? But at the
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: same time, this dude's going to arrest people. He's going
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: to be the arbiter of justice. I mean, what could
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: possibly go wrong with that? The dispute centers on an
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: earlier ruling in the case brought by journalist and attorney
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: Katie Fang against Blanche, who is serving as acting U.S.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Attorney General. No, he's the Attorney General now. He was confirmed.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: On September 16th, Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to initiate
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: the review and production of foreign language material that could
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: fall within the Epstein-Files Transparency Act. The order set a
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: September 24th as the deadline for the DOJ to begin
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: the process and notify the court and parties that the
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: review was underway. Blanche then sought a partial stay pending
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: an appeal, asking Sullivan to pause that requirement. A judge
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: rejected the request. According to the order discussed in a
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: September 22nd episode of Legal AF, Sullivan found that the
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: DOJ had not first made the required effort to confer
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: with Fang's legal team before filing the motion. Legal commentator
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Michael Popik highlighted the procedural issue in his podcast saying
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: you didn't meet and confer. He said the judge made
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: clear that the failure alone was enough to defeat the request.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: And I'm not really a big fan of Mr. Popik
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: or Legal AF. I think the show is kind of
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: ridiculous to tell you the truth and pretty predictable what
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: he's going to talk about. But he's not wrong about this. Look,
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: the rules are the rules. And if you think that
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: because you're in the DOJ or you're the Attorney General,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: you don't have to follow them, you have another thing coming.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: The foreign language documents became a major issue after Sullivan's
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: June 25th prelim injunction. That ruling required Blanche to initiate
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: review and production of foreign language material potentially covered by
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: the Epstein-Files Transparency Act. The DOJ had previously told Congress
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: that it had not reviewed foreign language documents because it
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: was not practicable for first-level reviewers to determine whether those
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: records were responsive. Well, isn't that nice? Telling the court
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: what you're going to do instead of doing what the
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: court orders you to do. The judge said the Epstein
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: Files Transparency Act covers relevant material in any language and
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: concluded that the administrative difficulty did not excuse the government
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: from meeting its statutory obligations, and no, it does not.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: The government has all the resources in the world. Armies
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: of lawyers, armies of paralegals, armies of agents, you name it.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: So when they cry that they don't have the manpower,
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: I find it laughable at best. He also noted that
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: the DOJ had cited no authority establishing that inconvenience could
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: justify failing to carry out the required review. Fang's lawyers
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: subsequently argued that Blanche had already allowed the original deadline
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: to pass without seeking a stay of the June injunction itself.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: The guy is just bumbling, I'm sorry, but I have
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: zero confidence that Todd Blanche is the guy, and as
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: each day ticks by, I'm more confident in that assessment.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: Fang's legal team argued that the September 16th enforcement order
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: did not create a new underlying obligation. Instead, it reinforced
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: the requirement imposed by the June injunction preliminary injunction. The
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: June ruling had also addressed other categories of Epstein-related records,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: including certain emails, documents containing potential co-conspirator names, and handwritten
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: FBI interview notes underlying FD-302 reports. Sullivan's September order severally
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: required the DOJ to submit specified interview notes to the
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: court for private review in both redacted and unredacted forms.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: The legal dispute therefore involves more than the foreign language
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: records alone. Sullivan's orders have continued to move the case
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: forward while the parties contest the scope and timing of
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: the document production. Alright, so that's the article. And there's
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: really not too much meat there, right? So, what we're
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: going to do is we're going to jump right into
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: the order itself and just add that bad boy right
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: on the back end of this. Case number 126-CV-01417 EGS,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: Katie Fang, Plaintiff, vs. Todd Blanche in his official capacity
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: as Acting Attorney General of the United States. Order. On
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: September 16, 2026, the Court issued a memorandum of opinion
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: and order addressing the party's responses to the Court's June 25,
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: 2026 prelim injunction order in this matter. Now pending before
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: the Court is defendant's motion for a partial stay, pending appeal,
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: of the court September 16th, 2026 order for a partial stay.
