Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Todd Blanche Argues For A Stay In The Katie Phang Epstein Related Lawsuit (Part 2) (9/24/26)

Transcript

Todd Blanche Argues For A Stay In The Katie Phang Epstein Related Lawsuit (Part 2) (9/24/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 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 pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off with Todd Blanche and his argument
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: for a stay. Three, plaintiff's procedural argument do not weigh
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: against a stay pending appeal. Tellingly, plaintiff's main argument have
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: nothing to do with the factors that govern whether a
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: stay pending appeal is warranted. And those arguments do not support,
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: let alone compel, denial of defendant's motion. A. Local Civil
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Rule 7M does not warrant denial of defendant's motion. Plaintiff
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: argues that this court should deny a stay with the
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: potential result of presenting the D.C. Circuit from ever resolving
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: the important issues presented based on Local Civil Rule 7M' s
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: meet-and-confer requirement. But defendant has repeatedly raised the issue of
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: a stay pending appeal and plaintiff has already made clear
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: that she opposes a stay many times over. See ECF
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: 13 at 21, there's no basis for a stay. ECF
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: 20 at 11 and 12, the court should not grant
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: a stay. ECF at 6, arguing against, request for a stay.
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: Even if Local Rule 7M technically applied, courts do not
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: deny motions based on that rule when doing so would
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: not meaningfully further its purposes and would conflict with the
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: general judicial preference for resolving motions on their merits rather
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: than dismissing them on technicalities. Steele v. United States, DDC,
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: September 25th, 2023. Lamberth J. quoting Niedermeyer, verse Baucus. DDC, 2020.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: Declining to rely on the meet-and-confer requirement where a failure
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: to meet-and-confer did not prejudice the non-movement given that the
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: movement had repeatedly informed the opposing party of its position.
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: Given plaintiff's repeated statement opposing any stay and the important
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: merits issues presented, that reasoning applies with full force here. B.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Defendant is seeking a stay of an appealable injunction. As
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: plaintiff acknowledges a prelim injunction is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Code Section 1291A1, ECF 47-3. Plaintiff further acknowledges that an
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: order that modifies a previously entered injunction is appealable. Citing
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Mamma Mia's Trattoria vs. Original Brooklyn Water Bagel, 11th Circuit, 2014.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: but plaintiff emphasizes that orders enforcing a prelim injunction are
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: not appealable. Defendant is plainly seeking to stay in appealable order.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: As defendant's motion explains, defendant asks the court to stay
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: pending appeal the portion of the September 16th order that
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: requires defendant to initiate review and production of certain documents
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: and to certify that defendant has done so by September 24th, 2026,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: ECF 46 1 at 1. Because the September 16 order
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: definitively resolved the foreign language documents issue, required defendant to
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: take affirmative action, and imposed a deadline for defendant to
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: do so, it constitutes an appealable preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's contrary
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: argument relies on the court's June 25 order, but overlooks
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: multiple aspects of both orders. Defendant previously sought a stay
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: of the June 25 order to the extent it would
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: be appealable, CECF 16 at 48. denying request for stay.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: But both defendant and the court have noted ambiguity as
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: to whether the June 25th order constituted an appealable prelim injunction,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: CECF 34 at 33, acknowledging questions about whether the earlier
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: order is appealable, filing a protective notice of appeal given
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: inconclusive appealability. To the extent the earlier order conferred definitive
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: injunctive relief, despite the court's ongoing consideration of defendant's rationales,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: Regarding foreign language documents, the September 16th order modified the
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: earlier open-ended order by setting an imminent deadline and is
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: therefore appealable. Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Commission, D.C. Circuit 2019.
