UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KATIE PHANG,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 26-1417 (EGS)
TODD BLANCHE, in his official
capacity as Acting Attorney
General of the United States,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the parties’
responses to the Court’s June 25, 2026 Preliminary Injunction
Order in this matter.
I. Procedural Background
A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the
Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order
On June 25, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and issued an accompanying Order. See
Phang v. Blanche, Civil Action No. 26-1417, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___
(2026), 2026 WL 1831251 (D.D.C. 2026); Order, ECF No. 15. 1
Plaintiff sought relief for a limited list of apparent
violations of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (“EFTA”). See
1 When citing electronic filings throughout this opinion, the Court cites to the ECF header page number, not the original page number of the filed document.
Appl. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 9; Mem. of Points and Auths. in
Supp. of Appl. for a Prelim. Inj. (collectively “Mot.”), ECF No.
9-1. Defendant did not respond substantively to Plaintiff’s
merits arguments, and in granting her motion, the Court largely
adopted her proposed order, which Defendant did not address in
his opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See
generally Opp’n, ECF No. 12. The Court ordered that by no later
than July 2, 2026, the Defendant shall:
(1) either produce to the public the emails bearing
Bates numbers EFTA00749245, EFTA01187999,
EFTA01930501, ETFA01928255, EFTA00628112,
EFTA02648868, EFTA02504630, and EFTA01022356 with
sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause
why the redactions should not be removed;
(2) either produce to the public the DOJ documents
bearing Bates numbers EFTA01703108 and EFTA00038227
with potential co-conspirator names unredacted, or
show cause why the redactions should not be removed;
(3) either produce to the public the underlying FBI
interview notes that formed the basis for the FD-302
interview reports bearing Bates numbers
EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481, EFTA02858491, and
EFTA02858495, with appropriate redactions to protect
2
victims’ information, or show cause why the notes
should not be produced;
(4) initiate review and production of foreign-language
materials that may be subject to production under
the EFTA, and provide notice to the Court and all
parties that such review is underway; and
(5) either publish in the Federal Register the redaction
log required under EFTA § 2(C)(2), and update it
concurrently with each future release of redacted
materials; or show cause why he cannot do so.
Order, ECF No. 15.
B. The Parties’ Responses
Defendant filed his response on July 2, 2026, see Def.’s
Resp. to Order to Show Cause (“Def.’s Resp.”), ECF No. 19;
Plaintiff filed her response on July 13, 2026, see Pl.’s Resp.
to Court Order and Motion to Enforce (“Pl.’s Resp.”), ECF No.
20; and Defendant filed his reply on July 20, 2026, see Def.’s
Reply, ECF No. 22. The parties’ respective responses are
discussed below.
Regarding (1), Defendant states that the redacted
information in six of the emails were the names of victims and
that the redacted information in the remaining two emails were
email addresses. See Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 19 at 10-12.
Regarding the redaction of email addresses, Defendant stated
3
that email addresses were redacted pursuant to the Privacy Act
as set forth in the EFTA First Level Review Protocol (“Review
Protocol”). Id. at 11 (citing EFTA First Level Review Protocol
at 8 (Jan. 4, 2026). In response, Plaintiff argues that to the
extent Defendant contends that producing the email addresses
would violate the Privacy Act, the EFTA “trumps” it because the
EFTA was more recently enacted, but she provides no legal
support for her position. See Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 20 at 7.
Regarding (2), Defendant states that the redactions in the
“from” and “to” email lines of EFTA00038227 are for law
enforcement personnel, including both names and official email
addresses. Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 19 at 12. Defendant cites the
Review Protocol, which requires the redaction of the names of
law enforcement personnel and their email addresses. Id.
Defendant further states that three of the four names listed
under the “co-conspirator” heading are victims. Id.
Defendant states that “EFTA01703108 is a draft indictment
from the Southern District of Florida, bearing handwritten
notation on page 1 stating ‘OLD Draft’”. Id. at 13. “The
redactions appearing in this document were present in the
original file; the Department has not been able to locate an
unredacted version of this specific photocopy.” Id. “The
Department does, however, possess unredacted versions of
substantially similar documents, including EFTA00194840, which
4
confirm that all of the redacted names are, once again,
victims.” Id. Plaintiff did not specifically respond to this
explanation.
Regarding (3), Defendant states that he did not publish the
underlying FBI interview notes that formed the basis for certain
FD-302 reports for two reasons. First, they are “substantially
similar to” and therefore duplicative of the typewritten
reports. Id. at 14. Second, there is a risk of inadvertent
disclosure of victim information because the notes are
handwritten. Id. In response, Plaintiff argues that: (1)
Defendant has neither argued nor provided any evidence in
support of his contention that the specific handwritten notes
are substantially similar; (2) the EFTA does not contain an
exemption for documents that are “substantially similar”; and
(3) the EFTA does not provide an exception for documents that
are difficult to redact. Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 20 at 6.
Regarding (4), Defendant states that the “Court should not
supplant Congress’s acceptance of [its] explanation” that it did
not review any foreign language documents because “it was not
practicable for a first-level reviewer to determine the
responsiveness of a foreign language document.” Def.’s Resp.,
ECF No. 19 at 14. Defendant provides no legal support for his
position, stating only that “the Government continues to believe
that the Court lacks the authority to” “supplant Congress’s
5
acceptance of this explanation.” Id. Plaintiff responds that
“[w]hether Congress subsequently objected to [Defendant’s]
violation of the law is utterly irrelevant to whether the
Attorney General must, in fact, follow the law.” Pl.’s Resp.,
ECF No. 20 at 3. Defendant does not respond to these arguments
in his Reply. See generally Reply, ECF No. 22.
Regarding (5), Defendant states that there is no deadline
for submission of the redaction information and that “the notice
for publication in the Federal Register” pursuant to section
2(c)(2) of the Act will be submitted. Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 19
at 15.
C. The Court’s In Camera Review Order, Status Hearing,
Plaintiff’s Proposed Order, and Defendant’s and
Plaintiff’s Responses
On July 25, 2026, the Court issued an order requiring
Defendant to submit unredacted copies of certain documents for
the Court’s in camera review. See Order, ECF No. 23. The Court
further required Defendant to provide documentation supporting
Defendant’s representation that the names that were redacted in
the published version of the relevant documents are the names of
victims and to provide documentation supporting Defendant’s
representation that the names in the “to” and “from” lines that
were redacted in the published version of the relevant documents
are the names of law enforcement personnel. Defendant timely
6
complied with the Court’s order on July 30, 2026. See Notice of
Compliance, ECF No. 25.
On August 6, 2026, the Court issued an order scheduling a
status hearing for August 13, 2026 to address some, but not all,
of the issues arising out of Defendant’s responses to the
Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order and the Court’s in camera
review. See Order, ECF No. 29. Specifically, the Court stated
that Defendant had not provided documentation to support his
representation that certain names that were redacted in the
published version of certain documents are the names of victims
and directed Defendant to be prepared to discuss what
documentation he will provide to support. Id. at 2. At the
status hearing, Defendant submitted additional documents to the
Court for its in camera review.
Regarding Defendant’s explanation for why he did not
publish (with appropriate redactions) the underlying FBI
interview notes that formed the basis for certain FD-302
interview reports in response to the Court’s Preliminary
Injunction Order, the Court observed that Defendant did not
point to a provision in the EFTA that contains an exception for
“substantially similar” or duplicative documents, Def.’s Resp.,
ECF No. 19 at 13; and observed that Defendant has acknowledged
publishing “substantially similar” draft indictments. See id. at
13. The Court ordered Defendant to be prepared to explain why
7
the handwritten notes cannot be redacted manually or why the
redactions cannot be accomplished in another way. Rather than
provide such an explanation at the status hearing, Defendant
stated that the handwritten notes were not published because
“the determination had been made that the handwritten notes were
duplicative of materials that had already been produced.” Hr’g
Tr., ECF No. 34 at 6:22-24 (Aug. 13, 2026).
Finally, regarding the section 2(c)(2) provision of the
EFTA requiring “[a]ll redactions [to] be accompanied by a
written justification published in the Federal Register and
submitted to Congress,” the Court ordered Defendant to be
prepared to discuss his timing for complying with this
requirement. Order, ECF No. 29 at 3. Rather than being prepared
to discuss such timing, counsel for Defendant stated that the
only information he could provide was that the Federal Register
publication is “forthcoming.” Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 34 at 19:3-5
(Aug. 13, 2026). In response to Defendant’s failure to provide
the information the Court requested, Plaintiff’s counsel
suggested “an interim step,” specifically that the Court “order
a declaration that fully explains what steps are being taken,
what information is going to be submitted, when it was going to
be submitted.” Id. at 25:7-10. At the conclusion of the status
hearing, the Court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to submit a
proposed order for the Court’s consideration. Id. at 34:8-10.
