Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Katie Phang Responds To Todd Blanche's Latest Motion To Postpone (Part 1) (10/9/26)

Transcript

Katie Phang Responds To Todd Blanche's Latest Motion To Postpone (Part 1) (10/9/26) · 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 dive right
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: back into the court documents from the lawsuit filed by
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Katie Fang against Todd Blanche and the DOJ. And this time,
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: we'll be taking a look at the plaintiff's response in
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: opposition to defendant's motion to postpone. Case number 26-1417. Katie Fang, Plaintiff.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: versus Todd Blanche in his official capacity as Attorney General
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: of the United States. Plaintiff's response in opposition to defendant's
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: motion to postpone. Introduction. On September 19, 2026, the court
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: ordered defendant to file an Administrative Record Index by October
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: 1 and to produce the Administrative Record to plaintiff by
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: October 15, ECF 42. Instead of complying with the court's order,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: defendant waited until until after close of court on October 1, 2026,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: to request a stay of both deadlines. At the same time,
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: defendant filed a Rule 12c motion for judgment on the
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: pleadings and a lengthy supporting brief. Defendant argues that because
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: his Rule 12c motion raises no issue of fact, he
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: should be excused from producing the administrative record while the
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: court considers that motion. But defendant's request for yet another
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: extension comes far too late. fails to comply with the
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: court's standing order, and attempts to re-litigate matters already litigated
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: and resolved. And it's entirely baseless. Defendant's Rule 12c motion
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: does raise issues of fact in addition to legal arguments
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: this court has already rejected. Defendant's motion can only be
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: understood as the latest step in defendant's ongoing campaign to
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: delay resolution of this case on the merits. The court
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: should repudiate defendant's gamesmanship, deny the motion, Order defendant to
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: file the certified list of the contents of the administrative
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: record immediately and order defendant to produce the administrative record
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: by his original deadline, October 15, 2026. Background For months,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: defendant's disregard for his deadline has delayed consideration of the
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: merits of the case. Defendant first failed to answer the
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: complaint by his June 26, 2026 deadline. See FedR Civ P12A2.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: defendant did not move the court for an extension of
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: his deadline or otherwise request to stay at proceedings, such
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: that he was in default under Rule 55A of the
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, C. Jackson v. Beach, D.C. Circuit, 1980.
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: Once a defendant fails to file a responsive answer, he
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: is in default and an entry of default may be
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: made by either the clerk or the judge. As a
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: professional courtesy, plaintiff's counsel notified defendant's counsel that of the
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: default on July 31, 2026. Defendant then affirmatively refused to
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: answer the complaint. And because defendant did not answer the complaint,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: he improperly avoided his obligation to file a certified list
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: of the contents of the administrative record as required by
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: LCVR 7N1. Plaintiff was forced to seek intervention from the court.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: Recognizing that a default judgment is an extraordinary remedy, plaintiff
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: moved on August 5, 2026 and to compel defendant to
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: answer the complaint, file a certified list of contents of
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: the administrative record, and produce the administrative record so that
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: this case could proceed expeditiously to summary judgment. Minutes after
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: plaintiff filed her motion, defendant filed a motion to stay
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: all filing deadlines in the case and set a briefing
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: schedule for a dispositive motion. Although the court had already
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: granted plaintiff's motion for a prelim injunction and rejected defendant's
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: threshold arguments, On June 25, 2026, ECF 16, defendant argued
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: that the motion for a prelim injunction remained undecided and
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: to stay was warranted because the court had not yet
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: resolved threshold issues including the subject matter jurisdiction standing and
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: the merits of plaintiff's APA claims. ECF at 2. Defendant
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: further asserted that the complaint is subject to dismissal by
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: a dispositive motion and the department intends to file one
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: on a schedule so ordered by the court. Idea 3.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: Defendant did not respond to plaintiff's motion to compel, and
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: he did not contest plaintiff's request for an order requiring
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: him to produce the administrative record. On September 19, 2026,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: the court granted plaintiff's motion to compel and denied defendant's
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: motion to stay as deadline and set a dispositive motion
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: briefing schedule. ECF 42. The court explicitly rejected defendant's suggestion
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: that the litigation needed to be stayed until the court
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: resolved threshold issues, explaining that it resolved those threshold issues
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: in its memorandum opinion and order when it rejected defendant's
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: jurisdictional arguments. The court held that the defendant was not
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: entitled to a general stay of his deadline or subsequent
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: motion practice on a motion to dismiss, because both would
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: clearly prejudice plaintiff. Idea 7. The court ordered the defendant
