Current status
Unresolved: DOJ reports in-camera submission; no court validation appears in the acquired record.
ECF 15 set a July 2 deadline. DOJ answered with ECF 19, Phang moved to enforce through ECF 20 and ECF 20-1, and DOJ later filed ECF 25. ECF 25 states that hard-copy disputed records and supporting materials were delivered to the Court's Chambers at 2:28 p.m. on July 30, 2026 for in-camera review.
ECF 25 does not establish that the Court accepted compliance, accepted DOJ's redaction rationales, ordered public unredaction, or reached a merits ruling. ECF 26 is Jane Doe's motion for limited intervention and victim-redaction protections; ECF 26-1 is a proposed order only. No ruling on intervention or the proposed fourteen-day notice period appears in the acquired filing set.
Related source-object work: Leon Black Transcript Autopsy applies the same claim-source and limitation rules to the House Oversight transcript released on July 17, 2026. The New Mexico-DOJ Epstein Records Standoff tracks the separate question of public EFTA redactions versus controlled state law-enforcement access.
July 30 docket update
Filing, requested relief, and ruling status are separate.
ECF 25: DOJ filed a Notice of Compliance stating that hard-copy materials were delivered to the Court's Chambers at 2:28 p.m. on July 30, 2026 for in-camera review.
ECF 26: Jane Doe, publicly identified only as a non-party victim of Jeffrey Epstein, moved for limited intervention and requested protections concerning victim redactions.
ECF 26-1: The attachment is a proposed order. Intervention, pseudonymous treatment, continued protection of the movant's name, and a fourteen-day notice period are requested, not granted in the acquired filing set.
Publication boundary: This page excludes topic-specific claims named in the task instructions unless the underlying primary PDF is present. Maxwell-related items are stated only as allegations characterized by DOJ in Maxwell ECF 863, with the underlying Maxwell motion/exhibit set listed as missing primaries.
EFTA Compliance Tracker
Rows are limited to items ordered by Bates identifier in ECF 15. The court-text identifier ETFA01928255 is preserved exactly, with EFTA01928255 shown only as a labeled normalization alias.
| Bates ID | Document class | Relief ordered | DOJ response | Released status | Redaction status | Deadline | Source | Confidence | Archive routes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EFTA00749245 | email sender/recipient line | Produce the email with sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ says the redacted portion is the same private email address twice, not a standalone name; it kept private email addresses redacted under its review protocol and Privacy Act position. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA01187999 | email sender/recipient line | Produce the email with sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ groups this among six emails where the redacted sender or recipient names are victim names. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA01930501 | email sender/recipient line | Produce the email with sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ groups this among six emails where the redacted sender or recipient names are victim names. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| ETFA01928255 Normalization alias: EFTA01928255 | email sender/recipient line | Produce the court-listed email with sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ repeats the court-text identifier ETFA01928255 and groups it among six emails where the redacted sender or recipient names are victim names. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer / alias archive |
| EFTA00628112 | email sender/recipient line | Produce the email with sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ says the redacted portion includes only a private email address, not a person's name, and was properly redacted under its protocol. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA02648868 | email sender/recipient line | Produce the email with sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ groups this among six emails where the redacted sender or recipient names are victim names. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA02504630 | email sender/recipient line | Produce the email with sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ groups this among six emails where the redacted sender or recipient names are victim names. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA01022356 | email sender/recipient line | Produce the email with sender and recipient names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ groups this among six emails where the redacted sender or recipient names are victim names. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA01703108 | DOJ potential co-conspirator document | Produce the DOJ document with potential co-conspirator names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ says this is an old draft photocopy with redactions already present in the original file; DOJ says it has not located an unredacted version of that specific photocopy and points to substantially similar EFTA00194840. | Archive route and PDF viewer return 200; no unredacted exact photocopy was acquired or verified. | DOJ: original-file redactions and victim names in similar unredacted documents. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 | High for order/DOJ statement; unresolved for court acceptance and exact source completeness. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA00038227 | DOJ potential co-conspirator document | Produce the DOJ document with potential co-conspirator names unredacted, or show cause why the redactions should not be removed. | DOJ says from/to redactions protect law-enforcement personnel, three co-conspirator-heading names are victims, and redactions for Leslie Groff were removed because she has not asserted victim status. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA00194840 | DOJ potential co-conspirator document | ECF 25 identifies this file among the disputed records addressed in the Notice of Compliance; no separate court ruling accepting the rationale appears in the acquired set. | ECF 25 states the in-camera documents show the redacted text contains victim identities and that the name of an Assistant United States Attorney is also redacted. | ECF 25: sealed materials submitted; court validation pending. | DOJ states the disputed records and supporting materials were delivered for in-camera review. The acquired public record does not show a court ruling accepting DOJ's redaction rationale. | 2026-07-30 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 | High for DOJ's ECF 25 submission statement; unresolved for court validation, public unredaction, or final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA01245620 | FD-302 report; underlying FBI interview notes ordered | Produce the underlying FBI interview notes that formed the basis for the FD-302 report, with appropriate victim-information redactions, or show cause why the notes should not be produced. | DOJ says underlying handwritten notes have not been produced because they are deemed duplicative of typewritten reports and create added victim-PII redaction risk. | Archive route and PDF viewer return 200 for the report; underlying notes were not acquired or verified. | Underlying notes withheld/not produced; redaction status unresolved. