1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:20-MJ-03278-JJO-1

In Re: Sealed Search Warrant and 

Application for a Warrant 

_______________________________/

APPEAL FROM / OBJECTIONS TO [ECF#20] ORDER OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE AUTHORIZING A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR

TO CONDUCT A “FILTER TEAM” REVIEW OF MATERIALS THAT 

THE MOVANTS IDENTIFY AS ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED

The movants, the Optima Family Companies, Mordechai Korf, Uriel Laber, 

and Chaim Shochet, hereby appeal from / object to that portion of the Magistrate 

Judge’s Order [ECF#20] permitting the government’s use of a “filter team”—

consisting of at least one federal prosecutor—to review materials seized during 

execution of a search warrant that the movants identify as attorney-client privileged.1

See Rule 4(b), Magistrate Judge Rules of the Southern District of Florida.2

1 The Movants include all companies listed in Attachment B.3 to the search warrant, ECF#4-1,

with the exception of Optima Specialty Steel, Kentucky Electric Steel, Corey Steel Company, 

Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, Georgian Manganese, LLC, Vartisikhe 2005, LLC, Optima 

Harvard Facility LLC and Optima Stemmons, LLC.

2 Rule 4(b) provides:

Review of Case-Dispositive Motions and Prisoner Litigation-28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B). Any party may object to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, 

recommendations or report under subsections 1(d), (e), and (f) of these rules, 

supra, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof, or within 

such other time as may be allowed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. 

Such party shall file with the Clerk of the Court, and serve on all parties, written 

objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, 

recommendations or report to which objection is made, the specific basis for 

such objections, and supporting legal authority.

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 1 of 15
2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On July 31, 2020, the government applied for and this Court issued a search 

warrant to seize items from the offices of the so-called Optima Family Companies 

located at 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5500, Miami, Florida, 33131. See

ECF#4-1 (Jul. 31, 2020, Warrant Application). 

The warrant contains a section entitled “Filter for Privileged Materials,” 

which provides as follows:

Filter for Privileged Materials: If the government identifies seized 

communications to/from an attorney, the investigative team will 

discontinue review until a filter team of government attorneys and 

agents is established. The filter team will have no previous or future 

involvement in the investigation of this matter. The filter team will 

review all seized communications and segregate communications 

to/from attorneys, which may or may not be subject to attorney-client 

privilege. At no time will the filter team advise the investigative team 

of the substance of any of the communications to/from attorneys. The 

filter team then will provide all communications that do not involve 

an attorney to the investigative team and the investigative team may 

resume its review. If the filter team decides that any of the 

communications to/from attorneys are not actually privileged (e.g., 

the communication includes a third party or the crime-fraud 

exception applies), the filter team must obtain a court order before 

providing these attorney communications to the investigative team.

ECF#4-1:8 (underlining in original).

The warrant, on its face, would permit a “filter team” of law enforcement 

attorneys and agents to review all of the seized documents, unilaterally determine 

whether a particular document even implicates the attorney-client or work-product 

privilege, release to the investigative team (without court intervention) those 

documents that the filter team unilaterally determines do not implicate a privilege, 

and then seek a court order before any potentially privileged documents are provided 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 2 of 15
3

to the investigative team. Such a protocol would ensure law enforcement review of 

privileged materials and would fail to adequately protect these sacred privileges.

The protocol would allow for judicial review only if a communication is 

clearly sent “to/from attorneys.” This limited exception for judicial review would

allow a prosecutor (albeit one assigned to a “filter team”) to review the substance of 

the privileged information prior to judicial review; and be underinclusive because 

the protocol: (1) does not account for the existence of documents subject to the work 

product doctrine, including compilations of documents prepared by attorneys in 

anticipation of litigation; and (2) does not account for the existence of 

communications between non-lawyers reasonably necessary for the transmission of 

attorney-client communication.3

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, federal agents executed the search warrant at 

the Miami and Cleveland offices of the Optima Family Companies, affiliated with 

several Ukrainian nationals, including Ihor Kolomoisky and Gennadiy Boholiubov, 

as well as Mordechai Korf, Uriel Laber, and Chaim Shochet. For approximately 

twelve years, at least four attorneys and three paralegals worked “in-house” in the 

Miami office and provided legal services to many of the so-called Optima Family 

Companies and individuals. The agents seized, among other things, legal memo 

pads, physical documents and computers containing information (e.g., emails with 

counsel) protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges. In that 

respect, the search was the functional equivalent of a law office search. See generally 

ECF#4-6 (Declaration of attorney Daniela Rost).

