Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Todd Blanche And The Motion To Postpone The Deadline In The Katie Phang Lawsuit (Part 1) (10/19/26)

Transcript

Todd Blanche And The Motion To Postpone The Deadline In The Katie Phang Lawsuit (Part 1) (10/19/26) · 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
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back into that lawsuit between Todd Blanche and Katie Fang.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: And this time, we're taking a look at Todd Blanche's
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: reply in support of motion for leave of court to
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: postpone the deadline. Case number 126-CV-01417-EGS. Katie Fang, Plaintiff. versus
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Todd Blanche in his official capacity as Attorney General of
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: the United States. Defendant reply and support a motion for
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: leave of court to postpone deadline. Despite all the charged
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: rhetoric throughout plaintiff's 12-page response to a three-page procedural motion,
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: the motion is just that, a routine procedural motion. The
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: government often files similar motions with or even as part
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: of its dispositive motions when those motions are based as here,
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: on jurisdictional arguments or claims to compel agency action. And
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: where there are no discernible records that would compose the
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: administrative record that are not already public, and opposing counsel
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: has refused to state what records it even would want
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: to see in an administrative record, see Exhibit A, the
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: process of composing a record for the record's sake is
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: an unnecessary formality. Accordingly, the court should grant defendants motion
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: for leave to postpone deadline. 1. There's no procedural foul here.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Local Rule 7N requires in cases involving the judicial review
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: of administrative agency action, unless otherwise ordered by the court,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: that a certified list of the contents of the administrative
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: record be produced within 30 days of service of the
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: answer or simultaneously with the filing of a dispositive motion,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: whichever occurs first. In this case, the answer was served
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: on September 24th, 2026. The court, however, in the order
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: setting the deadline for the answer, also moved up the
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: date for the certified list of the contents of the
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: administrative record from the 30 days set by rule to
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: 7 days following service of the answer, or October 1, 2026.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: On October 1, 2026, defendant filed this motion for leave
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: of court to postpone the deadline regarding the administrative record
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: alongside a Rule 12c motion for judgment. on the pleadings.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: As stated in the motion, defendant's view is that the
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: motion for judgment can be decided on the pleadings without
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: an administrative record. There is precedent in this district for
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: doing so, and good cause exists here because anything that
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: could potentially go in an administrative record is already part
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: of the pleadings or otherwise publicly available. Plaintiff's responses are unpersuasive. First,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: plaintiff states that the motion violates the court's standing order. Respectfully,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: and without attempting to tell the court the meaning of
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: its own standing order, the government does not read the
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: standing order the way plaintiff has presented it. The government
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: reads the standing order to apply to motions for extensions
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: with respect to briefs, hearing dates, or other similar types
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: of dates. Here the motion for leave was filed concurrently
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: with a motion for judgment that, as stated, dispenses with
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: the need for an administrative record. The instant motion being
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: different in nature, then a motion for extension for briefing deadline.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: The standing rule does not apply. Plaintiff also complains in
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: a filing made at 10.18 p.m. about the time of
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: day of the government's filing at 9.18 p.m. Of course,
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: the deadline is the end of the day unless the
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: court orders otherwise. Next, plaintiff asserts that this is an
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: improper motion for a reconsideration. It is not. As a
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: practical matter, if the government had been inclined... moved for
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: the court's reconsideration regarding the cross-motions to compel, and to
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: stay non-pro-tonk, it would not have waited until after answering
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: the complaint to do so, as a legal matter this
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: motion is to dispense with the requirements of Local Civil
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: Rule 7N. Given the filing of a motion which could
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: result in judgment for either party, a basis courts in
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: this district routinely recognize. C. Sheriff Mogahaddam v. Blinken 123
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: CV 1472, RCL 2023 WL 8047007 at 3. In any case,
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: courts in this district routinely allow agencies to waive compliance
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: with Rule 7 and 1. If the administrative record is
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: not necessary for the court's decision, L. Jollibee v. Blinken,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: 21 CV 1730, DDC, July 14, 2022. See also Nahara v. Renaud,
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: March 14, 2021. Following the practice of other courts in
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: this jurisdiction, the court grants the agency's motion to waive
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: compliance with Local Civil Rule 7 because the administrative record
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: is not necessary for the court's decision. Second alteration in original.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Here the court does not require the administrative record to
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: a rule on the defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: court will permit defendant to waive compliance with Rule 7
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: and 1. 2. An administrative record is not necessary to
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: resolve the motion for judgment. Plaintiff next argues that an
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: administrative record is necessary to rule on the motion for
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: judgment for a variety of unavailing reasons. First, plaintiff attempts
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: to create factual issues where there are none and interposes
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: the summary judgment standard onto a motion for judgment on
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: the pleadings. Second, plaintiff incorrectly suggests that an administrative record
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: is necessary to test redactions when the proper vehicle to
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: do that is the Vaughn Index prepared in the course
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: of a FOIA suit. This is all underscored even further
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: by the fact that the court can take judicial notice
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: of any document on the Epstein Library or the FOIA
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: vault and that the plaintiff might want to rely on.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: See Farm, Rush and Manufacturers of America vs. U.S. Health
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Department D.D.C. 2014 Courts in this jurisdiction have frequently taken
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: judicial notice of information posted on official public websites of
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: government agencies. See also Johnson vs. Communication on Presidential Debates D.D.C.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: 2016 Judicial notice may be taken of public records and
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: government documents available from reliable sources. A. Plaintiffs attempt to
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: manufacture factual issues fails. First, plaintiff attempts to characterize the
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: legal issues presented in the motion for judgment as factual issues.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: But the question of the interplay between the Privacy Act
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: and the EFTA, or any obligation to process and review
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: foreign language documents, are legal questions, not factual ones. Plaintiff
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: also contends that the adequacy of redactions are factual issues
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: of dispute. Not so. The issue of fact is properly
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: framed as the name or other identifying information under the redaction.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: not whether the redaction is appropriate or legally supported. The
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: answer to the latter question, which plaintiff suggests is factual, is,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: at most, a question of law for the court to decide,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: but in reality is not a reviewable question by the
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: court for the reason explained in defendant's motion for judgment.
