I don't think it's unlikely at all, however, it is unlikely they would disclose having it for such a meaningless case. The value of this case to them isn't dec

I don't think it's unlikely at all, however, it is unlikely they would disclose having it for such a meaningless case. The value of this case to them isn't decrypting the data -- it's in setting a precedent on forced data decryption, which they can then use for other cases. Someone quoted this in a post below: "Prosecutors said Rawls has a lot of "chutzpah" to even ask to get out of jail while he appeals the contempt-of-court order to the Supreme Court, which has never decided whether forcing somebody to decrypt hardware amounted to a Fifth Amendment violation.", proving the point.