Katie Phang’s Lawsuit to Force Release of the Epstein Files
Snapshot
Case: Katie Phang v. Todd Blanche
Case number: 1:26 cv 01417
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Filed: April 27, 2026
Plaintiff: Katie Phang
Defendant: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in his official capacity
Presiding judge: United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
Issue: Alleged violations of the Epstein Files Transparency Act
Current status: Ongoing. DOJ’s October 13 reply, ECF 58, asks to postpone administrative record obligations pending its motion for judgment on the pleadings. The reply is not an order granting postponement. Separately, ECF 57 requires redacted handwritten notes underlying three referenced reports by noon on October 16 for private judicial review.
Major ruling: Preliminary injunction granted June 25, 2026
Key takeaway: Katie Phang successfully persuaded a federal judge that she had standing to challenge the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files. The court ordered Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to address specific redactions, missing FBI notes, untranslated records, and the legally required redaction log.
October 14 2026 Update on DOJ’s Administrative Record Reply
On October 13, 2026, the Justice Department filed ECF 58 in Phang v. Blanche, case 1:26-cv-01417 (EGS). The 11 page reply supports its request to postpone the administrative record obligations while the court considers DOJ’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is a filing by the defendant, not a ruling granting an extension. Sources: ECF 58, pages 1 and 10.
The dispute concerns the record of the agency’s decision making. Judge Sullivan’s September 16 order, ECF 42, required a certified list of the record’s contents by October 1 and production of the administrative record to Phang by October 15. DOJ’s October 1 motion, ECF 51, asked to postpone those obligations pending its Rule 12(c) motion. Sources: ECF 42, page 8; ECF 51, page 1.
DOJ argues that the court can decide its motion on legal grounds without an administrative record, and that potentially relevant record materials are already in the pleadings or publicly available. It disputes Phang’s position that the postponement request violates the court’s scheduling rules or improperly seeks reconsideration. Those are the government’s arguments, not findings adopted by the court. Sources: ECF 58, pages 2 to 6.
Phang’s October 8 opposition, ECF 55, asks the court to deny postponement, require the certified list immediately and retain the October 15 production deadline. Her lawyers argue that DOJ’s motion raises factual questions about its review and redaction practices and relies on selected agency documents, making a complete administrative record necessary. Sources: ECF 55, pages 5 and 12 to 16.
DOJ also argues that redactions should be challenged through FOIA and a Vaughn index, a tool used to explain withheld records in FOIA litigation. The reply expressly acknowledges that this is not a FOIA case. Phang’s lawsuit challenges compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act through the Administrative Procedure Act and other claims; the reply does not convert it into a FOIA lawsuit or an unsealing proceeding. Sources: ECF 58, pages 7 to 9.
The administrative record dispute is separate from ECF 57. That October 9 order requires redacted handwritten FBI notes underlying three specified interview reports to be submitted to the judge for private review by noon on October 16. It does not require a public release on that date. ECF 58 does not itself extend either set of deadlines. No later order resolving the postponement request was verified in the sources reviewed for this October 14 update. Sources: ECF 57, page 4; ECF 58, page 10.
October 10 2026 Update on the October 9 Court Order
Judge Sullivan’s October 9 order provides a clearer account of the handwritten FBI notes dispute in Phang v. Blanche. ECF 57 is a four page order in case 1:26 cv 01417 EGS. It addresses the documents submitted privately to the court on September 24, 2026.
The court accepted documentation supporting victim identity redactions in three email records. It also accepted DOJ’s explanation for not providing the notes behind a fourth interview report. However, DOJ supplied only unredacted handwritten notes for three other reports, despite an earlier direction to submit both redacted and unredacted versions.
ECF 57 page 4 directs DOJ to submit the redacted handwritten notes for private judicial review by 12:00 p.m. on October 16, 2026. The order specifies submission to the court. It does not announce a public release of the notes.
Verified October 10, 2026: The findings and deadline in this update are supported by the actual ECF 57 filing, pages 1 to 4.
What ECF 57 Actually Decides
ECF 57 pages 1 and 2 finds adequate support for DOJ’s representation that particular redacted names in EFTA01187999, EFTA02504630 and EFTA01022356 belong to victims. The court discharged the June 25 show cause order as to those specific redactions.