3 Rule 26(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Evidence makes it abundantly clear, with respect to the 

work product doctrine, that “[o]rdinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things 

that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative 

(including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).” 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 3 of 15
4

On August 17, 2020, after attempting to but failing to reach agreement with 

the government to modify the warrant’s filter team protocol, the movants filed their

Motion to Intervene [ECF#3] and their Time-Sensitive Motion Of Optima Family 

Companies, Mordechai Korf, Uriel Laber, And Chaim Shochet To Prohibit Law 

Enforcement Review Of Seized Materials Until An Appropriate Procedure For 

Review Of Privileged Items Is Established [ECF#4]. They argued that the threat of 

the government’s review of privileged documents is particularly acute because on 

May 21, 2019, PrivatBank initiated a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of Delaware 

against the movants. See Joint Stock Co. Comm. Bank Privatbank v. Igor

Valeryevich Kolomoisky, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2019-0377-JRS (May 21, 2019, 

Compl.). The transactions and occurrences at issue in the Delaware case overlap 

entirely with and are substantively identical to the factual predicate for the Northern 

District of Ohio’s federal grand jury investigation pursuant to which the search 

warrant issued. See ECF#4-2 (May 21, 2019, Del. Ch. Compl.). Korf, Laber, and 

Schochet, as well as the relevant Optima Family Companies, have been litigating 

this Delaware case now for over a year. Since at least May 2019, the movants have 

been in constant communication with their litigation counsel about the very same 

facts that underly the federal grand jury investigation. 

Because the transactions and occurrences at issue in Delaware overlap with

the grand jury investigation, the movants alleged that there is a clear risk that review 

of the material seized would intrude upon work product privileges, including work 

product emails and communications exchanged amongst the non-lawyer privilege 

holders in connection with the civil lawsuit in Delaware; that the government would 

be exposed to a virtual roadmap to the privilege-holders defenses by reviewing work 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 4 of 15
5

product generated as a result of the Delaware action and exchanged amongst lawyers 

and non-lawyers.4

Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan, who had signed the warrant, convened a 

telephonic hearing on August 19, 2020, and thereafter entered an Order [ECF#10] 

granting the Motion to Intervene. With the agreement of the movants, the Magistrate 

Judge permitted the seizing agents to “to continue processing the materials as 

described at the August 19, 2020 status hearing,” which meant that the government 

could arrange to have the seized materials copied / scanned, but could not review the 

content of any of the seized materials. The Magistrate Judge ordered that “[w]ithin 

forty-eight (48) hours of a record being processed, the government shall provide a 

copy to movants’ counsel.” ECF#10:1-2.

On September 18, 2020, having received and reviewed the government’s 

response [ECF#11], the movant’s reply [ECF#12], and the movant’s status report 

[ECF#17], the Magistrate Judge held a Zoom hearing. See Transcript of Video 

Teleconference Motion Hearing [ECF#22]. During the hearing, the movants 

reiterated their position that, before the government reviewed any of the seized 

materials, the movants be permitted to identify and prepare a privilege log of those 

4 At the hearing on the motion, counsel for the movants proffered, without disagreement that:

[T]here's going to be a lot of email traffic in context with the ongoing 

litigation in Delaware, there's a civil case in Delaware that mirrors the 

government's investigation in Ohio.

For well over a year, the Freedman firm, the RCF firm [a law firm 

representing and subletting space from the movants], the Kasowitz firm have 

been defending the movants in that civil litigation. The government doesn't deny 

that the government's investigation is a mirror of that civil litigation. 

So there's going to be a large volume of communications between counsel 

and the Optima movants that are going to be obviously privileged. And those 

are the ones that we're going to need to identify and segregate.

