Latest / The Moscow Murders and More / Todd Blanche Fights Deposition as Epstein Survivors Seek Answers From the DOJ (11/5/26)

Transcript

Todd Blanche Fights Deposition as Epstein Survivors Seek Answers From the DOJ (11/5/26) · The Moscow Murders and More

• 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
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: look at a motion that's been filed recently by the
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Department of Justice, the United States, opposing the request for
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Todd Blanche to sit for a deposition with the Jane
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: Doe class that has filed suit against him and the
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: United States. Case number 25-80880 Dash Siv. Dash Leibowitz. Jango 1.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: Et al. Plaintiffs vs. United States of America. The defendant.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: United States of America motioned a quash deposition subpoena and
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: for a protective order with supporting memorandum of law. Defendant
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: United States of America by and through the undersigned assistant
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: United States attorneys pursuant to Rule 26 and 45 of
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Local Rule 7.1 Plaintiff's
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: request is extraordinary. The deposition of a sitting cabinet official
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: in a civil litigation is almost always improper. save for
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: specific circumstances plaintiffs come nowhere close to establishing. In the
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: rare instance where district courts have granted attempts to depose
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: agency heads, courts of appeals across the country have consistently
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: vacated their orders. As those courts have explained, such officials
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: rarely have unique information regarding civil litigation and if the
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: judiciary were to subject high-level executive branch officials to deposition
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: in such cases, It would threaten the separation of powers,
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: chill agency decision-making, discourage public service, and create potential for
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: abuse or harassment. This case provides no occasion to grant
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs extraordinary request. The subpoena plainly exceeds the scope of
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: limited jurisdictional discovery this court has authorized. And plaintiff makes
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: no showing that Mr. Blanche has any personal knowledge relevant
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: and material to their claims. let alone any information that
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: is unavailable from another source or necessary to litigate the case.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: This subpoena should be quashed and a protective order entered.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: Memorandum of Law 1. Factual Background This case was originally
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: filed in September of 2024. Thereafter, several amendments to the
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: complaint occurred, as well as a venue transfer. Discovery in
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: this case is currently limited to a. the existence and
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: content of of any mandatory established policy, protocol, and procedures,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: whether written or otherwise, governing the FBI's conduct in assessing
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: or handling tips, reports, and complaints of sexual abuse, child
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse, and or child sexual abuse material, and b.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: the exhaustion of administrative remedies by Jane Doe's 13, 21,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: and 29. However, on October 9, 2026, plaintiffs, served a
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: subpoena to take the deposition of U.S. Attorney General Todd
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: Blanch and to produce any and all documents pertaining to
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. Notably, the Fourth Amended Complaint contains no allegations
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: whatsoever concerning Mr. Blanch. It only briefly references the Office
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: of the Attorney General, only doing so in the context
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: of the Attorney General's capacity as the ultimate supervisory authority
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: over the FBI. The FAC contains no allegations showing why Mr.
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: Blanche or the Office of the Attorney General would have
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: any unique and discoverable material. The subpoena lists October 28,
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: 2026 as the proposed deposition date and the location at
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff attorney's office in New York City. Notably, the date, time,
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: and location of this deposition was not decided in consultation
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: with the undersigned, but unilaterally set. Given that, the U.S.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: Attorney General denies Todd Blanche is clearly protected by the
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: Apex Doctrine from being compelled to provide unnecessary testimony, the
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: undersigned reached out to plaintiff's counsel to inquire whether they
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: would withdraw this subpoena. Plaintiff's counsel have made clear that
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: they have no intent to withdraw the subpoena. As a result,
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: the United States files this motion to quash and for
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: a protective order. 2. Legal Standard A. Standard to Quash
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: or Modify Subpoena Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that,
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: on motions made promptly, the court may quash or modify
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. Federal
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides in pertinent part, d.
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: Protecting a person subject to a subpoena. 3. Quashing or
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: modifying a subpoena. a. When required, on timely motion. The
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that 2.
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: Requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: in Rule 45c. 3. Requires disclosure of privilege or other
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: protected matter if no exception or waiver applies. Or 4.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: Subjects a person to undue burden. 3. Argument The subpoena
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: is a clear violation of the court's limited jurisdictional discovery order.
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: On October 9, 2026, plaintiffs served a subpoena for deposition
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: testimony and deuces tecum, request for the U.S. Attorney General
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Todd Blanch. The deuces tecum, request seeks any and all
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein, a subpoena of the United
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: States Attorney General about anything and everything related to Jeffrey Epstein,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: is a clear violation of this court's limited jurisdictional discovery order.
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: This court made clear that The Court's stay of discovery
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: is lifted for the limited purpose of allowing the parties
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: to engage in the recommended limited jurisdictional discovery for 90
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: days from the date of this order after which defendant
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: may renew its motion to dismiss under the FTCA's discretionary
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: function exception. That limited discovery referenced by the Court was
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: limited to two jurisdictional issues a. the existence and content
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: of any mandatory established policy, protocol, and procedure, whether written
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: or otherwise, governing the FBI's conduct in assessing or handling tips, reports,
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: and complaints of sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, and or
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: child sexual abuse material, and b. the exhaustion of administrative
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: remedies by Jane Doe 13, 21, and 29. The subpoena
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: for the U.S. Attorney General does not remotely relate to
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: this narrow objective. as any and all documents related to
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein does not relate to FBI policy or the
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: exhaustion of the administrative remedies by plaintiffs. Further, plaintiffs cannot
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: meet Rule 26B1' s relevance requirement because the existence, content, or
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: application of FBI policy is demonstrably obtainable from the FBI itself,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: not from the Attorney General. Courts routinely quash subpoenas that
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: exceed the explicit scope of a discovery order. as jurisdictional
