The judge delivered another blow to the government in his accompanying 48-page opinion, finding that Phang was likely to prevail on the relevant claims after the DOJ failed to substantively answer several of her arguments.

Sullivan also rejected the government's request to temporarily stay his ruling while officials considered an appeal. The appeal comes as another potentially explosive dispute has emerged over handwritten FBI interview notes. In an August 20 filing, Phang's attorneys sought to "correct the record" following an August 13 hearing.

According to the filing, DOJ previously argued certain handwritten notes could be withheld because they were "substantially similar to" and duplicative of typed FD-302 reports, while also citing the risk of inadvertently revealing victim information.

But Phang's lawyers claimed the government had already released the very type of material it was fighting to withhold.

During the hearing, government counsel was asked whether other handwritten FBI notes underlying 302 reports had been released and responded: "To my knowledge, not with respect to the 302s."

Phang's filing fired back: "Defendant's counsel is not correct." Her attorneys provided an example of handwritten notes they said DOJ previously produced and claimed they had identified nearly 100 additional examples.

The legal showdown comes despite DOJ previously declaring its Epstein disclosure obligations fulfilled. Sullivan noted the department had produced approximately 3.5 million pages before announcing in January that it had complied with its production obligations under the transparency law.

Phang nevertheless alleged information was improperly withheld, and other requirements remained unmet – claims that ultimately persuaded Sullivan to grant preliminary relief.

The appeals court will now be asked to weigh in as the battle over exactly what the public is entitled to see enters a new phase.