'Go Home, Sober Up, Decompress:' SDNY Judge Stays Trump Tax Subpoena Another Day
Lawyers for the president argue that the Mazars subpoena is worryingly similar to one for Trump's tax returns filed by the U.S. House of Representatives.
September 25, 2019 at 11:59 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Lawyers for President Donald Trump and the New York County District Attorney's Office walked out of a courtroom in the Southern District of New York on Wednesday morning after a hearing that offered little resolution to their subpoena impasse, as U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero urged them to work out their differences.
The parties went to the hearing after briefing their positions on the validity of a contested grand jury subpoena, with Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. insisting on compliance and Trump lawyers saying there is no justification for demanding his tax documents.
Subpoenas filed by the DA's office in August sought eight years of Trump's tax returns and assorted other financial information related to the president, his businesses and his associates. Trump sued his accounting firm Mazars USA, which was the recipient of the tax return subpoena, and Vance last week, arguing that the subpoena is a politically motivated attack that runs afoul of constitutional standards as it could impair the president's ability to perform his official duties.
Lawyers from the DA's office replied that they were seeking documents as part of ordinary grand jury activities that may or may not ever lead to criminal indictments.
Late Tuesday, hours before the hearing in Marrero's courtroom, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman filed his first statement in the matter. Berman said he supported a temporary restraining order that would give his office time to consider the issues and whether to get involved.
Marrero said in court Wednesday that Berman's office should make its decision by Monday and file any documents by Oct. 2. He ordered representatives for Vance and Trump to talk Wednesday and Thursday and see if some documents requested by the subpoena can be turned over without further adjudication.
"Go home, sober up, decompress and see if you can find a way to accommodate concerns of both sides," Marrero said.
It was not immediately clear what will happen if those talks break down.
Carey Dunne, general counsel to the Manhattan DA's office, told Marrero he was worried Trump's lawyers would refuse to produce anything other than the most routine correspondence. He also objected to the fact that all these proceedings are taking place in federal court and not state court.
William Consovoy of Consovoy McCarthy, who is representing the president, told Marrero that the DA's Mazars subpoena was worryingly similar to a subpoena for Trump's tax returns filed by the U.S. House of Representatives.
The House subpoena was publicly available, Assistant District Attorney Solomon Shinerock replied. He said he wanted to save Mazars employees additional labor as they responded to the subpoenas, so he submitted one that was substantially similar. He emphasized that he has had no contact with the House and the two investigations are not related.
Further stays give the president and his lawyers what they want, which is a delay until statutes of limitations have run out and the president has left office, rendering questions of immunity irrelevant, Dunne said.
Marrero asked whether the grand jury is "sitting on its hands" without the subpoenaed documents, and Dunne and Shinerock acknowledged there is some other work it could do.
The Manhattan district attorney's office has argued that the subpoenaed documents should be delivered while the questions raised by Trump's legal team are adjudicated. They would be confidential to the grand jury, they argued, so the risk of harm from release is minimal.
Consovoy questioned the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings, noting that there could be leaks or New York State could change its laws to make the documents public. He said the DA's office has also not addressed whether it would comply with a Congressional subpoena for the documents.
Dunne said the idea that grand jury proceedings in New York would suddenly become public is an "extravagant claim."
"The State of New York could be annexed by Ukraine, and that could invalidate grand jury secrecy," he said. "It's all fanciful."
Consovoy noted that state legislators have made legislative moves to get Trump's tax returns before.
This is a developing story.
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
The New Federal Sentencing Factor in Downstate New York? Prison Conditions
Trending Stories
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