The Justice Department used a court filing to explain that it could not fulfill a judge's order to remove redactions from a tranche of Jeffrey Epstein records and provide more records because the materials include sensitive victim information or were appropriately obscured as required by law.
In a filing Thursday, Acting Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward urged U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan either to grant the department an additional 60 days or accept its explanation for why certain documents remain redacted.
The filing comes after Sullivan ordered the DOJ to either release additional Epstein-related materials or explain why they could not be disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Woodward argued that many of the remaining redactions protect the identities and privacy of victims, while others involve records that were already redacted before the DOJ obtained them, ABC News reported.
The filing states that some emails had sender and recipient names withheld to shield victims, while handwritten FBI interview notes present additional challenges because they increase the risk of inadvertently revealing personally identifiable information.
Woodward also said the department has been unable to locate an unredacted version of a draft 2007 federal indictment from the Southern District of Florida, explaining the redactions already existed on the copy in the government's possession.
The filing also addressed FBI interview notes involving unsubstantiated allegations against President Donald Trump.
According to the DOJ, those handwritten notes were withheld because they duplicated typed interview reports that have already been released and pose a greater risk of exposing victim information.
Trump has denied the allegations and has never been charged with any wrongdoing related to Epstein.
USA Today reported the DOJ has released approximately 3.5 million pages of Epstein investigative materials while withholding roughly 2.5 million additional pages.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche argued the remaining documents are protected largely to safeguard victims and sensitive government interests.
Blanche also offered to provide additional materials for the judge's private review, known as an "in camera" inspection, rather than making them public.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by attorney and independent journalist Katie Phang, who contends the DOJ violated the transparency law by excessively redacting records and withholding documents Congress intended to make public.
On June 25, Sullivan ordered the department to justify the remaining redactions involving emails, draft indictments, FBI interview notes and other investigative materials after concluding the plaintiff had shown a likelihood that the department may have violated the transparency law.
The DOJ maintains it has complied with the law while balancing Congress' transparency mandate against its legal obligation to protect victims and other sensitive information.