That outcome matters for survivor privacy. The court required documentation supporting the redactions and then accepted it. These particular names are not being ordered into public view by ECF 57.
ECF 57 page 2 separately states that DOJ has not provided the underlying handwritten notes for the report bearing EFTA02858495. The court nevertheless found the department’s explanation adequate and discharged the show cause order concerning that set.
The court also confirms that DOJ supplied unredacted handwritten notes underlying EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481 and EFTA02858491. DOJ supplied both redacted and unredacted versions of the corresponding typed interview reports. What was missing from the submission was the redacted version of each of those three sets of handwritten notes.
ECF 57 pages 3 and 4 orders DOJ to supply those redacted notes a second time. A document reaching a judge’s chambers is a meaningful procedural step. It is not the same as the public receiving it.
The Four Interview Reports and Their Underlying Notes
The four EFTA identifiers below identify the typed FD 302 interview reports referenced by the court. They are not newly assigned identifiers for the handwritten notes. The status of each underlying set must be tracked separately.
| Referenced interview report | Handwritten notes status in ECF 57 | Next step and page reference |
|---|---|---|
| EFTA01245620 | Unredacted notes provided to the court. Redacted notes not provided. | Redacted notes due October 16 at noon for private review. Pages 2 to 4. |
| EFTA02858481 | Unredacted notes provided to the court. Redacted notes not provided. | Redacted notes due October 16 at noon for private review. Pages 2 to 4. |
| EFTA02858491 | Unredacted notes provided to the court. Redacted notes not provided. | Redacted notes due October 16 at noon for private review. Pages 2 to 4. |
| EFTA02858495 | Underlying handwritten notes not provided. Explanation accepted by the court. | Show cause order discharged for this set. Pages 2 and 4. |
The EFTA02858491 archive record provides a research access point for that typed report. The corresponding DOJ PDF is the government production copy. Neither link should be described as the court’s newly requested handwritten notes.
Why the September 16 Order Matters
The September 16 order at ECF 43 page 19 required DOJ to submit the underlying notes for all four referenced reports in both redacted and unredacted versions on September 24 at 11:00 a.m. That requirement explains why supplying only unredacted notes for three reports did not complete the task.
ECF 43 pages 12 and 13 rejected the department’s contention that the handwritten notes could be withheld as substantially similar to the typed reports. The court treated them as distinct records.
An interview report, the notes used to prepare it, the versions submitted privately to a judge and the versions published in a public database are different records or access states. Counting one as another creates an inaccurate picture of disclosure.
What DOJ Said in Its October 5 Compliance Notice
DOJ’s October 5 Notice of Compliance at ECF 54 states that hard copy documents were delivered to chambers at 10:43 a.m. on September 24, 2026. The notice was filed on October 5. The filing date and delivery date describe different events.
DOJ said its documentation supported victim identifying redactions in the three email records. It also described supplying unredacted handwritten notes and unredacted typed reports, together with 2021 email exchanges among attorneys in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York concerning collection efforts.
The government characterized the notes as duplicative of the typed reports. That is DOJ’s position in its notice. ECF 57 expressly recalls the court’s earlier rejection of the substantially similar records explanation.
The title Notice of Compliance does not itself establish complete compliance. The judge reviewed the underlying submission and identified the redacted handwritten notes that still had to be supplied.
The Fourth Set Remains a Records Gap
The court’s finding on EFTA02858495 is precise: the notes were not provided, and the documentation explaining that omission was adequate. ECF 57 does not identify the omitted notes’ present location or establish why they are unavailable.
Calling this set missing is a shorthand for an unresolved records gap. The order does not establish destruction, deliberate concealment, loss by a named employee or the existence of an undisclosed public copy.
Discharging a show cause order resolves that particular demand for an explanation. It does not transform an unprovided set into a produced record. Both the accepted explanation and the absence of the notes belong in the case history.
Survivor Privacy Is Part of the Disclosure Requirement
ECF 57 page 3 explains why the court wanted redacted versions. DOJ argued that handwriting complicated redaction and quality control, creating a risk of exposing victim personally identifying information. The court also recorded Phang’s notice of nearly 100 examples of redacted handwritten interview notes that DOJ had already produced.
The existence of those examples does not establish that these particular notes can be published without careful review. It does explain why the judge wanted to inspect what DOJ would redact.