ECF#22:30-31 (Transcript of Video Teleconference Motion Hearing).

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 5 of 15
6

materials over which they would assert a privilege; the prosecution team would then 

have immediate access to materials over which the movants were not asserting 

privilege. 

As to the materials identified on the privilege log, the movants proposed that 

the Magistrate Judge rule on the privilege assertion without the participation of a socalled “filter” prosecutor. The government proposed that a prosecutor not currently 

involved in the investigation be permitted to review those materials over which the 

movants asserted privilege in order to assess the validity of the privilege assertion 

and, if necessary, oppose the assertion. The government proposed that AUSA 

O’Shea of the Northern District of Ohio—the same district conducting the grand 

jury investigation—serve as the filter prosecutor, noting that AUSA O’Shea offices 

in Akron, whereas the prosecution team offices in Cleveland. ECF#21-22.

The movants suggested that the court did not 

need to decide this today -- if the government believes that for 

example you, Judge, would be overwhelmed because the volume is 

too great, and we don't know exactly what that volume will be, 

normally you would make that decision.

If the government feels they need a representative of the 

government to participate in trying to convince you that our assertion 

of privilege is wrong, then you, with your own eyes, with your 

experience of 30 years plus in this district, you're a former federal 

prosecutor, I think you're in as good a position as any prosecutor Mr. 

Bronshtein can suggest.

You're in as good a position as anybody to evaluate our 

assertion of privilege. Because either way, it's going to end up before 

you. The filter attorney the government is proposing doesn't get to 

decide.

ECF#22:36. 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 6 of 15
7

Insofar as the court was inclined to authorize a filter team, the movants 

objected to AUSA O’Shea or anyone from the Executive Branch being authorized 

to review materials over which the movants were asserting privilege, relying on the 

Fourth Circuit’s decision in In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 

159 (4th Cir. 2019) (granting preliminary injunctive relief in identical context). To 

the extent that the Magistrate Judge would want input from a “filter attorney” who 

would “advocate for the government, to override [the movants’] assertion of 

privilege,” the movants proposed that the Magistrate Judge “appoint a lawyer, it 

could be a former federal prosecutor who is no longer with the government, to serve 

in that in capacity.” ECF#22:36-37. That “independent counsel ... with input [from 

the prosecution team] regarding the nature of the government's investigation, would 

evaluate whether [the movants’] assertion of privilege as to a particular document is 

valid or not.” ECF#22:37. The movants noted that if the government was proposing 

AUSA O’Shea precisely because he currently had, and in the future would have, no 

involvement in the investigation, then “if that's what qualifies him to be the filter 

attorney, so too is any other former federal prosecutor who could be named to fill 

the role that the government proposes to give Mr. O'Shea.” ECF#22:38.

After considering the arguments of the parties, the Magistrate Judge entered 

its Order [ECF#20], granting in part and denying in part the movants’ motion. The 

Magistrate Judge distinguished the Fourth Circuit case as 

materially distinguishable from the instant case because: 

99.8 percent of the 52,000 emails seized by the government 

were not from Client A, were not sent to Client A, and did not 

mention Client A’s surname; and (2) . . . many of those emails 

contained privileged information relating to other clients of the 

Firm, including clients who are potential subjects or targets of 

government investigations. 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 7 of 15
8

Here, the government has returned (without review) the materials 

seized from the work areas of in-house counsel and RCF [a law firm 

representing and subletting space from the movants] and the movants 

have not identified any other clients whose privileged 

communications were seized.

