Epstein survivors subpoena Attorney General Todd Blanche in their suit against the FBI; the Justice Department calls the request extraordinary, and a magistrate judge blocks the deposition for now
Epstein survivors suing the FBI subpoenaed Attorney General Todd Blanche after he allegedly told them the bureau mishandled the case. A magistrate judge barred the deposition for now on November 5, 2026, but allowed written questions.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
The suit was filed in September 2024 and later transferred to the Southern District of Florida. The government asks the court to dismiss it under the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception, which bars claims over government decisions that involve judgment rather than a mandatory rule. On September 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz denied that motion without prejudice and allowed 90 days of discovery on the FBI's policies for tips and reports of sexual abuse, after which the government may renew it.
The court has not ruled on whether the FBI had discretion. The account of what Blanche said on July 16 comes from sworn declarations filed by the plaintiffs; the government's motion does not address the meeting. The government says the FBI's designated witness, Daniel Costin, chief of its Violent Crimes Against Children and Human Trafficking Section, will be deposed on December 15, 2026.
People in this case
Todd BlancheDirectly involved
Timeline
7 timeline entries on this page. Dates: September 24, 2026 to November 13, 2026
September 2026
Judge Leibowitz allows 90 days of limited discovery on the FBI's policies
The court denies the government's motion to dismiss without prejudice and lifts the stay of discovery for 90 days, limited to whether mandatory FBI policies governed the handling of tips and reports of sexual abuse and to three plaintiffs' administrative claims.
[01]Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): order adopting the report and recommendation and allowing limited jurisdictional discovery
Judge Leibowitz denies the government's motion to dismiss without prejudice and lifts the stay of discovery for 90 days, limited to the FBI's policies for handling tips and reports of sexual abuse and to three plaintiffs' exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): order adopting the report and recommendation and allowing limited jurisdictional discoveryDkt. 135, nine-page order signed September 23, 2026 and entered September 24, 2026
October 2026
Survivors subpoena Attorney General Blanche for a deposition in New York
The plaintiffs send government counsel a subpoena for Blanche to testify on October 28 at their lawyers' office in New York and to bring any and all documents about Jeffrey Epstein.
[02]Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): United States' motion to quash the deposition subpoena of Attorney General Todd Blanche and for a protective order
The government's motion arguing that the subpoena for Blanche's deposition exceeds the court's limited discovery order and that the apex doctrine bars deposing a sitting cabinet official absent extraordinary circumstances.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): United States' motion to quash the deposition subpoena of Attorney General Todd Blanche and for a protective orderDkt. 140, nine-page motion with supporting memorandum of law, filed October 26, 2026[03]Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): Magistrate Judge McCabe's order on the motion to quash the Blanche subpoena
McCabe's order after the November 4 hearing. It declines to quash the subpoena because compliance was set in New York, enters a protective order barring the deposition for now under the apex doctrine, and allows up to ten written interrogatories to Blanche about his remarks at the July 16 meeting.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): Magistrate Judge McCabe's order on the motion to quash the Blanche subpoenaDkt. 150, eight-page order dated November 5, 2026Justice Department moves to quash the Blanche subpoena
Claim
The government asks the court to quash the subpoena and enter a protective order, citing the court's limited discovery order and the apex doctrine for high-ranking officials.
[02]Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): United States' motion to quash the deposition subpoena of Attorney General Todd Blanche and for a protective order
The government's motion arguing that the subpoena for Blanche's deposition exceeds the court's limited discovery order and that the apex doctrine bars deposing a sitting cabinet official absent extraordinary circumstances.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): United States' motion to quash the deposition subpoena of Attorney General Todd Blanche and for a protective orderDkt. 140, nine-page motion with supporting memorandum of law, filed October 26, 2026
November 2026
Survivors oppose the motion, citing Blanche's July 16 remarks
Claim
The plaintiffs file declarations from two of their lawyers and two plaintiffs saying Blanche told survivors at a July 16, 2026 meeting in Washington that the FBI's case against Epstein was handled improperly before 2007.
