Deutsche Bank bench ruling

Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page1 of 164 19-1540-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit DONALD J. TRUMP, DONALD J. TRUMP, JR., ERIC TRUMP, IVANKA TRUMP, DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST, TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC, DJT HOLDINGS LLC, DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC, TRUMP ACQUISITION LLC, TRUMP ACQUISITION, CORP., Plaintiffs-Appellants, (For Continuation of Caption See Inside Cover) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOINT APPENDIX MARC LEE MUKASEY MUKASEY FRENCHMAN & SKLAROFF LLP Two Grand Central Tower 140 East 45th Street, 17th Floor New York, New York 10017 (212) 466-6400 PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC Ten Post Office Square, 8th Floor South PMB #706 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (617) 227-0548 WILLIAM S. CONSOVOY CAMERON T. NORRIS CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 243-9423 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants (For Continuation of Appearances See Inside Cover) Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page2 of 164 – v. – DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Intervenor Defendants-Appellees. DOUGLAS N. LETTER UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-9700 PARVIN D. MOYNE AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP One Bryant Park New York, New York 10036 (212) 872-1000 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees Committee on Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the United States House of Representatives Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank AG STEVEN D. FELDMAN JAMES A. MURPHY MURPHY & MCGONIGLE 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor New York, New York 10036 (212) 880-3999 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Capital One Financial Corporation Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page3 of 164 TABLE OF CONTENTS Docket Sheet ....................................................................................................................... JA1 Complaint ..........................................................................................................................JA12 Strawbridge Declaration...................................................................................................JA25 Tatelman Declaration .......................................................................................................JA34 Hearing Transcript............................................................................................................JA68 Order Denying Preliminary Injunction ....................................................................... JA157 Notice of Appeal ........................................................................................................... JA159 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page4 of 164 STAYED,APPEAL,ECF U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:19−cv−03826−ER Donald J. Trump et al v. Deutsche Bank, AG et al Assigned to: Judge Edgardo Ramos Case in other court: U.S.C.A. − 2nd Circ., 19−01540 Cause: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s) Date Filed: 04/29/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Donald J. Trump represented by William Consovoy Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC 3033 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 (703)−243−9423 Fax: (703)−243−9423 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC Ten Post Office Square 8th Floor South PMB, #706 Boston, MA 02109 617−227−0548 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Donald J. Trump, Jr. represented by William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Eric Trump represented by William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Ivanka Trump represented by William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust represented by Marc Lee Mukasey Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff 2 Grand Central Tower JA1 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page5 of 164 140 East 45th Street 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 212−466−6400 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Trump Organization, Inc. represented by Marc Lee Mukasey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Trump Organization LLC represented by Marc Lee Mukasey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff DJT Holdings LLC represented by Marc Lee Mukasey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC represented by Marc Lee Mukasey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED JA2 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page6 of 164 Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Trump Acquisition LLC represented by Marc Lee Mukasey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Trump Acquisition, Corp. represented by Marc Lee Mukasey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Consovoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick Strawbridge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Deutsche Bank, AG represented by Parvin Daphne Moyne Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP One Bryant Park New York, NY 10007−2632 212−872−1076 Fax: 212−872−1002 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Raphael Adam Prober Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 2001 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 202−887−4319 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Steven R Ross Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 2001 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 202−887−4343 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED JA3 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page7 of 164 Thomas C Moyer Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 2001 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 202−887−4528 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Capital One Financial Corp. represented by James Alwin Murphy Murphy & McGonigle, P.C. 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 21st fl New York, NY 10036 212−880−3968 Fax: 212−880−3998 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Steven David Feldman Murphy & McGonigle PC (NYC) 1185 Avenue of the Americas, Fl 21 New York, NY 10036 212−880−3988 Fax: 212−880−3998 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Intervenor Defendant Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives represented by Douglas Neal Letter U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brooks M Hanner Office of General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Josephine Morse Office of General Counsel 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED JA4 Megan Barbero Office of General Counsel Poc James, Melissa Office of General Counsel Cannon House Office Building, Ste 219 Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Email: [email protected] Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page8 of 164 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Todd Barry Tatelman U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Intervenor Defendant Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives represented by Douglas Neal Letter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brooks M Hanner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Josephine Morse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Megan Barbero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Todd Barry Tatelman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text 04/29/2019 1 COMPLAINT against Deutsche Bank, AG, Capital One Financial Corp.. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC−16789203)Document filed by The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Acquisition, Corp., Eric Trump, Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump, Jr, DJT Holdings LLC, Donald J. Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Deutsche Bank AG, re: 1 Complaint,. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 4 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Capital One Financial Corp., re: 1 Complaint,. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 5 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC.(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 6 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC.(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) JA5 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page9 of 164 04/29/2019 7 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Trump Acquisition, Corp..(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 8 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Trump Acquisition LLC.(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 9 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by The Trump Organization, Inc..