request

The Los Angeles City Council stopped short on Wednesday of giving another $5 million to a law firm hired to defend the city in a long running homelessness case, sending the question to a committee for additional vetting.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto had asked the council to provide a nearly sixfold increase in her office’s contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, taking the cost up to $5.9 million.

The council voted in May to provide Gibson Dunn $900,000 for up to three years of work. Over the following three months, the law firm blew way past that amount, racking up $3.2 million in bills.

“Obviously, we are not happy, and not ready to pay that bill that we didn’t bargain for,” said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield. “We were supposed to have been notified when they were exceeding that amount. It’s written in the contract that we were supposed to be notified at different levels. We were not notified.”

On Wednesday, after meeting behind closed doors for more than 90 minutes, the council sent Feldstein Soto’s request to the powerful budget committee for more review.

Blumenfield, who sits on that committee, did not offer a timeline for taking up Feldstein Soto’s request. However, he said he wants the city attorney to go back to Gibson Dunn to ensure that “taxpayers are better served.”

The L.A. Alliance sued in 2020, saying the city was doing too little to move people homeless people indoors and address the concentration of encampments in Skid Row and elsewhere. The group eventually reached a settlement with the city that required, among other things, the construction of homeless housing beds and the removal of encampments.

As part of the settlement, the city must provide 12,915 homeless beds or other housing opportunities, such as rental vouchers, by June 2027. L.A. also must remove 9,800 homeless encampments, such as tents or recreational vehicles, by June 2026.

Lawyers for the L.A. Alliance contend the city has repeatedly fallen short of the obligations spelled out in the settlement. In May, the group attempted to persuade U.S. Dist. Judge David O. Carter to seize control over the city’s homeless initiatives and turn them over to a third-party receiver.

Gibson Dunn waged an aggressive defense of the city’s actions, issuing hundreds of objections and working to undermine key witness testimony.

Carter ultimately rejected the request to appoint a receiver, but also concluded that the city had breached the settlement agreement in several ways.

Feldstein Soto did not immediately comment on the council’s action. She has previously praised the law firm, saying through a spokesperson that it “delivered exceptional results and seamless representation.”

The city is now planning to appeal portions of the judge’s order. Feldstein Soto said some of the additional $5 million would go toward work on that appeal, with Gibson Dunn representing the city through June 2027, according to a confidential memo reviewed by The Times.

In her memo, Feldstein Soto commended Gibson Dunn for preserving the city’s control over its homeless programs and preventing several elected officials from being ordered to testify.

Blumenfield also offered praise for Gibson Dunn, saying he appreciates the firm’s “good work for the city.” Nevertheless, he also wants Feldstein Soto to look for ways of cutting costs.

“Sending it to committee sends a message — which is, we don’t like what was put before us for lots of reasons,” he said.

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney representing the L.A. Alliance, said after the meeting that he was “heartened that the city didn’t give this misadventure a blank check.”

“I’m hopeful the City Council committee scrutinizes this,” he said, “and asks the important question of whether spending $6 million on an outside firm to avoid accountability is a good use of taxpayer funds.”

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A top Florida official says the controversial state-run immigration detention facility in the Everglades will likely be empty in a matter of days, even as Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration and the federal government fight a judge’s order to shutter the facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” by late October. That’s according to an email exchange shared with the Associated Press.

In a message sent to South Florida Rabbi Mario Rojzman on Aug. 22 related to providing chaplaincy services at the facility, Florida Division of Emergency Management Executive Director Kevin Guthrie said “we are probably going to be down to 0 individuals within a few days.” Rojzman, and the executive assistant who sent the original email to Guthrie, both confirmed the veracity of the messages to the AP.

A spokesperson for Guthrie, whose agency has overseen the construction and operation of the site, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

News that the last detainee at “Alligator Alcatraz” could leave the facility within days comes less than a week after a federal judge in Miami ordered the detention center to wind down operations, with the last detainee needing to be out within 60 days. The state of Florida appealed the decision, and the federal government asked U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to put her order on hold pending the appeal, saying that the Everglades facility’s thousands of beds were badly needed since detention facilities in Florida were overcrowded.

The environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe, whose lawsuit led to the judge’s ruling, opposed the request. They disputed that the Everglades facility was needed, especially as Florida plans to open a second immigration detention facility in north Florida that DeSantis has dubbed “Deportation Depot.” During a tour of the South Florida facility last week, U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said he was told that only a fraction of the detention center’s capacity was in use, between 300 and 350 detainees.

Williams had not ruled on the stay request as of Wednesday.

The judge said in her order that she expected the population of the facility to decline within 60 days by transferring detainees to other facilities, and once that happened, fencing, lighting and generators should be removed. She wrote the state and federal defendants can’t bring anyone other than those who are already being detained at the facility onto the property.

Environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe had argued in their lawsuit that further construction and operations should be stopped until federal and state officials complied with federal environmental laws. Their lawsuit claimed the facility threatened environmentally sensitive wetlands that are home to protected plants and animals and would reverse billions of dollars spent over decades on environmental restoration.