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 | High for order/DOJ statement; unresolved for final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA02858481 | FD-302 report; underlying FBI interview notes ordered | Produce the underlying FBI interview notes that formed the basis for the FD-302 report, with appropriate victim-information redactions, or show cause why the notes should not be produced. | DOJ says underlying handwritten notes have not been produced because they are deemed duplicative of typewritten reports and create added victim-PII redaction risk. | Archive route and PDF viewer return 200 for the report; underlying notes were not acquired or verified. | Underlying notes withheld/not produced; redaction status unresolved. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 | High for order/DOJ statement; unresolved for final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA02858491 | FD-302 report; underlying FBI interview notes ordered | Produce the underlying FBI interview notes that formed the basis for the FD-302 report, with appropriate victim-information redactions, or show cause why the notes should not be produced. | DOJ says underlying handwritten notes have not been produced because they are deemed duplicative of typewritten reports and create added victim-PII redaction risk. | Archive route and PDF viewer return 200 for the report; underlying notes were not acquired or verified. | Underlying notes withheld/not produced; redaction status unresolved. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 | High for order/DOJ statement; unresolved for final compliance. | archive / viewer |
| EFTA02858495 | FD-302 report; underlying FBI interview notes ordered | Produce the underlying FBI interview notes that formed the basis for the FD-302 report, with appropriate victim-information redactions, or show cause why the notes should not be produced. | DOJ says underlying handwritten notes have not been produced because they are deemed duplicative of typewritten reports and create added victim-PII redaction risk. | Archive route and PDF viewer return 200 for the report; underlying notes were not acquired or verified. | Underlying notes withheld/not produced; redaction status unresolved. | 2026-07-02 | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 | High for order/DOJ statement; unresolved for final compliance. | archive / viewer |
Sullivan Order Autopsy
ECF 16 grants the preliminary-injunction motion and treats DOJ's unaddressed merits arguments as conceded for that motion.
ECF 15 gives DOJ a produce-or-show-cause path for the Bates rows, requires foreign-language review notice, and sets a redaction-log publish-or-show-cause path.
ECF 16 is preliminary-injunction reasoning, not a final contempt order or final merits judgment.
ECF 19 and ECF 20 create a live dispute over whether DOJ showed cause or failed to comply.
Claim Separation
Filing statements, requested relief, proposed orders, and court rulings are kept separate. The July 30 additions do not convert DOJ's notice or Jane Doe's motion into a ruling.
| Type | Claim | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court finding | The court granted Phang's preliminary-injunction motion and stated that the Attorney General had conceded the EFTA merits arguments for purposes of the motion by not responding substantively. | Established as a court finding in ECF 16; not a final merits judgment. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 16 |
| Plaintiff claim | Phang claims DOJ refused to review foreign-language documents, refused to produce an itemized redaction explanation, and refused to produce documents DOJ says contain no victim information. | Plaintiff litigation position. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 |
| DOJ position | DOJ says it has not knowingly violated EFTA and that the court should not order further production because redactions protect victims, law enforcement personnel, private email addresses, and departmental resources. | DOJ litigation position. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 |
| Maxwell allegation | Maxwell's post-conviction claims are published here only as DOJ characterizes them in ECF 863, not as established facts. | Allegation category; underlying Maxwell motion/exhibits were not acquired in this task. | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) ECF 863 |
| Established record | The acquired primary PDFs are ECF 15, 16, 19, 20, 20-1, 21, 21-1 in Phang v. Blanche and ECF 863 in United States v. Maxwell; every PDF has a SHA-256 hash and extracted text. | Established by local acquisition and hashing. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 16 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 21 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 21-1 United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) ECF 863 |
| Unresolved | Current compliance is unresolved: DOJ showed cause instead of verified public unredaction, Phang moved to enforce, and no later Phang/DOJ compliance ruling was acquired before July 18, 2026. | Current-status statement with source gaps disclosed. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 |
| DOJ filing | DOJ says hard-copy disputed records and supporting materials were delivered to Chambers for in-camera review. | DOJ filing statement in ECF 25; not a court acceptance, redaction-validation ruling, public unredaction, or merits ruling. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 |
| Non-party motion | Jane Doe, publicly identified only as a non-party victim of Jeffrey Epstein, requested limited intervention and protections concerning victim redactions. | Requested relief in ECF 26; not granted in the acquired filing set. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 26 |
| Proposed order only | ECF 26-1 proposes a fourteen-day notice process before affected victim redactions are lifted. | Proposed order only; not entered by the Court in the acquired filing set. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 26-1 |
Maxwell Claim-vs-DOJ Matrix
This matrix is intentionally narrow. It does not adopt Maxwell's claims, and it does not publish petition-specific allegations without the petition and exhibits.