(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 10 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Trump Organization LLC.(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 11 MOTION for Patrick Strawbridge to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16789656. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing (Maine), # 3 Certificate of Good Standing (Massachusetts), # 4 Certificate of Good Standing (Connecticut), # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/29/2019 12 MOTION for William S. Consovoy to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16789731. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing (Virginia), # 3 Certificate of Good Standing (D.C.), # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Consovoy, William) (Entered: 04/29/2019) 04/30/2019 >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 12 MOTION for William S. Consovoy to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16789731. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 11 MOTION for Patrick Strawbridge to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16789656. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL. CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Patrick Strawbridge. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: Cause of Action code 12:3410. The following correction(s) have been made to your case entry: the Cause of Action code has been modified to 28:2201. (dnh) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice to attorney Patrick Strawbridge. The party information for the following party/parties has been modified: The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust; The Trump Organization, Inc.. The information for the party/parties has been modified for the following reason/reasons: Exclude from the entry of business name any leading A, An or The.. (dnh) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above−entitled action is assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. (dnh) (Entered: 04/30/2019) JA6 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page10 of 164 04/30/2019 Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: http://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms.php. (dnh) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 Case Designated ECF. (dnh) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 13 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Deutsche Bank, AG. (dnh) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 14 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Capital One Financial Corp.. (dnh) (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 15 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Patrick Strawbridge to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (jar) Transmission to Attorney Services/Help Desk. (Entered: 04/30/2019) 04/30/2019 16 ORDER granting 12 Motion for William S. Consovoy to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (jar) Transmission to Attorney Services/Help Desk. (Entered: 04/30/2019) 05/01/2019 17 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by James Alwin Murphy on behalf of Capital One Financial Corp.. (Murphy, James) (Entered: 05/01/2019) 05/01/2019 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Steven David Feldman on behalf of Capital One Financial Corp.. (Feldman, Steven) (Entered: 05/01/2019) 05/01/2019 19 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Capital One Financial Corp..(Feldman, Steven) (Entered: 05/01/2019) 05/01/2019 20 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. Capital One Financial Corp. waiver sent on 4/30/2019, answer due 7/1/2019. Document filed by Trump Organization, Inc.; Trump Acquisition, Corp.; Eric Trump; Trump Organization LLC; DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC; Donald J. Trump, Jr; DJT Holdings LLC; Donald J. Trump; Ivanka Trump; Trump Acquisition LLC; Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/01/2019) 05/01/2019 21 CONSENT MOTION to Set Briefing Schedule for Preliminary−Injunction Motion . Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/01/2019) 05/01/2019 22 ORDER granting 21 motion SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/1/2019) (js) Modified on 5/2/2019 (js). (Entered: 05/02/2019) 05/01/2019 Set/Reset Deadlines: ( Motions due by 5/3/2019., Responses due by 5/10/2019, Replies due by 5/15/2019.), Set/Reset Hearings:( Oral Argument set for 5/22/2019 at 02:30 PM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (js) (Entered: 05/02/2019) 05/02/2019 23 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Marc Lee Mukasey on behalf of DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc.. (Mukasey, Marc) (Entered: 05/02/2019) 05/02/2019 24 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. Deutsche Bank, AG waiver sent on 4/30/2019, answer due 7/1/2019. Document filed by Trump Organization, Inc.; Trump Acquisition, Corp.; Eric Trump; Trump Organization LLC; DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC; Donald J. Trump, Jr; DJT Holdings LLC; Donald J. Trump; Ivanka Trump; Trump Acquisition LLC; Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/02/2019) 05/03/2019 25 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Leave to File intervention addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Douglas N. Letter, General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives dated 5/3/2019. Document filed by Committee on Financial Services JA7 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page11 of 164 of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Letter, Douglas) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc..(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 27 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . . Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc.. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 28 DECLARATION of Patrick Strawbridge in Support re: 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc.. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 29 PROPOSED ORDER. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc.. Related Document Number: 26 . (Strawbridge, Patrick) Proposed Order to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 30 LETTER MOTION for Conference regarding Limited Expedited Discovery addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Patrick Strawbridge dated 5/3/2019. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc..(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 31 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE OF COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 25 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. It is SO ORDERED that the motion of the proposed intervenor−defendants Committee on Financial Services and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives (Committees) is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the intervenor−defendant Committees shall comply with the deadlines set forth in this Courts May 1, 2019 order setting a briefing schedule (ECF No. 22). (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/3/2019) (jca) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 32 ORDER granting 30 Letter Motion for Conference. A pre−motion conference will be held on Thursday, May 9, 2019, at 2:30 p.m. Defendants are directed to submit a response to Plaintiffs' letter by close of business Tuesday, May 7, 2019. It is SO ORDERED. (Pre−Motion Conference set for 5/9/2019 at 02:30 PM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/3/2019) (jca) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 5/7/2019 (jca) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 33 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Parvin Daphne Moyne on behalf of Deutsche Bank, AG. (Moyne, Parvin) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 34 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Deutsche Bank, AG.(Moyne, Parvin) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 35 MOTION for Steven R. Ross to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16820370. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Deutsche Bank, AG. (Attachments: # 1 JA8 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page12 of 164 Declaration of Steven R. Ross, # 2 District of Columbia Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Steven) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 36 MOTION for Raphael A. Prober to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16820786. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Deutsche Bank, AG. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Raphael A. Prober, # 2 District of Columbia Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 New York Certificate of Good Standing, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Prober, Raphael) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/03/2019 37 MOTION for Thomas C. Moyer to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16820815. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Deutsche Bank, AG. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas C. Moyer, # 2 District of Columbia Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Virginia Certificate of Good Standing, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Moyer, Thomas) (Entered: 05/03/2019) 05/06/2019 >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 35 MOTION for Steven R. Ross to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16820370. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 36 MOTION for Raphael A. Prober to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16820786. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 37 MOTION for Thomas C. Moyer to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16820815. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 05/06/2019) 05/06/2019 ***NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING PROPOSED ORDER. Document No. 29 Proposed Order was reviewed and approved as to form. (km) (Entered: 05/06/2019) 05/07/2019 38 LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Steven R. Ross dated May 7, 2019 re: Statement of Position. Document filed by Deutsche Bank, AG.(Ross, Steven) (Entered: 05/07/2019) 05/07/2019 39 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Douglas Neal Letter on behalf of Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Letter, Douglas) (Entered: 05/07/2019) 05/07/2019 40 LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from James A. Murphy dated May 7, 2019 re: Statement of Position. Document filed by Capital One Financial Corp..(Murphy, James) (Entered: 05/07/2019) 05/07/2019 41 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Douglas N. Letter, General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives dated 05/07/2019. Document filed by Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Letter, Douglas) (Entered: 05/07/2019) 05/07/2019 42 ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR−DEFENDANTS' CONSENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME granting 41 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is SO ORDERED that the consent motion of intervenor−defendants Committee on Financial Services and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives for a 24−hour extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' May 3, 2019 letter is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/7/2019) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rro) (Entered: 05/08/2019) 05/08/2019 43 LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Patrick Strawbridge dated 05/08/2019 re: Withdrawing Letter Motion for Conference. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc..(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/08/2019) JA9 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page13 of 164 05/08/2019 44 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 43 Letter, filed by Trump Acquisition LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Ivanka Trump, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Acquisition, Corp., Eric Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., DJT Holdings LLC, Trump Organization LLC, Donald J. Trump. ENDORSEMENT: The conference previously scheduled for May 9, 2019, is hereby terminated. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/8/2019) (kv) (Entered: 05/08/2019) 05/10/2019 45 RESPONSE to Motion re: 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Defendant Deutsche Bank AG's Statement of Position as to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Deutsche Bank, AG. (Ross, Steven) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 46 RESPONSE to Motion re: 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . . Document filed by Capital One Financial Corp.. (Murphy, James) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 47 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Todd Barry Tatelman on behalf of Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Tatelman, Todd) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 48 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Megan Barbero on behalf of Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Barbero, Megan) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 49 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Brooks M Hanner on behalf of Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Hanner, Brooks) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 50 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Josephine Morse on behalf of Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Morse, Josephine) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/10/2019 51 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . . Document filed by Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Todd B. Tatelman, # 2 Exhibit Ex. A to Declaration of Todd B. Tatelman, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B to Declaration of Todd B. Tatelman)(Letter, Douglas) (Entered: 05/10/2019) 05/13/2019 52 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Patrick Strawbridge dated 5/13/2019. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc..(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/13/2019) 05/14/2019 53 ORDER granting 52 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a 15−page reply brief. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (jar) (Entered: 05/14/2019) 05/15/2019 54 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . . Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc.. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/15/2019) 05/20/2019 55 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority. Document filed by Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Opinion, # 2 Exhibit Order)(Letter, Douglas) (Entered: 05/20/2019) 05/21/2019 56 ORDER granting 35 Motion for Steven R. Ross to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (jar) Transmission to JA10 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page14 of 164 Attorney Services/Help Desk. (Entered: 05/21/2019) 05/21/2019 57 ORDER granting 36 Motion for Raphael A. Prober to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (jar) Transmission to Attorney Services/Help Desk. (Entered: 05/21/2019) 05/21/2019 58 ORDER granting 37 Motion for Thomas C. Moyer to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (jar) Transmission to Attorney Services/Help Desk. (Entered: 05/21/2019) 05/22/2019 59 ORDER: denying 26 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. For the reasons set forth on the record in today's hearing, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, Plaintiffs' motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED, and the Committees' application for consolidation is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 26. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/22/2019) (ama) (Entered: 05/22/2019) 05/24/2019 60 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from 59 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc.. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16950902. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/24/2019) 05/24/2019 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 60 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 05/24/2019) 05/24/2019 Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for 60 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Trump Acquisition LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Ivanka Trump, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Acquisition, Corp., Eric Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., DJT Holdings LLC, Trump Organization LLC, Donald J. Trump were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 05/24/2019) 05/25/2019 61 JOINT MOTION to Stay . Document filed by DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Donald J. Trump, Jr, Donald J. Trump, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp., Trump Organization LLC, Trump Organization, Inc..