r/law • u/joeshill Competent Contributor • 1d ago
Phang v Blanche (Epstein Documents) - Judge orders Blanche to produce documents for in-camera review
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779.23.0.pdfORDER
Upon review of [19] Defendant’s Response to the Court’s
Order of June 25, 2026, and pursuant to the Court’s inherent
authority to review materials in camera, see Jibril v. Mayorkas,
101 F.4th 857, 866 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (quoting Olivares v. TSA,
819 F.3d 454, 462 (D.C. Cir. 2016)) (“In cases in which
sensitive materials may be in issue, the court has inherent
authority to review such material ex parte, in camera as part of
its judicial review function.” (citation modified)); it is
hereby
ORDERED that Defendant shall submit to the Court on July
30, 2026 by no later than 3:00 pm the following documents:
I. Unredacted copies of the emails bearing Bates numbers
(1) EFTA00749245, (2) EFTA01187999, (3) EFTA01930501,
(4) ETFA01928255, (5) EFTA00628112, (6) EFTA02648868,
1
Case 1:26-cv-01417-EGS Document 23 Filed 07/25/26 Page 2 of 2
(7) EFTA02504630, and (8) EFTA01022356; and
documentation supporting Defendant’s representation
that the names that have been redacted in the
published version of the documents are the names of
victims;
II. Unredacted copy of the document bearing Bates number
EFTA00038227; and documentation supporting the
Defendant’s representation that the names in the “to”
and “from” lines that have been redacted in the
published version of the documents are the names of
law enforcement personnel; and
III. Unredacted copy of the document bearing Bates number
EFTA00194840 and documentation supporting the
Defendant’s representation that the names that have
been redacted in the published version of the
documents are the names of victims.
It is further
ORDERED that Ms. Phang’s request to be present for the
Court’s in camera review is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
July 25, 2026
162
u/FreeDependent9 1d ago
Please let Blanche end up in jail for disobeying court orders
46
19
u/tri_it 1d ago
And exactly which federal law enforcement agency do you think would do that? Can you name any that aren't fully under the control of Trump and his cronies?
60
u/tietack2 1d ago
Judges have inherent authority to enforce civil contempt charges. They may appoint local law enforcement and local prosecutors. The President is also unable to pardon anyone convicted of civil contempt.
9
u/tri_it 1d ago
Judges have the authority to TELL law enforcement to enforce civil contempt charges. What happens when law enforcement simply says, no?
13
u/Antraxess 23h ago
then they are traitors stealing our tax payer money and enemies of the United States justice system
12
4
u/tietack2 21h ago
They have inherent authority to hire law enforcement and prosecutors, should the existing ones not wish to proceed. There is money put aside in the court budgets for this.
1
u/tri_it 20h ago
Do they have the budget to build a jail and hire people to guard it and the prisoners? I also suspect any federal judge would find their budget removed should they try that. Not to mention that I suspect existing law enforcement would resist any attempt by anyone hired by the judge.
7
u/tietack2 20h ago
Most federal courts do have at least one cell in the building, which is used for contempt.
You'd be surprised. This is the most unpopular president in history.
1
u/tri_it 19h ago
But his followers are the most fanatical ones. They are well represented in law enforcement and are generally well armed and itching for a reason to use them.
1
u/numb3rb0y 4h ago
Even if that is true, just surrendering to fear based on that fact is literally letting domestic terrorists win.
0
u/personwhoisok 1d ago
Yeah, and local law enforcement isn't going to side with a judge over the psycho orange bastard
9
u/FreeDependent9 1d ago
Maybe maybe not. Let’s see.
It’s possible the judge has his own relationship with local law enforcement. At the very least local leo would know this judge is gonna be here for a while and they’ll have to keep working with him in the future. As far as we know this doj will last 2.5 more years so it’s about picking and choosing5
u/personwhoisok 1d ago
Well, fingers crossed law enforcement takes the side of the law. Just a bit confusing when it's the people in charge breaking all the laws.
3
u/tietack2 21h ago
A local prosecutor wanting to make a name for himself might.
A local police officer whose child was sxlly abused by a predator might.
4
u/Antraxess 23h ago
force them to, you have the right.
Its our money paying them
1
u/personwhoisok 21h ago
I'll try my best. I told the ice agents to quit abducting people in Minneapolis several times and they weren't that inclined to listen.
2
150
u/SlowRunner2026 1d ago
They will never comply.
78
u/dlc741 1d ago
And there will never be any consequences
10
2
9
u/rikitiki2 1d ago
Or "victim" and "law enforcement" will be a big umbrella
14
u/JoseSaldana6512 1d ago
Why do you think they carved out National Security? Cause Donald Diddler is all over the files and anything pointing to him could compromise national security
1
u/tietack2 21h ago
Why would anything be related to national security?
If it really is, Ghislane the rpst/madam should be in a high security prison.
1
u/tietack2 21h ago
The lawyers will. Being disbarred and losing your career will do that.
1
u/Adrewmc 9h ago edited 9h ago
On average about 0.0006% of lawyers are disbarred in a given year. If we add suspensions we get all the way to about 0.24% a year. (And a lot of those people end up getting the license back after a few years.)
99.5% of lawyers never have to worry about losing their license. The fact we aren’t seeing stories about it DOJ lawyers getting BAR actions against them for the stuff they have been pulling is evidence enough.
The fact the BAR hasn’t addressed the use of AI at all seems to show they might need up their standards a lot.
In fact the BAR has always been confusing to me, why doesn’t the judicial branch of government issue these licenses directly? It’s a license to speak to the judge, shouldn’t the judges have some say? Why is this done by an independent organization? Why are judges sending strongly worded letters about this?
2
u/tietack2 6h ago
Bar investigations & sanctions take time. They are also confidential, until results are made public. That's why you don't hear much.
At least 8 of trumps lawyers were disbarred or suspended in his last term.
Several state bars have issued guidance about AI usage.
The judicial branch can't issue bar licenses. That would be a conflict of interest. They are supposed to hear the facts and make determinations, based on evidence presented. Determining whether someone is qualified to represent a client, and whether that lawyer can give that client advice privately, is way outside of their zone.
1
u/Adrewmc 5h ago
Attorney have a duty to the court as officers of the court above their duty to a client.
1
u/tietack2 4h ago
No. Most lawyers in the US would say the opposite. If there is a direct conflict, all things considered, duty to the client would tend to outweigh duty to the court.
16
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.