Judge Richard Leon. Photo Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

A judge on Thursday denied a request from the firm behind the so-called Trump dossier to block a House committee's subpoena for its bank records.

Fusion GPS sued the House Intelligence Committee late last year to block a subpoena for its bank records as part of the committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. U.S. District Senior Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia wrote in his opinion that the court did not have the authority to rule the committee's subpoena was overbroad, as the research firm argued.

“While Fusion is correct that 'Congress' investigatory power is not, itself, absolute,' and that it 'is not immune from judicial review,' … this court will not—and indeed may not—engage in a line-by-line review of the committee's requests,” Leon wrote.

The firm is represented by a team of lawyers that includes Zuckerman Spaeder's William Taylor and Steven Salky, a group from Cunningham Levy Muse and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher partner Ted Boutrous.

Boutrous said the firm will appeal the ruling.

“Instead of focusing its efforts on Russian meddling in the presidential election, the committee is misusing its investigatory powers to punish and smear Fusion GPS for its role in examining ties between Mr. Trump and Russia,” he said. “The Committee is violating Fusion's First Amendment and due process rights and we intend to continue seeking to protect those rights.”

Though the bank remains anonymous in the litigation, it's believed to be TD Bank, and is represented by Duane Morris' Joe Aronica and Alexander Bono. The committee is represented by Thomas Hungar.

Fusion GPS dropped an initial lawsuit against the subpoena in November, and negotiated with House investigators in November to narrow its scope. But, the firm ultimately disagreed with the committee over 70 documents.

Those documents included bank records related to transactions between Fusion GPS and 10 law firms. Fusion argued that those law firms did not contract with the firm on any work related to Russia or the dossier, on which Fusion GPS worked, and were therefore not pertinent to the committee's investigation.

Leon wrote that he could only block the subpoena if there was “no reasonable possibility” that the materials would produce information “relevant to the general subject” of the committee's investigation. In November, it was revealed that two firms, Perkins Coie and Baker & Hostetler, paid Fusion GPS for research in the 2016 election.

“This fact alone provides a reasonable basis to believe that Fusion's transactions with other law firms during the same time frame may reveal similarly relevant information,” Leon wrote.

Leon added that the committee also has “intelligence” that suggests Fusion directed the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, to meet with at least five major media outlets to discuss the dossier. The judge said it was therefore reasonable for the committee to pursue records about Fusion's work with journalists and media companies.

Fusion GPS also made a First Amendment argument that complying with the subpoena would force the firm to reveal private relationships with customers, exposing political associations. Leon dismissed this argument as well, writing that there was no case law to support the argument that the First Amendment's promise of freedom of association protects financial records.

“While the opposition research Fusion conducted on behalf of its clients may have been political in nature, Fusion's commercial relationship with those clients was not, and thus that relationship does not provide Fusion with some special First Amendment protection from subpoenas,” Leon wrote.