Researchers should preserve survivor anonymity, avoid identifying people through combinations of details and refrain from circulating unredacted private information. Accountability does not require exposing the person who reported abuse.
The allegations in the interviews remain allegations. This records access litigation does not adjudicate the truth of each account or establish criminal liability for anyone mentioned.
What the October 9 Order Does Not Establish
ECF 57 concerns private judicial review and compliance for specified records. It is not a final judgment on the entire lawsuit.
It does not order the public release of the handwritten notes on October 16. It does not include a contempt finding, impose a daily fine or declare that every DOJ redaction is unlawful.
It does not establish that the fourth set was destroyed. It also does not determine the truth of the allegations recorded in any interview.
The three email redactions accepted by the court should not be combined with the three handwritten note sets still requiring redacted versions. They are separate groups of documents with different outcomes.
Key Dates for This Update
September 16, 2026: ECF 43 directed submission of redacted and unredacted notes for four referenced reports.
September 24, 2026: DOJ says it hand delivered the private review materials at 10:43 a.m., according to ECF 54.
October 5, 2026: DOJ filed its two page Notice of Compliance, ECF 54.
October 9, 2026: Judge Sullivan signed and filed the four page order, ECF 57, addressing that submission.
October 10, 2026: This update was prepared after review of the actual October 9 order.
October 16, 2026: ECF 57 sets noon as the deadline to submit redacted handwritten notes underlying EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481 and EFTA02858491 for the court’s private review. Subsequent compliance must be checked against later filings.
Why This Update Matters for EpsteinWiki
The new order replaces a general compliance dispute with exact findings, identifiers and a deadline. It also records the portions of the dispute that the court resolved in DOJ’s favor.
The practical next questions are whether DOJ supplies the three redacted sets, what the judge concludes after reviewing them and whether a later order or document release creates public access. An October 16 submission would answer the first question only.
The EpsteinWiki Fact Checking Desk provides a starting point for keeping source records, allegations and inference separate. The Phang litigation should be tracked through its filings rather than through the loudest headline.
How Many Epstein Lawsuits Has Katie Phang Filed?
The public federal docket identifies one Epstein related lawsuit filed by Katie Phang.
That case is Katie Phang v. Todd Blanche.
The case includes several important motions, responses, orders, and possible contempt proceedings. Those are separate stages within the same lawsuit, not separate lawsuits.
Phang’s case has also become connected to a wider group of legal actions seeking Epstein evidence. These include New Mexico’s lawsuit for Zorro Ranch investigative files and other challenges to the Justice Department’s compliance with federal disclosure requirements.
Who Is Katie Phang?
Katie Phang is an attorney, legal analyst, and independent journalist based in Miami.
She previously hosted The Katie Phang Show on MSNBC. She later continued reporting through her independent platforms and the MeidasTouch Network.
According to her declaration in the case, Phang published 72 videos about Epstein, Maxwell, and related individuals during the year before the court’s ruling. Those reports received more than 9.7 million views.
Phang told the court that she personally reviewed many documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. She argued that missing records and unexplained redactions prevented her from completing additional reporting.
Her status as a working journalist became central to Judge Sullivan’s decision that she had suffered a concrete injury and could bring the lawsuit.
The Lawsuit Against Todd Blanche
Phang filed her federal complaint against Todd Blanche on April 27, 2026.
The lawsuit names Blanche in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General. It does not seek damages from him personally.
Phang alleges that the Attorney General failed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Congress enacted that law in November 2025 to require public access to unclassified Justice Department records concerning Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates.
The law required the covered materials to be published by December 19, 2025.
The Justice Department released documents on December 19, December 20, December 22, December 23, and January 30. It announced on January 30, 2026 that approximately 3.5 million pages had been published and that its production obligations were complete.
Phang disputes that claim.
What Phang Says the Justice Department Did Wrong
Phang’s complaint alleges that the department missed the statutory deadline, withheld covered records, used redactions not authorized by the law, failed to review foreign language material, and failed to publish the required explanations for its redactions.
The complaint also addresses the department’s failure to protect survivors adequately.
The Justice Department acknowledged in February 2026 that thousands of released records may have exposed survivor identifying information. Files were removed for additional review after the public release.
Phang’s position is that the department failed in both directions. It exposed information that should have been protected while continuing to conceal other information that the statute required it to release.