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: In other words, whether any one redaction is appropriate is
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: not reviewable, but even if it is, whether a redaction
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: supported by the EFTA, the Privacy Act, or some other basis,
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: is not a matter of fact but rather law. To
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: be clear, though, defendant is no way waives the argument
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: that the court lacks jurisdiction to engage in such a review. Next,
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: plaintiff cherry-picks quotes from the government's brief to manufacture a
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: factual issue, and while the government, including hundreds upon hundreds
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: of dedicated public servants, did go to great lengths to
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: comply with the FTA, that is not a material factual
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: contention that can be tested in only against a record,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: docket at 12. Again, the issue before the court is
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: not the government's effort to comply with the law. And
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: while several hundred dedicated public servants went above and beyond
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: in order to comply with the law, the issues presented
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: in the litigation do not turn on that fact, especially
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: not in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Third,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: plaintiff accuses the government of relying on a selected record
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: and extra record documents while at the same time denying
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's access to a comprehensive record. This is also wrong. Indeed,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: plaintiff has refused to identify what types of documents she
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: believes could be included in the administrative record that would
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: substantively change the issues presented in the motion for judgment.
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: In a good faith effort to narrow the scope of
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: that dispute or resolve it without the need for the
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: court's intervention, the undersigned government counsel asked counsel for plaintiff
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: what materials they believed would be in the administrative record
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: that would substantively change the issues presented. Counsel asked this because,
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: as stated in the motion for leave, in an email correspondence,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: the government has already disclosed all disclosable information that could
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: conceivably go in an administrative record. It posted to the
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: Epstein Files library, hosted on the Department of Justice website,
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: the Epstein Files. It's also released through FOIA litigation and
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: public disclosures, emails, and processing guidelines related to the review process.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: It attached to its responsive pleading memoranda and letters explaining
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: the government's process and rationale to apply redactions to the
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: Epstein files. CEG records regarding the review of investigative holdings
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: related to Jeffrey Epstein, FBI Vault 01 at 26. Part
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: 2 at 8. Available at vaultfbi.gov records regarding the review
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: of the investigative holdings related to Jeffrey Epstein. Seemingly uninterested
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: in a resolution, though, counsel for plaintiffs simply stated, they
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: don't believe it's appropriate to litigate the scope and adequacy
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: of of the administrative record via email. In other words,
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: plaintiff asks for administrative record to support its briefing, but
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: when pressed on what might be included in that record
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: that is not already public, plaintiff declines to engage. Finally,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: plaintiff argues that reliance on the ex parte and camera
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: submission must be made as part of the administrative record,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: but that mistakes both the facts and the law. If
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: what plaintiff actually seeks is the names of victims, she
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: is no more entitled to that in an administrative record
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: than she is through the other process, and privileged documents
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: such as those submitted to the court for ex parte
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: in camera review would not go in an administrative record anyway.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: On this issue, the law is clear. Predecisional and deliberative
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: documents are not part of the administrative record to begin with,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: so they do not need to be logged as withheld
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: from the administrative record. Plaintiff offers no support for the
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: proposition that that withheld documents must be identified. Ultimately, plaintiff's
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: argument makes clear that her true intention is to make
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: the government comply, already available information for the sake of
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: going through the motions. And that is not a sufficient reason.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up episode one
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: right here. And in the next episode, finish this bad
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: boy off. All the information that goes with this episode
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.