(Strawbridge, Patrick) (Entered: 05/25/2019) 05/28/2019 USCA Case Number 19−1540 from the U.S.C.A. − 2nd Circ. assigned to 60 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal,, filed by Trump Acquisition LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Ivanka Trump, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Acquisition, Corp., Eric Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., DJT Holdings LLC, Trump Organization LLC, Donald J. Trump. (nd) (Entered: 05/28/2019) 05/28/2019 62 ORDER granting 61 Motion to Stay. The application is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/28/2019) (kv) (Entered: 05/28/2019) JA11 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page15 Page of 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DONALD J. TRUMP, DONALD J. TRUMP JR., ERIC TRUMP, IVANKA TRUMP, and Docket No. _____________ THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., TRUMP ORGANZATION LLC, DJT HOLDINGS LLC, DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC, TRUMP ACQUISITION LLC, and TRUMP ACQUISITION, CORP., COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, - against DEUTSCHE BANK AG and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., Defendants. Plaintiffs, by their attorneys Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC and Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff LLP, bring this complaint against Defendants and allege as follows: A. INTRODUCTION 1. This case involves Congressional subpoenas that have no legitimate or lawful purpose. The subpoenas were issued to harass President Donald J. Trump, to rummage through every aspect of his personal finances, his businesses, and the private information of the President and his family, and to ferret about for any material that might be used to cause him political damage. No grounds exist to establish any purpose other than a political one. 2. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Financial Services Committee issued the subpoenas to Defendants Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. These two financial institutions have long provided business and personal banking services to Plaintiffs. 1 JA12 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page16 Page of 2 of 13 3. The Chairpersons of the Intelligence and Financial Services Committees (Adam B. Schiff and Maxine M. Waters) have confirmed the issuance of the subpoenas, making public statements to the media that emphasize their intention to probe every aspect of the private lives of the Trump family, their businesses, and even those with only the most tangential connection to Trump entities, regardless whether any evidence (credible or otherwise) exists to support such intrusive probes. The Committees have refused to provide copies of the subpoenas to Plaintiffs—preventing them from even knowing, let alone negotiating, the subpoenas’ scope or breadth. 4. Nonetheless, Defendants’ descriptions of the subpoenas confirm their remarkable overbreadth. According to Defendants, the Committees are seeking all banking and financial records not just concerning the individual Plaintiffs, but also their own family members. This means the subpoenas request documents about accounts of the Plaintiffs’ children (and in some cases, grandchildren). 5. The subpoenas to the entities are equally intrusive and overbroad. They seek not only the Plaintiffs’ documents, but also the financial records of their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, divisions, partnerships, properties, groups, special purpose entities, joint ventures, predecessors and successors. As if that were not broad enough, the subpoenas extend further to documents concerning each of the entities’ current or former employees, officers, directors, shareholders, partners, members, consultants, managers, senior associates, staff employees, independent contractors, agents, attorneys, or other representatives. 6. For most of the documents, the Committees demand records from the last ten years. For others, the request is unbounded—meaning the Committees seek records dating back decades, to the individual Plaintiffs’ own childhoods. 7. The intrusiveness and impropriety of these requests are obvious. The House of Representatives is demanding, among other things, records of every single checking withdrawal, credit-card swipe, or debit-card purchase—no matter how trivial or small—made by each and every 2 JA13 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page17 Page of 3 of 13 member of the Trump family. But the dates and times when these individuals purchased books, groceries and other personal items is not the business of the House of Representatives or anyone else. It is an abuse of power to claim otherwise (particularly since the Committees declined to ask Plaintiffs themselves for the records, or even to discuss the scope of their requests). 8. In an effort to justify their demands, the chairs of the Committees have claimed that the subpoenas are intended to investigate “potential foreign influence on the U.S. political process” or the use of the financial system for “illicit purposes.” But the information they seek long predates the President’s election to office, reaches well beyond transactions associated with foreign parties, and encompasses reams of account records for entities, individuals, children, and spouses who have never even been implicated in any probe. 9. The Committees have ignored the constitutional limits on Congress’ power to investigate. Article I of the Constitution does not contain an “Investigations Clause” or an “Oversight Clause.” It gives Congress the power to enact certain legislation. Accordingly, investigations are legitimate only insofar as they further some legitimate legislative purpose. No investigation can be an end in itself. And Congress cannot use investigations to exercise powers that the Constitution assigns to the executive or judicial branch. 10. The subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One lack any legitimate legislative purpose. There is no possible legislation at the end of this tunnel; indeed, the Committee Chairs have not claimed otherwise. With these subpoenas, the Committees are instead assuming the powers of the Department of Justice, investigating (dubious and partisan) rumors of illegal conduct by private individuals, many of whom are outside of government. Their goal is to rummage around Plaintiffs’ private financial information in the hope that they will stumble upon something they can expose publicly and use as a political tool against the President. 11. Moreover, the Committees’ attempts to obtain Plaintiffs’ account records violate the statutory requirements that apply to the federal government under the Right to Financial Privacy Act 3 JA14 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page18 Page of 4 of 13 (“RFPA”). Under the RFPA, federal authorities are required to follow certain steps—including the provision of notice and an opportunity to object—before obtaining private financial records. The Committees have ignored these requirements, and any production of account records by Deutsche Bank or Capital One would violate the law. 12. This Court has the power to declare the subpoenas invalid and enjoin Defendants from complying with them for at least two reasons. First, because the Committees’ subpoenas threaten to expose Plaintiffs’ confidential account information and lack “a legitimate legislative purpose,” and second, because they violate the protections of the RFPA. See Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 501 n.14 (1975) (endorsing U.S. Servicemen’s Fund v. Eastland, 488 F.2d 1252, 1259-60 (D.C. Cir. 1973), which authorized a private right of action for declaratory and injunctive relief); 12 U.S.C. §3418 (authorizing injunctive relief to prevent violations of the RFPA). Plaintiffs are entitled to that relief. B. PARTIES 13. Plaintiff Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States. President Trump brings this suit solely in his capacity as a private citizen. 14. Plaintiff Donald J. Trump Jr. is the son of President Trump. 15. Plaintiff Eric Trump is the son of President Trump. 16. Plaintiff Ivanka Trump is the daughter of President Trump. 17. Plaintiff The Trump Organization, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 725 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022. 18. Plaintiff Trump Organization LLC is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business at 725 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022. 19. Plaintiff DJT Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 725 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022. 4 JA15 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page19 Page of 5 of 13 20. Plaintiff DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 725 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022. 21. Plaintiff Trump Acquisition, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 725 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022. 22. Plaintiff Trump Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 725 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022. 23. Plaintiff The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust is a trust created and operating under the laws of New York. 24. Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is a bank organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany with a branch at 60 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005. Deutsche Bank received one or more subpoenas from the Committees seeking account records and other documents concerning one or more of Plaintiffs. 