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Defendant seeks to stay of the portion of the order
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: requiring him to initiate review and production of foreign language
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: material that may be subject to the production under the
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: Epstein Files Transparency Act and provide notice to the court
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: and all parties that such review is underway by no
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: later than September 24th, 2026. Plaintiff is filed in opposition
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: to the motion. and defendant is filed a reply, upon
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: careful consideration of the motion, opposition, and reply, and for
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: the reasons explained below, the court denies the motion. Local
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: Civil Rule 7M sets forth litigants' duty to confer on
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: non-dispositive motions. It provides that, before filing any non-dispositive motion
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: in a civil action, counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: with opposing counsel in good faith effort to determine whether
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: whether there is any opposition to the relief sought, and
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: if there is, to narrow the areas of disagreement. A
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: party shall include in its motion a statement that the
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: required discussion occurred and a statement as to whether the
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: motion is opposed. Defendant's motion to stay is non-dispositive since,
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: if granted, it would result neither in the determination of
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: a particular claim on the merits or elimination of such
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: a claim from the case. It would merely stay enforcement
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: of a portion of the court's September 16, 2026 order.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: Defendant was therefore obligated to consult with plaintiff before filing
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: the motion and certify that he had done so. Ocean v.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Department of Interior, DDC, April 30, 2024 But just conferring
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: is not enough. The party must also certify whether it
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: has done so and whether the motion is opposed. Defendant
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: didn't either. He filed the motion on Friday, September 18,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: 2026 at 8.45pm and requested that the court rule on
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: the motion by Monday, September 21, 2026 by 5pm. Because
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: he did not comply with the duty to confer, defendant
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: provided no notice to the plaintiff that he would be
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: filing a motion for partial stay and requesting a ruling
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: on an expedited basis over the Jewish Yom Kippur holiday.
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: It settled precedent that the litigants' violation of Local Rule
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: 7M is, on its own, reason to deny their motion.
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: Some courts in this district, however, exercise their discretion and,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: for reasons of judicial economy, consider the merits of a
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: motion even if the moving party has violated the rule.
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: Defendant questions whether Local Rule 7M technically applies, apparently because
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: he has previously raised the issue of a stay pending
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: appeal with plaintiff, and plaintiff has been clear that she
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: opposes the stay. Defendant provides no legal authority to support
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: his suggestion that the rule may not technically apply here.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: And while the courts chose to consider the merits despite
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: noncompliance with the rule, this court, in its discretion, declines
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: to do so here. Local Civil Rule 7M applies, and
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: defendant failed to comply with his duty to confer. Accordingly,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: the motion will be denied. Even if the court did
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: not deny the duty to confer, however, the court would
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: deny it on the merits. Assuming, without deciding, that the
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: court's September 16, 2026 is appealable, the court would deny
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: the motion for partial stay for the reasons explained in
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the court's memorandum opinion, granting plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: Because of the fast-approaching deadline for a defendant to initiate
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: review and production of a foreign language material that may
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: be subject to production under the EFTA, and provide notice
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: to the court and all parties that such a review
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: is underway, however, the court will temporarily stay the portion
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: of its September 16, 2026 order so that the defendant
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: may file a motion for stay pending appeal with the
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Defendant
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: states that he'll move to expedite his motion to stay
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: pending appeal. For the reasons stated above, it's hereby ordered
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: that defendant's motion for a partial stay pending appeal of
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: the court September 16th, 2026 order is denied, and it's
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: further ordered that the portion of the court's September 16th,
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: 2026 order requiring defendant to initiate review and production of
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: foreign language material that may be subject to production under
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: the EFTA and provides notice to the court and all
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: parties that such a review is underway is no later
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: than September 24th, 2026 is temporarily stayed. The parties shall
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: file a joint notice with recommendations for further proceedings by
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: no later than three days after the D.C. Circuit resolves
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: defendant's forthcoming motion to stay in that court. So ordered
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: by Emmett G. Sullivan. And this document was dated September 21st, 2026.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, so there you have it, the order
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: in its entirety. Will Todd Blanche comply? I guess we'll
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: have to wait and see. All the information that goes
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.