Attorneys representing the National Rifle Association are once again seeking to stay the production of documents by its former advertising agency to the New York Attorney General's Office, a process that the gun rights advocacy group argues will violate its right to attorney-client privilege.

The filing comes after New York County Supreme Court Justice Melissa Crane ruled in February that the ad agency, Ackerman McQueen, must comply with a subpoena from the Attorney General's Office. She agreed to conduct in-camera review of some documents prepared by legal counsel for the NRA, but otherwise ruled that the NRA could not preview or approve the production of documents.

Ackerman McQueen had originally responded to the attorney general's subpoena by explaining that its nondisclosure agreement meant it had to allow the NRA to review the disclosures in advance. Attorney General Letitia James has said the NRA was trying to "stifle and interfere with a confidential law enforcement investigation" by seeking to review Ackerman's documents.

In Friday's filing, William Brewer III of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors argued that Ackerman has now demonstrated that it does possess privileged documents relating to its decades-long relationship with Brewer. In February, a privileged presentation made by Brewer to a 2019 executive session of the NRA board of directors was filed by Ackerman's attorneys in a Texas court—an apparent mistake, the NRA attorneys wrote in their filings.

Whereas the NRA attorneys brought up their concerns about privilege in their initial arguments before Crane in the fall, they argued that they now have proof that privileged documents have been released.

"What's changed is that our worst fear is confirmed," Brewer said Monday. "That privileged materials are in the hands of people with whom the NRA is adverse, who are likely to turn them over to the attorney general, pursuant to a process that looks to us as if it was a gateway to obtain privileged communications—privileges that are owned by the NRA."

Law professor and author Arthur Miller, appearing as an expert in civil procedure, filed his own affirmation in support of the motion to reargue.

"I am not a member or political supporter of the NRA, and personally believe in reasonable gun control," he wrote. "I offer my expert opinion in this matter because I believe [Crane's decision] offends fundamental tenets of civil procedure and due process. Moreover, it threatens to impair and diminish the attorney-client privilege and work product/trial preparation privileges, which are among the most sacrosanct protections afforded to litigants by New York law."

Spokespersons for the Attorney General's Office and Ackerman McQueen's New York attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

Read more: