1

September 28, 2022

Honorable Raymond J. Dearie

Senior United States District Judge

Eastern District of New York

Re: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Case No. 22-81294-CIVCANNON (S.D. Fla.)

Dear Judge Dearie:

While Plaintiff does not object to the Government’s request for additional time, its

recent submission represents an inefficient multi-step process that will ultimately lead to

the adoption of a more realistic schedule, like the one suggested by Plaintiff from the 

inception. At the status conference before the Special Master, the Plaintiff suggested that 

the dates put forth in the Draft Case Management Plan were unlikely to prove feasible in 

terms of both the likely start of the document flow and the man-hours necessary to review 

more than 11,000 pages or documents. Indeed, the Plaintiff suggested that a rough rule of 

thumb in document reviews is 50 pages per hour. Building into his calculations the review 

and categorization of the filter team documents; the successful recruitment, retention, and 

start-up operation of a data vendor; and the requisite review and categorization of that many 

documents led the Plaintiff to suggest mid-October as a completion date. Government

counsel assured Your Honor that a minimal adjustment of “a couple of days” was all that 

was needed, but that otherwise the Plan was perfectly acceptable.

Now, for the second time since its blithe dismissal of practical experience, the 

Government comes to the Court to readjust deadlines. And again, the Government’s

request dismisses the Plaintiff’s more realistic deadlines as unnecessary. To be clear, we 

think the prosecutor working with Plaintiff’s counsel to navigate the process of soliciting 

and contracting with a data vendor, and beginning the operational business of data 

management, is acting expeditiously and in good faith. However, the overall position of 

the Government continues to be overly optimistic and aggressive in terms of the timing of 

productions and Plaintiff’s review, which is why Plaintiff respectfully renews his position 

that mid-October is a realistic final production deadline.

The problem is compounded by the fact that when Plaintiff’s counsel referred to 

either 11,000 pages or even 11,000 documents during the status conference (we are still 

awaiting the transcript), the Government chose not to interject with an accurate number. In 

conversations between Plaintiff’s counsel and the Government regarding a data vendor, the 

Government mentioned that the 11,000 documents contain closer to 200,000 pages. That 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 1 of 5
2

estimated volume, with a need to operate under the accelerated timeframes supported by 

the Government, is the reason why so many of the Government’s selected vendors have 

declined the potential engagement. In short, seasoned IT professionals who routinely work 

on large-scale document productions with the Government cannot meet the Government’s 

proposed schedule, and it was never realistic for the Government to suggest such a narrow 

timeframe. Consequently, the Plaintiff respectfully suggests that Your Honor and the 

parties will be best served by having the retained vendor convey a supportable timeframe 

for scanning roughly 200,000 pages into a platform, and also provide a breakdown of rollout quantities and proposed deadlines. It would be better to base deadlines on actual data 

and not wistful claims by the Government.

The Government also uses the opportunity of asking for an extension of deadlines 

to lecture Plaintiff’s counsel with conclusory and antagonistic comments regarding 

counsel’s privately filed objections to the Amended Case Management Plan. DOJ 

continues to mistake itself as having judicial authority. Its comments are not argument, but 

proclamations designed to steamroll judicial oversight and the Plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights. Along those lines, by participating in this litigation, the Plaintiff has not waived, 

and cannot be deemed to have waived, his rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or any of his rights and immunities arising 

under the Constitution of the United States.

Government counsel’s commentary regarding their compliance and our 

responsibilities misses the mark. A filter team, also known as a “taint” team, owes its very 

existence to the notion that using non-case agents and non-case attorneys is the best way 

to shield the case agents and attorneys from disqualification based on exposure to 

privileged documents. Judge Cannon has already noted that “the Privilege Review Team’s 

Report references at least two instances in which members of the Investigative Team were 

exposed to material that was then delivered to the Privilege Review Team and, following 

another review, designated as potentially privilege material [ECF No. 40 p. 6]. Those 

instances alone, even if entirely inadvertent, yield questions about the adequacy of the filter 

review process.” (ECF No. 64 p. 15). Judge Cannon further expressed that she was “not so 

sure” about the Privilege Review Team’s counsel’s characterization of those lapses as 

“examples of the filter process working.” (ECF No. 64 p. 15 n.13).

On Monday, September 26, counsel for the Privilege Review Team provided 

Plaintiff’s counsel with another example of filter failure. The email in question was 

identified by the “FBI case team,” and returned to the Privilege Review Team, which is 

characterizing the communication as non-privileged. Plaintiff believes the email falls 

squarely into the category of attorney-client privileged. The Government also provided the 

Special Master and the Plaintiff with its third version of the inventory in this case, with 53 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 2 of 5
3

new documents, clippings, or photos appearing across 16 of the 33 item numbers. A prior 

entry for “2 empty folders with ‘CLASSIFIED’ Banners” has disappeared from Item #33. 

The unilaterally imposed filter team, which made no effort to contact Plaintiff’s counsel 

throughout its review process, has admitted to three breaches so far. All this before review 

by the Special Master and the Plaintiff. By way of this filing, Plaintiff is asking the Special 

Master to order disclosure of the names of each attorney and Special Agent who was 

exposed to materials eventually provided to the Privilege Review Team.

Finally, as the Government chose to include in its public filing references to our 

objections to the Amended Case Management Plan (which was sent to chambers directly 

as a letter), a copy of our letter is enclosed herewith, for consistent treatment and to preserve 

those objections before Your Honor. We remain available to discuss the resolution of these 

objections if it is helpful for Your Honor. Otherwise, we will continue to review and 

categorize documents upon receipt, in an effort to expeditiously complete the document 

review process and to identify areas of litigation under Rule 41(g).

Sincerely, 

James M. Trusty

Ifrah Law PLLC

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Suite 650

Washington, D.C. 20006

Telephone: (202) 524-4176

Email: jtrusty@ifrahlaw.com 

Lindsey Halligan

Florida Bar No. 109481

511 SE 5th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Email: lindseyhalligan@outlook.com

M. Evan Corcoran

SILVERMAN|THOMPSON|SLUTK

IN|WHITE, LLC

400 East Pratt Street, Suite 900

Baltimore, MD 21202

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 3 of 5
4

Telephone: (410) 385-2225

Email:ecorcoran@silvermanthompso

n.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff President 

Donald J. Trump

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

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

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

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

 Benjamin Hawk, Benjamin.Hawk@usdoj.gov

Exhibit

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 28, 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/ Lindsey Halligan

Lindsey Halligan

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 5 of 5