8
On August 20, 2026, Plaintiff submitted the proposed order.
See Proposed Order, ECF No. 32. On August 27, 2026, Defendant
responded to the proposed order claiming, among other things,
that he had published the EFTA section 2(c)(2) written
justification in the Federal Register that day. See Def.’s Resp.
to Minute Order, ECF No. 37 at 1.
II. Analysis of Defendant’s Responses to the Court’s
Preliminary Injunction Order
A. Eight E-mails With Redacted Names
The Court has reviewed the documents Defendant submitted to
the Court at the August 13, 2026 status hearing. The Court finds
that Defendant has provided adequate documentation to support
his representation that names of victims were redacted in the
following documents: (1) EFTA01930501; (2) ETFA01928255; and (3)
EFTA02648868. Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause as to these
documents will be DISCHARGED.
Defendant has not, however, provided any documentation to
support his representation that the information redacted in the
following documents are the names of victims: (1) EFTA01187999:
the first and last name that was redacted twice; (2)
EFTA02504630: the first and last name that was redacted and that
appears before a complete email address that was also redacted;
and (3) EFTA01022356: the first and last name that was redacted
and that appears before a complete email address that was also
9
redacted. Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s “inherent
authority to review . . . material ex parte, in camera as part
of its judicial review function,” see Jibril v. Mayorkas, 101
F.4th 857, 866 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (citation modified); the Court
will order Defendant to provide documentation for the Court’s in
camera review to support his representation that these
redactions are the names of victims.
Regarding EFTA00749245 and EFTA00628112, Defendant states
that the redacted portions of these emails contain private email
addresses, which were redacted pursuant to the Review Protocol
which provided for withholdings under the Privacy Act, including
email addresses. See EFTA First Level Review Protocol at 8 (Jan.
4, 2026). The Review Protocol is a Department of Justice
memorandum that memorialized the protocol for attorneys
conducting responsiveness review of the Epstein files and
provided guidance on redacting victim identifying information
and “other protected categories of information.” EFTA First
Level Review Protocol at 1 (Jan. 4, 2026). The Review Protocol
required attorneys to redact personally identifying information
including email addresses pursuant to the Privacy Act. Id. at 8.
The Court’s in camera review of these documents confirms that
the redactions are of private email addresses.
Whether the EFTA permits Defendant to redact information
pursuant to the Privacy Act is not presently before the Court,
10
as Plaintiff did not move for preliminary injunctive relief on
this issue. See generally Mot., ECF No 9-1. Defendant’s December
19, 2025 letter to Congress described the Review Protocol and
attached the Review Protocol to the letter. See Letter from Todd
Blanche, Deputy U.S. Att’y Gen., to Members of Congress at 2
(Dec. 19, 2025), Exhibit D to Ward-Packard Decl., ECF No. 9-3.
Plaintiff was therefore on notice that redactions were made
pursuant to the Privacy Act. The legal question of whether the
EFTA permits redactions under the Privacy Act can be raised by
Plaintiff in subsequent proceedings. Accordingly, the Order to
Show Cause as to the redactions in EFTA00749245 and EFTA00628112
will be DISCHARGED.
B. Redaction of Potential Co-Conspirator Names, and Names
and Email Addresses of Government Personnel
The Court has reviewed the documents Defendant submitted to
the Court at the August 13, 2026 status hearing. The Court finds
that Defendant has provided adequate documentation to support
his representation that the names of victims have been redacted
in EFTA00038227 and EFTA00194840. EFTA00194840 is substantially
similar to EFTA01703108, which was cited in the Court’s
Preliminary Injunction Order and for which Defendant has been
unable to locate an unredacted version. The Court also finds
that the unredacted documents indicate that the other redactions
in the documents are the names of a government attorney and law
11
enforcement personnel and their email addresses. The Review
Protocol requires the redactions of government personnel and
their email addresses. See EFTA First Level Review Protocol at 8
(Jan. 4, 2026). Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause as to
EFTA00038227 and EFTA01703108 will be DISCHARGED.
C. Withholding of Underlying FBI Interview Notes
The Court rejects Defendant’s assertion that the underlying
handwritten FBI notes that formed the basis for certain FD-302
reports were properly withheld because they are “substantially
similar to” and therefore duplicative of the typewritten
reports. Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 19 at 14. The Review Protocol
contains no directive requiring the withholding of
“substantially similar” or “duplicative” documents. See
generally EFTA First Level Review Protocol (Jan. 4, 2026). The
Review Protocol does provide guidance regarding duplicate
documents, see id. at 3; but the documents at issue here are not
duplicate documents. The underlying handwritten notes are not
duplicates of the FD-302 interview reports. Furthermore,
“Plaintiff has identified nearly 100 additional examples of
handwritten interview notes produced by Defendant.” Notice to
Court, ECF No. 33 at 2.