The lawsuit does not ask the court to disclose survivor names, private medical records, or child sexual abuse material. The Epstein Files Transparency Act expressly permits those materials to be withheld or redacted.
The Four Legal Claims
Phang’s complaint contains four causes of action.
The first claim alleges that the Justice Department acted contrary to law and beyond its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The second alleges that the department acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and abused its discretion.
The third alleges ultra vires agency action. This legal theory applies when a government official allegedly acts beyond the power provided by law.
The fourth requests relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Phang asks the court to declare that the Attorney General violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act. She also seeks orders requiring lawful disclosure, explanations for remaining redactions, reproduction of improperly redacted materials, and production of records that should have been released.
The original complaint also requests the appointment of a special master to supervise compliance.
Why Phang Used the Administrative Procedure Act
The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires disclosure, but it does not contain a detailed section explaining who may sue when the Attorney General fails to comply.
Phang therefore relied primarily on the Administrative Procedure Act.
That law allows courts to review final agency actions that are contrary to law, beyond an agency’s authority, arbitrary, or capricious.
The Justice Department argued that Phang should use the Freedom of Information Act instead.
Judge Sullivan rejected that argument at the preliminary injunction stage. He found that the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires broader disclosure than the Freedom of Information Act and permits fewer reasons for withholding records.
The court also noted that a Freedom of Information Act request could not force the government to create the redaction log required by the Epstein statute.
Phang’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
On May 28, 2026, Phang filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
A preliminary injunction provides temporary relief while the complete lawsuit continues. To obtain one, Phang had to show that she was likely to succeed, faced irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored court intervention.
The motion focused on a limited collection of records rather than every document covered by the lawsuit.
Phang asked the court to require the Attorney General to justify specific email redactions, alleged co conspirator redactions, missing FBI notes, untranslated materials, and the missing redaction log.
The Redacted Email Records
Phang challenged the removal of sender or recipient names from eight email records.
Those records are EFTA00749245, EFTA01187999, EFTA01930501, EFTA01928255, EFTA00628112, EFTA02648868, EFTA02504630, and EFTA01022356.
The emails reportedly contain discussions involving women, alleged sexual activity, and one reference to a “torture video.”
That wording appears in an email. It does not establish what the referenced video contained or prove that an actual act of torture occurred.
Phang argued that removing the identities of senders and recipients was not automatically authorized under the disclosure law. She asked the Attorney General either to remove the redactions or provide a lawful, record specific justification.
The Potential Co Conspirator Records
Phang also challenged redactions in two records that reportedly identify potential co conspirators.
The first is EFTA01703108. It contains a draft indictment in which names of potential additional defendants or co conspirators were redacted.
The second is EFTA00038227. It concerns a 2019 communication identifying people described within the federal records as co conspirators.
The use of “potential co conspirator” in a draft indictment or investigative record does not establish that a person was charged or convicted.
Draft charging documents may contain allegations that prosecutors later decide not to file. The unredacted records would still be historically important because they could show which individuals federal prosecutors considered charging and why.
The Missing FBI Interview Notes
Phang requested the underlying handwritten or original FBI notes connected to four interview reports.
Those reports are EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481, EFTA02858491, and EFTA02858495.
The records concern interviews with a person who made allegations involving Donald Trump.
The allegations remain disputed and unproven. Trump has denied wrongdoing and has not been criminally charged in connection with the allegations.
Phang did not ask the court to declare the allegations true. She argued that the Epstein Files Transparency Act required the Justice Department to release the underlying records with appropriate protections for survivor information.
Original interview notes can be important because they allow researchers to compare what a witness said with the summary later prepared by an agent.
The Foreign Language Records
The Justice Department informed Congress that foreign language materials had not been reviewed because first level reviewers could not determine whether those documents were responsive.
Phang argued that administrative difficulty was not one of the withholding categories authorized by the statute.
The law permits withholding or redaction for survivor privacy, child sexual abuse material, an active federal investigation, images of death or injury, and properly classified national security information.
It does not provide a general exception for records that require translation.
Phang therefore asked the court to order the department to begin reviewing and producing responsive foreign language records.
The Missing Redaction Log
The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires redactions to be accompanied by written justifications published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.
Phang argued that the Justice Department never published the required document level redaction log.
