Phang v. Blanche

Phang responded to DOJ's August 27 filing and asked Judge Sullivan to require the government to provide the disputed handwritten FBI interview notes to the court for private review. She also challenged DOJ's claim that its recent Federal Register publication satisfied the Epstein Files Transparency Act's redaction-justification requirement.

DOJ responded to the court's August 21 order and defended its handling of the disputed handwritten FBI interview notes. The government also argued that its Federal Register publication satisfied the applicable statutory reporting requirement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit docketed the appeal as Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-5299.

Initial submissions in the appeal are due September 24. Potential dispositive motions are due October 9.

Blanche filed a notice of appeal seeking D.C. Circuit review of Judge Sullivan's June 25 preliminary-injunction order.

The filing begins appellate review; it does not by itself reverse the district court's order.

After Phang filed a proposed order and a notice concerning handwritten FBI interview notes, Judge Sullivan directed Blanche to respond by August 27 and allowed Phang to reply by September 3.

Phang filed a notice concerning handwritten FBI interview notes and representations made about those records as the court continued examining the government's compliance.

Judge Sullivan held a status conference and heard from the parties after reviewing materials the government had provided to the court for in-camera review.

Blanche asked the district court to stay filing deadlines and establish a briefing schedule while the dispute continued.

Phang asked Judge Sullivan to compel an answer in the case and sought additional relief related to the continuing dispute.

The government notified Judge Sullivan that it had delivered the materials required by his July 25 order to the court for private review.

A non-party identified as Jane Doe asked to intervene for the limited purpose of preserving redactions protecting Epstein victims.

Judge Sullivan ordered the government to provide disputed materials and supporting information directly to the court for private review.

In-camera review allows the judge to examine material that is not being made public or provided to the opposing party at that stage.

Blanche filed another response defending the government's position after Phang challenged DOJ's compliance with the preliminary-injunction order.

Phang responded to the government's July 2 filing and disputed whether DOJ had complied with Judge Sullivan's preliminary-injunction order.

The government responded to Judge Sullivan's preliminary-injunction order, defending several challenged redactions and withholding decisions and disputing the court's characterization that DOJ had conceded a statutory violation.

Judge Sullivan granted Phang's motion for a preliminary injunction and issued a memorandum opinion explaining the court's reasoning and the government's obligations.

The decision was preliminary and did not resolve the entire lawsuit.

Phang filed a reply supporting her request for a preliminary injunction and responding to arguments raised by the government.

The government filed its opposition to Phang's request for a preliminary injunction.

Phang asked Judge Sullivan for preliminary relief while the underlying lawsuit remained pending.