Pursuant to the Court’s “inherent authority to review . . .
material ex parte, in camera as part of its judicial review
function,” see Jibril v. Mayorkas, 101 F.4th 857, 866 (D.C. Cir.
12
2024) (citation modified); the Court will order Defendant to
submit to the Court the underlying FBI interview notes that
formed the basis for the FD-302 interview reports bearing Bates
numbers EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481, EFTA02858491, and
EFTA02858495 in both redacted and unredacted versions.
Defendant contends that ordering in camera review of
documents here would set a bad precedent and requests that the
Court stay its request for in camera review so Defendant can
appeal the jurisdictional issues. Def.’s Resp. to Minute Order,
ECF No. 37 at 2-3. As an initial matter, Defendant has already
provided documents to the Court for its in camera review. And
Defendant has already appealed the jurisdictional issues, and
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
entered a scheduling order requiring procedural motions to be
filed by September 24, 2026, and dispositive motions to be filed
by October 9, 2026. See Phang v. Blanche, Case No. 26-5299 (D.C.
Cir.). Accordingly, the Court will not stay its order.
D. Review of Foreign Language Materials
As stated above, Defendant did not respond substantively to
Plaintiff’s merits arguments in her Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, resting entirely on his arguments that her claims
fail as a matter of law based on his jurisdictional arguments.
See Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 14. Nor did he respond substantively to
her proposed order. See generally id. In the Preliminary
13
Injunction Order, the Court ordered Defendant to initiate review
and production of foreign-language materials that may be subject
to production under the EFTA, and to provide notice to the Court
and all parties that such review is underway by no later than
July 2, 2026. Order, ECF No. 15 at 2. In response, Defendant
states that the “Court should not supplant Congress’s acceptance
of [its] explanation” that it did not review any foreign
language documents because “it was not practicable for a firstlevel reviewer to determine the responsiveness of a foreign
language document.” Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 19 at 14. Defendant
provides no legal support for his position, stating only that
“the Government continues to believe that the Court lacks the
authority to” “supplant Congress’s acceptance of this
explanation.” Id.
In Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s response to the
Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, she argues that the Court
should find Defendant in civil contempt based on, among other
things, his failure to begin reviewing and producing foreign
language documents. See Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 20 at 10. The Court
recognizes that its Preliminary Injunction Order did not give
Defendant the option to show cause why he could not comply with
the foreign-language materials portion of the order. This was
appropriate at the time given his lack of response to
Plaintiff’s merits arguments in his Opposition to her Motion for
14
Preliminary Injunction. See Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 23. However,
Defendant has now stated his rationale for not initiating the
review, and so a civil contempt finding at this juncture would
be premature.
The Court concludes that Defendant’s rationale for not
initiating the review of the foreign language materials is
without merit. As the Court has previously stated, the EFTA is
an unprecedented disclosure law requiring the Attorney General
to make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable
database all unclassified Department of Justice files related to
its investigation of the notorious sexual predator and child sex
trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, the child sex trafficker Ghislaine
Maxwell, and their associates, subject to certain exceptions and
permitted withholdings. Recognizing that the obligations under
the EFTA extend to relevant materials in any language, Defendant
informed Congress on January 30, 2026, that foreign language
materials had not been reviewed or produced “[b]ecause it was
not practicable for a first-level reviewer to determine the
responsiveness of a foreign-language document.” Letter from Todd
Blanche, Deputy U.S. Att’y Gen., Re: Epstein Files Transparency
Act – Production of Department Materials at 5 (Jan. 30, 2026),
Exhibit E to Ward-Packard Decl., ECF No. 9-3. Defendant cites no
authority for the proposition that administrative inconvenience
excuses him from meeting his statutory obligations. Nor does he
15
cite any authority for his apparent contention that
Congressional silence in response to the January 30, 2026 letter
functions as an implied amendment to the EFTA. Defendant’s
rationale is without merit.
Having rejected Defendant’s rationale, the Court will order
Defendant to initiate review and production of foreign-language
materials that may be subject to production under the EFTA and
provide notice to the Court and all parties that such review is
underway by a date certain.
“[C]ourts have the inherent power to enforce compliance
with their lawful orders through civil contempt.” Shillitani v.