25. Defendant Capital One Financial Corp. is a bank holding company headquartered in McLean, VA, with numerous branch offices in New York City. Capital One received one or more subpoenas from the Committees seeking account records and other documents concerning one or more of Plaintiffs. C. JURISDICTION & VENUE 26. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because this case arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 2201, and because it is brought to enforce the provisions of the RFPA, 12 U.S.C. §3416. 27. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of Plaintiffs’ action is situated in this district. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2). 5 JA16 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page20 Page of 6 of 13 D. BACKGROUND 1. Challenges to Congressional Subpoenas 28. Not infrequently, federal courts adjudicate the legality of congressional subpoenas. Most such cases follow a familiar pattern: Congress issues a subpoena, the target does not comply, Congress tries to force compliance in federal court, and the target raises the illegality of the subpoena as a defense. 29. But this defensive posture is not the only way to challenge a congressional subpoena. When Congress “seeks information directly from a party,” that party “can resist and thereby test the subpoena.” Eastland, 421 U.S. at 501 n.14. But when Congress “seeks that same information from a third person,” this option is not available; the third party might not have an interest in protecting the information or resisting the subpoena, and its “compliance” with the subpoena “could frustrate any judicial inquiry.” Id. For that reason, the law allows the person whose information will be exposed to sue in federal court for an injunction or declaratory judgment to block the third party from complying. Eastland, 488 F.2d at 1259, 1255. The third party cannot comply with the subpoena unless “a legitimate legislative purpose is present.” Eastland, 421 U.S. at 501. 30. The “legitimate legislative purpose” requirement stems directly from the Constitution. “The powers of Congress … are dependent solely on the Constitution,” and “no express power in that instrument” allows Congress to investigate individuals or to issue compulsory process. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 182-89 (1880). The Constitution instead permits Congress to enact certain kinds of legislation. See, e.g., Art. I, §8. Thus, Congress’ power to investigate “is justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative process.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 197. “Congress is not invested with a general power to inquire into private affairs. The subject of any inquiry always must be one on which legislation could be had.” Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504 n.15 (cleaned up); see also Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955) (“[T]he power to investigate” does not “extend to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate.”). 6 JA17 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page21 Page of 7 of 13 31. “Oversight” and “transparency,” in a vacuum, are not legitimate legislative purposes that can justify subpoenaing a private citizen. For more than a century, in fact, the Supreme Court has been quite “sure” that neither the House nor Senate “possesses the general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen.” Kilbourn, 103 U.S. at 190. “[T]here is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200. “No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.” Id. at 187. 32. Additionally, because Congress must have a legitimate legislative purpose, it cannot use subpoenas to exercise “any of the powers of law enforcement.” Quinn, 349 U.S. at 161. Those powers “are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary.” Id. Put simply, Congress is not “a law enforcement or trial agency,” and congressional investigations conducted “for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators” or “to ‘punish’ those investigated” are “indefensible.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187. Our tripartite system of separated powers requires that “any one of the[] branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to the others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other.” Kilbourn, 103 U.S. at 190-91. 33. Finally, when a subpoena is issued by a committee, any legislative purpose is not legitimate unless it falls within that committee’s jurisdiction. “The theory of a committee inquiry is that the committee members are serving as the representatives of the parent assembly in collecting information for a legislative purpose.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200. Congress therefore must “spell out that group’s jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity … in the authorizing resolution,” which “is the committee’s charter.” Id. at 201. The committee “must conform strictly to the resolution.” Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582, 592 (D.C. Cir. 1978). And when an investigation is “novel” or “expansive,” courts will construe the committee’s jurisdiction “narrowly.” Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270, 275 (D.C. Cir. 1962). 7 JA18 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page22 Page of 8 of 13 2. The Campaign of Abusive Investigations and Harassment of Plaintiffs 34. After the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats won a majority of seats in the House. Every House committee in the current Congress is thus chaired by a Democrat. 35. On the night of the election, soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that “tomorrow will be a new day in America” because the new majority would enact “checks and balances to the Trump administration.” And “subpoena power,” she explained a few days later, is “a great arrow to have in your quiver.” “Congress is going to force transparency on this president,” another congressional aide repeated. “Once there is transparency, I am sure there are going to be a lot of questions that flow from that.” 36. The statements about “checks and balances” and “transparency” were not referring to legislation. Instead, according to news outlets that interviewed party leaders and aides shortly after the election, the statements meant that they were going to spend the next two years launching a “fusillade” of subpoenas in order to “drown Trump with investigations,” “turn Trump’s life upside down,” and “make Trump’s life a living hell.” 37. Prominent Representatives were quite candid about their mission. Representative John Yarmuth, now chair of the House Budget Committee, stated that the new House majority would be “brutal” for President Trump: “We’re going to have to build an air traffic control tower to keep track of all the subpoenas flying from here to the White House.” Another senior official revealed that, from November 2018 to January 2019, Representatives were busy preparing a “subpoena cannon” to fire at President Trump based on a “wish-list” of nearly 100 investigatory topics. Representative Nita Lowey, now chair of the House Appropriations Committee, confirmed a long list of topics that the House planned to investigate and stated, “We have our boxing gloves on. I’m ready.” Just last month, Chairwoman Waters declared that “I haven’t forgotten about 45”—meaning President Trump. “I have the gavel—and subpoena power—and I am not afraid to use it.” 8 JA19 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, 164 Case 1 Filed 04/29/19Page23 Page of 9 of 13 38. The “focus,” according to then–Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, would be examining “the President in terms of what [business] interests he has” from his time as a private citizen. Chairwoman Waters declared that “[w]e’re going to find out where your money has come from.” The Committees want this personal information in the hopes they will find something to score political points against the President leading up to the 2020 election. 39. The Committee Chairpersons are executing their plan in earnest. Recently, several House committees issued a flurry of subpoenas and requests for information about the President’s family, personal finances, and businesses. Just one request by Chairman Jerrold Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee, for example, asked 81 different individuals and entities for information about President Trump. 40. A few weeks ago, Chairpersons Schiff, Waters, and Elijah Cummings of the House Oversight Committee agreed to coordinate their subpoenas in order to inflict maximum political damage on President Trump by targeting his business and financial records. 41. Last Monday, Chairman Cummings sent one such subpoena to Mazars USA LLP— Plaintiffs’ longtime accountant. 42. The subpoenas at issue in this lawsuit were sent shortly thereafter. 