Question: When the government asks two courts to decide a case on the record it has chosen, what happens if both courts answer that the record is not finished?

Answer: They order more. On October 9, Judge Christopher Cooper refused to close discovery in the Kennedy Center case, extended it two weeks to October 23, and directed the Board to produce three things it had resisted: the FY 2026 financial statements, the text messages, and any non-privileged document showing that the Chairman’s February 1 announcement affected the votes the Board cast in August and September. The same day, Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to produce the underlying handwritten FBI interview notes it had declined to furnish in redacted form, by noon on October 16. Two days earlier, Cooper ordered the unsealing of the 163-page JLL Plan on which the Board relies to justify the closure. And in the third docket, the D.C. Circuit, where the government wants both questions settled for good, let its October 9 dispositive-motions deadline pass with nothing filed and its stay motion still undecided eleven days after the last brief landed.

The pattern is worth naming, because it repeated. In each district court the government’s position is that the record is already adequate and the court should decide the case on it: in the Kennedy Center case, “Enough is enough,” close discovery now; in the Epstein files case, judgment on the pleadings, with no administrative record at all. Each court instead enlarged the record. Neither court ruled on the merits. What both did was decline to let the party under review decide when the review ends.

The week’s filings

Twenty entries landed across the three cases: fourteen in the Kennedy Center case, six in the district court Epstein case, and none at the D.C. Circuit. Most were procedural, and the shape of the week is easy to miss from the numbers alone, because Judge Sullivan sets deadlines by minute order and several of this week’s entries are minute orders rather than documents.

In the Kennedy Center case, four filings carry the story. Beatty moved to compel on October 5 (ECF 96). The government answered the next afternoon with a filing that asked the court to close discovery “immediately” and to lift the injunction now (ECF 97). Beatty replied the same day with a fact that had emerged in a deposition that morning (ECF 98). On October 7 the court published its sealing opinion (ECF 99), and on October 9 it ruled on all of it (ECF 103).

In the Epstein case, the government filed its Notice of Compliance on the October 5 noon deadline (ECF 54). Phang opposed the record postponement on October 8 (ECF 55) and moved, unopposed, to move her own deadline under the Rule 12(c) motion the same day (ECF 56). On October 9 the court ruled on its in camera review (ECF 57).

Kennedy Center: Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC), D.D.C.

Epstein files: Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (EGS), D.D.C.

Epstein files appeal: Phang v. Blanche, D.C. Cir. No. 26-5299 (consolidated with 26-5334)

  • Nothing was filed in the window. The last entry remains the appellant’s reply of September 29.

The Kennedy Center: Beatty v. Trump

Where the case stands: Judge Cooper’s opinion of May 29 declared the board’s December 2025 renaming void and preliminarily enjoined the March 16 closure decision; his order of September 15 enjoined the August 13 inscription and the “President Donald J. Trump Plaza” renaming. The Board voted again to close the main building for two years, on August 13 and again on September 15. It has moved to dissolve the injunction under Rule 60(b)(5) (ECF 88) and for partial summary judgment (ECF 89), arguing that the closure decisions rest on material the Board did not have in March: a project-development plan from the real estate firm JLL and a cost-benefit analysis from Delta Consulting Group. Targeted discovery opened September 16 under the scheduling order at ECF 82 and was due to close October 9.

That date is now October 23. ECF 103 runs eight pages and reads like a judge settling a set of fights one at a time rather than resolving a theory. On the financial records, the court “sides mostly with Plaintiff”: the Board must produce FY 2026 financial statements sufficient to show the Center’s performance and condition over the past year, though not the full general ledger, the payroll reports, or all internal management reports. On text messages the court is blunt. “Nothing in the Court’s scheduling order exempts certain media of communication, such as text messages, from discovery.” On requests for admission about the timing of congressionally appropriated funds, the Board must respond. On the renaming resolution withdrawn at the September 15 meeting, the court sees no relevance at all.

The paragraph that matters most is a conditional, and conditionals are how discovery orders move cases. The government had argued that anything predating the May 29 order sits outside the scope of discovery, because the Board was entitled to start fresh on a new record. The court agreed in part, holding that information bearing on the reasoning behind the now-enjoined initial closure decision lies outside its order. Then it added this: “if non-privileged documents exist showing that the President’s February 1 announcement affected Board members’ August or September votes, then those documents would be relevant to the Court’s inquiry and should be produced.”