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: to answer the complaint by September 24th, 2026. The court
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: further found that defendant had conceded any argument that he
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: should not have to produce the administrative record, and so
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: order defendant to 1. File a certified list of the
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: contents of the administrative record by no later than October 1st, 2026,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: and 2. Produce the administrative record to the plaintiff by
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: no later than October 15th, 2026, ID at 3 and 8.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: But as now a common theme in the case, defendant
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: yet again decided not to comply with the court order,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: or LCVR 7N1, which independently requires defendant to file the
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: certified list of the contents of the administrative record with
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the court simultaneously with the filing of the dispositive motion. Instead,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: at 9.18pm on October 1st, 2026, well after the close
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: of court and in defiance of the court's standing order,
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: defendant filed a motion to postpone his deadline to file
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: the certified list of the contents of the administrative record
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: and produce the administrative record together, the AR deadlines, until
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: after the court resolves his contemporaneously filed Rule 12c motion
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: for judgment on the pleadings, ECF 51. Defendant's Rule 12c
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: motion relies on a handful of documents, including one agency record,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: that defendant also attached as exhibit to his answer and
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: that plainly raises issues of fact. See ECF 52.1 at
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: 23 and 25. In his motion to stay, defendant nevertheless
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: asserts that there is good cause for a stay because
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: there are no material facts in dispute and the administrative
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: record provides no additional information necessary to resolve the case.
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: ECF 51 at 2. Argument 1. The court should deny
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: defendant's motion to postpone because it violates the court's standing order.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: Defendant's motion to postpone should be denied for flagrantly violating
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: the court's standing order. The order requires that a motion
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: for a continuance or other scheduling change 1. be filed
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: three business days prior to the scheduled hearing or other deadline,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: absent extenuating circumstances, and 2. include alternative dates that have
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: been agreed upon by all parties, ECF 7. Defendant filed
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: his motion to postpone the AR deadlines on October 1st,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: the day of his first deadline after the court closed,
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: and his motion did not include alternative dates agreed to
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: by plaintiff. Defendant points to no extenuating circumstances that could
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: excuse his compliance failure, and there are none. Defendant's request
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: for an extension is based solely on his pending motion
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: for judgment on the pleadings, which he also filed on
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: October 1st. It's reasonable to assume that defendant was preparing
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: that motion and his 27-page supporting memorandum at least three
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: days in advance, of his October 1st deadline. But instead
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: of requesting a timely extension so the court could rule
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: prior to the deadline, defendant waited until the 11th hour
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: to file his motion, impermissibly granting himself the extension he seeks.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: See Asylum Works v. Mayorkas, 20 CV 3815 BAH 2021
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: WL 2227 3353 at 7. DDC June 1st, 2021. Filing
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: deadlines imposed by rule or by court order remain effective
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: unless expressly extended. Defendants may view the filing of their
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: motion for a stay to give them some form of
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: automatic relief from the otherwise applicable filing deadlines. This view
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: is incorrect. The court should not condone such litigation tactics.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Defendant could have and should have complied with the standing
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: order and his motion to postpone should be denied and
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: because of his non-compliance. 2. The court should deny defendant's
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: motion to postpone because it improperly seeks reconsideration of previously
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: litigated issues. Defendant's motion to postpone should also be denied
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: as an improperly presented and entirely unsupported motion for reconsideration.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff's motion to compel expressly asks the court to set
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: firm deadlines for defendant to file the certified index and
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: produce the administrative record. Defendant did not oppose that request.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: See ECF 42 at 3. Defendant did not file a
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: response to plaintiff's motion. The court accordingly ruled that the
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: defendant conceded the issue and imposed the AR deadlines that
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: the defendant now seeks to extend. and even had the
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: court not affirmatively imposed the AR deadlines, LC VR 7
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: and 1 unequivocally requires defendant to file the certified list
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: of the contents of the administrative record simultaneously with the
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. defendant
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: previously moved the court to stay all filing deadlines, which
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: necessarily includes the deadline imposed by LC VR 7N1, CECF 28.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: The court denied that request, finding that plaintiff would clearly
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: be prejudiced by a 60-day stay and subsequent motions practiced
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: on a motion to dismiss ECF 42 at 7. Though
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: styled as a motion to postpone, defendant's motion thus asks
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: the court, to reconsider not just one, but two prior rulings.