A redaction log is essential because researchers cannot evaluate a blacked out name or paragraph unless the government identifies the legal reason for withholding it.
The department sent Congress a general summary describing broad categories of redactions. Phang argued that this summary was not the record specific explanation required by the law.
She asked Judge Sullivan to require immediate publication of the redaction log and continuous updates whenever additional redacted records are released.
The Justice Department’s Defense
The Justice Department filed its opposition to the preliminary injunction on June 5, 2026.
The department argued that Phang lacked standing, that the court lacked authority to grant the requested relief, and that the Freedom of Information Act provided another possible remedy.
It also argued that an injunction would force the department to redirect resources and that Phang had continued publishing reports despite the missing information.
Judge Sullivan found those arguments unpersuasive at the preliminary stage.
The court concluded that continued reporting did not eliminate the harm caused by missing records. Phang had identified reporting she could not complete, and she claimed direct financial losses caused by those limitations.
Phang’s Reply
Phang filed her reply supporting the injunction on June 8, 2026.
Her attorneys argued that the Epstein Files Transparency Act established obligations that were separate from and broader than the Freedom of Information Act.
They also argued that the Justice Department had failed to address the core allegation that its redactions and withholdings were not authorized by the statute.
Phang maintained that a journalist does not lose standing simply because she continues reporting with the incomplete information available.
Judge Sullivan Grants the Preliminary Injunction
On June 25, 2026, Judge Emmet Sullivan granted Phang’s motion.
The complete 48 page memorandum opinion explains the court’s reasoning.
Judge Sullivan found that Phang likely had standing based on informational, professional, and economic injuries.
The court determined that Phang was likely to succeed on the Administrative Procedure Act claims addressed in her motion.
Judge Sullivan also found that the Freedom of Information Act did not offer an adequate alternative remedy.
The ruling did not finally decide the complete lawsuit. A preliminary injunction is an interim ruling based on the court’s assessment of the likelihood of success and the need for immediate relief.
What the Injunction Required
The court required the Attorney General to address the challenged redactions and missing records.
The department could release the less redacted material or show cause explaining why the information could lawfully remain concealed.
The order also required the department to begin reviewing potentially responsive foreign language records.
In addition, the department was required to publish the redaction log mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Judge Sullivan imposed a nominal bond of one dollar on Phang. The court concluded that a larger bond could discourage public interest challenges to unlawful government conduct.
The judge also refused the department’s request to delay the order while it considered an appeal.
The Court’s Finding About Noncompliance
One of the most significant passages in the opinion concerns the government’s failure to address the merits of Phang’s allegations.
Judge Sullivan wrote that the Attorney General had not responded substantively to her arguments about specific violations.
The court treated that failure as a concession for purposes of the preliminary injunction motion.
The Justice Department publicly disputed the characterization. A department spokesperson said Blanche had not conceded a violation and announced an intention to appeal.
Therefore, the ruling should not be summarized as a final admission by Blanche. It was the court’s procedural and legal conclusion based on the briefing presented.
The July 2 Justice Department Response
The court gave the Justice Department until July 2, 2026 to provide records or explain why the disputed material should remain withheld.
The department filed its response rather than releasing all the requested information.
The Justice Department’s response to the show cause order argued that some identities belonged to survivors or people whose privacy remained protected.
The department also defended its treatment of the FBI notes, foreign language records, and redaction explanations.
Blanche offered to provide additional information to the judge privately or under protective conditions.
The filing did not end the dispute. Phang argued that the response continued to evade the injunction’s requirements.
Phang Seeks Contempt and Financial Sanctions
In July 2026, Phang asked Judge Sullivan to enforce the injunction through contempt proceedings.
Her attorneys argued that the Justice Department still refused to review foreign language records, publish an adequate redaction log, or release records that allegedly contained no protected survivor information.
Phang requested a daily sanction of $1,000 until the Attorney General complied.
A contempt request is an allegation that a party has disobeyed a court order. The filing of the request does not itself establish contempt.
The Justice Department opposed the request and argued that its July response complied with the court’s order by explaining its position.
The publicly indexed docket materials reviewed for this article do not show a final contempt ruling. The CourtListener docket should be checked for the latest filings.
What Phang Has Already Accomplished
Phang established that an independent journalist can have standing to challenge the government’s failure to comply with a public disclosure statute.
