Phang v. Blanche, ECF No. 40: Reply Seeking FBI Notes and a Complete Epstein Files Redaction Log
Snapshot
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Phang v. Blanche |
| Court | United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Case number | 1:26-cv-01417-EGS |
| Judge | Senior United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan |
| Filing | Plaintiff’s Reply on Proposed Order |
| Docket number | ECF No. 40 |
| Filing date | September 2, 2026 |
| Plaintiff | Katie Phang |
| Defendant | Attorney General Todd Blanche, in his official capacity |
| Plaintiff’s attorneys | Brendan Ballou and Emily Gilman, Public Integrity Project |
| Pages | 7 |
| Central issues | FBI interview notes, the Epstein Files Transparency Act redaction log, and the government’s request for a stay |
| Filing | Read ECF No. 40 |
| Case docket | View the CourtListener docket |
Overview
On September 2, 2026, attorneys for journalist and attorney Katie Phang filed a reply asking Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to require Attorney General Todd Blanche to submit withheld FBI interview notes for private judicial review and publish a complete redaction log under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The filing argues that the Department of Justice had not complied with the court’s June 25, 2026, preliminary injunction. According to Phang, the department continued withholding handwritten notes underlying four FBI FD-302 interview reports and attempted to substitute a general report to Congress for the detailed redaction justifications required by law.
Phang also opposed the government’s attempt to pause the proceedings during an appeal.
The reply is an advocacy filing submitted by the plaintiff. It describes Phang’s legal arguments and requested relief. It is not itself a ruling or factual finding by the court.
Background of Phang v. Blanche
Katie Phang filed Phang v. Blanche on April 27, 2026, challenging the Department of Justice’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Phang alleged that the department improperly withheld records, concealed names, failed to review foreign language materials, and did not publish the redaction explanations required by the statute.
On June 25, 2026, Judge Sullivan granted Phang’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court’s memorandum opinion concluded that Phang was likely to succeed on significant portions of her claim.
The accompanying order directed the attorney general to produce several categories of information or show cause why the information could lawfully remain withheld.
The required actions included:
- Addressing redacted sender and recipient names in identified Epstein email records
- Addressing redacted names of possible coconspirators
- Producing handwritten FBI notes underlying four FD-302 interview reports or explaining why the notes should not be produced
- Beginning review of potentially responsive foreign language records
- Publishing the redaction log required by Section 2(c)(2) of the Epstein Files Transparency Act
The August 13 Hearing
The September 2 reply followed an August 13, 2026, court hearing concerning the Department of Justice’s compliance with the preliminary injunction.
According to the filing, government counsel argued that the handwritten FBI notes did not need to be produced because they were duplicative of the typed FD-302 reports.
Judge Sullivan responded that the department’s assertion was not enough. The court needed an opportunity to evaluate whether the notes were actually duplicative.
The filing quotes the court asking government counsel for an explanation:
“The defendant was directed to show cause why it should not be produced. What’s the answer?”
When government counsel said the redaction log was forthcoming, Judge Sullivan reportedly responded:
“I mean, Christmas is forthcoming. Let’s be realistic.”
Following the hearing, the court directed Phang to prepare a proposed order addressing the FBI notes and redaction log. Phang submitted that proposal as ECF No. 32.
She also filed a notice at ECF No. 33 identifying nearly 100 pages of handwritten notes that the Department of Justice had already released from other FBI interviews.
The Four FBI Interview Records
The dispute concerned handwritten notes underlying four FBI FD-302 interview reports:
| EFTA number | Record at issue |
|---|---|
| EFTA01245620 | FBI interview report identified in the preliminary injunction |
| EFTA02858481 | FBI interview report identified in the preliminary injunction |
| EFTA02858491 | FBI interview report identified in the preliminary injunction |
| EFTA02858495 | FBI interview report identified in the preliminary injunction |
The September 2 filing describes these as reports that referenced President Donald Trump. Phang sought the agents’ underlying handwritten notes, with appropriate protections for survivor identifying information.
An FD-302 is an FBI form used to memorialize information obtained during an interview. It is generally prepared after the interview and is not necessarily a word for word transcript.
The handwritten notes may therefore help researchers and the court determine whether the typed reports omitted, summarized, clarified, or altered information provided by the interviewee.
The existence of an allegation or a person’s name in an FBI report does not prove that the allegation is true. FBI interview records document information reported to investigators. They do not constitute criminal convictions or judicial findings.
The Department of Justice’s Duplication Argument
The Department of Justice argued that the handwritten notes were substantially similar to the publicly released FD-302 reports.
Phang responded that the Epstein Files Transparency Act does not identify substantial similarity as a lawful reason for withholding an otherwise responsive record.
She also argued that the government had not provided evidence showing that the notes were actually duplicative.
The reply emphasized that Judge Sullivan could not independently evaluate the government’s assertion without seeing the notes.
Phang therefore asked the court to order the department to submit the complete, unredacted notes for private review.
Request for Private Judicial Review
Phang proposed that the Department of Justice produce the handwritten notes to Judge Sullivan within five days.
This type of confidential court examination is called an in camera review. It allows a judge to inspect records privately before deciding whether any portion should be released publicly.
Under Phang’s proposal, the notes would initially be provided only to the court. Judge Sullivan could then determine:
- Whether the notes duplicated the FD-302 reports
- Whether they contained additional material
- Which information identified survivors
- What redactions were legally necessary
- Whether any portion should be released to the public
This approach was intended to protect survivor information while preventing the Department of Justice from being the sole decision maker concerning whether the notes were duplicative.
The Handwriting and Survivor Privacy Argument
The Department of Justice also argued that reviewing handwritten records created a risk that survivor information could be disclosed accidentally.