| Maxwell allegation as characterized by DOJ | DOJ position | Status | Source limit | Primary source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The non-prosecution agreement barred or undermined the later prosecution. | DOJ says the claim is procedurally barred and meritless, and that later public materials do not disturb the prior rulings described in ECF 863. | Maxwell allegation vs DOJ position only. | Underlying Maxwell motion/exhibits were not acquired here; no petition-specific fact claim is treated as established. | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) ECF 863 |
| New EFTA material shows government failure tied to the NPA history. | DOJ says the cited EFTA material has no bearing on the NPA text or negotiation history; it also notes a citation/exhibit mismatch involving EFTA00190632 and EFTA00225523. | DOJ characterization; not independently adopted. | The matrix does not publish the underlying Maxwell exhibit set. | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) ECF 863 |
| Victims, victim lawyers, or prosecution conduct undermined the conviction. | DOJ characterizes these claims as procedurally barred and meritless. | Allegation/position separation. | No victim-identifying detail is repeated. | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) ECF 863 |
| Government Exhibit 52 and contact-book evidence warrant post-conviction relief. | DOJ characterizes the Exhibit 52/contact-book claims as procedurally barred and meritless. | Allegation/position separation. | No standalone identity inference is published from the contact-book topic. | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) ECF 863 |
| Delay or lost/destroyed/missing records caused prejudice. | DOJ says the arguments are speculative, often based on materials available before trial, and do not show definite prejudice. | Allegation/position separation. | No underlying-record absence claim is published as fact. | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) ECF 863 |
| Financial evidence, sentencing, or miscellaneous new materials warrant relief. | DOJ characterizes the remaining categories as procedurally barred and meritless. | Allegation/position separation. | Only the broad DOJ response category is published. | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) ECF 863 |
Redaction and Deadline Ledger
The ledger distinguishes filing, requested relief, and ruling status. ECF 25 asserts an in-camera submission; ECF 26 and ECF 26-1 request relief that is not shown as granted in the acquired filing set.
| Item | Deadline/date | Established record | DOJ position | Plaintiff/non-party position | Current status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Order entered | 2026-06-25 | ECF 15 granted preliminary injunction and set a July 2, 2026 deadline for the listed compliance/show-cause items. | DOJ treated the order as a show-cause order and disputed that it had conceded any EFTA violation. | Plaintiff later moved to enforce, arguing DOJ had refused to comply. | Established docket event; compliance remains unresolved. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 |
| Eight email sender/recipient rows | 2026-07-02 | ECF 15 gave DOJ a produce-or-show-cause path for eight email records. | Six contain victim names; two contain private email-address redactions. | Plaintiff seeks production for two conceded non-victim rows and in camera review for victim-information claims. | No unredacted production verified in acquired filings. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 |
| Two potential co-conspirator-document rows | 2026-07-02 | ECF 15 gave DOJ a produce-or-show-cause path for EFTA01703108 and EFTA00038227. | DOJ cited victim PII, law-enforcement redactions, one removed non-victim redaction, and an unavailable exact unredacted old draft photocopy. | Plaintiff seeks in camera review and production where DOJ concedes no victim information. | Not finally resolved by acquired filings. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 |
| Four underlying FBI interview-note rows | 2026-07-02 | ECF 15 targeted notes underlying four FD-302 reports. | DOJ says handwritten notes are duplicative and hard to quality-control for victim PII. | Plaintiff says EFTA has no duplicative-document or difficult-review exception. | Underlying notes not acquired or verified. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 |
| Foreign-language materials review and production notice | Act deadline: 2025-12-19; court notice: 2026-07-02 | ECF 15 ordered DOJ to initiate review and production and notify the court and parties that review was underway. | DOJ said it had advised Congress that first-level review of foreign-language responsiveness was not practicable and that the court should not supplant Congress's acceptance. | Plaintiff says this directive had no show-cause alternative and DOJ ignored it. | No review notice or production was acquired or verified. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 |
| Federal Register redaction log | Act deadline: 2025-12-19; court deadline: 2026-07-02 | ECF 15 ordered DOJ either to publish the EFTA section 2(c)(2) Federal Register redaction log and update it with future releases, or show cause. | DOJ says it provided Congress categories and a summary and will submit the notice for Federal Register publication. | Plaintiff says a summary is not the itemized redaction log required by section 2(c)(2). | Federal Register API search returned zero documents for the exact Act name; no itemized log was acquired or verified. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 15 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 19 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 |
