Dabney Friedrich appears for her confirmation hearing in 2017. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)

A federal judge on Thursday declined to hold a Russian company in contempt in a case brought by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III, ruling that prosecutors had not proved the firm spurned a demand for records ahead of its upcoming trial.

At a brief hearing in Washington's federal trial court, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said she believed the Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting, had been in possession of the subpoenaed documents "at one time" in the past. But she said it was not clear Concord remained in possession of the records "at this point."

"Based on the record before me, I don't think that you've met your burden" to hold Concord in contempt, Friedrich told prosecutors.

Concord was charged in early 2018 with funding a scheme to sow discord in the U.S. electorate leading up to the 2016 election, in an election interference operation that allegedly featured Russians posing as Americans on social media.

Of the 13 Russian individuals and three Russian companies charged by Mueller's team, Concord is so far the only one that has answered to the charges in Washington federal court, where lawyers from Reed Smith have defended the firm. The prosecution is now being handled by a team from the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, including Adam Jed, a former member of Mueller's office.

Friedrich's ruling came a day after Concord's owner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian businessman known by the nickname "Putin's chef," claimed in a court filing that the company had fully complied with trial subpoenas seeking internet protocol addresses and financial records, among other documents.

Prigozhin, who was among 13 Russians charged with conspiring with Concord and other companies to interfere in the 2016 election, said Concord has a policy of storing emails and various other records for no more than three months.

"Concord's recordkeeping practices must be understood in the context of Russian, not American, practices, and Concord's actual recordkeeping is effected with due account of the fact that Concord has been the victim of several cyberattacks and has reason to expect future cyberattacks from the United States government and third parties," Prigozhin wrote, in a court filing that was translated from Russian into English.

Prigozhin said he was unable to identify the IP addresses used by Concord. And he claimed there were no records of Concord transferring money to the Internet Research Agency, another Russian company charged with influencing the 2016 election in support of Donald Trump.

Friedrich had said earlier in the week that she thought there was a "strong likelihood" that Concord had failed to comply with the subpoena. At the same hearing, Jed said Concord was in contempt and asked that the judge impose a daily fine on the company—a sanction that would have been largely symbolic given that the company is based in Russia.

As Friedrich's decision became clear Thursday, Jed made a last-ditch bid to salvage the government's push for Concord to be held in contempt. Jed offered to provide Friedrich with classified information, in a closed-door session, that he said would be "relevant to the court's determination of whether Concord is in contempt."

When asked whether the prosecutors were questioning the veracity of Prigozhin's court filing, Jed demurred, indicating he was limited in what he could say in an open court proceeding. Friedrich declined to meet privately, instead telling Jed that prosecutors could provide additional information in a request for her to reconsider holding Concord in contempt.

Without convincing evidence that Concord has the subpoenaed records, Friedrich said she was "not inclined" to hold the company in contempt.