[04]Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to quash the subpoena for Todd Blanche
The plaintiffs' response, which cites declarations from two of their lawyers and two plaintiffs about a July 16, 2026 meeting with Blanche and argues that he is the only government employee who has spoken to whether the FBI could ignore the complaints about Epstein.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to quash the subpoena for Todd BlancheDkt. 147, nine-page opposition with supporting memorandum of law, filed November 3, 2026Magistrate Judge McCabe bars the deposition for now and allows written questions to Blanche
After a November 4 hearing in West Palm Beach, McCabe enters a protective order barring the deposition without further order, allows up to ten interrogatories about Blanche's July 16 remarks and orders the government to begin producing documents once a confidentiality order is in place.
[03]Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): Magistrate Judge McCabe's order on the motion to quash the Blanche subpoena
McCabe's order after the November 4 hearing. It declines to quash the subpoena because compliance was set in New York, enters a protective order barring the deposition for now under the apex doctrine, and allows up to ten written interrogatories to Blanche about his remarks at the July 16 meeting.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): Magistrate Judge McCabe's order on the motion to quash the Blanche subpoenaDkt. 150, eight-page order dated November 5, 2026FBI witness deposition set for December 15
The government tells the court that Daniel Costin, chief of the FBI's Violent Crimes Against Children and Human Trafficking Section, will be deposed by video on December 15, 2026, and that the parties could not agree on a confidentiality order.
[05]Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): government's notice on the protective order and the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
The government tells the court that the FBI's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Daniel Costin, will be deposed by video on December 15, 2026, and that the parties could not agree on a confidentiality order.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): government's notice on the protective order and the Rule 30(b)(6) depositionDkt. 151, two-page notice filed November 11, 2026Judge orders the survivors to answer the government's objection by November 16
The government objected on November 12 to McCabe's order and asked for an expedited stay. Judge Leibowitz orders the plaintiffs to respond by 5 p.m. on November 16, 2026.
[06]Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): order for expedited response to the government's objection
Judge Leibowitz orders the plaintiffs to respond by November 16, 2026 to the government's November 12 objection to McCabe's order and its expedited motion for a stay.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): order for expedited response to the government's objectionDkt. 155, one-page order dated November 13, 2026
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
United States Department of Justice
Attorney General Todd Blanche has no unique personal knowledge of the FBI policies or the administrative claims at issue in the limited jurisdictional discovery, so the survivors cannot show the extraordinary circumstances needed to depose him.
What is disputed
The plaintiffs say Blanche is the only government employee who has spoken to whether the FBI could ignore the complaints about Epstein, citing declarations that he told survivors on July 16, 2026 that the case was handled improperly before 2007. Magistrate Judge McCabe found the record did not yet show extraordinary circumstances but ruled that the remarks fall potentially within the scope of discovery and allowed written questions about them.
Sources (3)
- Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): United States' motion to quash the deposition subpoena of Attorney General Todd Blanche and for a protective orderDkt. 140, nine-page motion with supporting memorandum of law, filed October 26, 2026
- Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to quash the subpoena for Todd BlancheDkt. 147, nine-page opposition with supporting memorandum of law, filed November 3, 2026
- Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): Magistrate Judge McCabe's order on the motion to quash the Blanche subpoenaDkt. 150, eight-page order dated November 5, 2026
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
4 responses. Newest first.
Katie PhangLegal analyst and trial lawyer, on her show Katie Phang News Before this statement
According to Raw Story, Phang described how the survivors' lawyers rely on Blanche's reported July 16 remarks, and the court's order limiting discovery to whether the FBI had discretion to disregard the complaints.
"If the FBI had discretion, then how did it fail to properly investigate?"
CondemnedCase context: Epstein survivors subpoena Attorney General Todd Blanche in their suit against the FBI; the Justice Department calls the request extraordinary, and a magistrate judge blocks the deposition for now
Full statement and sources
On her show, Phang says Blanche's reported admission that the FBI mishandled the Epstein case supports the survivors' argument, and notes that the government's motion to quash did not address the July 16 meeting.