Two days earlier, Beatty’s supplemental memorandum had supplied the evidentiary hook for exactly that sentence. Floca testified on October 6 that “the duration of the two-year shutdown was decided by Chairman Donald Trump in his February 1, 2026 Truth Social Announcement,” and that JLL and Delta were both instructed to assume a two-year closure rather than to evaluate how long one should last. If that account holds, the February announcement is not background history the court can leave outside the discovery order. It is a live input into the votes the court is being asked to bless, and the court has now ordered the documents that would show it.

Discovery into the Chairman is where the government drew its line, and this week that line was tested. ECF 96 is the motion to compel, and its argument is structural rather than evidentiary. The presidential communications privilege “arises from the President’s Article II powers” and protects the President’s ability to perform “his assigned constitutional functions.” The motion’s point is that none of that reaches this case: the Kennedy Center is not an Article II entity, its staff are not close presidential advisers, and Trump took on the office of chair voluntarily. The motion is also careful to record what Beatty did not ask for: no search of the Executive Office of the President, no discovery from Secretary Lutnick, no deposition of any Board member. What she asked for is what the Center itself holds about the instructions its chair gave it.

The government’s answer, ECF 97, is the week’s most striking document for tone. It calls the position statement “overwrought,” the plaintiff’s efforts “desperate,” and asks the court to close discovery “immediately” and to grant the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction now. Its factual core is a number and a system. The number: “almost seven thousand pages of responsive evidence” produced in a week and a half. The system: the FY 2026 data sits on a financial system the Center updated at the start of the fiscal year, and what is stored there is “neither reasonably accessible from that system nor necessarily verified.”

On sealing, ECF 99 is a clean application of Circuit law and worth reading for its restraint. The JLL Plan is a judicial record, and the D.C. Circuit’s six Hubbard factors favour disclosure; the sixth, which asks why the document was introduced, “strongly militates toward unsealing” because the defendants introduced the plan and rely on it for both the summary judgment motion and the motion to dissolve. The Delta PowerPoint is unsealed in full. The JLL Plan is unsealed subject to redactions the defendants must propose by October 14 with particularized and substantial written justifications, and the court warned that any redaction “must be narrowly tailored and specifically supported.” Beatty responds by October 19. The effect is that the document on which the Board’s defense rests will become readable, which is not the same thing as the defense failing, and is not nothing.

The building is still closed. Judge Cooper’s footnote 1 records the Executive Director’s decision to close the main building “due to purported safety concerns stemming from the collapse of part of its ceiling on September 4, 2026,” and states that “that emergency closure is not implicated by the Court’s preliminary injunction.” It is the court’s own description rather than a recitation of a filing, and the word “purported” is doing work. There is still no reopening date.

The Epstein files: Phang v. Blanche

Where the case stands: Judge Sullivan granted a preliminary injunction on June 25, holding that the Epstein Files Transparency Act required disclosure and that the Department had argued procedure instead of substance. On September 16 he granted Phang’s motion to compel an answer, denied the government’s motion to stay his deadlines, and set the administrative record: a certified list by October 1, the record to Phang by October 15. The government answered on September 24, nearly three months late, and appealed both orders; the two appeals are consolidated at the D.C. Circuit. Then, on October 1, it filed ECF 51, asking the court to postpone the record until its Rule 12(c) motion was resolved, and ECF 52, the motion that would make the record unnecessary.

This week it complied, and then argued.

ECF 54 is short and factual. Hard copies went to the court’s chambers by hand at 10:43 a.m. on September 24. That is the documentation the September 16 order demanded, and it is the reason the court was able to rule on October 9 at all.

ECF 55 is the week’s substantive brief on this docket, and it is a procedural argument built to be hard to answer. The motion to postpone, Phang says, violates the court’s own standing order, which requires a scheduling motion three business days before the deadline absent extenuating circumstances and requires alternative dates to which all parties have agreed. The government filed at 9:18 p.m. on the day of the deadline and offered neither. It is also, she argues, a motion for reconsideration in disguise, asking the court to revisit ECF 42 a second time. And on the merits, the Rule 12(c) motion is not the pure question of law it claims to be. It relies on an Attorney Review Protocol, a Federal Register notice generated in response to this litigation, a Section 3 report, and a news article, while denying her the record that would test them all.

