Breaking now, Judge Emmet Sullivan has granted a preliminary injunction that orders the Department of Justice to either release a number of specific Epstein files to the public, or to "show cause" why they shouldn't.

The government has until July 2 to file responses.

Lawyer and journalist Katie Phang filed suit to enforce the Epstein Transparency Act. The judge has evidently determined that she has suffered harm from being unable to report on the unreleased files, and therefore has standing to sue.

This decision seems like it might be headed for an appeal, but Judge Sullivan declined to stay, or delay implementation, to allow the government time to appeal. So the clock to July 2 is currently ticking.

Bates numbers that are mentioned:

Ordered to unredact names:

• EFTA00749245
• EFTA01187999
• EFTA01930501
• ETFA01928255
• EFTA00628112
• EFTA02648868
• EFTA02504630
• EFTA01022356
• EFTA01703108
• EFTA00038227

Ordered to produce underlying FBI notes:

• EFTA01245620
• EFTA02858481
• EFTA02858491
• EFTA02858495

Opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779.16.0_2.pdf

Full court docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

A lawyer working with the Minnesota attorney’s office said she just wants some sleep, after working so hard to try to get ICE to follow court orders.

“I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep,” Le said. “The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.”

Edit clarification: This attorney works for the federal government, not the State of Minnesota.

Over the weekend, Judge Nachmanoff made it clear that a large amount of discovery material is to be delivered to James Comey today. The prosecution team from North Carolina seem to be engaging in a series of stall tactics to delay this.

The eastern district of Virginia is known informally as the "rocket docket" because of its fast resolution times for cases.

While sitting for a deposition in a defamation lawsuit that she filed, Laura Loomer was asked to explain under oath what she meant by the phrase "Arby's in her pants" (which she earlier penned in a tweet).

Transcript:

Q  Can you explain to me what it means to say to her that "the Arby's in her pants"?
A  Well, Arby's --
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection.  Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q Answer the question.
A  Arby's sells roast beef.
Q  Right.  Can you tell me what -- why you were talking about "the Arby's in her pants"?
A  Well, it's just a -- an expression.
Q  What is the expression trying to convey?
A  It conveys the reason why she got a divorce by her own admission.
Q  Because she had roast beef in her pants?
A  Yeah.
Q  She'd put roast beef in her pants; that's what you're trying to say there?  You're literally saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  I'm saying she literally -- it's so ridiculous.  I'm saying she literally put Arby's in her pants.  Yes.
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection.  Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q  You're not making a slur about her?
A  No.
Q  You're literally saying she put an Arby's sandwich in her pants; is that right?
A  Yes.  That's correct.  That's correct.
Q  Why are you laughing?
A  Because I just think it's so funny.
Q  What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  I just think it's so funny.  I just think it's so funny.
Q  What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  She carries roast beef in her pockets.
Q  What is your basis for saying she puts roast beef in her pockets and in her pants?
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection. Relevancy. Harassment.