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: There's no basis to do so. Under Rule 54B of
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: revise its own interlocutory orders at any time before the
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: entry of judgment adjudicating all claims and all parties' rights
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: and liabilities. FedR Civ P54B. The burden is on the
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: moving party to show that reconsideration is appropriate and that
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were denied. FBM
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: Bank Limited v. Mnuchin, 249, DDC, 2017 Typically, the moving
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: party must demonstrate that the court misunderstood the parties, made
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: a decision beyond issues presented, failed to consider controlling decisions,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: or that there was a significant change in the law
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: or the facts. Ludlam v. U.S. Peace Corps, DDC, 2013
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: here defendant fails to cite the standard for reconsideration, much
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: less satisfy it. He does not and cannot contend that
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: the court misunderstood the parties, made a decision beyond the
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: issue presented, or failed to consider controlling decisions when it
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: granted plaintiff's motion to compel and deny defendant's motion to stay.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: Nor has there been any change in the governing law
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: or the facts. Defendant plainly has not provided the court
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: with any reason to reconsider the its prior rulings, see
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: Ludlam 970F, SUPP 2D at 22. Further in this circuit,
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: it's well established that motions for reconsideration, whatever their procedural basis,
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: cannot be used as an opportunity to re-argue facts and
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: theories upon which the court has already ruled, nor as
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: a vehicle for presenting theories or arguments that could have
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: been advanced earlier. See Gaithier v. Gaithier, District of Columbia, D.C. 2011,
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: quoting S.E.C. v. Blazerian, D.D.C. 2010. In Gaithier, the court
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: denied a motion for reconsideration that raised arguments that should
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: have been but were not raised in prior briefing and
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: recycled arguments already pressed and rejected. The court warned that
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: filing a motion of this kind is almost never appropriate
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: and is frankly a waste of time and resources of
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: the litigants and the judicial system. Similarly, in Anatoly v.
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: Republic of Kazakhstan, the court denied the motion for reconsideration
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: where the moving party repeated arguments made unsuccessfully before and
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: coupled them with arguments it chose not to raise at
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: the time. 302 F.S.U.P.P. D.C. 2018 And in Robinson v.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: District of Columbia, the court found that a motion for
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: reconsideration was premised on what appears to be a refinement
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: of the moving party's prior argument, holding that on this
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: basis alone, the motion is properly denied. Like the motions
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: denied in these cases, defendant's motion to postpone raises arguments
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: that defendant already raised or could have raised in prior
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: briefings and requests relief that the court already denied. Defendant
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: could have argued for other deadlines when he responded to
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's motion to compel. Instead, he said nothing. and the
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: court rightly imposed the requested deadlines, ECF 42 at 3. Further,
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: the defendant previously requested a stay of all filing deadlines
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: in the case. The court denied that request, finding that
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: it would prejudice plaintiff. The litigants have once battled for
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: the court's decision, and they should neither be required, nor
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: without good reason permitted, to battle for it again. Ludlum 970,
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: SUPP at 20. See also 1L vs. Honeywell. DDC 2013.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: where we left off. And that's with part three. All
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: in the description box.