The detention center was built rapidly two months ago at a lightly used, single-runway training airport in the middle of the rugged and remote Everglades. State officials have signed more than $245 million in contracts for building and operating the facility, which officially opened July 1.

Payne and Schneider write for the Associated Press. Schneider reported from Orlando, Fla.

The high-powered law firm that racked up big bills working to keep the city of Los Angeles from losing control over its homeless programs is now looking to increase its contract by $5 million.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has asked the City Council to increase the city’s contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP to $5.9 million, up from the $900,000 approved three months ago, according to a confidential memo she sent to council members.

Gibson Dunn has been defending the city since mid-May in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Alliance for L.A. Human Rights, which resulted in a settlement agreement requiring the construction of new homeless housing and the removal of street encampments. The L.A. Alliance alleges that the city has repeatedly violated the agreement.

The Times reported last month that Gibson Dunn billed the city $1.8 million for about two weeks of work, with 15 attorneys charging $1,295 per hour and others charging lower amounts.

By Aug. 8, Gibson Dunn had racked up $3.2 million in billings in the case, according to the city attorney’s memo, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times. Those invoices arrived during a difficult financial period for the city, caused in part by a surge in expensive legal payouts.

Much of the firm’s work was focused on its preparation for, and participation in, a lengthy hearing before a federal judge who was weighing the Alliance’s request to hand control over the city’s homeless initiatives to a third party.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city one week before the hearing, which lasted seven court days, at eight or more hours per day.

“The evidentiary hearing was more extensive than anticipated, with the plaintiffs calling more than a dozen witnesses and seeking to compel City officials to testify,” Feldstein Soto wrote in her memo.

Feldstein Soto’s office did not immediately respond to inquiries from The Times. But the city attorney has been outspoken in defending Gibson Dunn’s work, saying the firm kept the city’s homeless initiatives from being turned over to a receiver — a move that would have stripped authority from Bass and the City Council.

Gibson Dunn also prevented several elected officials — a group that includes Bass — from having to take the stand, Feldstein Soto said in her memo.

City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said she would vote against a request to spend another $5 million on Gibson Dunn. That money would be better spent on ensuring the city complies with its legal obligations in the case, which include the construction of 12,915 homeless beds and the removal of 9,800 encampments, she said.

Rodriguez, who also voted against the initial round of funding for Gibson Dunn, said $5 million would be enough to cover “time limited” housing subsidies for at least 500 households in her northeast San Fernando Valley district for an entire year.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to house people,” she said. “So let’s spend the resources housing them, rather than being in a protracted legal battle.”

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney who represents the L.A. Alliance, called the request for nearly $6 million “ludicrous,” saying the city should focus on compliance with the settlement agreement.

“Gibson is a very good firm. Lawyers cost money. I get it,” he said. “But the city has hundreds of capable lawyers, and the notion that they need to spend this kind of money to prevent a court from holding them to their obligations and their promises, it raises real questions about the decision-making in the city on this issue.”

“For a city that claims to be in fiscal crisis, this is nonsense,” Umhofer added.

In her memo, Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would cover Gibson Dunn’s work in the case through June 2027, when the city’s legal settlement with the L.A. Alliance is set to expire.

During that period, Gibson Dunn would appeal an order by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, arguing that the judge “reinterpreted” some of the city’s obligations under the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said in her memo. The law firm would also seek to “reform” the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said.

Theane Evangelis, an attorney with Gibson Dunn who led the team assigned to the L.A. Alliance case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Her firm has played a huge role in redefining the way cities are permitted to address homelessness.

Representing Grants Pass, Ore., the firm secured a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court upholding laws that prohibit homeless people from camping in public spaces.

The firm brought a new, more pugnacious approach to the L.A. Alliance case, issuing hundreds of objections throughout the seven-day hearing and working to undermine the credibility of key witnesses.

A month later, Carter issued a 62-page order declining to turn L.A.’s homeless programs over to a third party. However, he also found that the city had failed to comply with the settlement agreement.

Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would allow the firm to carry out its work through June 2027, when the Alliance settlement is scheduled to expire.

Gibson Dunn’s legal team would continue to pursue the city’s appeal while also helping to produce the quarterly reports that are required by the settlement agreement.

Access to the parole hearings this week for brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez was tightly controlled by state prison officials, but despite the efforts to limit outside interference and drama, the unexpected release of an audio recording nearly derailed Friday’s proceeding.

The disclosure of an audio recording of Erik’s parole hearing, held Thursday, tossed his older brother Lyle’s hearing into disarray the following evening.

The closely watched hearings gave the Menendez brothers a chance at freedom for the first time since they were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the 1989 shotgun killings of their parents in Beverly Hills.

The state parole board denied a petition from Erik, 54, after an all-day session Thursday. Updates to the news media were provided by a Times reporter who was selected to observe the hearings from a conference room at California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation headquarters near Sacramento.

Audio recording of the hearing was forbidden except by state prison officials. Media organizations were prohibited from disseminating any information in so-called pool reports from the Times reporter until after the parole board issued its decision.

