Katie Phang Says DOJ’s Epstein Redaction Notice Does Not Comply With Federal Law
The September 2 filing asks Judge Emmet Sullivan to review withheld FBI notes and reject DOJ’s six page redaction summary
Snapshot
On September 2, 2026, attorneys for journalist Katie Phang filed a forceful reply accusing Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice of continuing to resist court ordered transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein records case.
The seven page filing, submitted in Katie Phang v. Todd Blanche, asks United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to take two immediate actions.
First, Phang wants the court to obtain and privately review the handwritten FBI notes underlying four interview reports that reference President Donald Trump.
Second, she wants the court to reject DOJ’s claim that a six page letter published in the Federal Register satisfies the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s requirement for written justifications accompanying redactions.
The filing does not itself order DOJ to release anything. It presents Phang’s arguments in support of a proposed enforcement order. Judge Sullivan must decide whether to accept those arguments and what relief, if any, to order.
Read the September 2, 2026 reply
Case Identification
Case: Katie Phang v. Todd Blanche
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Case number: 1:26 cv 01417
Judge: Emmet G. Sullivan
Document: 40
Filing date: September 2, 2026
Filing title: Reply on Proposed Order
Plaintiff: Katie Phang
Defendant: Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
Plaintiff’s attorneys: Brendan Ballou and Emily Gilman of the Public Integrity Project
The lawsuit is an Administrative Procedure Act challenge seeking enforcement of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It is not a Freedom of Information Act case.
The Court’s Preliminary Injunction
On June 25, 2026, Judge Sullivan granted Phang’s request for a preliminary injunction covering several disputed categories of Epstein records.
The court ordered the Attorney General to release specified materials or explain why they could not be released. The order included emails with redacted sender or recipient names, documents with potential coconspirator names, foreign language records, four sets of handwritten FBI interview notes, and the redaction log required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The court specifically directed DOJ to produce the notes underlying four FD 302 interview reports, with appropriate protection for victim information, or show cause why the notes should not be produced.
The court also ordered DOJ to publish the required redaction log in the Federal Register and update it with future releases, or explain why it could not do so.
Read Judge Sullivan’s June 25 order
In the accompanying 48 page memorandum opinion, Judge Sullivan concluded that Phang had established grounds for preliminary relief. The opinion emphasized that compliance with federal disclosure law does not constitute a legal injury to the government.
The June order did not automatically direct the public release of every disputed document. In several places, it gave DOJ the alternative of producing the material or showing cause why production was not legally required.
The Four FBI Interviews at the Center of the Dispute
The disputed handwritten notes underlie four typed FBI reports:
EFTA01245620 documents an interview conducted on July 24, 2019.
EFTA02858481 documents an interview conducted on August 7, 2019.
EFTA02858491 documents an interview conducted on August 20, 2019.
EFTA02858495 documents an interview conducted on October 16, 2019.
Together, the typed reports contain 25 pages. They memorialize statements from a protected source concerning alleged childhood abuse connected to Epstein. The reports also contain allegations involving Trump.
These reports record statements made to investigators. They are not judicial findings, charging documents, or conclusions that the allegations were proven. Each report contains the FBI’s standard notice that the document includes neither recommendations nor conclusions of the bureau.
The present dispute concerns the agents’ underlying handwritten notes, not whether the allegations contained in the typed reports have been proven.
Why the Handwritten Notes Matter
An FD 302 is an agent’s written report summarizing an interview. It is generally prepared after the interview from notes, recollection, and other available information.
The underlying notes can matter because a summary may compress, paraphrase, reorganize, or omit portions of what was said. Notes can reveal wording, sequence, follow up questions, uncertainty, corrections, and details that do not appear in the final report.
That does not automatically make handwritten notes more accurate than a typed report. Notes may be abbreviated, difficult to read, or incomplete. Comparing both records, however, can help determine whether the formal report faithfully captures the interview.
Phang is asking for judicial review of the notes before any decision about public disclosure. Under the proposed process, DOJ would submit the unredacted notes directly to Judge Sullivan. The judge would then decide whether the notes are duplicative, whether they contain protected victim information, and whether some or all of the material should be released.
