Dabney Friedrich testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

A federal judge on Monday questioned whether a Russian company had snubbed subpoenas in a case brought by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's office, saying there was a "strong likelihood" the firm failed to comply with the document demands ahead of its scheduled trial in April on charges of interference in the 2016 presidential election.

At a half-hour hearing in Washington's federal trial court, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District of Columbia gave the company, Concord Management and Consulting, until Wednesday to either comply with the subpoenas or provide a detailed description of its search for the documents, along with an explanation of why it had not turned over the requested records.

Friedrich called the morning hearing after prosecutors urged her to consider holding Concord in contempt over its failure to produce subpoenaed records, including documents concerning internet protocol addresses and meetings between the company's controlling officer, Yevgeny Prigozhin, and other Russians accused of scheming to sway the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump.

Of the 16 Russian defendants charged in the alleged scheme, Concord is the only one who has answered to the accusations in Washington, where the company has hired a defense team from the law firm Reed Smith. Prosecutors have alleged Concord funded an interference operation that featured Russians posing as Americans on social media, in an effort to sow discord within the U.S. electorate.

Addressing Friedrich on Monday, prosecutor Adam Jed declared, "Concord is in contempt," and asked the judge to assess a daily fine to force the company to comply with subpoenas. Friedrich declined to immediately take that step, saying she wanted to give Concord time to explain itself.

It's unclear what effect any civil contempt finding would have on Concord. In an unrelated case, a federal trial judge in Washington imposed a $50,000 daily sanction in 2013 against the Russian government for refusing to return thousands of religious texts. That case remains pending.

On Monday, Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier defended Concord's efforts to fully respond to the subpoenas, asserting that the company had produced all of the responsive records in its control.

"They produced what they had," he said. "What they didn't have, they didn't produce."

Friedrich appeared skeptical, saying she shared prosecutors' suspicion that Concord had the subpoenaed record in its control. The judge appeared particularly struck by the company's purported inability to turn over records concerning its IP addresses, which allow devices to communicate with each other online.

"I believe there's a strong likelihood that Concord has the documents," Friedrich said, adding that she found it "implausible" that the company could not identify the IP addresses it used.

Dubelier asked to speak with Friedrich privately, in a so-called "ex parte" discussion, saying he had letters explaining why Concord did not possess records regarding IP addresses.

Friedrich refused to hold a private discussion, telling him, "I'm looking for a response on the record." She said Concord needed to have a representative explain the company's efforts to comply with the trial subpoenas.

"At a minimum, by Wednesday, I think you can get an affidavit from a corporate representative," she said.

The deadline drew protest from Dubelier, who noted during the hearing that it was already Monday evening in Russia. Dubelier, who has clashed with prosecutors and Friedrich in court hearings, broadly criticized the judge's handling of Concord's case.

"I'm not going to argue with you about how I'm running my courtroom," Friedrich replied.

At one point, the two sides broached an idea Dubelier has long resisted: Having a representative of Concord come to the United States. Dubelier said the U.S. government would need to provide assurance that the representative would have "free passage," removing the risk of arrest. Jed said the Justice Department was open to working with Concord and the U.S. State Department to facilitate such a trip, but said the government would need the name of the representative.

An affidavit from a Concord representative, he said, was "no substitute for having a live witness" appear in court.

Jed said Concord's response to the trial subpoenas raised broader questions about the extent to which the company was actually participating in its case in Washington. He questioned whether the trial, set to begin in early April, should be delayed.

Dubelier replied that Jed's claims were "outrageous." And he described Jed, a career Justice Department lawyer and former member of Mueller's team, as a "young guy" who lacked experience.

At the close of Monday's hearing, Jed asked whether Dubelier wanted to delay an upcoming hearing in light of the Wednesday deadline for Concord to explain its answer to the trial subpoenas.

"No," he said. "I can walk and chew gum at the same time."

 

Read more:

'Unwarranted Cheap Shot': Lawyers in Russia Troll Farm Case Feud Over Trial Subpoenas

Mueller's Team Questions How Files in Russia Case Ended Up Online

'Knock It Off': Judge Upbraids Reed Smith Partner Litigating Mueller Case

Tempers Flare at Russia Hearing Over Prosecutor, Defense Phone Call

How Law Firms Are Protecting Sensitive Information in Russia Cases

Reed Smith's Russia Work in Mueller Case Gets Closeup in Court