Mueller's Team Questions How Files in Russia Case Ended Up Online
Federal prosecutors are resisting a push from a defense team at Reed Smith to more widely share discovery material produced in a criminal case in Washington's federal trial court.
January 30, 2019 at 04:50 PM
6 minute read
Updated at 6:14 p.m.
The U.S. law firm representing a Russian business charged in a special counsel's case in Washington should not be permitted to share sensitive information with the company's officers and employees outside the United States, federal prosecutors told a judge Wednesday.
In a new court filing, prosecutors revealed that nonsensitive discovery materials provided to Reed Smith, the U.S. law firm representing the Russian company Concord Management and Consulting, had been altered and disseminated online in October as part of an apparent effort to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The documents were posted publicly from the Twitter account @HackingRedstone, which claimed to have retrieved the papers by hacking into a Russian server. The Twitter account, as of Wednesday afternoon, was “suspended” and not publicly viewable.
Concord's lawyers at Reed Smith have quarreled for weeks with special counsel prosecutors over who can have access to information being produced in the case. The Reed Smith team, led by partners Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly, said in December that prosecutors had produced nearly 4 million documents, and designated 3.2 million of them as “sensitive.”
Dubelier and Seikaly were not immediately reached for comment Wednesday. Prosecutors did not accuse either lawyer, or their law firm, of leaking or otherwise facilitating any unauthorized release of discovery material. Reed Smith said in a statement Wednesday:
“Reed Smith and its lawyers have at all times complied with the protective order in this case. As such, no data was obtained via a breach of Reed Smith systems and we are confident that Reed Smith systems have not been breached. We maintain the highest levels of security and protection for all of our systems and their contents.”
Prosecutors said the public dissemination of nonsensitive discovery illustrated why sensitive materials should not be shared with Concord's officers in Russia.
“Concord's request to send the sensitive discovery to the Russian Federation unreasonably risks the national security interests of the United States,” prosecutors wrote. They added: “Nothing has occurred during the pendency of this litigation to ameliorate these risks. On the contrary, the government's concerns are only heightened by the apparent release and manipulation of information produced to Concord as 'non-sensitive' discovery in this case.”
The government said some of the material online matched certain nonpublic case file markers, and that “the file names and structure of the material produced by the government in discovery are not a matter of public record.”
“The FBI's ongoing review has found no evidence that U.S. government servers, including servers used by the Special Counsel's Office, fell victim to any computer intrusion involving the discovery files,” prosecutors said in their court filing.
Reed Smith said in its statement that the firm has “never hosted or maintained any of the data at issue here produced by the government in the Concord case on Reed Smith computer systems. A third party vendor has hosted all such data and has assured us that there has been no breach of the database that maintains the data.”
Concord Management and Consulting was among the 16 Russian entities and individuals charged in Washington's federal trial court with participating in a scheme to sow discord in the U.S. electorate in 2016. No other law firm other than Reed Smith has entered an appearance for any of the defendants.
“In this first-of-its-kind prosecution of a make-believe crime, the Office of Special Counsel maintains that it can unilaterally—and for secret reasons disclosed only to the court— categorize millions of pages of non-classified documents as 'sensitive,' and prohibit defense counsel from sharing this information with defendant Concord for purposes of preparing for trial,” Dubelier wrote in a court filing in December.
The defense lawyers added: “The position of the court and the Special Counsel creates an insuperable obstacle to defense counsel preparing for trial.”
Featuring prominently in the prosecutors' filing Wednesday was Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch whose restaurants and catering businesses have hosted dinners attended by Vladimir Putin, earning him the nickname “Putin's chef.” As an officer of Concord, Prigozhin was among the Russians charged last year with conspiring to interfere in the 2016 election.
In late June, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich set restrictions on discovery the government deemed sensitive, preventing Reed Smith from sharing such materials without her permission. Friedrich also ordered Reed Smith to store sensitive materials in a locked room at its U.S. offices “when they are not in the actual possession of defense counsel.”
On Wednesday, prosecutors said Prigozhin could potentially view sensitive materials if he traveled to the United States.
“To the extent that Concord faces challenges in mounting its defense, it is because Prigozhin refuses to come to the United States to review the sensitive discovery,” prosecutors wrote. “That is a problem of Concord's own making.”
Read more:
Reed Smith's Russia Work in Mueller Case Gets Closeup in Court
|This report was updated with comment from Reed Smith.
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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readAmir Ali, MacArthur Justice Center Director, Confirmed to DC District Court
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readConservative Boutiques That Backed Trump Reap Their Rewards
Trending Stories
- 1How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
- 2Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
- 3The Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
- 4Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 5The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
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