Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The DOJ Moves To Dismiss The Epstein Related Lawsuit Filed By New Mexico (Part 4) (10/18/26)

Transcript

The DOJ Moves To Dismiss The Epstein Related Lawsuit Filed By New Mexico (Part 4) (10/18/26) · 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 getting right back to
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: the DOJ's request to get the lawsuit filed by New
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Mexico dismissed. See, DOJ properly rejected New Mexico's TUI request
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: under 28 CFR section 16.26b and 5 because disclosure would
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: negatively impact law enforcement and violate privileges. DOJ may deny
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: a TUI request if disclosure would reveal investigatory records compiled
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: for law enforcement purposes and would interfere with enforcement proceedings
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: or disclose investigative techniques and procedures, the effectiveness of which
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: would thereby be impaired. 28 CFR Section 16.26b and 5.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Releasing unredacted Epstein files would reveal case notes, analysis, and
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: communications containing witness identities and investigative strategies. thus undermining the
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: effectiveness of those strategies in deterring future informants. These materials
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: are also shielded by various privileges, including the work product, attorney-client,
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: and law enforcement privilege. DOJ explicitly invoked these privileges when
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: denying the two-year request. To the extent the court views
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: these assertions as generalized, e.g., Answer Cole v. Jewell, DDC 2013,
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: explaining the law enforcement privilege requires a detailed explanation of
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: the information withheld and the privilege applicability. U.S. v. Ease,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: 24 CR 00380 NCM, at 5, Eastern District, New York,
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: July 20, 2026. Holding the same for withholding pursuant to
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: 28 CFR Section 1626B and 5. That is a product
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: of New Mexico's overbroad request, which demanded all of the
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: millions of unredacted pages in the Epstein files. Logging an
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: individualized response for each file would be unduly burdensome and
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: not reasonably related to the needs of New Mexico's case
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: since there is no pending case and the 2e request
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: was not targeted to any particular fact or issue. New
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: Mexico may argue that the law enforcement exception does not
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: apply because DOJ is not proceeding with any Epstein-related prosecution
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: at this time. But that's flatly wrong. Then-Acting Attorney General
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: Todd Blanch told Senators that DOJ will indict and prosecute
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: out of the Epstein files if new information becomes available.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: DOJ's willingness to potentially pursue further Epstein investigations further strengthens
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: its rationale that disclosure here would interfere with enforcement proceedings
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: or disclose investigative techniques. CFR 28 Section 16.26 B and 5.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: New Mexico's TUI request also implicates other government privileges besides
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: the law enforcement work product and attorney-client privilege. For example,
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: the informant privilege allows a government to withhold from disclosure
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: law to officers charged with enforcement of that law. C.U.S. v.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: Martínez states, CFR 1626B and 4, DDC, 2011. In considering
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: this privilege, courts balance the public interest, taking into consideration
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: the informer's testimony, and the other relevant factors. New Mexico
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: faces a heavy burden to establish that the identity of
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: an informant is necessary under that privilege. Here, the balance
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: favors DOJ. Public interest is best served by keeping personal
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: information redacted. Indeed, respecting victim privacy was one of the
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: essential goals of the EFTA, CEG EFTA Section 2C. The
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: cumulative force of the law enforcement work product and attorney-client
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: and informant privileges make clear that DOJ is required to
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: withhold materials New Mexico seeks. D. DOJ properly rejected New
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: Mexico's two-year request under 28 CFR Section 16.22C and Section 16.24c,
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: because the request was overbroad. DOJ's TUI regulation limit disclosure
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: to materials relevant to the underlying proceeding. 28 CFR, Section 1622c,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: see also ID as Section 1624c, requiring responsible officials to
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: seek to limit the demand to information, which would not
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: be inconsistent with the consideration specified in 1626 of this part.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: New Mexico does not even attempt to narrow its request
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: to relevant material. It seeks not only all millions of
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: pages of unredacted Epstein files, example 14 at 2 and 3,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: only 0.6% of which appear to indicate activity in or
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: tied to New Mexico that warrants further investigation, idea 3,
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: but also any other material in DOJ's possession, courts within
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: the District of Columbia, have explained that similar requests for
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: information are overbroad because they seek evidence irrelevant to the
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: underlying claim. CEG Food Lion vs. United Food Workers International
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Union AFL-CIO 103 F. 3D 1007 1013 DC Circuit 1997 Or
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: because the request is so broad as to be virtually incomprehensible.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: Freedom Watch Incorporated vs. CIA 895 F.SUPP 2D-221, 228-29, DDC-2012.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: New Mexico's request meets both criteria. It does not even
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: attempt to allege that all of the million pages in
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: the Epstein files are relevant to its investigation. It requests