ECF#20:10 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ordered as

follows:

1. The parties shall adhere to the following modified filter team 

protocol: 

a. The government shall process the items and provide them to 

the movants, on a rolling basis, so that the movants may perform the 

initial privilege review. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of 

these items, the movants shall release all non-privileged items to the 

government’s investigative/prosecution team and provide a privilege 

log to the government’s filter team for all items for which they assert 

a privilege. 

b. The government’s filter team shall be comprised of attorneys 

and staff from outside the United States Attorney’s Office for the 

Northern District of Ohio’s Cleveland branch office. The filter team 

shall not share a first level supervisor with anyone on the 

investigative/prosecution team. Any supervisor involved in the filter 

team review shall be walled off from the underlying investigation. 

c. The government’s filter team is permitted to review any items 

listed on the movants’ privilege log and may challenge any of the 

movants’ privilege designations. 

d. The government’s filter team and the movants’ counsel shall 

confer and attempt to reach a resolution as to those items challenged 

by the government’s filter team. 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 8 of 15
9

e. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, the parties shall 

file a joint notice with the Court. Either the Court or a special master 

shall rule on the parties’ privilege disputes. 

f. The filter team will provide to the investigative team only 

those items for which the parties agree or for which the privilege has 

been overruled.

ECF#20:21 (emphasis in original). At the request of the movants, the Magistrate 

Judge granted a stay of “that portion of this Order [paragraph 1.b.] that allows for 

the government filter team review of potentially privileged documents ... until 

Thursday, October 15, 2020 to provide the movants with an opportunity to appeal 

this ruling.” ECF#20:22 (emphasis in original).

ARGUMENT

The appointment of a “filter team” consisting of current prosecutors “fail[s]

to recognize that an adverse party’s review of privileged materials seriously injures 

the privilege holder.” In re Search Warrant, 942 F.3d at 175; see Klitzman, Klitzman 

& Gallagher v. Krut, 744 F.2d 955, 960-61 (3d Cir. 1984) (ruling that law firm had 

demonstrated likelihood of irreparable harm where government seized thousands of 

files containing privileged information); United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 

1329 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that “a communication between an attorney and his 

client that is protected by the common law attorney-client privilege is also protected 

from government intrusion by the sixth amendment”); United States v. Abbell, 914 

F. Supp. 519, 520 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (in criminal prosecution in which large volume 

of documents and computer generated data was seized from lawyers, special master 

would be appointed, at government expense, to determine whether documents and 

data were protected from disclosure because of attorney client, work product, or 

other applicable privileges).

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 9 of 15
10

Separate and apart from the deprivation of constitutional rights, irreparable 

injury may also occur when privileged information is improperly revealed because 

“courts cannot always ‘unring the bell’ once the information has been released.” 

Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 460 (1975); see Blasco, 702 F.2d at 1329; In re 

Grand Jury Proceedings, 601 F.2d 162, 169 (5th Cir. 1979).

Although there are very few appellate precedents to guide disputes over the 

use of “filter teams,” the decision of the Fourth Circuit in In re Search Warrant 

Issued, 942 F.3d 159, is instructive. “When the pertinent legal principles are properly 

applied to the unrefuted evidence,” it is clear that review by the prosecutorial “filter 

team” of materials seized from their targets “is injurious.” In re Search Warrant, 942 

F.3d at 175. “And that harm is plainly irreparable, in that the Filter Team’s review 

of those privileged materials cannot be undone,” and the relevant Optima Family 

Companies and individuals “will be irreparably harmed absent an award of 

injunctive relief against the Filter Team and its Protocol.” In re Search Warrant, 

942 F.3d at 175; Blasco, 702 F.2d at 1329.

Federal courts have generally “taken a skeptical view of the Government’s 

use of ‘taint teams’ as an appropriate method for determining whether seized or 

subpoenaed records are protected by the attorney-client privilege.” United States v. 

SDI Future Health, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d, 1027, 1037 (D. Nev. 2006).5 “[T]aint 

teams present inevitable, and reasonably foreseeable, risks to privilege.” In re Grand 

5 Although the use of “taint teams” or “filter teams” has been tolerated in limited factual scenarios, 

the analysis is often performed after the fact, based on lack of evidence of actual prejudice at trial. 

See, e.g., United States v. Coffman, 574 F. App’x 541, 564 (6th Cir. 2014) (taint process was 

reviewed under the invited error doctrine because the defendant agreed to process before it 

occurred, court made factual finding of crime-fraud exception, and case was argued as to lack of 

prejudice at trial); United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 293 (6th Cir. 2010) (government had 

already reviewed privileged materials, and court’s analysis was post-trial, based on lack of 

evidence of direct or derivative use of privileged information at trial). Only a handful of cases have 

analyzed the legality of these procedures a priori, following an adversarial process conducted at 

the outset.