She obtained a preliminary injunction requiring the Justice Department to address specific withheld records.
She also secured a judicial finding that the Freedom of Information Act was not necessarily an adequate substitute for the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The ruling placed untranslated records and the missing redaction log at the center of the disclosure dispute.
Most importantly, the case transformed general public criticism of the release into a specific court supervised examination of identifiable EFTA records.
What the Lawsuit Has Not Yet Accomplished
The complete Epstein files have not been released because of Phang’s lawsuit.
The challenged names have not all been made public.
The court has not ruled that every redaction is unlawful.
The court has not appointed a special master.
The underlying allegations appearing in the FBI files have not been proven through this civil case.
The lawsuit is about access, compliance, redactions, and agency authority. It is not a criminal trial of the people mentioned in the records.
Connection to the New Mexico Lawsuit
Phang’s case concerns public disclosure under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The New Mexico lawsuit against the Justice Department concerns confidential access for an active state criminal investigation.
Both cases use the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge the Justice Department’s handling of Epstein records.
However, the plaintiffs seek different forms of access.
Phang seeks public compliance with the federal transparency law. New Mexico seeks law enforcement access to unredacted evidence involving possible crimes at Zorro Ranch.
Together, the cases challenge the department’s redaction practices from two directions. One addresses the public’s right to records. The other addresses a state prosecutor’s need for evidence.
Key Takeaways
Katie Phang has filed one publicly identified Epstein related lawsuit with multiple motions and enforcement stages.
Phang filed the case against Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on April 27, 2026.
She alleges that the Justice Department violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act through delays, unauthorized redactions, missing records, untranslated material, and failure to publish a redaction log.
Judge Emmet Sullivan granted Phang a preliminary injunction on June 25, 2026.
The ruling found that Phang likely had standing and was likely to succeed on the Administrative Procedure Act claims covered by her motion.
The court required the department to address specific email redactions, possible co conspirator names, missing FBI notes, foreign language records, and the redaction log.
The Justice Department responded on July 2 but did not release all the requested information.
Phang subsequently sought contempt sanctions of $1,000 per day.
The lawsuit remains active, and the preliminary injunction is not a final judgment on every claim.
Why Phang v. Blanche Matters
Phang v. Blanche is one of the most significant legal tests of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The case addresses whether the Justice Department can rely on broader government privileges that Congress did not include among the statute’s permitted grounds for withholding.
It also tests whether journalists can enforce a disclosure mandate when Congress did not create an explicit private enforcement section.
The ruling provides a possible path for other researchers, journalists, survivors, and public interest organizations challenging government secrecy.
It also creates a record specific method for examining the release. Instead of arguing generally that the files are incomplete, Phang identified exact EFTA numbers, exact redactions, and exact statutory duties.
That approach gives the court concrete evidence to review and gives the public a clearer way to measure compliance.
Sources for the October 10 2026 Update
ECF 57 court filing contains the October 9, 2026 order, pages 1 to 4. Page 1 addresses email redactions. Page 2 distinguishes the fourth set from the three submitted unredacted sets. Page 3 explains the renewed direction. Page 4 sets the deadline.
ECF 43 official GovInfo copy contains the September 16, 2026 order. Pages 12 and 13 address the handwritten notes dispute. Page 19 states the required versions and submission deadline.
ECF 54 court filing contains DOJ’s October 5, 2026 Notice of Compliance, pages 1 and 2. Its statements concerning delivery and collection efforts are representations by the government.
The CourtListener case docket is the index for case 1:26 cv 01417. The source PDFs linked above are copies of the filed court documents preserved by RECAP.
EFTA02858491 on Epstein Data is a secondary archive access point for the typed report. The DOJ production PDF provides the corresponding government copy. These report links do not provide the underlying handwritten notes.
Sources
- Phang v. Blanche Complete Court Docket
- Phang v. Blanche Justia Docket
- Original Federal Complaint
- Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Justice Department Opposition
- Phang Reply Supporting the Injunction
- Judge Sullivan’s Memorandum Opinion
- Justice Department Response to the Show Cause Order
- Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse Case Page
- Justice Department January 2026 Release Announcement
- Epstein Data Search Database
- EpsteinWiki Search Hub
- New Mexico Zorro Ranch Lawsuit Announcement