| Plaintiff enforcement motion | 2026-07-13 | ECF 20 asks for daily fines, expedited administrative-record production, and in camera review. | No later DOJ Phang/DOJ response was acquired before this July 18, 2026 publication run. | Plaintiff proposed a $1,000-per-day enforcement order in ECF 20-1. | Pending/unresolved in acquired primary filings. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 20-1 |
| Later non-party filing | 2026-07-15 | ECF 21 and 21-1 are a non-party motion/addendum, acquired but not used to state Phang/DOJ compliance. | Not a DOJ filing. | Not a Phang filing. | Excluded from compliance-status finding except as docket context. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 21 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 21-1 |
| DOJ Notice of Compliance | 2026-07-30 | DOJ filed a Notice of Compliance stating that hard-copy materials were delivered to the Court's Chambers at 2:28 p.m. on July 30, 2026 for in-camera review. | DOJ asserts submission occurred and states the submitted materials support each redaction. | No new plaintiff response to ECF 25 was acquired in this candidate. | Submission asserted; court acceptance, redaction validation, public unredaction, and merits ruling remain pending in the acquired record. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 25 |
| Jane Doe intervention motion | 2026-07-30 | Jane Doe, publicly identified only as a non-party victim of Jeffrey Epstein, moved for limited intervention and requested protections concerning victim redactions. | No DOJ response to ECF 26 was acquired in this candidate. | No plaintiff response to ECF 26 was acquired in this candidate. | Intervention, pseudonymous treatment, continued redaction protection, and a fourteen-day notice period are requested, not granted. ECF 26-1 is a proposed order, not an entered order. | Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 26 Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) ECF 26-1 |
Sources and Hashes
The source manifest links every acquired public PDF and records its SHA-256 hash. ECF 25, ECF 26, and ECF 26-1 were verified from public CourtListener/RECAP storage on July 31, 2026.
| ECF | Document | Filed | SHA-256 | Links | Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 court filing | Order granting motion for preliminary injunction Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | 2026-06-25 | ae8d9cfeee736eaa3efd781716abc12b1e43d5cf53afb1e3cbecffe5bd8b1499 | archived PDF RECAP source | Sullivan order; ordered Bates-specific relief or show-cause paths. |
| 16 court filing | Memorandum opinion Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | 2026-06-25 | bc8b6b8e04f7137730a5e920effb2813963329be69ba4f95ce195ec924641902 | archived PDF RECAP source | Court findings and reasons for preliminary injunction. |
| 19 party filing | Defendant's response to order to show cause Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | 2026-07-02 | b175d521b77ceeb074683552a080993eb679b511716de5050e23945f247a0c9e | archived PDF RECAP source | DOJ position on every Sullivan-ordered item. |
| 20 party filing | Plaintiff's response to court order and motion to enforce Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | 2026-07-13 | ba3f4e4c896d64d6b14f5a9b9a133c37aea8687397215ca122d039d75c02283e | archived PDF RECAP source | Plaintiff position after DOJ's show-cause response. |
| 20-1 party filing attachment | Proposed order granting motion to enforce Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | 2026-07-13 | 63c51fc29a0b319b2a42013d706d3bb77a3fa11612a0fbd80eb43f31fc13e16a | archived PDF RECAP source | Plaintiff's requested enforcement relief. |
| 21 non-party filing | Motion to intervene by K.L. Smith Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | 2026-07-15 | 310835bafefd8a6872773c8df2febf48c9f017880fc11b9b984483d5f2f2eb06 | archived PDF RECAP source | Later non-party filing acquired for docket completeness; not used to state Phang/DOJ compliance. |
| 21-1 non-party filing attachment | Addendum to motion to intervene Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | 2026-07-15 | 291b91b985887d7ef8dd21415d2b872025719c41f8bd8f6c01496e67f7de9c7b | archived PDF RECAP source | Later non-party attachment acquired for docket completeness; not used to state Phang/DOJ compliance. |
| 25 public filing | DOJ Notice of Compliance Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | July 30, 2026 at 2:45 p.m. | 5289716162977d113d2698ddae877b15df9ff5ca045b08f39d4f6b2f39017bd7 | archived PDF RECAP source | DOJ filed a Notice of Compliance stating that hard-copy materials were delivered to the Court's Chambers at 2:28 p.m. on July 30, 2026 for in-camera review; referenced in-camera materials remain unavailable. Referenced in-camera materials remain unavailable. |
| 26 party motion/request, not an order | Jane Doe Motion to Intervene Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | July 30, 2026 at 2:46 p.m. | 6cf3580fe4b57a966f29caf84c01213d639ca3980b5aa9e282012fbd766d5c95 | archived PDF RECAP source | Jane Doe, publicly identified only as a non-party victim of Jeffrey Epstein, moved for limited intervention and requested protections concerning victim redactions. |