On October 9 the court ruled on its in camera review, and the order is narrower than the briefing around it. It discharged the show-cause findings on three redactions, at EFTA01187999, EFTA02504630 and EFTA01022356, finding the government’s documentation adequate, and discharged the finding as to a fourth document, EFTA02858495, accepting the government’s explanation there. It then ordered the government to do something it had already been told to do: submit the underlying handwritten FBI interview notes behind three other FD-302 reports, in redacted versions, “as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” by noon on October 16. The September 16 order had asked for redacted and unredacted versions of those notes. The government sent only the unredacted ones. The court, in effect, asked a second time.

The words “as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act” deserve a pause. The court’s authority to order the production rests on the proposition that the Act requires it, which is precisely the proposition the government is asking the D.C. Circuit to reject. In the district court the statute is still being enforced document by document, while on appeal the government argues that the courts have no role in enforcing it.

The Epstein files on appeal

Where the appeal stands: the government moved on September 22 to stay the June 25 and September 16 orders and to expedite. A per curiam order of September 23, before Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judges Pillard and Pan, set Phang’s response for September 25 and any reply for September 29. Briefing is deferred pending further order, and dispositive motions in the consolidated appeals were due October 9.

This week the docket is empty, and that is the finding. No dispositive motion appears. No ruling on the stay motion appears. That motion has been fully briefed since September 29, which is eleven days, and the deadline the clerk set for dispositive motions came and went without an entry recording compliance or an extension.

What the silence means is not yet knowable from the docket. What it is not is an administrative stay. This page corrected that misreading last week, and the correction still holds.

The stay motion asks the panel to pause the district court’s foreign-language review obligation while the appeal runs. A grant would relieve pressure in the one place where the district court has been able to make the Department comply. A denial would return the question to Judge Sullivan, who spent this week ordering compliance with a different part of the same statute.

What the coverage did not show

Two accounts of the week’s Kennedy Center rulings could be retrieved and read. All Rise News reported the unsealing on October 7 under the headline “Kennedy Center closure report must be unsealed, judge rules”. The Independent reported the financial records order and the government’s extra time on the privilege motion on October 9 under the headline “Judge orders to Kennedy Center to turn over financial records as DOJ fights to keep Trump’s role secret”.

Neither reported the part of the October 9 order that decides the schedule. The two-week extension of discovery and the bifurcation of the lift motion from summary judgment appeared in neither account, and that is the part of the ruling that determines when the court can reach the merits at all. The Independent’s story framed the privilege dispute around the two jobs the President holds, which is the right frame, and it is the frame Beatty’s motion uses. On the Epstein docket, the week’s filings did not appear in any coverage this report could retrieve and read.

What to watch next week

Tuesday, October 13. In Beatty, the parties are to confer and propose a revised briefing schedule for the motion to dissolve the injunction and the motion for partial summary judgment. The court will then issue a Revised Scheduling Order, which will replace the October 16, 23 and 27 dates. In Phang, the government’s reply on the motion to postpone the administrative record is due.

Wednesday, October 14. Two deadlines in Beatty. The government’s response to the motion to compel is due, after the court granted it two extra business days. And the government must propose its narrowly tailored redactions to the JLL Plan, with particularized written justifications.

Thursday, October 15. The administrative record is due to Phang, if the court has not postponed it. It is also the default date for her response to the Rule 12(c) motion, which she has asked the court to move.

Friday, October 16. By noon, the government must deliver to Judge Sullivan the redacted versions of the underlying handwritten FBI interview notes behind three FD-302 reports. It is the second time the court has asked.

Monday, October 19. Phang’s response to the proposed JLL Plan redactions. The court will then rule on them by separate order.

Wednesday, October 21. Beatty’s reply in support of the motion to compel.

Friday, October 23. Discovery closes in the Kennedy Center case, two weeks later than the schedule the court set in September.

Pending, any day. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the stay motion, now eleven days past the last brief. In the district court, the ruling on whether to postpone the administrative record, and the ruling on the Rule 12(c) motion, which would end the case. And the Revised Scheduling Order in Beatty.

The thing to hold on to when reading next week’s version of this page: this week settled nothing about the merits and decided a great deal about the record. Each court was asked to accept the papers the government had assembled as the record, and each court answered that the papers are not the record. What remains open is whether the district courts will finish building one before the D.C. Circuit decides whether they are entitled to have it.