This process is known as in camera review. It allows the court to examine disputed evidence privately without immediately placing it in the public record.
DOJ’s Reasons for Withholding the Notes
In its August 27 response, DOJ offered three principal reasons for withholding the notes.
DOJ argued that the handwritten material is duplicative of the typed FD 302 reports.
It argued that handwritten records are more difficult to review through its quality control process.
It also warned that reviewing and releasing handwritten notes could create a greater risk of exposing victim information.
DOJ emphasized the scale and speed of its Epstein review. The department said more than 500 attorneys and reviewers examined millions of pages within 72 days of the law’s enactment. It acknowledged that inconsistencies likely occurred because of the volume of records, the number of reviewers, and the compressed schedule.
DOJ further argued that its prior release of some handwritten records did not waive its objections to withholding different handwritten records.
These are DOJ’s litigation positions. Judge Sullivan has not yet ruled that they justify withholding the four sets of notes at issue.
Phang’s Evidence That DOJ Released Other Handwritten Notes
At the August 13 hearing, government counsel reportedly told the court that, to his knowledge, DOJ had not released handwritten notes underlying other FD 302 reports.
Phang’s attorneys challenged that statement in an August 20 notice to the court.
They identified EFTA00276889 through EFTA00276899 as handwritten interview notes underlying the typed FBI report beginning at EFTA00158473.
The notice also provided nearly 100 additional examples of handwritten FBI interview notes that DOJ had released.
Phang argues that these releases weaken DOJ’s categorical claim that handwritten material cannot be safely reviewed. Her position is that the department has already demonstrated an ability to review and redact this type of evidence.
The prior releases do not automatically prove that the disputed notes are safe for immediate publication. They do support Phang’s request that Judge Sullivan inspect the documents rather than accept DOJ’s characterization without seeing them.
What Happened at the August 13 Hearing
The September 2 reply quotes several tense exchanges between Judge Sullivan and DOJ counsel during the August 13 hearing.
When DOJ described the notes as duplicative, Sullivan responded that this was what the department claimed, but the court had not been allowed to determine whether the claim was accurate.
When counsel said the redaction log was forthcoming, Sullivan answered, “Christmas is forthcoming. Let’s be realistic.”
The exchanges demonstrate the court’s concern that DOJ was offering conclusions without supplying the records or deadlines needed for judicial verification.
Independent legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance listened to the hearing and reported that Sullivan repeatedly asked DOJ for direct explanations and a definite timetable. Her account describes the judge as building a careful record while warning government counsel that courts retain the authority to enforce their orders.
Read Joyce Vance’s hearing analysis
The Federal Register Dispute
Section 2(c)(2) of the Epstein Files Transparency Act states that all redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.
Section 3 creates a separate reporting requirement. It directs the Attorney General to provide Congress with categories of records released and withheld, a summary of redactions and their legal basis, and a list of government officials and politically exposed people mentioned in the reviewed materials.
DOJ published a notice in the Federal Register on August 27, 2026. The notice reproduces a six page letter originally sent to congressional committees on February 14.
Read the Federal Register notice
The letter identifies itself as the “Epstein Files Transparency Act Section 3 Report to Congress.” Its opening paragraph says that it was prepared to satisfy Section 3.
It provides broad categories of released and withheld records. It also summarizes DOJ’s stated grounds for redactions, including victim privacy, child sexual abuse material, active investigations, images of death or injury, and several asserted legal privileges.
What it does not provide is a document specific explanation identifying individual redactions and the justification applied to each one.
Phang Says a Summary Is Not a Redaction Log
Phang argues that DOJ is attempting to use its Section 3 summary to satisfy the separate obligation imposed by Section 2(c)(2).
Her reply points to the different language Congress used in the two provisions.
Section 3 asks for a “summary of redactions.” Section 2(c)(2) requires that “all redactions” be accompanied by a written justification.
Phang argues that treating those requirements as identical would make part of the statute redundant. Her filing relies on Supreme Court decisions instructing courts to give effect to separate statutory provisions and to presume that Congress intentionally chooses different language for different obligations.