3. The Subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One. 43. Chairman Schiff and Chairwoman Waters issued statements to the press confirming the existence of the subpoenas to Defendants shortly after they were sent. Chairman Schiff confirmed that Deutsche Bank had received a “friendly” subpoena. Chairman Waters told the press that the subpoenas were sent as part of an alleged inquiry into the “potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes.” 44. Plaintiffs, through counsel, contacted the Committees and requested copies of the subpoenas to help determine their scope. Notwithstanding their willingness to discuss the subpoenas 9 JA20 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, of 164 Case 1 Filed2598263, 04/29/19Page24 Page 10 of 13 with the press, the Committees declined to provide copies of the subpoenas (or any information about their contents) to Plaintiffs. 45. On April 17, 2019, counsel for Deutsche Bank confirmed in writing to Plaintiffs that it had received the subpoenas. According to Deutsche Bank, the subpoenas seek “records and/or information related to banking activities, including information regarding accounts, financings, and related financial information” for all of the named Plaintiffs. 46. Moreover, the subpoenas to Deutsche Bank seek production of account records and other financial information for Plaintiffs’ “parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, divisions, partnerships, properties, groups, special purpose entities, joint ventures, predecessors, successors or any other entity in which they have or had a controlling interest.” The subpoenas further extend to all “current or former employees, officers, directors, shareholders, partners, members, consultants, managers, senior associates, staff employees, independent contractors, agents, attorneys or other representatives” of the Plaintiff entities. 47. For the individual Plaintiffs, Deutsche Bank has advised that the subpoenas seek banking and financial records for all “members of their immediate families,” including any accounts for which they are beneficiaries, trustees, beneficial owners, or over which they have control. This sweeps in the complete banking and account records of numerous children—including minors—and spouses of the named individuals. 48. Deutsche Bank subsequently confirmed that, in general, the subpoenas call for it to produce responsive documents from January 1, 2010 through the present—although for some documents (including account applications and opening documents), the subpoena requires production without any time limitation. 49. Deutsche Bank informed Plaintiffs that, absent a court order, they intend to begin production of documents in response to the subpoena on May 6. 10 JA21 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, of 164 Case 1 Filed2598263, 04/29/19Page25 Page 11 of 13 50. Plaintiffs subsequently contacted Capital One, which confirmed receipt of a subpoena that, upon information and belief, seeks similar documents from the same Plaintiffs. Capital One has informed Plaintiffs that it feels obligated to comply with the subpoena absent court intervention before May 6. 51. Plaintiffs have numerous accounts, including personal, family, and business accounts, at Deutsche Bank and Capital One. 52. The records at issue are protected from disclosure by the federal Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. §3501 et seq., which imposes strict procedural requirements on federal attempts to obtain account records. The Committees did not follow those procedures here and, as a result, the Act prohibits Deutsche Bank and Capital One from producing the account records. 53. Plaintiffs bring this suit to challenge the validity and enforceability of the subpoenas. Now that the subpoenas have issued, Deutsche Bank and Capital One face a difficult choice: ignore the subpoenas and risk contempt of Congress, or comply with the subpoenas and risk liability to Plaintiffs under the RFPA and other laws. To resolve these conflicting commands, courts instruct third-party custodians like Defendants to hold onto the subpoenaed materials until the dispute over the subpoenas’ validity is finally resolved in court. See United States v. AT&T Co., 567 F.2d 121, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977); United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129, 142 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Thus, Congress cannot take any action against Deutsche Bank or Capital One until this litigation is finally resolved. E. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 1. The Subpoenas Exceed the Committees’ Constitutional Authority 54. Plaintiffs incorporate all their prior allegations. 55. The subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable because they have no legitimate legislative purpose. 56. The subpoenas seek to investigate events that occurred while President Trump was a private citizen, years before he was even a candidate for public office. 11 JA22 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, of 164 Case 1 Filed2598263, 04/29/19Page26 Page 12 of 13 57. The subpoenas seek to investigate events that could not possibly lead to legislation within the Intelligence or Financial Services Committees’ statutory jurisdiction and constitutional authority. 58. The subpoenas are an attempt to investigate and adjudicate possible violations of federal law by private individuals—law-enforcement powers that only the executive and judicial branches can exercise. 2. The Subpoenas Violate the Right to Financial Privacy Act 59. Plaintiffs incorporate all their prior allegations. 60. The RFPA prohibits Deutsche Bank and Capital One from giving a customer’s protected account information to the federal government. 12 U.S.C. §3403(a). 61. Financial institutions can turn over a customer’s information only if the government certifies that it has complied with the RFPA’s procedures. §3403(b). For a subpoena, those procedures include (1) “reason to believe” that the records are ”relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry”; (2) giving a copy of the subpoena to the customer; and (3) waiting at least 10 days so the customer has a chance to object. §3405; see also §3408 (similar procedures for “written requests”). 62. The Committees have not complied with the RFPA’s provisions or issued the required certifications. 63. The RFPA authorizes injunctive relief “to require that the procedures of this chapter are complied with.” §3418. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter judgment in their favor and to provide the following relief: a. A declaratory judgment that the subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable; b. A permanent injunction quashing the subpoenas; 12 JA23 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, of 164 Case 1 Filed2598263, 04/29/19Page27 Page 13 of 13 c. A permanent injunction prohibiting Deutsche Bank and Capital One from disclosing, revealing, delivering, or producing the requested information, or otherwise complying with the subpoenas; d. A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Deutsche Bank and Capital One from disclosing, revealing, delivering, or producing the requested information, or otherwise complying with the subpoenas, until the subpoena’s validity has been finally adjudicated on the merits; e. Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees; and f. All other preliminary and permanent relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled. Dated: April 29, 2019 Respectfully submitted, Marc L. Mukasey MUKASEY FRENCHMAN & SKLAROFF LLP 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 347-527-3940 [email protected] s/ Patrick Strawbridge Patrick Strawbridge (pro hac vice pending) CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC Ten Post Office Square 8th Floor South PMB #706 Boston, MA 02109 [email protected] Counsel for The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization LLC, The Trump Corporation, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Trump Acquisition LLC, and Trump Acquisition, Corp. William S. Consovoy Cameron T. Norris CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 Arlington, VA 22201 (703) 243-9423 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump 13 JA24 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page28 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof1164 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DONALD J. TRUMP, DONALD J. TRUMP JR., ERIC TRUMP, IVANKA TRUMP, and THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., TRUMP ORGANZATION LLC, DJT HOLDINGS LLC, DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC, TRUMP ACQUISITION LLC, and TRUMP ACQUISITION, CORP. Docket No. 1:19-cv-03826-ER DECLARATION OF PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE Plaintiffs, - against DEUTSCHE BANK AG and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., Defendants. 1. I am an attorney at the law firm Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC and counsel for Plaintiffs President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump in their personal capacities. 