| 26-1 proposed order only; not entered by the Court | Text of Proposed Order Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C.) | July 30, 2026 | 787d53e0e56fa1f25cc534fd78f7ccc1624ea1d3e378e6519d5d4a41c906ea5d | archived PDF RECAP source | Jane Doe's proposed order; not entered by the Court in the acquired filing set. |
| 863 party filing | United States opposition to Maxwell's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (S.D.N.Y.) | 2026-06-24 | 94b6962088a973737d57a40ad55c6339cdb145269be5cd60006fe4c6b0488405 | archived PDF RECAP source | Primary source for DOJ's characterization and response to Maxwell post-conviction claims. |
Missing Primaries
- Unredacted sender/recipient versions for the eight email rows were not acquired or verified.
- The exact unredacted old-draft photocopy for EFTA01703108 was not acquired; DOJ says it has not located that exact unredacted photocopy.
- Underlying handwritten FBI interview notes for EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481, EFTA02858491, and EFTA02858495 were not acquired or verified.
- A Federal Register itemized EFTA section 2(c)(2) redaction log was not acquired or verified.
- A foreign-language review-and-production notice was not acquired or verified.
- Maxwell's 2255 motion and exhibit set were not acquired; the Maxwell matrix uses only DOJ's ECF 863 characterizations.
- Submitted in-camera evidence and supporting materials referenced by ECF 25 were not publicly acquired.
- Supporting declarations and record-specific redaction explanations underlying DOJ's in-camera submission were not publicly acquired.
- No court compliance, redaction-validation, merits, changed-redaction, or unsealing ruling is shown by the acquired July 30 filing set.
- No intervention ruling or adoption or rejection of Jane Doe's fourteen-day proposal is shown by the acquired filing set.
- No stay, appeal, or public Bates-level redaction log beyond the acquired filings was acquired or verified.
Cited Bates Inventory
All cited Bates identifiers extracted from the acquired PDFs were probed against the live archive and PDF viewer. The only raw archive-route miss is the court-text typo ETFA01928255; the labeled alias EFTA01928255 is present.
Open all 45 cited Bates route checks
| Cited Bates ID | Archive | Viewer | Routes | Inventory note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EFTA00038227 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190451 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190452 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190453 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190454 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190455 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190456 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190457 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190458 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190459 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190460 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190461 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190462 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190463 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190464 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190465 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190466 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190467 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00190632 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00194840 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00225523 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00608040 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00628112 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00663685 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00749241 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00749245 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00774231 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA00881786 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA01022356 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA01116797 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA01187999 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA01245620 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA01703108 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA01781626 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA01827430 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA01930501 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA02441899 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA02504630 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA02524962 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA02648868 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA02737038 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA02858481 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA02858491 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| EFTA02858495 | 200 | 200 | archive viewer | Live archive and viewer responded 200. |
| ETFA01928255 Alias: EFTA01928255 | 404 | 200 | archive viewer | Court-text identifier preserved. Raw ETFA archive route returned 404; labeled EFTA01928255 normalization alias returned archive 200 and viewer 200. |
Support public evidence
Public evidence remains open.
Public evidence remains open. Patreon membership supports continued document acquisition, source verification, hosting, and new investigative releases.