Under Phang’s interpretation, DOJ must provide a justification connected to each redaction, not merely a general list of legal authorities that might have been used somewhere within millions of pages.
That interpretation has practical significance. A general statement that victim information was protected does not tell readers whether a specific blacked out name was concealed to protect a survivor, an alleged coconspirator, a government official, or someone else.
The court has not yet issued a final ruling on whether the August 27 notice satisfies Section 2(c)(2).
Survivor Privacy Is Not the Disputed Objective
Both parties state that genuine victim information must remain protected.
Phang’s reply does not ask for the notes to be published immediately without redactions. It asks DOJ to give the unredacted records to the judge for private examination. The court could then determine what protections are necessary before any public release.
This distinction matters because victim privacy cannot responsibly be treated as either optional or as a blanket explanation for every withheld record.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act expressly permits redactions protecting personally identifiable victim information, personal and medical records, child sexual abuse material, certain active investigations, images of death or physical injury, and properly classified information.
The dispute is whether DOJ must show that a permitted justification actually applies to each withheld passage.
DOJ’s Protective Appeal
On August 24, DOJ filed a protective notice of appeal challenging Judge Sullivan’s June 25 order.
DOJ described the appealability of the order as uncertain. It filed the notice to preserve its position in case any portion of the preliminary injunction qualifies for immediate appellate review.
DOJ also asked Sullivan to stay any new production order while it pursues jurisdictional arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Phang’s reply argues that DOJ had not filed a proper motion for a stay or established the legal factors necessary to receive one. She contends that administrative work required to comply with federal law is not irreparable injury.
The protective notice does not itself suspend Judge Sullivan’s orders.
What Phang Is Asking the Court to Do
The September 2 reply requests two forms of relief.
Phang asks Judge Sullivan to order DOJ to submit the unredacted handwritten notes for private judicial review within five days.
She also asks the court to order DOJ to publish a complete redaction log within ten days.
The filing argues that judicial review is necessary because DOJ’s claim that the notes are duplicative cannot be tested without examining them. It further argues that the Federal Register notice is a general Section 3 report rather than the redaction justification required under Section 2(c)(2).
The filing closes with a straightforward proposition: “The Attorney General of the United States must spend time and effort to follow the law, but that is not a harm.”
What This Filing Establishes
The September 2 filing establishes that Phang formally challenged the adequacy of DOJ’s August 27 Federal Register notice.
It establishes that she requested private judicial review of four sets of FBI interview notes.
It documents her reliance on previously released handwritten notes to dispute DOJ’s claim that such records cannot be safely reviewed.
It also shows that DOJ has appealed the preliminary injunction and requested that additional enforcement be stayed.
The filing does not establish that DOJ intentionally concealed evidence, that every disputed redaction is improper, or that the allegations recorded in the four FBI reports are true.
Those questions require evidence and, in some instances, further judicial findings.
Why This Case Matters
This dispute is about more than four sets of handwritten notes.
DOJ’s interpretation would allow the department to describe millions of redactions through broad categories without connecting those categories to particular pages or passages. That approach makes independent review extremely difficult.
Phang’s interpretation would require DOJ to create a traceable explanation for its redactions. Such a record could help courts, Congress, journalists, survivors, and the public distinguish legitimate privacy protections from redactions based on reasons the statute prohibits.
The difference is the difference between being told that the government followed the law and receiving enough information to test whether it actually did.
As of September 2, 2026, Judge Sullivan had not ruled on Phang’s reply or entered her proposed enforcement order.
Sources
- September 2, 2026 reply on proposed order
- June 25 preliminary injunction order
- June 25 memorandum opinion
- Phang’s proposed enforcement order
- Notice identifying previously released handwritten FBI notes
- DOJ protective notice of appeal
- DOJ August 27 response
- Epstein Files Transparency Act
- August 27 Federal Register notice
- EFTA01245620 FBI interview report
- EFTA02858481 FBI interview report
- EFTA02858491 FBI interview report
- EFTA02858495 FBI interview report
- EFTA00276889 handwritten FBI notes cited by Phang
- EFTA00158473 corresponding typed FBI report
- Joyce Vance analysis of the August 13 hearing