Sources

  • All Rise News. (2026, October 7). “Kennedy Center closure report must be unsealed, judge rules”. Adam Klasfeld. Coverage of the sealing opinion at ECF 99, cited here as coverage, with the record at ECF 99.
  • Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC). CourtListener docket. Source of the filing list, the October 6 minute order setting the October 9 response date, and the October 8 minute order extending it to October 14 and setting the reply for October 21.
  • Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time. (2026, October 7). Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF 101. Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC) (D.D.C.). Source of the Cheney and Mazars citations on the burden of asserting the privilege, the October 5-7 depositions, and plaintiff’s LCvR 7(m) position that an extension “should be accompanied by a modest 1–2-week extension of the deadline to complete discovery”.
  • Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Discovery Position Statement. (2026, October 6). Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Discovery Position Statement, ECF 97. Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC) (D.D.C.). Source of “Enough is enough”, “almost seven thousand pages of responsive evidence”, and “neither reasonably accessible from that system nor necessarily verified”, and of the request that discovery close immediately and the motion to dissolve the injunction be granted now.
  • Huffman, P. (2026, October 3). Docket Report: October 3, 2026. The carry-forward posture for all three dockets, including the correction to an administrative stay that no docket entry supports.
  • Order. (2026, October 7). Opinion and Order on the motions to seal and unseal, ECF 99. Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC) (D.D.C.). Source of the six Hubbard factors as the court applied them, “strongly militates toward unsealing”, “must be narrowly tailored and specifically supported”, the unsealing of the Delta PowerPoint in full, and the October 14 and October 19 dates for the JLL Plan redactions.
  • Order. (2026, October 9). Order on Plaintiff’s Position Statement on discovery, ECF 103. Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC) (D.D.C.). Source of “sides mostly with Plaintiff”, “Nothing in the Court’s scheduling order exempts certain media of communication, such as text messages, from discovery”, “if non-privileged documents exist showing that the President’s February 1 announcement affected Board members’ August or September votes, then those documents would be relevant to the Court’s inquiry and should be produced”, the extension of discovery through October 23, the bifurcation of briefing, the October 13 date to propose a revised schedule, and footnote 1 on the emergency closure.
  • Order. (2026, October 9). Order on the court’s in camera review of the September 24 submission, ECF 57. Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (EGS) (D.D.C.). Source of the discharge of the show-cause orders as to EFTA01187999, EFTA02504630, EFTA01022356 and EFTA02858495, and of the order to submit redacted versions of the notes behind EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481 and EFTA02858491 “as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act” by 12:00 pm on October 16, 2026.
  • Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (EGS). CourtListener docket. Source of the filing list and of the October 5 minute order setting the October 8 response and October 13 reply dates on ECF 51.
  • Phang v. Blanche, Nos. 26-5299, 26-5334 (D.C. Cir.). CourtListener docket. Source of the entry list for the appeal, of the absence of any filing after September 29, and of the absence of any ruling on the stay motion.
  • Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (2026, October 5). Motion to Compel, ECF 96. Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC) (D.D.C.). Source of the five grounds on which the privilege assertion is challenged, the list of requests at issue, and the account of what plaintiff did not seek.
  • Defendant’s Notice of Compliance. (2026, October 5). Defendant’s Notice of Compliance with Court Order (Dkt. 43), ECF 54. Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (EGS) (D.D.C.). Source of the hand delivery at 10:43 a.m. on September 24, 2026, and of the government’s explanation of the redactions and the handwritten notes.
  • Plaintiff’s Reply. (2026, October 6). Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Position Statement Response, ECF 98. Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC) (D.D.C.). Source of the October 6 deposition testimony that JLL sent Center management a letter on the feasibility of phased construction and that no such letter was produced.
  • Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition. (2026, October 8). Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Postpone, ECF 55. Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (EGS) (D.D.C.). Source of the standing-order argument, the 9:18 p.m. filing time on October 1, the reconsideration argument as to ECF 42, and the list of materials outside the Complaint on which the Rule 12(c) motion relies.
  • Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum. (2026, October 8). Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Motion to Compel, ECF 102. Beatty v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-04480 (CRC) (D.D.C.). Source of “the duration of the two-year shutdown was decided by Chairman Donald Trump in his February 1, 2026 Truth Social Announcement”, of the instruction to JLL and Delta to assume a two-year closure, and of the topics on which counsel instructed the witness not to answer.
  • Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend. (2026, October 8). Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Plaintiff’s Deadline to Respond to Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion, ECF 56. Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (EGS) (D.D.C.). Source of the October 15 default response date under LCvR 7(b) and of the two alternative extensions requested.
  • The Independent. (2026, October 9). “Judge orders to Kennedy Center to turn over financial records as DOJ fights to keep Trump’s role secret”. Coverage of the October 9 order and the privilege dispute, cited here as coverage, with the record at ECF 103.

PRH | huffmanwrites.org | © Philip Huffman