1

September 25, 2022

By Email

Honorable Raymond J. Dearie

Senior United States District Judge

Eastern District of New York

[ ]

Dear Judge Dearie:

Through undersigned counsel, President Donald J. Trump provides his position on the 

Amended Case Management plan [Dkt. 112], and objections pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

53(f).

I. Verifications

To help find facts, the appointing order authorized a declaration or affidavit by a 

Government official regarding the accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory [ECF 39-1] 

as to whether it represents a full and accurate accounting of the property seized from Mara-Lago. Appointing Order ¶ 2(a). The Appointing Order contemplated no corresponding 

declaration or affidavit by Plaintiff, and because the Special Master’s case management 

plan exceeds the grant of authority from the District Court on this issue, Plaintiff must 

object. Additionally, the Plaintiff currently has no means of accessing the documents 

bearing classification markings, which would be necessary to complete any such 

certification by September 30, the currently proposed date of completion.

II. Review

The appointing order provides that the Special Master “review all of the materials 

seized” during the search of the Plaintiff’s residence. [ECF 91 at 1]. The appointing order 

also provides that that Plaintiff’s counsel, after review of the seized materials, shall allocate 

them to one of four categories, as follows:

(1) Personal items and documents not claimed to be privileged;

(2) Personal documents claimed to be privileged;

(3) Presidential Records not claimed to be privileged; and

(4) Presidential Records claimed to be privileged.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 123-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

Because the amended case management plan goes beyond that grant of authority, and 

suggests an allocation into one of six different categories, Plaintiff must object. Consistent 

with the appointment order [ECF 91], Plaintiff’s counsel intends to allocate documents into 

the four categories identified authorized by the district court. However, as the appointment 

order also authorizes you to make recommendations regarding executive privilege (ECF 

91 at 2b.) we will also provide assertions and bases for that privilege as well, but we see 

no basis for segmenting that particular privilege as described in Paragraph II c and d of the 

Amended Plan.

III. Motions

Plaintiff reserves all rights under the law and applicable rules regarding the legal and 

equitable relief available for the search of his home and seizure of his property. By 

initiating this action, Plaintiff does not waive any rights available to any citizen under the 

law.

As noted in our proposed agenda in advance of the status conference (ECF 97 at 2) we 

reiterate our view that “Judge Cannon was aware of the likelihood of eventual Rule 41(g) 

litigation and established a process by which the Special Master would evaluate any such 

claims before reporting and recommending to the Court...we are concerned that the 

[Amended] Plan directs the Plaintiff to address whether Rule 41(g) litigation should be 

litigated under Case No. 9:22-MJ-08332-BER.” The District Court’s decision to exercise 

jurisdictional authority over matters surrounding the Mar-a-Lago search warrant was a 

hotly contested component of the litigation to date, as was the establishment of a Special 

Master review. There is no indication in the appointment order that the District Court is 

contemplating a carve out of related litigation for a merits determination by the issuing 

magistrate for the warrant in question. In the absence of a clear directive from the District 

Court on this issue, we respectfully suggest the briefing requirement be withdrawn from 

your final Plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to address our concerns to the Amended Plan, and we 

look forward to an expeditious review of the seized materials.

Sincerely,

James M. Trusty

Ifrah Law PLLC

1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 650

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 123-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

Washington, D.C. 20006

Telephone: (202) 524-4176

Email: jtrusty@ifrahlaw.com

Christopher M. Kise

Chris Kise & Associates, P.A.

201 East Park Avenue, 5th Floor

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Telephone: (850) 270-0566

Email: chris@ckise.net

Lindsey Halligan

Florida Bar No. 109481 

511 SE 5th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Email: lindseyhalligan0@gmail.com

M. Evan Corcoran 

SILVERMAN|THOMPSON|SLUTKIN|WH

ITE, LLC

400 East Pratt Street – Suite 900 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Telephone: (410) 385-2225 

Email: ecorcoran@silvermanthompson.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff President Donald J.

Trump

CC: Jay I. Bratt, jay.bratt2@usdoj.gov

Julie A. Edelstein, julie.edelstein@usdoj.gov

Anthony W. Lacosta, anthony.lacosta@usdoj.gov

Juan Antonio Gonzalez, Jr., juan.antonio.gonzalez@usdoj.gov

Benjamin Hawk, Benjamin.Hawk@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 123-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 3 of 3