Phang rejected that argument.
She pointed to ECF No. 33, which reportedly identified nearly 100 handwritten FBI records that the department had already reviewed and released.
According to the reply, the four typed FD-302 reports totaled approximately 25 pages. Phang argued that reviewing the corresponding handwritten notes would not impose an unreasonable burden on the Department of Justice.
The filing acknowledged that genuine survivor identifying information must remain protected. The dispute was not over whether survivors should be protected. It concerned whether the department could use that concern to withhold the notes entirely without allowing the court to examine them.
The Redaction Log Dispute
The second major issue involved the Department of Justice’s purported redaction log.
Judge Sullivan’s preliminary injunction directed the attorney general to publish the redaction log required by Section 2(c)(2) of the Epstein Files Transparency Act or explain why he could not do so.
The department later pointed to a six page letter published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2026. The letter had previously been provided to Congress.
The Federal Register publication appeared at 91 Federal Register 55356.
Phang argued that the letter was not the redaction log required by Section 2(c)(2).
Section 2 and Section 3 Requirements
Phang’s reply distinguishes between two separate reporting provisions in the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
| Provision | Requirement described in the filing |
|---|---|
| Section 2(c)(2) | A written justification accompanying every redaction |
| Section 3 | A report to Congress summarizing categories of records released, withheld, and redacted |
According to Phang, the Federal Register letter expressly identified itself as a Section 3 report. Its opening language stated that Section 3 required the Department of Justice to submit information to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Phang argued that the department was attempting to use that general summary to satisfy the separate requirement for individual redaction justifications.
Her reply contends that this interpretation would make Section 2(c)(2) redundant because Section 3 already requires a summary.
The filing asks the court to enforce the distinction between a general summary of redactions and a log explaining each redaction.
What a Complete Redaction Log Would Provide
Under Phang’s interpretation, a compliant redaction log would allow researchers, survivors, journalists, Congress, and the court to identify:
- Which document contains a redaction
- Where the redaction appears
- What statutory authority supports the redaction
- Why that authority applies to the specific information
- Whether the redaction protects a survivor, an active investigation, or another legally protected interest
- Whether the Department of Justice applied the permitted exemptions consistently
A general statement that records were redacted to protect privacy would not explain each individual deletion.
Phang asked the court to order the attorney general to publish the required written justifications within ten days.
The Government’s Protective Appeal
The Department of Justice filed what it called a protective notice of appeal at ECF No. 35.
Phang argued that the government had previously characterized Judge Sullivan’s order as an unappealable show cause order. She contended that the department’s position had changed without a sufficient explanation.
The September 2 filing also states that the government had not filed a proper motion to stay the preliminary injunction.
A notice of appeal does not automatically suspend every district court obligation. A party generally must request a stay and establish why enforcement should be paused.
Phang’s Opposition to a Stay
Phang argued that the government had not satisfied the four factors normally considered when deciding whether to stay an injunction during an appeal:
- Likelihood of success on appeal
- Irreparable injury to the party requesting the stay
- Harm to other parties
- The public interest
Her filing asserted that Judge Sullivan had already resolved the first, third, and fourth considerations in Phang’s favor when granting the preliminary injunction.
Phang also argued that the administrative burden of reviewing records does not qualify as irreparable harm.
The reply described the work required to comply with disclosure laws as a governmental obligation rather than a legally recognizable injury.
Relief Requested
Phang asked Judge Sullivan to enter an order requiring:
| Requested relief | Proposed deadline |
|---|---|
| Submission of the complete handwritten FBI notes for private judicial review | Within five days |
| Publication of written justifications for every Epstein Files Transparency Act redaction | Within ten days |
| Rejection of the government’s request to pause enforcement | No stay |
The requested order would not necessarily require immediate public release of every handwritten note. It would first allow the court to inspect the notes and determine which information could lawfully be released.
Evidentiary Significance
ECF No. 40 is significant because it documents a dispute over who gets to evaluate whether withheld Epstein records are duplicative or lawfully redacted.
The Department of Justice’s position would leave that determination primarily with the department. Phang’s proposed process would permit direct judicial review.
The filing also raises a larger transparency issue. A document level redaction log could make it possible to audit millions of released Epstein records and determine whether redactions comply with the specific exceptions authorized by Congress.
Without individualized explanations, researchers cannot reliably distinguish redactions protecting survivors from redactions protecting officials, associates, witnesses, investigative methods, or other individuals.
What This Filing Does Not Establish
ECF No. 40 does not establish that the Department of Justice violated a final judgment.
It does not prove that the handwritten FBI notes materially differ from the typed reports.
It does not establish the truth of allegations contained in the four FD-302 reports.
It does not authorize the public release of survivor information.
It does not resolve the government’s appeal.
It does not represent Judge Sullivan’s final decision concerning Phang’s proposed order.
The filing presents the plaintiff’s arguments and requested remedies. The court must decide whether to adopt them.
Questions for Further Investigation
- Do the handwritten FBI notes contain information omitted from the four FD-302 reports?
- Did FBI agents record additional details concerning Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, or other individuals?
- What differences exist between the agents’ original notes and the typed interview reports?
- Did the Department of Justice consistently apply the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s permitted redactions?
- How many individual redactions lack publicly available written justifications?
- Does the Federal Register letter satisfy Section 3 while failing to satisfy Section 2(c)(2)?
- Will Judge Sullivan require a document level redaction log?
- What effect will the government’s appeal have on the district court proceedings?
- Will any portion of the handwritten notes eventually be released to the public?
- How will the court protect survivors while reviewing the withheld material?