Michael Cohen's Attorneys Claim Thousands of Privileged Documents Scooped Up in Raid
Counsel for President Trump said she'd only been brought on board Wednesday—two days after the White House, and the world, learned of the government's raid on Trump's attorney's offices.
April 13, 2018 at 03:20 PM
6 minute read
President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, has until Monday morning to produce the names of his clients, with proof of their relationship, or face having the temporary restraining order his attorneys were in court seeking Friday tossed by U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York.
A skeptical Wood spent the afternoon portion of the all-day hearing grilling Cohen's attorney, McDermott Will & Emery partner Todd Harrison, over claims that “thousands, if not millions” of documents scooped up by federal investigators earlier this week should be considered privileged.
“If you don't have the answers by 2 p.m. on Monday, I'm likely to discount the argument that there are thousands if not millions of documents,” Wood told Harrison, referring to a follow-up hearing scheduled for early next week. Wood ordered Cohen to be present at the hearing.
Attorneys for the government, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas McKay, argued that Cohen's attorneys “utterly failed” to substantiate the claims in their motion seeking the TRO, characterizing the move as being “a delay tactic from the outset.”
McKay requested, and Wood ordered, Cohen's team to produce some kind of proof that the relationships being claimed as clients were, in fact, as such, rather than a business relationship.
Court filings Friday provided insight into the government's own skepticism over Cohen's claims about the material seized earlier this week. According to the filing, Cohen is “under criminal investigation,” with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York investigating him for “criminal conduct that largely centers on his personal business dealings.”
The document noted that speculation about the genesis of the raid on Cohen coming out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia was false. In a footnote, the government stated that the Manhattan prosecutors' investigation “has proceeded independent from” Mueller's, and that suggestions that Mueller's team “drafted the search warrants is unfounded.”
Prosecutors on April 9 executed search warrants on Cohen's residence, home, safety deposit box and electronic devices. Cohen claims that the materials seized include thousands of privileged documents and communications related to numerous clients of Cohen, as well as Cohen's privileged communications with his own attorneys.
Prosecutors said they believe Cohen has exceedingly few clients and a low volume of potentially privileged communications.
The afternoon portion of the hearing came after a hectic morning before Wood. The hearing was bogged down shortly after it began over the parties' ability to review potentially privileged material, concerns over what would or would not be heard in open court and attempts by attorneys for both the president and a pornographic actress allegedly paid $130,000 ahead of the election in 2016 to keep quiet about an affair with Trump to be heard.
At the outset, Harrison brought up his concerns about how the government intended to proceed with the material the government seized during the raids. But the discussion over just how things will proceed—with the government using a taint team to review material for attorney-client privilege issues or another process that potentially could include Cohen's representatives or see the implementation of a special master—was interrupted by the appearance of Trump's representatives from Spears & Imes, led by partner Joanna Hendon.
Hendon contended that she had only been retained on Wednesday, two days after the raids. She raised concerns over Trump's “acute interests” in the government's investigation, as Trump is the one who would retain privilege over some portion of the material seized. She asked the court to delay the proceedings so her team could be brought up to speed.
She also stated that the government's actions raised unspecified “fairness issues” toward its investigation. She stated she was opposed to the government single-handedly proceeding with a taint team review of the seized material.
Wood noted that she was concerned about what was potentially said in open court, since information about the underlying criminal investigation could potentially be exposed. She also raised concerns about “innocent parties” having their privacy violated based on material being discussed.
That material appeared to concern Stephanie Clifford, who goes by the stage name of Stormy Daniels. Her attorney, Michael Avenatti, was also present in the courtroom. Just ahead of an adjournment, Avenatti addressed the court, telling Wood he, too, had concerns about the proceedings and wanted to address the court after the parties reviewed filings during adjournment.
Earlier in the day outside the courthouse, Avenatti told the assembled press that he was “shocked” that Trump hadn't acquired qualified counsel until Wednesday. He stated that Cohen's lawyers should not be the ones “single-handedly” deciding which material should retain attorney-client privilege. He also addressed reports that Cohen may have recorded conversations with clients, which were likely now in the hands of the government.
Avenatti, who is not admitted in the Southern District, was later allowed by Wood to weigh in on the issue of Cohen's attempts to assert privilege over which clients he had. According to Avenatti, the issue was an even more discrete set of clients—only those who had retained Cohen, but who had never been part of a proceeding or discussed with third parties.
After, Davis Wright Tremaine partner Rachel Strom rose to point out, as the attorney present representing the interest of the assembled press, that case law would support an even smaller subset of Cohen's clients to be considered privileged. According to Strom, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that only special circumstances about the clients themselves would justify the court sealing the names of Cohen's clients.
The court is scheduled to take the issue back up at 2 p.m. Monday.
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 AllTrade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
- 2Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
- 3High-Profile Sidley M&A Partner Heads to Covington
- 4Stars and Gripes: Firms Need a 'Superstar Culture' to Crack the U.S. Market
- 5BCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
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