1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

THE PARTIES’ JOINT FILING RESPECTING THE COURT’S APPOINTMENT OF 

A SPECIAL MASTER

In compliance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Court’s Order (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 

64, at 24), the parties conferred on September 7-9, 2022, and submit this joint filing which: 

● lists proposed special master candidates;

● attaches each party’s detailed proposed order of appointment in accordance 

with Civil Rule 53(b);1 and

● identifies the substantive points on which the parties were able to agree and not 

agree. 

Proposed Special Master Candidates

The Government proposes two candidates. Plaintiff proposes two candidates. The 

Government received the Plaintiff’s proposed candidates shortly after 6:00 p.m. on the date 

1 The Plaintiff’s proposed order is attached as Exhibit A, and the Government’s proposed 

order is attached as Exhibit B.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 1 of 8
2

of this filing. The Government and the Plaintiff will advise the Court about their respective 

positions on the other party’s proposed candidates on Monday, September 12, 2022.

Government’s Proposed Candidates

The Honorable Barbara S. Jones (ret.) – retired judge of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of New York, partner in Bracewell LLP, and special master in In re: 

in the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 28, 2021 and In the Matter of Search Warrants 

Executed on April 9, 2018. 

The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith (ret.) – retired Circuit Judge of the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, special counsel in Hunton Andrews Kurth 

LLP, and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Candidates

The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie (ret.) – former Chief Judge of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of New York, served on the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court, formerly the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Paul Huck, Jr.—founder, The Huck Law Firm, former Jones Day partner, former 

General Counsel to the Governor, former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Florida.

Areas of Substantive Agreement Between the Parties

The headings in the areas of agreement and disagreement follow paragraphs 3(b) of 

this Court’s order (D.E. 64, at 24) and Civil Rule 53(b)(2). 

1. Reporting and Judicial Review

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 2 of 8
3

The parties agree on reducing the default 21-day review period in Civil Rule 53(f)(2)

to 10 days. 

2. Engagement of Professionals, Support Staff, and Expert Consultants 

The parties agree that the Special Master may request the assistance of additional 

professionals, support staff, or expert consultants from the parties and ultimately this Court. 

Areas of Substantive Disagreement Between Each Party’s Proposed Order

The paragraphs below list the substantive differences between the parties’ proposed 

orders. The parties’ more detailed suggested protocols are set forth in each party’s Proposed 

Order. As stated orally in the parties’ meet and confer, the Government plans to make 

available to Plaintiff copies of all documents recovered during the search that the Government 

assesses to be unclassified, both personal items and documents and Government documents 

(Presidential records). In addition, the Government will return to Plaintiff his personal items 

that were not commingled with records bearing classification markings.

2

1. Duties and Limitations

Plaintiff’s position is that the Special Master should review all Seized Materials, 

including documents with classification markings. Plaintiff also contends that the Special 

Master should examine the documents to evaluate potential Executive Privilege claims. The 

Plaintiff does not believe that the Special Master should, or needs to, consult with the 

National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). To the extent that the Special 

2 The Government notes that such property was within the scope of what the search 

warrant authorized.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 3 of 8
4

Master determines such a need, the Plaintiff would suggest that the parties be heard by the 

Special Master, and possibly this Court, before that step is undertaken.

The Government’s position is that the Special Master should not review documents 

with classification markings; should not adjudicate claims of Executive Privilege (but should 

submit to NARA any documents over which such claims are made); and should consult with

NARA on the determination of Presidential records.

The parties generally agree on the categories of documents into which the materials to 

be reviewed by the Special Master should be allocated. Although Plaintiff originally identified 

five categories and the Government has four, that difference is only because Plaintiff 

separated personal items from personal documents. The Government combines those two 

personal categories and thus has one fewer category – four rather than five – and the Plaintiff 

agrees to these four categories of allocation before assessing the issue of Executive Privilege’s 

impact on these categorizations.