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: An order that changes the legal relationship of the parties
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: modifies an injunction. Sansom Committee by Cook v. Lynn, 3rd
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: Circuit 1984. Order extending deadline to comply with the consent decree.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: was in the nature of a prelim injunction and appealable. Regardless,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: defendant's motion should be construed as seeking a stay of
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: both orders, to the extent necessary. After all, defendant timely
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: filed a notice of appeal regarding the earlier order, precisely
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: to preserve defendant's appellate rights, as a dialogue between the
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: court and parties continued. Just as a notice of appeal
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: encompasses all orders for purpose of appeal, merged into the
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: designated appealable order, such that it's not necessary to designate
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: those orders in notice of appeal. See Federal R. Appeals P. 3. C. 4.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Defendant was not required to take the hypertechnical step of
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: expressly and independently seeking to renew or seek reconsideration of
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: its request for a stay of the June 25th order
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: in its motion to stay the eminent requirement that it
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: review and produce foreign language documents. To the extent that
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: there's doubt or ambiguity about the issue, the court should
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: clarify its rulings in the June 25th and September 16th
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: order in a matter that ensures the D.C. Circuit has
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: an adequate opportunity to review the important issues presented before
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: the September 24th deadline takes effect. See ECF 43 at 16.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: Contemplating defendant may seek clarification from the court no later
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: than September 21st, 2026. Respectfully, the issues presented are sufficiently
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: important to the parties and the public to warrant an
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: appellate resolution. C. Defendant's request is timely. For all the
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: same reasons, defendant is not delayed in bringing this state motion.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: Defendant preemptively sought a stay of the June 25th order
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: before it even issued, filed a protective order of appeal
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: regarding that order, and then sought to stay of September
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: 16th order within two days. On plaintiff's telling, defendant should
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: have rushed an emergency appeal as soon as the June
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: 25th order issued, despite defendants' doubts about its appealability, but
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: that again would have undermined the court's collaborative spirit in
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: seeking to resolve the questions presented. Greater Boston Television Corporation, 44F. 2D,
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: at 851 and 52. The court should not adopt plaintiff's
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: argument and therefore decentivize parties from engaging in dialogue with
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: district courts on complex matters. plaintiff also ignores that there
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: was no eminent deadline in the June 25th order, so
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: the need for immediate stay and appeal to preserve defendant's
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: appellate rights did not arise until the September 16th order.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: For the same reasons, plaintiff's additional argument that any purported
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: delay diffuses defendant's claims of irreparable harm, CECF 47 at 6,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: fall flat. 4. In the alternative, the court should grant
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: the stay pending the D.C. Circuit's resolution of a motion
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: for staying pending appeal. If the court denies defendant's request
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: for a stay pending appeal, the court should at least
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: grant the stay while the D.C. Circuit considers a further
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: motion to stay pending appeal. ECF 46.1 at 24. By
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: this court's rules and approach to motions practice in this litigation,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: plaintiff has conceded that such a temporary stay is warranted.
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: ECF 16 at 36, citing D.D.C. Local Rule 7B. In
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: the future, out of abundance of caution, Defendants' Council will
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: seek to meet and confer with Plaintiff's Council, even when
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff has repeatedly briefed its position and doing so appears futile.
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: Had Defendants' Council been aware that certain Plaintiff's Council would
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: be observing Yom Kippur, Defendants' Council would have been amnable
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: to a stipulated schedule that delayed the September 24th deadline
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: by a few days to allow for a briefing and
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: potential recourse to the D.C. Circuit. Conclusion For the reasons
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: set forth above, The court should stay pending appeal the
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: September 16th order to the extent the order requires defendant
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: to initiate review and production of foreign language documents. The
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: court should also stay and or clarify the July 25th
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: order to the extent necessary to facilitate appellate review of
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: the pertinent legal questions. In the alternative, this court should
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: enter a temporary stay that enables defendant to seek full
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: stay pending appeal from the D.C. Circuit. Defendant previously requested
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: a decision by September 21, 2026 at 5 p.m. Eastern
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Standard Time on this motion. The court then ordered defendant
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: to file this reply brief by that same time. Defendant
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: has filed this brief early in an effort to facilitate
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: the court's review. In defendant's continuing effort to avoid leapfrogging
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: this court while it considers important issues, defendant now requests
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: a ruling as soon as practicable and by September 21st,
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: 2026 at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. This document was
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: dated September 21st, 2026, and it was signed by Andrew Block.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.