Defendant Loses Bid to Suppress Evidence in Case Linked to Giuliani Associates
A Manhattan federal judge ruled Monday that the package, which included two notebooks, a hard drive, a computer and a smartphone, was not protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
June 22, 2020 at 06:27 PM
5 minute read
A Manhattan federal judge ruled Monday that the package, which included two notebooks, a hard drive, a computer and a smartphone, was not protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
According to court documents, Correia sent the package from a DHL overseas last October, shortly after he learned that Giuliani's associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were arrested on criminal campaign-finance charges.
At the time, Correia's attorney, Jeff Marcus of Marcus, Neiman, Rashbaum & Pineiro, had arranged for his client to fly back to the U.S. and self-surrender in the Southern District of New York. However, Correia informed his counsel just before his planned take-off that he had left his passport at the DHL, which had closed for the evening, causing him to miss his flight.
Prosecutors later executed a search warrant on the sealed package, and used a filter team to review its contents for privileged material.
William Harrington, who is representing Correia in the criminal case, had argued that the package itself represented a privileged attorney-client communication because Correia had sent the items in order to obtain legal advice and to prepare a defense to the criminal charges he was facing.
"These intrusions into hallowed legal privileges and protections cannot be left to stand, particularly given the government's awesome power to obtain attorney-client communications," Harrington, a partner with Goodwin Procter, wrote in an April 3 filing.
"A rule that permitted the government to use these powers to peer into attorney-client communications would drastically reduce the confidentiality currently afforded in the American legal system to criminal defendants communicating with their lawyers," he said.
Prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office responded in court papers that Correia could not "render the evidence privileged simply by mailing it to his attorney." Correia, they said, knew he would be arrested as soon as he entered the United States, and had mailed the materials to ensure that he "did not have a single electronic device or piece of relevant evidence on his person" upon arrival.
Even if the package did constitute a privileged communication, prosecutors argued, that privilege would not extend to the electronic devices and notebooks inside.
U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York on Monday sided with the government in ruling that the proposed "blanket suppression" Correia sought would run counter to the narrow protections that the privilege was meant to provide.
"To allow this vast swath of materials to be considered privileged is the antithesis of this court's mandate to narrowly construe the attorney-client privilege," Oetken wrote in an eight-page opinion. "Indeed, such an exception would swallow the rule: by simply sending to counsel all materials that could potentially be relevant, a client could render all relevant material in her case privileged and concealed from the opposing party."
Contacted by email Monday, Harrington declined to comment on the ruling.
Correia and a fourth defendant, Andrey Kukushkin, are charged in an Oct. 10 indictment with making political donations that were secretly funded by a Russian businessman in order to win favor for a planned recreational marijuana business.
Parnas and Fruman, who both performed work on behalf of Giuliani, are accused of making political contributions exceeding the legal limit and then trying to cover up the source of the funds. Among the donations was a $325,000 contribution in May 2018 to America First Action, Inc., a super PAC supporting President Donald Trump.
Giuliani, the former New York mayor turned personal attorney to the president, has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing.
Read More:
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 AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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