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: discovery is particularly constrained. See Continuum on South Beach Condo v.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: QBE Insurance Corporation, South District of Florida 2021. Also see
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: Auto Owners Insurance Company v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., Florida 2005,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: finding discovery on possible future issue not yet relevant. Limited
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: jurisdictional discovery is exactly that, limited and related to the
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: court's jurisdiction. Surely an open-ended subpoena requiring testimony from the
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: sitting U.S. Attorney General, which in no way relates to
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: the FBI policy and procedure or the plaintiff's administrative claims
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: is outside of the limited scope of discovery at this
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: juncture of the case. Here, the plaintiffs have taken a
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: narrow jurisdictional grant of discovery and attempted to convert it
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: into an excuse to probe the highest-ranking official of the
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Department of Justice, something the limited discovery order did not permit. B.
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: The Apex Doctrine clearly bars the deposition of a sitting
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: Attorney General. A district court should rarely, if ever, compel
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: the attendance of a high-ranking official in a judicial proceeding.
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: This doctrine originates from U.S. v. Morgan, where the Supreme
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: Court held that Secretary of Agriculture should not have been
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: subjected to a deposition because it was improper to probe
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: his mental process. Since then, courts in various jurisdictions, including
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: the D.C. and 11th Circuit's, have routinely held that high-ranking
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: government officials should not, absent exceptional circumstances, be deposed or
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: called to testify regarding an agency's reason for taking, or
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: facts regarding, official action. And subsequent court appeal cases clarify
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: that the limitation on deposition of high-ranking government officials applies
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: regardless of whether the party seeking the deposition intends to
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: probe the official's mental process. In fact, undersigned counsel is
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: not aware of a single instance since Morgan in which
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: a sitting cabinet official was forced to testify in a
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: civil case regarding an agency's government actions. Even assuming that
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: a deposition of a sitting cabinet official is theoretically possible,
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs come nowhere close to demonstrating that this case involves
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: exceptional circumstances. Ordinarily, the party seeking a protective order or
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: to quash a subpoena bears the burden of proof. But
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: when it comes to high-ranking official deposition, the default is
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: to allow it. Harvard vs. Dixon, North District of Florida, 2022,
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: citing Kessler at 5.13. The party seeking the deposition must
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: establish that extraordinary circumstances support their request. Kessler, 9.85 at 5.12,
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: quoting Simplex Time Recorder, 575 D.C. Circuit 85. The reason
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: for requiring this before allowing the testimony of high officials
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: is obvious. That is because the compelled appearance of a
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: high-ranking officer of the executive branch in a judicial proceeding
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: implicates the separation of powers, and the duties of high-ranking
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: executive officers should not be interrupted by judicial demands for
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: information that could be obtained elsewhere. Extraordinary circumstances are absent
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: where the proposed depositions are not essential to the case.
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: In other words, plaintiffs must show that high-ranking officials have
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: first-hand information that is relevant and material to their claims,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: and that cannot be reasonably obtained from other sources or
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: modes of discovery. Plaintiffs fail to make this showing at
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: every front. First, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the Attorney General
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: has any unique personal knowledge concerning the two limited topics
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: on which this court has permitted jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs' allegations
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: relate to alleged policies and practices that date back to
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: the 70s. Fourth amended complaint decades before Mr. Blanch joined
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: the Department of Justice or became the U.S. Attorney General,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: and plaintiffs have offered no basis to assume that Mr. Blanch,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: has unique personal knowledge about 3 Jane Doe's exhaustion of
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: administrative remedies. Indeed, the operative complaint makes no allegation about Mr. Blanche,
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: who is not a party to this action at all,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: and only identifies the office of the Attorney General in
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: relation to its role formally overseeing the FBI. There is
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: simply no basis to determine that Mr. Blanche has any
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: unique personal knowledge about anything properly within the scope of
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: discovery in the case, let alone the limited discovery that's
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: authorized at this time. To be sure, the Attorney General,
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: as the leader of the Department of Justice, is ultimately
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: responsible for the policy and procedure ultimately adopted by the FBI,
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: but that cannot possibly be a basis to compel his
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: deposition on these topics. If it were, the limitation on
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: deposing high-ranking government officials would be no limit at all.
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: Every cabinet head is in charge of policy at his
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: or her agency. And so, even if Mr. Blanche had
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: knowledge relevant to limited topics on which discovery has been
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: allowed to proceed, a point for which plaintiffs have provided
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: no support, it would merely reinforce the point that he
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: was a high-ranking, not that any knowledge he gained was unique. Second,
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs felt to establish that deposing the sitting Attorney General
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: is necessary considering potential alternatives. Information about any FBI policy, protocol,
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: and procedure, or a plaintiff's administrative exhaustion, are precisely the
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: kind of questions that could readily be answered by party interrogatories,
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: tailored document requests, or other written discovery. But plaintiffs have
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: not demonstrated that they have exhausted these alternatives. In sum,
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: a cabinet official's deposition is permissible, if at all, only
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: after all alternatives are exhausted, and plaintiffs have made no
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: showing that they have exhausted these alternatives. Permitting this deposition
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: of the sitting Attorney General in this case, would be
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: an extraordinary order without precedent in modern history. This subpoena
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: should be quashed. Conclusion Wherefore, the reasons set forth above
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: the United States of America respectfully request this court enter
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: an order quashing the subpoena for testimony of U.S. Attorney
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: General Todd Blanch and enter a protective order barring such testimony.
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: This document was dated October 26th and it was signed
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: by Kelsey R. Romero. All the information that goes with
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.