Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Todd Blanche And The Motion To Postpone The Deadline In The Katie Phang Lawsuit (Part 2) (10/19/26)

Transcript

Todd Blanche And The Motion To Postpone The Deadline In The Katie Phang Lawsuit (Part 2) (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 get right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back to Todd Blanch's motion to postpone the deadline in
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: the Katie Fang lawsuit. B. An administrative record is not
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: a proper vehicle to test redactions that would be a
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Vaughn Index. As a last resort, plaintiff says that she
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: needs an administrative record to judge the redactions. Docket 55
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: at 12. Any such ruling... necessarily turns on facts only
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: an administrative record can supply. By way of example, plaintiff
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: proffers that an administrative record is needed to determine whether
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: materials referring to President Trump are withheld. This argument ignores
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: that many of the documents at the heart of the
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: court show cause orders have involved documents where the president's
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: name appears. And while plaintiff insinuates that maybe other documents
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: are withheld, She describes none and ignores the Attorney General's
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: certification that no redactions were made on the basis of
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: political embarrassment and that the President's name was on the
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: list of politically exposed persons, alongside four other people who
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: have held the office of President of the United States
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: since 1993. To the extent any court can engage in
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: a redaction-by-redaction analysis, it cannot. The appropriate vehicle to do
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: that would be a Vaughn Index investigation in the context
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: of a FOIA case. And this fact highlights the several
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: fatal flaws to plaintiff's case. First, she has a right
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: or no right to the identity of individuals under the redactions.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: Congress has made a policy decision that the identity of
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: victim names may be redacted. And try as she might,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: plaintiff has no standing to demand to see the unredacted
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: files to judge for herself the department's compliance with the law.
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: So she attempts to frame the dispute as needing an
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: administrative record to judge the redactions herself. But as just shown,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: there are no records that would go into administrative record
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: that would shed any light on that question. That's because
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: an administrative record is not the process for challenging redactions.
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: The process for challenging redactions to documents subject to public
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: disclosure is a Vaughn Index. And this goes to defendant's
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: point all along, which is plaintiff's adequate remedy here to
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: challenge redactions is FOIA, not the APA, and plaintiff cites
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: no case, and the government is aware of no case,
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: in this district or circuit where the court has used
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: an administrative record to decide the adequacy of redactions. In
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: a public records disclosure case, the practice to utilize a
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: Vaughn Index. Now, this is not to say that plaintiffs
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: entitled to a Vaughn Index and the government reserves the
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: right to make all arguments on that topic in any
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: future FOIA action where the issue is properly raised. The
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: point is, even under a Vaughn Index, the most any
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: plaintiff is entitled to in any public record disclosure case,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs are entitled to far less information than an administrative
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: record which plaintiff seeks here. And in fact, the requirement
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: of a Vaughn Index may be dispensed of where, as here,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: the court reviews in camera the documents at issue. See Solers, Inc. v. IRS,
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: 4th Circuit, 2016. A Vaughn Index is designed to enable
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: the district court to rule in on a privilege without
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: having to review the document itself, and thus functions as
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: a surrogate for the production of documents for in-camera review.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: Stated otherwise, the issue of whether the IRS provided a
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: Vaughn Index sufficient to enable the District Court to evaluate
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: the IRS claim exemptions became irrelevant and moot after the
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: IRS compiled or complied with the District Court's order to
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: produce the records for in-camera review, and the Court completed
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: its own review of the records. While the D.C. Circuit
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: takes a slightly different approach to the relationship substitution of
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: in-camera review for a Vaughn Index, the rationale here still
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: holds in this case. See Wolfe v. Department of Health, D.C. 1988,
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: where the index itself would reveal significant aspects of the
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: deliberative process. The court has not hesitated to limit consideration
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: of the Vaughn Index to an in-camera inspection. Ultimately, Congress
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: has provided district courts with the option to conduct in-camera
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: review under FOIA, but the statute does not compel the
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: exercise of that option. Congress intended to impose no mandates
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: upon the trial court, but instead leave the decision of
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: whether to conduct in-camera inspection to the broad discretion of
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: the trial judge. Center for Auto Safety v. EPA, 731 F. 2D 1620, D.C. Circuit, 1984.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: And although district courts possess broad discretion... regarding whether to
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: conduct in-camera review? It's typically reserved as a measure of
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: last resort in national security situations like this. Larson, 565 F. 3D
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: at 870. Internal citations and quotations omitted. Courts are discouraged
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: from conducting such inspections routinely on the theory that it
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: can hurt. While again, this is not a FOIA case,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: and there are several arguments the government can and would
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: make in such a case, Here the court has reviewed
