Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Federal Judge Orders DOJ to Expedite Epstein FOIA Requests (Part 4) (10/2/26)

Transcript

Federal Judge Orders DOJ to Expedite Epstein FOIA Requests (Part 4) (10/2/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off with the defenders of democracy and
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: their lawsuit filed against the DOJ and the order granting
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: their request to expedite FOIA requests. Courts must be cautious
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: in deeming non-media organizations as persons primarily engaged in information dissemination.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Energy Policy Advocates v. U.S. Department of Interior DDC, September 22, 2021.
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: Quoting landmark legal found, 1st EPA, DDC, 2012. Although courts
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: in this circuit and elsewhere have routinely held that media
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: organizations and newspapers qualify under this category, in light of
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: the pertinent legislative history, other types of organizations have been
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: held to not qualify, unless information dissemination is also their
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: main activity. and not merely incidental to other activities that
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: are their actual core purpose. Progress v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, DDC,
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: May 4, 2017. The court's determination of whether DDF qualifies
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: as a person primarily engaged in information dissemination is based
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: solely on the record before DOJ, as required by law.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: In the request at issue, DDF explained that its core
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: mission is to defend the rule of law, fight corruption,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: and protect elections using a variety of tools including publication
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: of information concerning ongoing activities of the government. DDF further
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: explained that its public dissemination and media outreach are extensive,
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: and that through a combination of investigative reports, in-depth analysis,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: press release, and dynamic engagement on multiple digital and traditional
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: media channels, DDF ensures that critical information reaches a wide
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: spectrum of stakeholders. To support these claims, DDF cited articles
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: written by its leadership that detail DDF's past efforts to
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: inform the public about possible government corruption, CID at 28
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: and 16, citing Virginia Center, why we democracy defenders are
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: demanding information about Doge. Announcing that DDF has begun an
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: inquiry into Doge by filing FOIA requests across the federal
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: government because without the requested records, the public will remain
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: in the dark, and will therefore not be able to
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: assess whether Doge will serve the nation. DDF also cited
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: to its website where it provides information related to its
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: activities which can be accessed by the public. Although it's
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: a closed call, the court concludes that on the present record,
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: DDF has not established that it's primarily engaged in disseminating information.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: DDF argues that that this case is comparable to Leadership
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzalez, DDC, 2005, in which
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Judge Royce Lamberth held that Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: was primarily engaged in the dissemination of information regarding civil
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: rights because its mission was to serve as the site
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: of record for relevant and up-to-the-minute civil rights news and information,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: Idea 260. The court, however, finds this case more akin
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: to Landmark Legal Foundation v. EPA, DDC 2012. In Landmark Legal,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: Judge Lamberth held that Landmark Legal Foundation had not shown
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: that it was primarily, and not just incidentally, engaged in
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: information dissemination because it only stated that as part of
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: its mission as a tax-exempt public interest law firm, Landmark investigates, litigates,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: and publicizes instances of proper and or illegal government activity
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: and that among its primary activities is to disseminate to
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: the public about the conduct of governmental agencies. Idea 276,
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: quoting the evidence in record, Judge Lamberth found that the
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: landmark legal foundation's additional functions outside of information dissemination distinguished
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: it from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, explaining that
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: a contrary reading of the statutory requirement would allow nearly
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: any organization with a website, newsletter, or other information distribution
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: channel to qualify as primarily engaged in disseminating information. The
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: court agrees with Judge Lamberth's reasoning in landmark legal and
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: finds it instructive here. In its request, DDF stated that
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: its core mission is to defend the rule of law,
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: fight corruption, and protect elections using a variety of tools,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: including publication of information concerning ongoing activities of the government.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: July 22nd, DOJ CRM request, docket number 14 at 28.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: Under review of DDF's website, it appears that DDF's primary tool,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: are litigation and advocacy, with information dissemination being incidental to
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: these primary tools. For instance, DDF's website describes DDF as
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: a It lists several recent litigation victories that, while significant,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: do not relate to information dissemination, and states that DDF
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: uses litigation, policy, advocacy, strategic communication, and grassroots mobilization to
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: ensure our elections are free, fair, and secure. Mindful that
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: the specified categories for compelling need are intended to be
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: narrowly applied and that courts therefore must be cautious in
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: deeming non-media organizations as persons primarily engaged in information dissemination.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: Energy Policy Advisors 2021 Citations Omitted the court finds that
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: on the present record DDF has not shown as a
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: matter of law that it's primarily and not just incidentally
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: engaged in information dissemination. Landmark Legal 910 F.SUPP 2D-276. In sum,
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: the court concludes that DDF has not shown that it's
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: primarily engaged in disseminating information under U.S. Code 5 Section
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: 552A6EV because on the present record DDF's information dissemination is
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: incidental to its primary activities of litigation and advocacy. DDF
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: is therefore not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law,
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: on its request for expedited processing under U.S. Code 5,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: Section 552A6EI. Accordingly, the court shall deny in part DDF's
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: motion for summary judgment with respect to its request under U.S.
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: Code 5, Section 552A6E1. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: Court concludes that the entirety of DDF's July 22, 2025
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: request to DOJ-CRM is entitled to expedited processing under CFR 28,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: Section 16.5E14. The Court further concludes that the bulk of
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: DDF's July 28, 2025 request to DOJ-CRM and OAG-ODAG are
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: entitled to expedited processing under under CFR 28, Section 16.5, E1-4. However,
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: as detailed above, Supra, Section 3, A. 3, the Court shall
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: narrow the scope of DDF's first and third request to
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: require only that DOJ provide expedited processing as to the
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: specific DOJ officials identified in the request and not any
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: DOJ official. Finally, although DDF argues that FOIA's compelling need provision, U.S.
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: Code 5, Section 552, A6E, provides a supplemental basis for expedition,
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: the court finds that DDF has not met the statutory
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: standard for compelling need because it has not shown that
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: it's primarily engaged in disseminating information. Accordingly, it's hereby ordered
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: that with respect to DDF's request under 28 CFR section 16.5.1.4
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: for expedited processing on its July 22, 2025 request to
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: DOJ CRM, DDF's motion for summary judgment is granted. Ordered
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: that with respect to DDF's request under 28 CFR section 16.5
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: E1-4 for expedited processing on its July 28, 2025 request
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: to DOJ, CRM, and OAG, ODAG DDF's motion for summary
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: judgment is granted in part as to the bulk of
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: DDF's request for records and denied in part as to
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: the portion of DDF's first and third requests that request
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: records from DOJ officials other than those specifically identified in
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: the request and ordered with respect to DDF's request under
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: FOIA's compelling need. U.S. Code 5, Section 552, at A, 6,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: and E, for expedited processing on its July 22, 2025
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: request to DOJ, CRM, and its July 28, 2025 request
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: to DOJ CRM and OAG ODAG DDF's motion for summary
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: judgment is denied. So ordered by Colleen Coler-Catelli and dated
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: September 30th, 2026. All the information that goes with this
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.