2. I am over the age of 18 and under no mental disability or impairment. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if called as a witness, would competently testify to them. 3. Exhibit A is an email that I received on April 22, 2019 from Douglas N. Letter, General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. 4. Exhibit B is a letter that I received on April 17, 2019 from Steven R. Ross and Raphael A. Prober of Akin Gump, outside counsel for Deutsche Bank. 5. Exhibit C is an email that I received on April 22, 2019 from Mr. Ross. JA25 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page29 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof2164 of 9 Per 28 U.S.C. §1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on May 3, 2019. /s Patrick Strawbridge -1- JA26 ps Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page30 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof3164 of 9 Exhibit A JA27 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page31 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof4164 of 9 From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Letter, Douglas [email protected] Subpoena email response April 22, 2019 at 2:06 PM [email protected], [email protected] Tatelman, Todd [email protected] Mr. Strawbridge, I write on behalf of the Commi7ee on Financial Services and the House Permanent Select Commi7ee on Intelligence (“Commi7ees”) in response to your April 19, 2019 email request that the Commi7ees provide you with copies of “any subpoenas from the [Commi7ees] seeking informaNon from any financial insNtuNon about my clients.” Please be advised that your clients are not the recipients of any subpoenas issued by the Commi7ees and, consistent with long-standing pracNce, the Commi7ees do not provide copies of subpoenas to third parNes. Please feel free to direct any and all future inquiries about these ma7ers to my a7enNon and to Deputy General Counsel Todd Tatelman (copied here). Sincerely, Douglas N. Letter General Counsel Office of General Counsel U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 [email protected] (202) 225-9700 From: Tatelman, Todd Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 2:00 PM To: Le7er, Douglas <[email protected]> Subject: Strawbridge email JA28 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page32 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof5164 of 9 Exhibit B JA29 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page33 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof6164 of 9 Akin Gump STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP STEVEN R. ROSS +1 202.887.4343/fax: +1 202.887.4288 [email protected] RAPHAEL A. PROBER +1 202.887.4319/fax: +1 202.887.4288 [email protected] April 17, 2019 Alan Garten Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer The Trump Organization 725 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022 Patrick Strawbridge Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC 3033 Wilson Boulevard Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Dear Messrs. Garten & Strawbridge: This is to inform you that our client, Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche Bank"), has received subpoenas issued by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence requiring production of certain records and/or information related to banking activities, including information regarding accounts, financings and related financial information, with respect to: • • • • • • • • • • • Donald J. Trump Donald Trump, Jr. Ivanka Trump Eric Trump The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Trump Organization Inc. Trump Organization LLC DJT Holdings LLC DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC Trump Acquisition LLC Trump Acquisition Corp. Robert S. Strauss Building I 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. I Washington, D.C. 20036-1564 I 202.887.4000 I fax 202.887.4288 I akingump.com JA30 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page34 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof7164 of 9 Akin Gump STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP Alan Garten Patrick Strawbridge April 17, 2019 Page2 • any other name, alias, code name, code number, or entity used in lieu of any of the individuals or entities named above or members of their immediate family or any account (including, but not limited to, any money market, securities, or trading account or any loan account or structure) in the name of any of the above-named individuals or entities (or any other name, alias, code name, code number, or entity used in lieu of any of the named individuals or entities) or members of their immediate family, individually or with other parties, as well as any account in which any of the above-named individuals or entities are or were, or have been identified as being, a trustee, settlor or grantor, beneficiary, or beneficial owner, or in which any of the individuals or entities have or have had in any way control over, individually or with others. These subpoenas extend to relevant records and/or information related to the listed entities' parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, divisions, partnerships, properties, groups, special purpose entities, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, or any other entity in which they have or had a controlling interest, and any current or former employee, officer, director, shareholder, partner, member, consultant, senior manager, manager, senior associate, staff employee, independent contractor, agent, attorney or other representative of the above listed entities. This letter is intended to provide notice of the subpoenas to the above-referenced parties and entities, including-to the extent applicable-any relevant current or former employees of such entities. The return date of the subpoenas is May 6, 2019. Deutsche Bank is legally obligated to comply with these subpoenas and intends to begin so complying on that date. Please contact the undersigned with any questions. �::'k-� Steven R. 'las� 6 �.µ!-Raphael A. Prober cc: Rudy Giuliani JA31 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page35 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof8164 of 9 Exhibit C JA32 Case1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, DocumentDocument 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page36 Case 28 Filed 05/03/19 Pageof9164 of 9 From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Ross, Steven [email protected] RE: Deutsche Bank AG April 22, 2019 at 3:53 PM Patrick Strawbridge [email protected] Prober, Raphael [email protected], Moyer, Thomas [email protected] Patrick—During our Friday telephone conversa8on, you asked if we would iden8fy the 8me period applicable to the informa8on sought by the subpoenas the Bank received from the House CommiAees on Intelligence and Financial Services. In general, the subpoenas call for the Bank to produce responsive documents regarding your clients from January 1, 2010 through the present, with the excep8on of any documents related to account applica8ons, opening documents, KYC, due diligence, and closing documents. For these documents the subpoena requires produc8on without any 8me limita8on. In addi8on, I had copied Bob Roach of the House Financial Services CommiAee in an earlier wriAen communica8on. I have been informed that the proper contact person at that commiAee should be Jennifer Read. Steven R. Ross AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-1564 USA Direct: +1 202.887.4343 Internal: 24343 Fax: +1 202.887.4288 [email protected] akingump.com Bio *Please note that on May 6, 2019, our address will change to 2001 K Street N.W., Washington, DC 20006* JA33 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page37 of 1 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-1 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DONALD J. TRUMP; DONALD J. TRUMP, JR.; ERIC TRUMP; IVANKA TRUMP; THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC; DJT HOLDINGS LLC; DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC; TRUMP ACQUISITION LLC; and TRUMP ACQUISITION, CORP., Plaintiffs, IM Case No. 1:19-cv-03826-ER DEUTSCHE BANK AG and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., Defendants, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Intervenor-Defendants. DECLARATION OF TODD B. TATELMAN I, Todd B. Tatelman, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 declare and say: 1. I am the Deputy General Counsel in the Office of General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. I have served in this capacity since 2018, and have served in the Office of General Counsel since 2011. I represent both the Committee on Financial Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives in this matter. JA34 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page38 of 2 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-1 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 2 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the redacted subpoena to Deutsche Bank that I prepared and provided to plaintiffs' counsel. 