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 10 of 15
11

Jury Subpoenas, 454 F.3d at 523. The government’s conflicting interests in both 

preserving privilege and pursuing the investigation present inherent risks. See id.

Taint teams “have been implicated in the past in leaks of confidential information to 

prosecutors.” Id. (citing United States v. Noriega, 764 F. Supp. 1480 (S.D. Fla. 

1991)). And even if no leaks occur, the use of walled-off taint teams undermines the 

appearance of fairness and justice. See In re Search Warrant for Law Offices 

Executed on March 19, 1992, 153 F.R.D. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); United States v. 

Stewart, No. 02 CR. 395 JGK, 2002 WL 1300059, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2002). 

“It is a great leap of faith to expect that members of the general public would believe” 

that a wall separating members of the taint team from members of the prosecution 

“would be impenetrable.” In re Search Warrant, 153 F.R.D. at 59.

Instances in which the government fails to adequately safeguard privileges

through a “filter team” or “taint team” continue to occur and have occurred as 

recently as April 2020. See, e.g., United States v. Sullivan, No. CR 17-00104 JMSKJM, 2020 WL 1815220, at *8 (D. Haw. Apr. 9, 2020) (“[T]he court entrusted the 

United States with a unique responsibility to ensure that any and all privileged 

material seized pursuant to the iCloud warrant was not provided to the prosecution 

team. And in this task, the United States failed.”); United States v. Elbaz, 396 F. 

Supp. 3d 583, 589 (D. Md. 2019) (government’s filter team improperly disclosed 

thousands of potentially privileged documents to a prosecution team, which then 

examined some of the documents); United States v. Esformes, No. 16-20549-CR, 

2018 WL 5919517, at *20 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2018) (prosecution team improperly 

reviewed materials from search before “taint” attorneys had reviewed the materials, 

despite assertions of defendant’s privilege); United States v. Pearl, 17-cr-00240-

DAP (N.D. Ohio 2018) (ECF## 72, 79, 81) (describing the failures of a filter process 

involving the same prosecutor’s office litigating the instant case); United States v. 

Pedersen, No. 3:12-CR-00431-HA, 2014 WL 3871197, at *27 (D. Or. Aug. 6, 2014) 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 11 of 15
12

(prosecutors failed to notify defense or court for months that prosecution team had 

reviewed target’s legal mail); Noriega, 764 F. Supp. at 1489 (Noriega’s 

conversations with his defense team were not recognized as such by outside 

screeners and DEA agents performing review and prosecutors were exposed to 

privileged conversations).

Moreover, as Judge Boggs writing for the Sixth Circuit aptly explained, a 

filter team might “have an interest in preserving privilege, but it also possesses a 

conflicting interest in pursuing the investigation, and . . . some [filter] team attorneys 

will make mistakes or violate their ethical obligations. It is thus logical to suppose 

that [filter] teams pose a serious risk to holders of privilege.” In re Grand Jury 

Subpoenas, 454 F.3d at 523. A prosecutor who sees an incriminating privileged 

communication during a filter-team review cannot unsee it. When federal 

prosecutors review thousands of seized emails, including those indisputably seized 

from the possession of in-house counsel, the risks are intolerable.

In such circumstances, the Court itself or a special master should review the 

seized documents to evaluate claims of privilege and any exceptions to privilege. 

See Abbell, 914 F. Supp. at 519-20; accord Stewart, 2002 WL 1300059, at *7. In 

addition to avoiding separation of powers issues, this provides two key safeguards: 

(1) it protects the attorney-client privilege and guards against exposure to 

prosecutorial adversaries; and (2) more fundamentally, it protects the clients’ Sixth 

Amendment rights to a fair trial and the effective assistance of counsel, including 

the assistance of in-house counsel. 

