Latest / Beyond The Horizon / The Order Shielding Todd Blanche From A Deposition In The Lawsuit With Epstein Survivors (11/9/26)

Transcript

The Order Shielding Todd Blanche From A Deposition In The Lawsuit With Epstein Survivors (11/9/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to take a
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: look at the order denying the plaintiff's request to have
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Todd Blanche sit for a deposition. Case number 25-CV-80880. Jane
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Doe 1 et al. Plaintiffs vs. United States of America.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Order on DE-140. This cause comes before the court on
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: the government's motion to quash a subpoena and motion for
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: protective order, which was referred to the undersigned by United
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: States District Judge David Leibowitz. The court conducted a hearing
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: on this matter on November 4, 2026. As set forth below,
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: the court grants the motion in part and denies it
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: in part. One background. This is a negligence case arising
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: under the federal tort claims brought by numerous sexual abuse
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Bureau
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: of Investigation acted negligently in failing to timely investigate Epstein,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: arrest him, and prevent him from committing further crimes, including
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: those committed against plaintiffs. On September 30, 2025, the District
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Judge entered a stay of discovery. On September 24, 2026,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: the District Judge lifted the stay to allow a 90-day
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: period of limited jurisdictional discovery on two issues. A, the
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: existence and content of any mandatory established policies, protocols, and procedures,
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: whether written or otherwise governing the FBI's conduct in assessing
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: or handling tips, reports, and complaints of sexual abuse, child
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse, and or child sexual abuse material. And B,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: the exhaustion of administrative remedies by Jane Doe's 1321 and 29.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: jurisdictional discovery has been underway since that time. During the
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: hearing on this matter, the parties updated the court on
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: the status of jurisdictional discovery, and the court made the
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: following rulings from the bench. The court ordered the parties
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: to reach an agreement on a proposed confidentiality order by
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: November 11, 2026, or, alternatively, to advise the court if
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: they cannot reach an agreement. If the parties cannot reach
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: an agreement, the court will enter its own standard confidentiality order.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: The court ordered the government to begin producing documents as
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: soon as the confidentiality order was in place. The court
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: ordered the government to answer outstanding interrogatories as soon as
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: it begins producing documents. The government advised that it had
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: identified Rule 30b-6 witness, but the parties have not yet
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: set a deposition date. The court ordered the parties by
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: November 11, 2026 to agree upon a date for a
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Rule 30b-6 deposition. The court also ordered the parties to
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: bring any discovery disputes to the court as soon as
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: they arise. On or about October 9, 2026, plaintiffs also
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: sent a subpoena to counsel for the government to take
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: the deposition of Todd Blanch. The subpoena does not indicate
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: whether plaintiffs seek to depose Mr. Blanch in his individual
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: capacity or or in his official capacity as Attorney General
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: of the United States. The court assumes the subpoena seeks
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: an official capacity deposition since plaintiffs sent the subpoena to
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: government counsel rather than serving it upon Mr. Blanche personally.
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: At the hearing, government counsel also disavowed any representation of Mr.
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: Blanche in his individual capacity or acceptance of service in
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: that capacity. Plaintiffs seek to take the deposition in New
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: York City They also request that Mr. Blanche bring to
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: the deposition any and all documents pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein. 2.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: Discussion By way of this motion, the government first seeks
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: to quash the subpoena pursuant to Rule 45d3 of the
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court denies this relief
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: as Rule 45d3 grants such authority only to a court
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: where compliance is required. 3. Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena a.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: When required on timely motion, the court for the district
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: that 4. Subjects a person to undue burden. Here the
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: subpoena calls for the deposition to take place in New
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: York City and for documents to be produced at the
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: site of the deposition. A federal court in Florida cannot
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: quash a subpoena that calls for compliance to take place
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: in New York. C. Bernath v. Seavey Florida, May 9th, 2017.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Here the subpoena to Everyone's Internet requires compliance in Texas. Accordingly,
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 4D3A, the Middle
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: District of Florida is not the district where compliance is
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: required and lacks the jurisdiction to quash this subpoena. The
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: government next seeks an entry of a protective order under
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Rule 26C to prevent the deposition from going forward. Unlike
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: Rule 45D3, A party seeking relief under Rule 26C may
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: petition the court where the action is pending, rather than
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: the court where compliance is required. See Humphreys v. Progressive, Texas, 2022,
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: noting that a party has a standing to move for
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: a protective order pursuant to Rule 26C. Rule 26C allows
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: the entry of a protective order for good cause as follows.