The same restrictions applied to Lyle’s hearing on Friday, which also ran long. But as the hearing came to a close, news broke that created a complication.

TV station ABC7 published a recording of Erik’s hearing, which apparently had been inadvertently handed over in response to a public records request.

A corrections department spokesperson confirmed the audio had been “erroneously” released, but did not elaborate or respond to additional questions from The Times.

The news report brought the hearing to a temporary halt, sparking anger, frustration and accusations that prison officials had purposely released the recording to cause a “spectacle.”

“This is disgusting,” said Tiffani Lucero Pastor, one of the brothers’ relatives who at one point screamed at the members of the parole board. “You’ve misled the family, and now to compound matters, you’ve violated this family and their rights.”

Heidi Rummel, parole attorney for both Erik and Lyle Menendez, asked for a break during the already nine hours long hearing, and at one point asked that the meeting be adjourned, arguing that it was no longer a fair hearing because of the audio’s release.

“We are sitting here asking Mr. Menendez to follow rules,” she said during the hearing. “And in the middle of this hearing, we find out CDCR is not following its own rules. It’s outrageous.”

The fate of Lyle, 57, had not yet been decided, but the board had denied Erik’s release after questioning him extensively about his use of contraband cellphones and other violations of prison rules.

“I don’t think you can possibly understand the emotion of what this family is experiencing,” Rummel said. “They have spent so much time trying to protect their privacy and dignity.”

The Menendez brothers first saw a chance at parole after Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón petitioned a judge to have their sentences reduced to 50 years in prison.

The move made them eligible for parole, but new Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman moved to oppose the petition after he defeated Gascón in the November election. L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic denied Hochman’s request and found that prosecutors failed to show that the Menendez brothers were a danger to the public, clearing their path to the parole board.

The case, and the brothers’ petitions, has continued to generate nationwide attention, including a social media effort that pushed to have the Menendez brothers released in light of allegations the two were sexually abused by their father.

With the case already under a microscope, the release of the audio file created yet another roller coaster of speculation and doubt.

Parole Commissioner Julie Garland said that audio of the hearings could be released under the California Public Records Act, and that transcripts of the parole hearings usually become public 30 days after a decision is issued, under state law.

Rummel noted during the hearing that, as a parole attorney, she had requested audio of parole hearings in the past but the requests had been denied.

“It’s highly unusual,” she said during the hearing Friday. “It’s another attempt to make this a public spectacle.”

Rummel had objected to media access to the hearing, and implied at one point that media access had led to a “leak.”

Rummel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“It’s unacceptable,” said Maya Emig, an attorney representing Joan Vandermolen, Kitty Menendez’s sister. “There has to be notice given.”

Rummel asked whether the board also planned to release the audio of Lyle Menendez’s hearing.

“What policy allows for this to happen in this hearing but literally no other hearing?” Rummel asked the board. “It’s never been done.”

At one point, Rummel said she would be looking to seal the transcript of the hearing under Marsy’s Law, which provides rights and protections to victims of crimes.

Garland stated that audio from Friday’s hearing would not be released publicly until Rummel had the opportunity to object in court or contest its release.

Shortly after, Rummel said several relatives of the brothers had decided not to testify because of the release of the audio.

“It’s my impression from the family members that that’s not enough of an assurance,” she said.

The two-member parole board ultimately decided the audio incident would not deter them from making a ruling late Friday evening. They rejected Lyle’s request.

Both brothers will be eligible for parole in three years, but they can petition for an earlier hearing in one year.

NEW YORK — A federal judge who presided over the sex trafficking case against financier Jeffrey Epstein has rejected the government’s request to unseal grand jury transcripts.

The ruling Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend, also turned down the government’s request.

Barring reversal on appeal, Berman’s decision forecloses the possibility of grand jury testimony being released now that three judges have reached the same conclusion. A federal judge in Florida declined to release grand jury documents from an investigation there in 2005 and 2007.

The rulings are a collective repudiation of the Justice Department’s effort to divert attention away from its stated refusal to release a massive trove of records in its possession and make clear that the still-sealed court documents contain none of the answers likely to satisfy the immense public interest in the case.

President Trump had called for the release of transcripts amid rumors and criticism about his long-ago involvement with Epstein. During last year’s presidential campaign, Trump promised to release files related to Epstein, but he was met with criticism — including from many of his own supporters — when the small number of records released by his Justice Department lacked new revelations.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on Wednesday.

Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts “pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department had informed Berman that the only witness to testify before the Epstein grand jury was an FBI agent who, the judge noted, “had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.”

The agent testified over two days, on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The entire transcript was 70 pages. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Berman ruled.

Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. She was recently transferred from a prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial.

Maxwell’s case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department’s statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump’s base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up.

Since then, officials in Trump’s Republican administration have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts.

“The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,” Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the Justice Department’s refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts.

“By comparison,” Berman added, “the instant grand jury motion appears to be a ‘diversion’ from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged conduct.”

Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution.

In a letter to Maxwell’s lawyers, Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell’s appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September.

Comer wrote that although Maxwell’s testimony was “vital” to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.

Neumeister and Sisak write for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.