Katie Phang Responds To Todd Blanche's Latest Motion To Postpone (Part 2) (10/9/26)
Katie Phang’s lawyers asked Judge Emmet Sullivan to reject Todd Blanche’s latest attempt to postpone production of the administrative record in her lawsuit, arguing that DOJ had once again waited until the last possible moment to avoid a court-ordered deadline. The filing noted that Sullivan had already ordered Blanche to file a certified index of the administrative record by October 1 and produce the full record to Phang by October 15. Instead of complying, Blanche filed a motion after business hours on October 1 asking to suspend those deadlines while the court considered his separate motion for judgment on the pleadings. Phang’s attorneys characterized that maneuver as part of an ongoing pattern of delay, pointing out that Blanche had previously missed his deadline to answer the complaint, sought a broader stay that Sullivan rejected, and failed to oppose Phang’s earlier request for production of the administrative record. They argued that Blanche’s latest request violated Sullivan’s standing order governing scheduling changes, effectively attempted to grant himself an extension simply by filing for one, and improperly sought to relitigate issues the court had already decided. Phang’s team also attacked DOJ’s substantive argument that the administrative record was unnecessary because Blanche’s Rule 12(c) motion supposedly presented only legal questions and no disputed facts. They argued that the motion itself relied on agency records and raised factual issues, making the underlying administrative record potentially essential to determining whether DOJ’s actions were lawful. More broadly, the filing said Blanche had not met the standard required to justify reconsidering Sullivan’s previous rulings and accused DOJ of trying to recycle arguments it either already made or could have made earlier. Phang therefore asked Sullivan to deny the postponement request, immediately require Blanche to file the certified list of the administrative record, and keep the October 15 deadline for producing the full record intact. In blunt terms, the filing portrayed DOJ’s latest motion not as a legitimate scheduling dispute, but as another attempt to delay reaching the merits of the case after the court had already ordered the government to move forward. to contact me: [email protected] source: gov.uscourts.dcd.291779.55.0_13.pdf