Former City CFO Asks Judge to Disqualify US Attorney From Investigation
U.S. Attorney Byung J. Pak said that a temporary restraining order disqualifying him from the investigating former City of Atlanta CFO Jim Beard would slow down the City Hall corruption investigation, which has been ongoing since at least 2017.
April 23, 2020 at 08:27 PM
5 minute read
Former city of Atlanta Chief Financial Officer Jim Beard is asking a federal judge to disqualify U.S. Attorney Byung J. "BJay" Pak from participating in any ongoing or future investigation of him, citing a multiyear "campaign of harassment and intimidation."
Beard counsel Scott Grubman, a partner at Atlanta's Chilivis, Grubman, Dalbey & Warner, filed the motion for an injunction that would bar Pak, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and his entire office from investigating Beard, who served as the city's chief financial officer from 2011-2018.
The motion also asks that Pak's lawyers and federal agents currently investigating Beard be blocked from further review of thousands of seized personal emails they subpoenaed from Beard's personal AOL email account this month.
In a response filed Thursday, the U.S. attorney contended that Beard's claims that privileged communications contained in his personal emails are at risk are "entirely speculative." The response was also signed by assistant U.S. attorneys Jeffrey Davis and Trevor Wilmot.
Prosecutors also contended that the use of filter teams is "generally accepted across the country" and that a restraining order would slow the FBI's corruption investigation, which has been ongoing since 2017.
They said the government "provided rigorous and detailed procedures to ensure that the prosecution team would not see any privileged material," including "the highly unusual steps" of contacting Beard's lawyer for search terms that might help them to filter out privileged communications. The response did not address the harassment and intimidation claims. Pak couldn't be reached for comment.
Grubman said in court papers filed April 20 that, for at least two years, Beard has been "one of numerous apparent subjects" of the U.S. attorney's ongoing investigation of former Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed's administration.
Neither Beard nor Reed have been indicted or charged with a crime.
Federal prosecutors have secured guilty pleas from the city's former chief procurement officer, Reed's deputy chief of staff, a former director of the city's contract compliance office, two city construction contractors and a convicted felon who tried to intimidate one of the contractors to keep him from talking to federal investigators.
Bribery charges are pending against another longtime city vendor and the city's former human services director.
Grubman said that in targeting Beard, the government has expanded its inquiry to include his children, friends, former colleagues and acquaintances whom they have plied with questions he said are irrelevant to Beard's City Hall tenure.
The motion includes a string of government actions the lawyer claims are intended to intimidate potential witnesses, including:
- Dispatching FBI agents to interview Beard's minor son at his mother's Florida home, where they questioned whether Beard's child support payments were current;
- Dispatching FBI agents to interview Beard's 22-year-old stepdaughter at work shortly after she was hired by an investment bank, then compelling her to appear before a grand jury in Atlanta, even though Grubman said she agreed to be interviewed;
- Securing a search warrant for Beard's wife's cellphone;
- Dispatching the FBI to contact Beard's friends with questions that Grubman said imply Beard "engaged in personal shenanigans."
Grubman said any one of those actions, taken individually, "might very well be within the DOJ's investigative prerogative."
"But taken together over the course of the last two years, it demonstrates a clear pattern of harassment and intimidation designed not simply to seek the truth, but to destroy a life," he said.
Grubman said he moved to disqualify Pak from investigating Beard after federal prosecutors notified him last week they had three years of Beard's personal emails and that a "filter team" that included a prosecutor and two FBI agents had already reviewed the emails for privileged material.
Grubman said the team, also known as a "taint team," intended to turn the bulk of the subpoenaed emails over to City Hall prosecutors on Friday.
Grubman argued that Pak's decision to use in-house prosecutors and local agents "increases the risk of privileged information making its way back to members of the prosecution team, whether intentionally or completely innocently."
"That tainted information could then easily form the basis for further investigative activity, or even make its way into a presentation to the grand jury, even if inadvertently, and nobody would be the wiser," he said. "It is well known that members of the U.S. Attorney's office not only work together, but oftentimes form personal relationships and friendships that continue outside of the confines of the federal building. …The likelihood that members of the government's filter team have already reviewed communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine is high, if not near certain."
Grubman's motion also more broadly challenged federal prosecutors' use of in-house taint teams as inherently unconstitutional, citing rulings from multiple federal circuits critical of the practice. "When it comes down to constitutional rights, we can't assume the prosecutor down the hallway and the agent down the hallway is going to do the right thing and not unintentionally let anything slip to the prosecutor in the case," he said.
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 AllTrump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
Big Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 2'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 3Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 4Supreme Court Asked to Review Issues of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement
- 5Defense Verdict: Alston & Bird Beat Back $35M Claim Against Nokia
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