For those who rely on their in-house counsel for legal advice — and to the 

public at large — it surely appears, as the Fourth Circuit recognized, that “the 

government’s fox [has been] left in charge of the [attorney-client] henhouse.’” In re 

Search Warrant, 942 F.3d at 182 (citing In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 454 F.3d at 

523); see also In re Search Warrant for Law Offices Executed on Mar. 19, 1992, 153 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 12 of 15
13

F.R.D. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (“It is a great leap of faith to expect that members of 

the general public would believe any . . . wall [between a filter team and a 

prosecution team] would be impenetrable; this notwithstanding our own trust in the 

honor of an AUSA.”).

The Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]oo much judicial inquiry into the 

claim of privilege would force disclosure of the thing the privilege was meant to 

protect, while a complete abandonment of judicial control would lead to intolerable 

abuses.” United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 8 (1953). As the Supreme Court has 

subsequently stated, “[o]ur endorsement of the practice of testing proponents’ 

privilege claims through in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents has 

not been without reservation.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 570 (1989). For 

example, “[a] blanket rule allowing in camera review as a tool for determining the 

applicability of the crime-fraud exception, as Reynolds suggests, would place the 

policy of protecting open and legitimate disclosure between attorneys and clients at 

undue risk.” Id. at 571. The Supreme Court in Reynolds and Zolin was concerned 

about the routine exposure of privileged information to judges in camera, let alone 

“filter prosecutors,” whose principal job is to prosecute crimes, not to adjudicate the 

existence of legal privileges. 

It is fundamentally improper for government prosecutors to be permitted to 

sift through privileged communications to determine the applicable privileges—that 

is only a role for the court, and only after “some threshold showing that such review 

is appropriate.” Zolin, 491 U.S. at 571 “There is no reason to permit opponents of 

the privilege to engage in groundless fishing expeditions, with the district courts as 

their unwitting (and perhaps unwilling) agents.” Id. The government will have to 

meet the threshold for in camera inspection by providing “a factual basis adequate 

to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person, that in camera review of the 

materials may reveal evidence to establish” lack of privilege. Id. at 572. In other 

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 13 of 15
14

words, if the government has reason to believe that a privilege assertion is invalid, 

they can move for relief from the court upon making some threshold showing that 

the privilege assertion is subject to challenge. 

CONCLUSION

To protect the attorney-client privilege (and its work-product corollary), the 

District Court should vacate that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order authorizing

that documents identified by the movants as privileged may be reviewed by a filter 

team comprised of prosecutors (or anyone else in the government). The movants 

submit that the filter team—if one is even necessary at this or a later juncture—

should be comprised of persons outside of government.

REQUEST FOR HEARING

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(2), the movants hereby request a hearing on this 

motion because of the substantial legal issues raised herein, the importance of the 

rights at stake, and the utility of discussing the factual nuances of the case in order 

to adequately inform this Court’s exercise of discretion in tailoring an appropriate 

procedure for segregating privileged documents. Counsel for the movants anticipates 

that argument on the instant motion should not require more than an hour.

Respectfully submitted,

Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.

201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1300

Miami, FL 33131 / Tel: (305) 371-6421

By: /s/ Howard M. Srebnick

Howard M. Srebnick

 HSrebnick@RoyBlack.com

 Florida Bar No. 919063

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 14 of 15
15

Robert T. Dunlap

 RDunlap@RoyBlack.com

 Florida Bar No. 11950

Attorneys for the movants Mordechai Korf 

and Optima Family Companies

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP

1633 Broadway

New York, New York 10019

(212) 506-1700

Marc E. Kasowitz

Mark P. Ressler

Ronald R. Rossi

Sarmad M. Khojasteh

Joshua Paul

Pro Hac Vice

MKasowitz@kasowitz.com

MRessler@kasowitz.com

RRossi@kasowitz.com

SKhojasteh@kasowitz.com

JPaul@kasowitz.com

Attorneys for the movant Chaim Shochet

By: /s/ Scott A. Srebnick

Scott A. Srebnick, P.A.

201 South Biscayne Boulevard

Suite 1210

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 285-9019

Facsimile: (305) 377-9937

Scott@srebnicklaw.com

Attorney for the movant Uriel Laber

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2020 Page 15 of 15