1 

U.S. Department of Justice 

National Security Division

Counterintelligence and Export Control Section Washington, D.C. 20530

 September 27, 2022 

By ECF and Courtesy Copy

Judge Raymond J. Dearie 

United States District Court

Eastern District of New York

225 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, NY 11202 

Re: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Case No. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON – 

Government Motion to Modify and Adopt the Amended Case Management Plan (ECF 

112) with Comments on the Amended Plan and Plaintiff’s Objections 

 

 

Dear Judge Dearie:

The government moves to modify the Amended Case Management Plan in order to contract 

directly with a document-review vendor. Besides that revision, the government moves to adopt 

the Amended Case Management Plan. See ECF 112, at 6-7. The government further comments 

on Executive-privilege review and Plaintiff’s objections in the hope that the Special Master finds 

the comments helpful in administering the Amended Case Management Plan and considering 

Plaintiff’s objections. 

Document-Review Vendor

Plaintiff informed us this morning that none of the five document-review vendors proposed by 

the government before last Tuesday’s preliminary conference were willing to be engaged by 

Plaintiff. To avoid further delay in the vendor’s scanning and processing of the Seized Materials 

(defined to exclude “documents bearing classification markings”), the government issued a 

request for a task order this afternoon with a deadline of tomorrow (Wednesday, September 28, 

2022) at noon. Based on its prior experience and discussions today with the vendors, the 

government is highly confident at least one vendor will respond and that it will be able to “agree 

upon and contract with a document review vendor that will host the Seized Materials in 

electronic form.” ECF 112, at 3. Based on applicable procurement regulations, the government is 

not able to select and engage a vendor before tomorrow (Wednesday, September 28, 2022). 

Consistent with the Appointment Order (ECF 91 ¶ 14), the government expects Plaintiff to pay 

the vendor’s invoices promptly when rendered. 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 1 of 5
2

2

Because the vendors have not yet made their submissions, the government does not yet know 

precisely when the vendor will be able to scan, process, host, and “make available to Plaintiff 

and the Special Master copies of all Seized Materials (except the materials already identified by 

the Privilege Review Team as potentially privileged attorney-client materials) in electronic 

format with each page bearing a unique Bates number.” Id. In selecting the vendor, the 

government will place great weight on coming closest to meeting the deadline in the Amended 

Case Management Plan, which is this Friday, September 30, 2022. Based on its prior experience 

and discussions today with the vendors, and the small volume of documents, the government 

believes that the selected vendor will be able to make a rolling production beginning as early as 

this Friday, September 30, 2022, and will be able to complete production no later than the 

following Friday, October 7, 2022. The government will seek to have the vendor complete 

scanning all of the Seized Materials as early next week as possible. 

To adjust the Amended Case Management Plan to today’s developments, the government 

respectfully requests that the Special Master reset the deadline for vendor selection and 

contracting to Wednesday, September 28, 2022 (from Tuesday, September 27, 2022), and the 

deadline for production of Seized Materials to Friday, October 7, 2022. The government will 

report the vendor’s progress. 

The government shared the paragraphs in this section with Plaintiff’s counsel before filing and 

Plaintiff agrees to the government’s proposed way forward on the document vendor in principle. 

To avoid asking for further extensions, Plaintiff suggests that the selection deadline be reset to 

September 29, 2022, with the rolling production commencing October 3, 2022, and be completed 

by October 10, 2022.

In light of this substantial change in the party contracting with the vendor, the government

respectfully requests that the Special Master adopt the government’s proposed reset deadlines

and expresses the hope that the Special Master will consider potential further brief extensions for 

actions of third parties outside the parties’ or Special Master’s control.1 The government has 

already and timely filed its verification of the detailed property inventory ordered by the 

Amended Case Management Plan. ECF 112, at 1. 

Executive Privilege Review of Seized Materials 

The Amended Case Management Plan (ECF 112, at 3) requires Plaintiff to provide the Special 

Master and government a spreadsheet in which Plaintiff asserts, on a document-by-document 

basis, whether a document is subject to “c. Executive privilege that prohibits review of the 

document within the executive branch” and “d. Executive privilege that prohibits dissemination 

of the document to persons or entities outside the executive branch.”

The government has no objection to Plaintiff making the Executive privilege assertions in 

sections c. and d. For its part, the government maintains the position it has taken in the district 

1 Last Friday, the government’s letter motion (ECF 108, at 1-2) stated that the parties considered 

the five vendors that the government identified before last Tuesday’s preliminary conference 

plus an additional sixth vendor. Actually, the parties considered only the original five vendors, 

not six. The error is ours. 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 2 of 5
3

3

court and Eleventh Circuit that (among other things) a former President may not successfully

assert executive privilege “against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is 

invoked” (Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 447-48 (1977)), and that 

any assertion of the qualified executive privilege over the Seized Materials would be overcome 

by the government’s “demonstrated, specific need” for such Seized Materials (United States v. 

Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974)) in its ongoing criminal investigation. See ECF 48, at 23-30 

(S.D. Fl.); USCA11 Case: 22-13005, at 2, 12-15 (11th Cir.). 

Plaintiff’s Objections

Plaintiff makes three objections to the Amended Case Management Plan. Although the three

objections are different, all are without merit. 

First, contrary to Plaintiff’s objection, the verification required by Plaintiff of the Detailed 

Property Inventory is a condition precedent to the document categorization and privilege review. 

The Special Master needs to know that that he is reviewing all of the materials seized from Mara-Lago on August 8, 2022 – and no additional materials – before he categorizes the seized 

documents and adjudicates privilege claims. 

Second, that the Amended Case Management Plan has six categories (ECF 112, at 3) and the 

Appointment Order four (ECF 91, at 1) is entirely a function of the fact that the four categories 

in the Appointment Order speak of “privilege” in general and do not (as the Amended Case 

Management Plan does) differentiate between attorney-client and Executive privilege. The 

Amended Case Management Plan is entirely consistent with the Appointment Order. Plaintiff’s 

objection has no logical basis.

Third, the Special Master’s request for briefing on a particular point of law is similarly consistent 

with the Appointment Order. The government will brief that point of law. It behooves Plaintiff to 

brief that point as well. 

Plaintiff brought this civil, equitable proceeding. He bears the burden of proof. If he wants the 

Special Master to make recommendations as to whether he is entitled to the relief he seeks, 

Plaintiff will need to participate in the process by categorizing documents and providing sworn 

declarations as the Amended Case Management Plan contemplates.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 3 of 5
4 

4

Thank you for your consideration. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 MATTHEW G. OLSEN

 Assistant Attorney General 

 By: /s/ 

 JAY I. BRATT 

 Chief

 JULIE EDELSTEIN

 Deputy Chief 

 STEPHEN MARZEN

 Trial Attorney

 Counterintelligence and Export Control Section 

 National Security Division

Department of Justice

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 4 of 5
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 27, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

/s/ Julie A. Edelstein 

Julie A. Edelstein

Deputy Chief

Counterintelligence and Export Control Section

National Security Division

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

Special Bar # A5502949

Tel.: +1.202.233.0986

Email: julie.a.edelstein@usdoj.gov 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 5 of 5