After the statement
Raw Story quotes her adding that Blanche is "kind of proving the plaintiffs' case for them" and reports that she noted the government's motion skipped over the meeting even after the survivors' lawyers flagged it by email.
Why this label?
Phang says Blanche is proving the plaintiffs' case, faults the government's motion for skipping the meeting and urges viewers to demand accountability as the survivors are doing, so we labeled it condemns.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Ryon M. McCabeU.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Florida, in an order on the government's motion Before this statement
McCabe writes that the Florida court cannot quash a subpoena that calls for compliance in New York, that the request for any and all documents about Epstein goes beyond the limited discovery allowed, and that Blanche's reported remarks implicate matters potentially within that discovery. He allows up to ten interrogatories limited to those remarks, to be answered within 15 days.
"At the conclusion of all written discovery and the upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Plaintiffs may renew their request to depose Attorney General Blanche, upon a proper showing of "extraordinary circumstances" or "special needs" after the exhaustion of other available discovery methods. In the meantime, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion for entry of a protective order. The deposition may not proceed without further order of the Court."
Mixed or conditionalCase context: Epstein survivors subpoena Attorney General Todd Blanche in their suit against the FBI; the Justice Department calls the request extraordinary, and a magistrate judge blocks the deposition for now
Full statement and sources
McCabe grants the government's request for a protective order, saying the record does not yet show the extraordinary circumstances needed to depose a high-ranking official. He allows the plaintiffs to send Blanche up to ten interrogatories about his July 16 remarks and lets them renew the deposition request after other discovery is done.
After the statement
The order grants the motion in part and denies it in part, and declines to shift fees, finding that both sides were substantially justified in their positions.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): Magistrate Judge McCabe's order on the motion to quash the Blanche subpoenaDkt. 150, eight-page order dated November 5, 2026Why this label?
McCabe blocks the deposition the Justice Department sought to stop, but rejects its request to quash the subpoena, allows written questions to Blanche about his remarks and leaves the deposition open for later, so we labeled it mixed or conditional.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Jennifer C. PlotkinLawyer for the plaintiffs at Merson Law, in an opposition she signed with co-counsel Before this statement
The filing says the only dispute is whether the FBI had discretion to ignore complaints about Epstein, that Blanche told survivors the FBI failed to properly investigate before 2007, and that the government's motion did not address that meeting even after the plaintiffs' lawyers raised it.
"Quashing this subpoena would again allow the Government avert accountability and transparency at the expense of the victims."
CondemnedResponding to: Attorney General Todd Blanche has no unique personal knowledge of the FBI policies or the administrative claims at issue in the limited jurisdictional discovery, so the survivors cannot show the extraordinary circumstances needed to depose him.
Full statement and sources
In the plaintiffs' opposition, their lawyers argue that Blanche's reported remarks to survivors go to the central question in discovery and that blocking his deposition would let the government avoid accountability at the victims' expense.
After the statement
The filing says the government has not produced a single document or witness in discovery and asks the court to let the deposition go ahead.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to quash the subpoena for Todd BlancheDkt. 147, nine-page opposition with supporting memorandum of law, filed November 3, 2026Why this label?
Plotkin's filing says the motion to quash would let the government avert accountability and transparency at the victims' expense, and calls the government's opposition unjustified, so we labeled it condemns.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
United States Department of JusticeU.S. Department of Justice, through Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of Florida, in a motion filed for the United StatesDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The motion asks the court to quash the subpoena that the plaintiffs served for Attorney General Todd Blanche and to enter a protective order.
"Plaintiffs' request is extraordinary. The deposition of a sitting cabinet official in civil litigation is almost always improper, save for specific circumstances Plaintiffs come nowhere close to establishing."
Defended or excusedResponding to: Attorney General Todd Blanche has no unique personal knowledge of the FBI policies or the administrative claims at issue in the limited jurisdictional discovery, so the survivors cannot show the extraordinary circumstances needed to depose him.
Full statement and sources
In its motion to quash, the government says deposing a sitting cabinet official in civil litigation is almost always improper and that the survivors have not shown the circumstances that would allow it. It argues the subpoena goes beyond the court's limited discovery order.