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: See Protective Orders. 1. In general, a party or any
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: person from whom discovery is sought may move for a
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: protective order in the court where the action is pending,
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: in the court for the district where the deposition will
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: be taken. The court may, for good cause, issue an
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: or undue burden or expense, including one or more of
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: the following. a. Forbidding the disclosure or discovery. B. Prescribing
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: a discovery method other than the one selected by the
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: party seeking discovery. C. Forbidding inquiry into certain matters or
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: That are Civ P26C. For purposes of this rule, good
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: cause means sound basis or legitimate need to limit the
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: discovery in question. Applying these standards here, the court finds
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: that the government has shown good cause for entry of
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: a protective order for two reasons. First, plaintiff's deuces tecum,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: request for any and all documents pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein,
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: goes far beyond the limited jurisdictional discovery permitted by the
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: district judge. As previously explained, the district judge limited discovery
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: to two discrete issues. The deuces tecum request goes far
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: afield of these topics. Second, the government has shown good
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: cause under the Apex Doctrine, which protects high-ranking government officials
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: from judicial subpoenas for testimony, except in rare circumstances. Under
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: the Apex Doctrine, a district court should rarely, if ever,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: compel the attendance of a high-ranking official in a judicial proceeding.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: The reasons behind the doctrine are twofold. 1. To protect
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: the separation of powers concerned between co-equal branches of government,
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: and 2. To protect high-ranking government officials from being monopolized
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: by the obligations of testifying in response to judicial subpoenas.
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: To overcome the apex doctrine, the record must show extraordinary
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: circumstances or special needs for compelling the appearance of a
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: high-ranking officer in a judicial proceeding. Of significance here, the
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: doctrine cannot be overcome where a claimant can obtain the
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: desired testimony or information from alternative sources. Finding that the
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: EPA administrator could not be compelled to testify at hearing
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: where assistant administrator was available to testify on same topics
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: and the district court failed to explain what information the
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: administrator can provide that the assistant administrator for water cannot.
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: C-98F United States, 2D 510 11th Circuit, 1993, finding that
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: the FDA commissioner could not be compelled to testify where
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: the record disclosed that testimony was available from alternate witnesses.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: As the 4th Circuit recently explained, the record must show
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: that high-ranking official has first-hand knowledge that's relevant to the
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: material to the claims and that cannot be reasonably obtained
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: from other sources or modes of discovery. Applying these standards here,
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: the court finds that the record lacks extraordinary circumstances or
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: special needs sufficient to overcome the apex doctrine. An apex
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: deposition should be a party's last resort in discovery, not
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: the first resort. See Musk, 169, F4th at 449, granting
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: mandamus to prevent deposition of high-ranking government official where plaintiffs
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: had not exhausted other forms of written discovery. Here, plaintiffs
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: are still in the midst of the limited jurisdictional discovery
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: allowed by the district judge. They have not yet received
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: responses to their written discovery, nor have they deposed the
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: government's Rule 30b-6 witnesses. The court has taken steps to
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: expedite the outstanding discovery and will continue to do the
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: same to ensure plaintiffs get the discovery they're due. To
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: this end, plaintiffs have submitted evidence that Attorney General Blanche
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: held a meeting in D.C. on July 16, 2026, with
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: numerous Epstein victims and their counsel, including many of the
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: plaintiff and counsels in this case. During the meeting, Attorney
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: Blanch purportedly said that the FBI case against Epstein was
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: handled improperly before 2007. He also purportedly told the victims
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: that you got screwed over by the FBI, but I
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: can't fix the FBI's lack of investigation. In the court's view,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: these comments implicate matters potentially within the scope of the
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: limited jurisdictional discovery allowed by the district judge. As such,
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: the court will allow plaintiffs to propound up to 10
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 to be answered by Attorney
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: General Blanch in his official capacity as an employee of
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: the United States. The scope of the interrogatories must be
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: limited to the comments allegedly made by Attorney General Blanch
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: during the meeting on July 16th 2026. The interrogatory shall
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: be answered within 15 days after being propounded. At the
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: conclusion of all written discovery and the upcoming Rule 30b-6 deposition,
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs may renew their request to depose Attorney General Blanche
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: upon a proper showing of extraordinary circumstances or special needs
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: after the exhaustion of other available discovery methods. In the meantime,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: the Court grants the Government's motion for entry of a
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: protective order The deposition may not proceed without further order
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: of the court. Conclusion For all the above reasons, the
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: court orders as follows. 1. The pending motion, DE 140,
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: is granted in part and denied in part, as set
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: forth above. 2. Pursuant to FEDAR Civ P-37, the court
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: declines to shift fees in connection with this motion, as
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: the court finds the parties were substantially justified in taking
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: their respective positions in And the circumstances would make an
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: award of expense unjust. Done and ordered in the chambers
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: of West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: this fifth day, November 2026. Ryan M. McCabe, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: That's who signed this. And this document was dated November 5th, 2026.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.