Which specific released EFTA files contain grand jury transcripts naming witnesses or alleged perpetrators?

1. What the Department of Justice and courts have said about the grand‑jury materials

Multiple news outlets and court orders make clear that judges and the Justice Department have been the gatekeepers over whether grand‑jury transcripts tied to Epstein and Maxwell could be unsealed, with at least one federal judge ordering the release of Florida grand‑jury transcripts under the EFTA and other courts later authorizing the unsealing of related materials ^{[1] [3]}; the DOJ has also described that some of the grand juries in the Epstein/Maxwell matters heard only law‑enforcement witnesses rather than victims, which undercuts expectations that transcripts would contain lists of named alleged perpetrators drawn from victim testimony ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Specific file names reported in the public record

The only explicit filename cited in the supplied reporting is “EFTA00000468,” a file noted by journalists and lawmakers as having been removed from the DOJ’s public release portal within a day of the initial EFTA publication; reporting flagged that removal as politically and investigatively notable but did not, in the excerpts provided here, document the contents of that specific file or confirm that it was a grand‑jury transcript naming witnesses or suspects ^[1].

3. What the released transcripts reportedly contain — and what they do not

According to filings and reporting, grand‑jury transcripts related to the 2019 indictments contained testimony from very few witnesses — reportedly only two law‑enforcement witnesses in some grand juries — and the Justice Department told courts that much of what those transcripts would show is already present in trial records and civil litigation materials; those descriptions suggest the released transcripts are more likely to summarize investigative evidence and law enforcement testimony than to reproduce victim testimony that would enumerate alleged perpetrators ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Removal, redactions, and the limits of public reporting on specific EFTA files

Journalistic accounts describe rapid changes to the DOJ’s public document set after the EFTA release, including deletions and redactions that readers discovered could be bypassed in some files, but the supplied sources stop short of offering a catalog matching EFTA filenames to the precise contents of grand‑jury transcripts ^{[1] [2]}; therefore, public reporting available here cannot authoritatively state which released EFTA files contain grand‑jury transcripts that explicitly name witnesses or alleged perpetrators.

5. Competing narratives and why they matter for identifying files

Political actors and some media amplified expectations that EFTA would reveal extensive lists of powerful alleged associates; the DOJ and federal judges have pushed a narrower view — that grand juries mainly heard law‑enforcement testimony and that secrecy rules and ongoing investigations justify withholding certain pages — creating a gap between popular narratives and what courts have documented about the transcripts’ substance ^{[5] [4] [2]}.

6. Bottom line and reporting limitations

Based on the provided sources, the only specifically cited EFTA filename is EFTA00000468 ^[1], and multiple outlets and DOJ filings indicate that grand‑jury transcripts were limited in witness scope ^{[4] [5]}; however, the available reporting here does not include a verifiable list of EFTA file identifiers that definitively contain grand‑jury transcripts naming particular witnesses or alleged perpetrators, so any assertion beyond the filenames and summaries cited in these sources would exceed what the supplied material supports ^{[1] [4] [5] [3]}.