Attorneys representing alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein are asking two federal judges in New York to order the immediate removal of Justice Department files posted online, citing widespread redaction errors that exposed the identities and personal information of survivors.

The legal team, representing over 200 individuals, warned that the disclosure has caused ongoing harm. In a letter to the judges, they described the situation as an “unfolding emergency,” emphasizing that victims’ privacy continues to be compromised with each passing hour. The lawyers argued that the DOJ has failed to adequately redact sensitive information, including full names, addresses, and banking details, for survivors—some of whom were minors at the time of Epstein’s crimes.

Since the Justice Department began publishing the files last month, lawyers say they have repeatedly communicated with the agency to correct redaction mistakes. However, the attorneys claim that on January 30, 2026, the DOJ released documents containing what may be the most serious violations of victim privacy in U.S. history. The errors reportedly affected nearly 100 survivors and included thousands of instances of exposed personal information.

Statements from victims included in the letter highlight the ongoing distress caused by the leaks. One survivor, identified as Jane Doe, said the exposure led to harassment from the media and other parties, writing, “Please pull my name down immediately. Every minute that these documents are up, it causes more harm.”

The Justice Department acknowledged that some errors are inevitable in a disclosure of this magnitude but maintains that corrections are being made promptly. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that redaction mistakes account for only a tiny fraction of the documents and emphasized that the department is working to remove or correct documents as errors are reported.

Despite these assurances, the attorneys argue that the DOJ’s current procedures are inadequate. They described the process as “torturously tedious” and warned that it is no longer ethical or responsible to rely on the agency’s internal system to protect survivors. The letter requests urgent judicial intervention, calling it “the last line of defense” to safeguard victims’ identities.

The case underscores the challenges of balancing transparency in high-profile investigations with the need to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly when the release involves millions of pages of sensitive material. Legal experts say this dispute may set important precedents for future large-scale document disclosures by federal agencies.