Newly Unsealed Orders in Mueller Mystery Case Reveal Judge's Observations
Courts have unsealed some pleadings and orders that provide clues to the contours of a special counsel dispute involving a foreign company.
February 28, 2019 at 02:50 PM
4 minute read
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia has released 71 pages of court orders and opinions in an ongoing grand jury subpoena fight that involves an unidentified foreign-owned company and the special counsel's prosecution team.
The company, owned by a foreign state, has resisted for months compliance with a subpoena from Special Counsel Robert Mueller III. Howell, in September, declared the company in civil contempt and imposed a $50,000 daily fine. The company is represented by a team from Alston & Bird.
The company's lawyers have lost several rulings in recent months, compelling the legal team to take the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are weighing whether to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that said the company must comply with the subpoena.
Courts have unsealed some pleadings and orders along the way, providing clues to the contours of the dispute, if not the names of the actual parties involved. Here are several things revealed in the newly unsealed court filings:
>> Alston & Bird lawyers wanted to make a public statement, but Mueller's prosecutors resisted the request. Their reasoning was redacted in Howell's orders. “[REDACTED] counsel informed the court that attorneys and employees at their law firm have received threatening messages,” Howell wrote, in reference to a Jan. 10 hearing. That hearing came a day after CNN identified Alston & Bird as the law firm representing the unidentified foreign company. Howell ordered the lawyers in the case not to make any public statements beyond the “public information” about the case as presented in D.C. Circuit filings.
>> Howell noted in one order that the special counsel is “investigating foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election and potential collusion in those efforts by American citizens. The [Special Counsel's Office] has identified certain [REDACTED] as relevant to the investigation and, on July 11, 2018, the grand jury issued a subpoena to [REDACTED], which is [REDACTED] by Country A, to produce by July 27, 2018, any such records held [REDACTED] in the United States or abroad.” The information that's being sought did not originate in the United States. “The materials sought are important to the grand jury's investigation and the failure to secure the materials would undermine important interests of the United States,” Howell wrote.
>> Mueller's office proposed a $10,000 daily fine, but Howell increased it to $50,000. By Jan. 24, the fine had reached more than $500,000. Here's what Howell said about why she boosted the fine: “In imposing $50,000 per day, the court balances, on the one hand, a due regard for [REDACTED] status as an entity of a foreign sovereign deserving of international comity and, on the other hand, both the government's need for prosecutorial expedience in a matter of great concern in the United States and in consideration of the sanction needed to coerce [REDACTED] compliance.”
>> Federal prosecutors haven't yet—as of last month—attempted to enforce Howell's contempt order. The dispute is still pending at the Supreme Court, which could give prosecutors some cause to hold off seizing property as a mean to enforce the penalty. Howell rejected an effort from the company's lawyers to have her declare her contempt order to be unenforceable.
You can read the unsealed filings here:
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 AllTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute readFreshfields Hires DOJ Official, Squire Taps Paul Hastings Atty for US Antitrust Head
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 2US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 3Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 4McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 5Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
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