Media Outlets Ask 2nd Circuit to Unseal Deutsche Bank Letter on Trump-Related Tax Returns
A coalition of major media outlets, including The Associated Press and CNN, filed a motion Wednesday with a federal appellate court to force Deutsche Bank to publicly disclose which tax returns it has on file from the family, or entities, of President Donald Trump.
September 11, 2019 at 01:54 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A coalition of major media outlets, including The Associated Press and CNN, filed a motion Wednesday with a federal appellate court to force Deutsche Bank to publicly disclose which tax returns it has on file from the family of, or entities related to, President Donald Trump.
The motion comes two weeks after Deutsche Bank told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit it was in possession of the tax returns of at least one Trump-related business entity or family member, but redacted specific information.
The media outlets, represented by attorneys from law firm Ballard Spahr in Manhattan, argued in their motion to intervene that both the First Amendment and the common law should allow an unredacted version of the filing from Deutsche Bank to be made public.
Rejecting their request to make that information openly available would set a dangerous precedent, the media organizations argued.
"There is no genuine privacy concern implicated by Deutsche Bank confirming what is already widely understood—that it has copies of certain of the president's or his affiliates' financial records—but it would set a disturbing precedent to allow redactions of such rudimentary facts to go unchallenged, particularly in a case involving a sitting president," they argued.
The motion was brought by the Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post, according to the filing.
It's unclear, at this point, which tax returns Deutsche Bank has on hand from Trump, his family or an entity that they control. The bank, in its filing, did not reveal whether it had the tax filings of multiple individuals or entities, or if those documents belong to one person or company.
Those filings could be subject to a request from Democrats in Congress, who subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Capital One earlier this year for documents related to the finances of Trump and his three eldest children: Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump.
The two banks were targeted for the subpoenas because they were known to have done business with the Trump family in recent years, particularly Deutsche Bank. Capital One has said it doesn't have any of the tax returns in question.
The inquiry did not specifically seek the tax filings of those individuals, but it's been argued that the breadth of the subpoena would include those documents. An attorney for the U.S. House of Representatives has said the subpoenas were part of a broader effort to investigate money laundering and foreign influence on the U.S. government.
Attorneys for Trump wrote in a recent filing that, even if the bank has those filings, the subpoenas wouldn't require them to be disclosed to Congress.
The subpoenas are currently under review by the Second Circuit after U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York declined to grant a preliminary injunction against them earlier this year.
Deutsche Bank, represented by Raphael Prober from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C., told the Second Circuit last month that it couldn't publicly say which tax filings it had because they were the personal, sensitive information of a customer and it was bound by contractual obligations not to disclose those documents without redacting them.
The media outlets, in their motion Wednesday, argued that an unredacted version of the filing should be made available because Deutsche Bank had not met its burden of showing why the information should be kept private, and because the filing is of significant interest to the public.
"The ultimate decision in this case and the information requested by the court to reach its decision are of extraordinary public importance, and as demonstrated above, Deutsche Bank has not identified any valid, applicable privacy interest, much less demonstrated why any such personal privacy interest would outweigh the exceptional public interests at stake," they wrote.
The First Amendment, they argued, provides a right of access to judicial documents, particularly in cases as significant to the public as this, where the president is suing to block the disclosure of his financial information to Congress.
A court can allow documents to be sealed, the media outlets said, but only after making specific, on-the-record findings that a party has met its burden to justify that outcome.
In this case, they wrote, the public's right to the information that was redacted from Deutsche Bank's filing outweighs the privacy concerns previously cited.
"As Deutsche Bank has not identified a substantial risk to a compelling government interest, it cannot meet its burden to overcome the public's right of access, and the redacted names should be unsealed forthwith," they wrote.
The other prong of their argument for having the names unsealed rests in common law, they said. Since the filing from Deutsche Bank will be used by the Second Circuit in its decision on whether to affirm the district court's ruling, they argued that the public has a right to access the information.
"The question of which specific entities or individuals—from among a group whose identities are already publicly known—will be the subject of this court's adjudication is of substantial value to those monitoring the court and the execution of its duties in this case," they wrote.
The coalition is asking the Second Circuit for permission to intervene in the lawsuit, and to have the unredacted version of Deutsche Bank's filing unsealed for public view.
Patrick Strawbridge, a partner at Consovoy McCarthy, is representing Trump before the Second Circuit. Neither he nor Prober, the attorney for Deutsche Bank, immediately responded to a request for comment Wednesday.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250