Trump Ally Roger Stone, Prosecutors Argue Over Access to Full Mueller Report
Stone's defense team claims the report could contain evidence essential to their client's defense.
April 30, 2019 at 12:10 PM
2 minute read
A federal prosecutor argued in court Tuesday that Roger Stone is not entitled to see redacted portions of special counsel Robert Mueller III's report, because they've already provided the longtime Trump ally the underlying documents related to his criminal case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis said the government will outline its argument in a response brief due Friday, but he told U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington that the redacted portions of Mueller's report Stone is seeking are “not discoverable,” noting they mostly relate to “mental impressions and conclusions” of government attorneys.
The exchange came during a brief status hearing Tuesday morning, after Stone asked the court earlier this month for a copy of the report because “it contains the government's evidence and conclusions on matters essential to Stone's defense.” Bruce Rogow, Stone's lawyer, said Tuesday they were still seeking the unredacted report even after a redacted version was released.
Jackson said she will rule on the motion after reading both sides' briefs. She told Stone's legal team she specifically wants them to “hone” in on why they believed they are entitled to redacted parts of the report if they were already being provided the raw, underlying material, including grand jury testimony of witnesses, for possible cross examination.
Kravis told the judge the government has already begun providing Stone with any material that could bear on the credibility of potential trial witnesses, or potentially exculpate Stone. He said he expected that process to be “substantially completed” in the next four to six weeks.
Stone has pleaded not guilty to charges he lied to congressional committees probing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. His trial is expected to start in early November.
This content has been archived.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 AllSplit 4th Circuit Ruling Is a Win for Covington & Burling in US Army Base Attack Litigation
3 minute readA Conversation with NLJ Lifetime Achievement Award Winner Jeff Smith
11 minute readBiden's Nominee Secures U.S. Senate Confirmation for Phila. Federal Judgeship
3 minute read'Export Violations'?: RTX Settles Civil Charges With $200M Consent Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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