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: the documents in camera, and the court has rightfully relied
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: on that in-camera review to evaluate the redactions applied because,
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: like national security documents, the government here can offer no
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: more information to the public docket without revealing victim names
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: or other identifying information. Ultimately, plaintiff's argument that an administrative
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: record is needed to adjudicate redactions is a red herring.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: The court has reviewed documents well beyond What could go
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: in an administrative record, and there are no other documents
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: other than those already publicly available through EFTA and FOIA disclosures,
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: that would shed any light on redactions, in any event,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: the proper vehicle for testing redactions is a Vaughn Index,
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: not an administrative record. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: court should grant the motion for leave of court to
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: postpone the deadline to produce the certified content of the
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: administrative record pending the outcome of Rule 12C motion for
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: judgment on the pleadings. This document was dated October 13th, 2026,
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: and it was signed by Andrew Block. And before we
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: wrap up, why don't we take a look at the
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: order that was filed by Judge Sullivan in regards to
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: the documents that he received from Todd Blanch. Case number 26-1417.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Katie Fang Plaintiff vs. Todd Blanche in his official capacity
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: as Acting Attorney General of the United States. Order. The
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: court has reviewed the documents defendant submitted for the court's
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: in-camera review on September 24, 2026 in response to the
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: court's September 16 memorandum opinion and order. The court finds
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: that defendant has provided adequate documentation to support his representation
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: that names of victims were redacted in the following documents. 1. EFTA. 011-87999,
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: the first and last names that were redacted twice. 2.
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: EFTA 025-04630, the first and last name that was redacted
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: and that appears before a complete email address that was
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: also redacted. And 3. EFTA 01022-356, the first and last
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: name that was redacted and that appears before a complete
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: email address that was also redacted. Accordingly, the June 26th
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: 2026 order to show cause as to the above described
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: redactions in EFTA 011-87999, EFTA 025-04630, and EFTA 01-022-356 will
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: be discharged. Defendant has not provided the underlying handwritten FBI
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: notes that form the basis for the FD-302 interview report
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: bearing Bates number EFTA 0285, 8495, but has provided adequate
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: documentation explaining why he has not done so. Accordingly, the
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: June 25, 2026 order to show cause as to the
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: underlying handwritten FBI notes that form the basis for the
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: FD-302 interview report bearing Bates number, the FTA-02-85-8495 will be discharged.
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: Defendant has provided unredacted versions of the underlying handwritten FBI
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: interview notes that form the basis for the FD-302 interview
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: report bearing Bates number EFTA-012-45-620, EFTA-028-58-481, and EFTA-028-58-491. Defendant has
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: not provided redacted versions of the documents. Defendant has, however,
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: provided redacted and unredacted versions of the FD-302 interview reports.
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: In its September 16th, 2026 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: court directed defendant to submit to the court for its
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: in-camera review the underlying FBI interview notes that form the
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: basis for the FD-302 interview reports bearing bait number EFTA
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: 012-45620-028-58481 and 028-58491 in both redacted and unredacted versions. The
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: court requested redacted versions of the documents because defendant has
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: represented that handwritten nature of the notes further complicates the
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: redaction process and increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure of
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: victim PII, including because of technical limitations on the department's
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: ability to redact. to run meaningful quality control checks for
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: victim PII across handwritten materials. However, plaintiff has notified the
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: court of nearly 100 examples of redacted handwritten interview notes
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: that defendant has produced. See notice to court ECF number 33. Accordingly,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: the court sought to review and redacted versions of the
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: interview notes. The court previously rejected defendant's explanation that it
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: did not produce these underlying interview notes because they are
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: substantially similar to, and therefore duplicative, of the typewritten reports.
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: In the event that defendant misunderstood the court's request, the
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: court will order defendant to provide redacted versions of the
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: interview notes a second time. For the reasons stated above,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: it's hereby ordered that the June 25th order to show
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: cause as to the redactions described above in EFTA 011-87999-025-04630
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: and 01-022-356 is hereby discharged. It's further ordered that the
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: June 2nd, 2026 order to show cause As to the
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: underlying handwritten FBI notes that form the basis for the
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: FD-302 interview report bearing Bates' number, the FTA-02-858-495 is hereby discharged.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: And it's further ordered that defendant shall submit to the
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: court for its in-camera review the underlying FBI interview notes
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: that formed the basis for the FD-302 interview report bearing
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: Bates' number, the FTA-012-45620-10. 028-58-481 and 028-58-491 in redacted versions
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act by no
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: later than 12 p.m. on October 16th, 2023. So ordered
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: by Judge Sullivan. All the information that goes with this
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.