Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Where can I find official court transcripts or deposition records for Katie Johnson’s testimony?
Executive summary
Official court filings for the 2016 Katie Johnson civil case are available through federal docket repositories and archives: the case is docketed as Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, No. 5:16‑cv‑00797 (C.D. Cal.), and docket pages and many filed documents were captured on CourtListener and the Internet Archive [1] [2]. Specialized collections and independent projects have also posted a “Katie Johnson” interview/transcript and related materials, but those are not court-hosted official transcripts and their provenance varies [3] [4].
1. Where the official docket and filings live — court repositories and aggregators
The foundational place to look for official filings is the federal court docket for the Central District of California, case number 5:16‑cv‑00797; that docket has been copied to public legal aggregators such as CourtListener, which lists docket entries and links to filed documents for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump [1] [5]. The Internet Archive also hosts a captured copy of the case docket and document list for that file [2]. These sources reproduce court filings; for certified copies you would request records from the clerk of the originating court — CourtListener and Archive are convenient mirrors but not the court itself [1] [2].
2. What you can actually expect to find in those records
Available docket collections include the original complaint and related filings (for example, the April 26, 2016 complaint text is preserved in archival text dumps) and docket activity such as notices of assignment and filings relating to dismissal [4] [1]. Coverage indicates the initial California filing was dropped in November 2016 and later related filings and references circulated, so some materials (press‑conference notices, dismissal notices) appear in the docket history rather than trial transcripts — there is no record in the provided sources of a multi‑day in‑court testimony transcript from a completed federal trial in this matter [4] [2].
3. Depositions and “interview” documents — official vs. independently posted
Independent projects and archival websites host materials labeled as a “Katie Johnson deposition” or “video interview” dated 2016; for example, the Epstein Archive publishes a 2016 interview page and other sites proffer a deposition transcript or video interview labeled with that name [3]. Those items are not clearly identified in the provided sources as court‑certified transcripts issued by the clerk; the provenance is described as “sourced from public records” by the host but the site is an independent project, not the court [3]. Where a document is a docketed filing, it is an official court record (and appears on CourtListener/Archive); where it is posted on third‑party archives, users should treat provenance and completeness cautiously [1] [3].
4. How to obtain certified, official transcripts or deposition records
If you need certified transcripts or deposition transcripts with court certification, the authoritative route is to contact the U.S. District Court clerk where the case was filed (Central District of California for 5:16‑cv‑00797) and request certified copies of docketed filings or transcripts; CourtListener and Internet Archive provide easy public copies but are not substitutes for a court‑issued certification [1] [2]. The provided sources show docket captures but do not include explicit instructions for ordering certified transcripts from the clerk’s office — available sources do not mention the clerk’s transcript‑request process in detail [2] [1].
5. Context and caution: what the record shows about testimony and dismissal
Reporting and dossier coverage consistently note that the original anonymous plaintiff using “Katie Johnson” filed and later dropped her case ahead of the 2016 election; several outlets recount that she or counsel cited threats and the suit was withdrawn, and that no criminal charges followed from the public filings [4] [6]. Newsroom fact‑checks emphasize that some documents circulating on social media (including purported “transcripts”) derive from the civil filing or independent posts and are not necessarily connected to grand‑jury materials or other sealed investigations [4] [6] [7].
6. Different claims and disputed provenance in the public record
Mainstream archival and news outlets (CourtListener, Internet Archive, Newsweek) show the docketed filing and note the dismissal or withdrawal; other independent sites and social posts republish interviews or “deposition” clips whose origins are less clearly documented and at times disputed in public commentary [1] [2] [3] [6]. Reporters and researchers should present both the court‑docket facts and flag third‑party materials as separately sourced, since the latter may not be court‑issued or complete [1] [3].
If you want, I can: (a) give step‑by‑step contact details and sample language to request certified records from the Central District clerk (based on the case number and docket snapshots shown in these sources), or (b) produce a short checklist to evaluate the provenance of third‑party “deposition” files you find online.