Plaintiff believes the Government’s objection to the Special Master reviewing 

documents they deem classified is misplaced. First, the Government’s position incorrectly 

presumes the outcome—that their separation of these documents is inviolable. Second, their 

stance wrongly assumes that if a document has a classification marking, it remains classified 

in perpetuity. Third, the Government continues to ignore the significance of the Presidential 

Records Act (“PRA”). If any seized document is a Presidential record, Plaintiff has an 

absolute right of access to it while access by others, including those in the executive branch, 

has specified limitations. Thus, President Trump (and/or his designee) cannot be denied 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 4 of 8
5

access to those documents, which in this matter gives legal authorization to the Special Master 

to engage in first-hand review.3

The principal difference in the parties’ workflow is that Plaintiff sends materials 

categorized by his counsel directly to the Special Master, while the Government proposes that 

it review Plaintiff’s categorization by logs to determine if it agrees or disagrees with the 

categorization. The Government anticipates that it may agree on many of the categorizations 

and thus minimize the workload of the Special Master and expedite the review. The Plaintiff 

contends that a full review of all seized documents remains an important part of the Special 

Master‘s duties, even if the parties ultimately agree as to the return of various seized items.

As the Government has already reviewed and categorized the seized materials, the Plaintiff 

believes a review by the Plaintiff, and submission to the Special Master, is the appropriate 

process.

2. Access to Information and Ex Parte Communications

Both parties agree that the Special Master’s report and recommendations must be 

provided to the Parties to allow either or both to seek the Court’s review. Because its workflow

transmits all categories of documents to the Special Master without logs, Plaintiff proposes 

authorization for regular ex parte communications on categorization with only the Special 

Master’s final report and recommendation disclosed to the Government.

By contrast, the Government proposes to review Plaintiff’s proposed designations 

before they go to the Special Master in order to minimize the number of disputes. The 

3 Plaintiff anticipates filing a deeper analysis of these issues in upcoming filings.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 5 of 8
6 

Government’s proposed workflow has the additional benefit of minimizing ex parte

communications and enhancing the perceived fairness and transparency of the review 

process. 

3. Compensation and Expenses 

Plaintiff proposes to split evenly the professional fees and expenses of the Special 

Master and any professionals, support staff, and expert consultants engaged at the Master’s 

request.

The Government’s position is that, as the party requesting the special master, Plaintiff 

should bear the additional expense of the Special Master’s work. 

4. Schedule for Review

The Government sets a deadline of October 17, 2022, within which to complete the 

review process. Plaintiff suggests that 90 days likely will be required given the volume of 

documents, but ultimately defers to the Court and to the selected Special Master.

Conclusion

The parties are available to appear before the Court either in person or telephonically 

to discuss the Special Master candidates and to resolve the outstanding issues in the proposed 

appointment orders.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s Juan Antonio Gonzalez

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 Florida Bar No. 897388

99 NE 4th Street, 8th Floor

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 6 of 8
2 

 Miami, FL 33132

Tel: 305-961-9001 

Email: juan.antonio.gonzalez@usdoj.gov

 /s Jay I. Bratt 

JAY I. BRATT

CHIEF

Counterintelligence and Export Control

Section

National Security Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

 Washington, D.C. 20530

Illinois Bar No. 6187361

Tel: 202-233-0986 

 Email: jay.bratt2@usdoj.gov

 /s/ James M. Trusty 

James M. Trusty 

Ifrah Law PLLC

1717 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 650

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202)524-4176 

Email: jtrusty@ifrahlaw.com

(pro hac vice) 

 /s/ Christopher M. Kise 

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

 /s/ M. Evan Corcoran 

M. Evan Corcoran 

SILVERMAN|THOMPSON|SLUTKIN|WHITE, 

LLC

400 East Pratt Street – Suite 900 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Telephone: (410) 385-2225 

Email: ecorcoran@silvermanthompson.com 

(pro hac vice) 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 9, 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 Juan Antonio Gonzalez

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 Florida Bar No. 897388

99 NE 4th Street, 8th Floor

Miami, FL 33132

Tel: 305-961-9001 

Email: juan.antonio.gonzalez@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 8 of 8