After the statement
The motion says courts of appeals have consistently vacated orders allowing agency heads to be deposed, and that such depositions would threaten the separation of powers, chill agency decision making and create potential for abuse or harassment.
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): United States' motion to quash the deposition subpoena of Attorney General Todd Blanche and for a protective orderDkt. 140, nine-page motion with supporting memorandum of law, filed October 26, 2026Why this label?
The Justice Department argues that the subpoena is improper, that it exceeds the court's discovery order and that Blanche has no unique knowledge, and asks the court to quash it, so we labeled it defends or excuses.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(7)
Original text
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): Magistrate Judge McCabe's order on the motion to quash the Blanche subpoena
Relevant passage: Dkt. 150, eight-page order dated November 5, 2026
About this source
McCabe's order after the November 4 hearing. It declines to quash the subpoena because compliance was set in New York, enters a protective order barring the deposition for now under the apex doctrine, and allows up to ten written interrogatories to Blanche about his remarks at the July 16 meeting.
- Author
- Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Raw Story: Epstein survivors weaponized Todd Blanche's own words against DOJ in filing: legal expert
Relevant passage: Article text
About this source
Raw Story's report on Katie Phang's November 5 show, where she discussed the survivors' bid to depose Blanche and the government's motion to quash.
- Author
- Bennito L. Kelty
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): order for expedited response to the government's objection
Relevant passage: Dkt. 155, one-page order dated November 13, 2026
About this source
Judge Leibowitz orders the plaintiffs to respond by November 16, 2026 to the government's November 12 objection to McCabe's order and its expedited motion for a stay.
- Author
- Judge David S. Leibowitz
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): government's notice on the protective order and the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
Relevant passage: Dkt. 151, two-page notice filed November 11, 2026
About this source
The government tells the court that the FBI's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Daniel Costin, will be deposed by video on December 15, 2026, and that the parties could not agree on a confidentiality order.
- Author
- Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to quash the subpoena for Todd Blanche
Relevant passage: Dkt. 147, nine-page opposition with supporting memorandum of law, filed November 3, 2026
About this source
The plaintiffs' response, which cites declarations from two of their lawyers and two plaintiffs about a July 16, 2026 meeting with Blanche and argues that he is the only government employee who has spoken to whether the FBI could ignore the complaints about Epstein.
- Author
- Jennifer C. Plotkin and Jordan Merson, Merson Law; Todd J. Michaels, The Haggard Law Firm
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): United States' motion to quash the deposition subpoena of Attorney General Todd Blanche and for a protective order
Relevant passage: Dkt. 140, nine-page motion with supporting memorandum of law, filed October 26, 2026
About this source
The government's motion arguing that the subpoena for Blanche's deposition exceeds the court's limited discovery order and that the apex doctrine bars deposing a sitting cabinet official absent extraordinary circumstances.
- Author
- Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:25-cv-80880 (S.D. Fla.): order adopting the report and recommendation and allowing limited jurisdictional discovery
Relevant passage: Dkt. 135, nine-page order signed September 23, 2026 and entered September 24, 2026
About this source
Judge Leibowitz denies the government's motion to dismiss without prejudice and lifts the stay of discovery for 90 days, limited to the FBI's policies for handling tips and reports of sexual abuse and to three plaintiffs' exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- Author
- Judge David S. Leibowitz
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Epstein survivors subpoena Attorney General Todd Blanche in their suit against the FBI; the Justice Department calls the request extraordinary, and a magistrate judge blocks the deposition for now
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/epstein-survivors-subpoena-todd-blanche-fbi-negligence-suit
The Dispute Index. "Epstein survivors subpoena Attorney General Todd Blanche in their suit against the FBI; the Justice Department calls the request extraordinary, and a magistrate judge blocks the deposition for now". First published: 2026-11-15. Last updated: 2026-11-15. https://disputeindex.com/cases/epstein-survivors-subpoena-todd-blanche-fbi-negligence-suit