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: for material outside the Epstein files, similarly begs the question
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: what materials would satisfy the request. There are over 3
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: million pages contained within the Epstein files, CEG example 1
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: at 3. New Mexico alleges the Epstein files include over 13,000
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: references to Zorro Ranch and 5,000 references to New Mexico
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: as locations where victims were trafficked, groomed, and assaulted. Assuming
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: no page in the Epstein files simultaneously references Zorro Ranch
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: or New Mexico and that no page references either twice,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: the sum of these references totals 18,000. This figure represents 0.6%
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: of the approximately 3 million pages contained within the Epstein files. Thus,
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: like the courts in Food Lion and Freedom Watch, the
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: court should agree with the DOJ's determination that New Mexico's
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: sweeping request was overbroad and the disclosure was therefore unwarranted. E.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: DOJ has not ignored factors in TUI regulation require it
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: to consider. New Mexico argues 28 CFR section 1626C requires
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: DOJ to consider five factors where disclosure is necessary to
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: pursue a civil or criminal prosecution. 1. The seriousness of
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: the crime. 2. The criminal record of the accused. 3.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: The importance of relief sought. 4. The importance of legal
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: issues presented. And 5. Other matters brought to the attention
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: of the responsible official. This argument is incorrect. The TUI
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: regulations state that DOJ will consider the above five factors
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: only where disclosure would reveal a confidential source or informant,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: law enforcement material, or trade secrets. 28 CFR Section 1626C,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: citing 28 CFR Section 1626B-4 and 6, where disclosure would
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: violate a statute, rule, or procedure, specific regulation, or reveal
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: classified information, the TUI regulations prohibit disclosure without considering the
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: five factors. DOJ's response noted that New Mexico's TUI request
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: implicated Section 1626B-1 when it stated disclosure would violate the
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: Protective Orders and the Privacy Act. Thus, the TUI regulations
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: did not require DOJ to consider the five factors contained
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: in 1626C. The rationale behind Section 1626C carve-out is clear.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: Notwithstanding the obvious seriousness of the crimes New Mexico seeks
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: to prosecute, or the importance of justice for Epstein victims,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: a valid statute always prevails over conflicting regulation. DOJ's regulation
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: cannot justify disclosure which a statute could otherwise bar. See U.S.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: Code 5, Section 706, 2A. C. In validating agency action which
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: is not in accordance with law or in excess statutory authority,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: these principles leave no room for applying the Section 16.26C
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: factors when governing statute forbids disclosure. 3. Denying New Mexico's
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: TUI request is not unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed agency action.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: New Mexico argues to the extent the court concludes that
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Denying the two-year request was not final agency action as
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: defined by the APA, or if responsible officials have not
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: yet reviewed the two-year request, events so far constitute a
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: consummate failure to act or refusal to act. The court
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: should not reach this point for two reasons. First, DOJ
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: acted on New Mexico's two-year request when DNM sent its response.
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: DOJ has not withheld any action. Second, as explained above,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: DOJ followed its internal regulations when denying New Mexico's TUI request,
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: and so it did not act unlawfully. Nevertheless, resolution of
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: a claim of unreasonable delay is ordinarily a complicated and
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: nuanced task requiring consideration of the particular facts and circumstances
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: before the court. Relevant factors include any statutory timetable or
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: other indication of the speed with which Congress expects the
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: agency to proceed. the nature and extent of the interest
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: prejudiced by delay, with particular concern for matters of human
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: health and welfare, and the effect of expeditions. delayed action
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: on agency activity of a competing or higher priority. Here,
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: there is no indication that Congress expects disclosure to New
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: Mexico at all. Precedent further underscores that delays significantly exceeding
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: DOJ's timeline have been deemed permissible. In Mashpee, for example,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff had waited for agency action for five years,
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: and it was still only third in line. The court
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: noted that other parties have been waiting even longer for
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: a decision. DOJ's alleged delay, three months, is relatively modest
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: in comparison, especially considering the millions of pages contained within
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: the Epstein Files Act, and in any event DOJ has responded, thus,
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: any potential further review of New Mexico's TUI request would
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: not be actioned unreasonably withheld. Conclusion. For these reasons, the
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: court should grant DOJ's motion to dismiss or in the
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: alternative motion for a summary judgment. This document was dated
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: October 12th and it was signed by Richard Giles. All
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: in the description box.