United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). “A contempt finding is
proper where ‘the putative contemnor has violated an order that
is clear and unambiguous’ and the violation of an order is
‘proved by clear and convincing evidence.’” Phillips v. Mabus,
894 F. Supp. 2d 71, 91 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Armstrong v. Exec.
Off. of the President, 1 F.3d 1274, 1289 (D.C. Cir.
1993) (citation modified)). To the extent Defendant is of the
opinion that the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order is not
“clear and unambiguous,” id.; he shall seek clarification from
the Court by no later than September 21, 2026.
16
E. Compliance with EFTA § 2(c)(2)
Section 2(c)(2) of the EFTA provides that “[a]ll redactions
must be accompanied by a written justification published in the
Federal Register and submitted to Congress.” EFTA § 2(c)(2).
Section 3 of the EFTA requires that upon the completion of the
release of documents required by the EFTA, Defendant submit a
report to Congress listing: (1) all categories of records
released and withheld; (2) a summary of redactions made,
including legal basis; and (3) a list of all government
officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in
the released materials, with no redactions permitted under
subsection (b)(1). EFTA § 3. Defendant submitted the Section 3
Report on February 14, 2026. See Letter from Todd Blanche,
Deputy U.S. Att’y Gen. to Chairman Chuck Grassley, Ranking
Member Dick Durbin, Chairman Jim Jordan, Ranking Member Jamie
Raskin (Feb. 14, 2026), Exhibit F to Ward-Packard Decl., ECF No.
9-3. On August 27, 2026, Defendant published the February 14,
2026 Section 3 Report to Congress in the Federal Register and
claims that this satisfies section 2(c)(2) of the EFTA. See
Def’s Resp. to Minute Order, ECF No. 37.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s reporting obligations
under section 2(c)(2) and section 3 of the EFTA are different
reporting requirements and that the Section 3 Report is
“offensively insufficient to comply with the Defendant’s
17
obligations under Section 2(c)(2).” Reply to Proposed Order, ECF
No. 40 at 4. However, Plaintiff did not move for preliminary
injunctive relief on what the EFTA requires the section 2(c)(2)
“written justification” to contain. In her Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff argued that Defendant violated
the EFTA by failing to publish the section 2(c)(2) “written
justification” at the same time any redacted files were
produced. Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 30-31. She describes the “written
justification” as a log, but she does not move for preliminary
injunctive relief on what specific information the EFTA requires
the written justification to include. See id. at 30-31.
Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause as to Defendant’s
compliance with section 2(c)(2) of the EFTA will be DISCHARGED.
The legal question of whether the Section 3 Report to Congress
satisfies the section 2(c)(2) provision can be raised by
Plaintiff in subsequent proceedings.
III. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY
ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause as to the redactions
in (1) EFTA01930501; (2) ETFA01928255; (3) EFTA02648868; (4)
EFTA00038227; and (5) EFTA01703108 is HEREBY DISCHARGED; and it
is further
ORDERED that Defendant shall provide, by no later than
September 24, 2026 at 11:00 am, documentation for the Court’s in
18
camera review to support his representation that the following
redactions are the names of victims: (1) EFTA01187999: the first
and last name that was redacted twice; (2) EFTA02504630: the
first and last name that was redacted and that appears before a
complete email address that was also redacted; and (3)
EFTA01022356: the first and last name that was redacted and that
appears before a complete email address that was also redacted;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause as to the redactions
in (1) EFTA00749245 and (2) EFTA00628112 is HEREBY DISCHARGED;
and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant shall submit to the Court for its in
camera review the underlying FBI interview notes that formed the
basis for the FD-302 interview reports bearing Bates numbers
EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481, EFTA02858491, and EFTA02858495 in
both redacted and unredacted versions on September 24, 2026 at
11:00 am; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant shall initiate review and production
of foreign-language materials that may be subject to production
under the EFTA and provide notice to the Court and all parties
that such review is underway by no later than September 24,
2026; and it is further
19
ORDERED that to the extent Defendant is of the opinion that
the Court’s order to initiate review and production of foreignlanguage materials that may be subject to production under the
EFTA and provide notice to the Court and all parties that such
review is underway by no later than September 24, 2026 is not
“clear and unambiguous,” he shall seek clarification from the
Court by no later than September 21, 2026; and it is further
ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause as to Defendant’s
compliance with section 2(c)(2) of the EFTA is HEREBY
DISCHARGED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
September 16, 2026
20