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the subpoena to Capital One that I provided to plaintiffs' counsel. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 10, 2019, in Washington, D.C. To d B. Tatelman JA35 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page39 of1164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 Exhibit A JA36 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page40 of2164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 SCHEDULE A Custodian of Records Deutsche Bank AG The time period applicable to this subpoena is January 1, 2010 through the present, except for Items 1(i) and 6(1), for which there is no time limitation. Please provide complete and unredacted copies of the following documents by May 6, 2019: 1. With respect to: Donald J. Trump Donald Trump, Jr. Eric Trump Ivanka Trum • • • • • • • • The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Trump Organization Inc. Trump Organization LLC DJT Holdings LLC DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC Trump Acquisition LLC Trump Acquisition Corp. any other name, alias, code name, code number, or entity used in lieu of any of the individuals or entities named above or members of their immediate family or any account (including, but not limited to, any money market, securities, or trading account or any loan account or structure) in the name of any of the above-named individuals or entities (or any other name, alias, code name, code number, or entity used in lieu of any of the named individuals or entities) or members of their immediate family, individually or with other parties, as well as any account in which any of the above-named individuals or entities are or were, or have been identified as being, a trustee, settlor or grantor, beneficiary, or beneficial owner, or in which any of the individuals or entities have or have had in any way control over, individually or with others: i. any document related to account applications, opening documents, KYC, due diligence, and closing documents, including, but not limited to, any document identifying: a. any financial relationship, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals or entities and any foreign individual, entity, or government; b. any interest held by any foreign individual, entity, or government in the abovenamed accounts; c. any trustee, settlor, grantor, administrator, controlling party, protector, beneficiary, beneficial owner, or signatory; and d. any relationship manager or account manager; 1 JA37 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page41 of3164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 iv. v. vi. any monthly or other periodic account statement, including, but not limited to, any such document showing any incoming or outgoing funds transfers involving the above-named individuals, entities, and accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; any document related to any domestic or international transfer of funds in the amount of $10,000 or more, including, but not limited to, any wire transfer, check, cash letter, cashier's check, book entry transfer, or other such documents showing the originator, beneficiary, source of funds, and destination of such transfer, including whether any party to such transfer was a foreign individual, entity, or government; any summary or analysis of domestic or international account deposits, withdrawals, and transfers, including, but not limited to, sources of deposits and the destination of withdrawals/transfers, including any wire transfer, check, cash letter, cashier's check, or other monetary instrument, including, but not limited to, any summary or analysis of financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, and accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; any document related to monitoring for, identifying, or evaluating possible suspicious activity, including suspicious activity identified by Deutsche Bank AG's surveillance/monitoring program or referred by any employee or third-party, including, but not limited to, suspicious activity relating to relationships, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, and accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; any document related to any investment, bond offering, line of credit, loan, mortgage, syndication, credit or loan restructuring, or any other credit arrangement or arrangement to raise or provide funding, including, but not limited to, those involving any foreign individual, entity, or government, or any other third party, including, but not limited to: a. application and account opening documents, including, but not limited to, any such document showing any financial relationship, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals or entities and any foreign individual, entity, or government; b. KYC and due diligence, including, but not limited to, any such materials showing any financial relationship, transaction, or ties between the above-named individuals or entities and any foreign individual, entity, or government; c. personal or third-party guarantees, including, but not limited to, any guarantee provided by a foreign individual, entity, or government; d. collateral and appraisals for any underlying assets, including any asset in which a foreign individual, entity, or government has any interest and any asset located in a foreign country or jurisdiction; e. any financial information provided by the borrower (or prospective borrower) or otherwise obtained by Deutsche Bank AG, including, but not limited to: 1. financial statements (including those showing any revenue, interest, or other income generated from, or payments made to, any foreign individuals, entities, or governments); 2. statements of net worth (including those showing any foreign assets and liabilities); 3. debt schedules (including those showing any debts owed to any foreign individuals, entities, or governments); 2 JA38 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page42 of4164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 vii. 4. business operating statements (including, but not limited to, those showing any revenue, interest, or other income generated from, or payments made to, any foreign individuals, entities, or governments); 5. cash flow statements (including, but not limited to, those showing any revenue, interest, or other income generated from, or payments made to, any foreign individuals, entities, or governments); 6. bank and brokerage account records (including those relating to any such accounts held at foreign banks or other foreign financial institutions); 7. tax returns and schedules (including, but not limited to, those showing all foreign sources of income, all foreign debt payments, all interests held by the taxpayer in any foreign business entity or bank/brokerage account, and all interests held by any foreign individual, entity, or government in any of the taxpayer's business entities); and 8. records of any bankruptcies; f. offering memoranda, including, but not limited to, any such document that shows any financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, or accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; g. communications involving the underwriting or credit risk management units, credit risk committee, reputational risk committee, management and supervisory boards, or similar units or bodies, including any such communication relating to any financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, or accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; and h. term sheets, including those showing the involvement of any foreign individual, entity, or government in the transaction; i. risk assessments, risk ratings, and risk upgrades or downgrades, including those relating to any financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the abovenamed individuals, entities, or accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; j. credit assessment memoranda and credit reports, including, but not limited to, those assessing any financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, or accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; k. closing documents and loan documentation, including, but not limited to, any such document showing any role that any foreign individual, entity, or government had in the transaction; and 1. periodic loan statements, loan monitoring records, and records relating to any refinancing, restructuring, modification, repayment, forgiveness, foreclosure, or default, including any such document showing any role that any foreign individual, entity, or government had in the refinancing, restructuring, modification, repayment, forgiveness, foreclosure, or default; any document related to any request for information issued or received by Deutsche Bank AG pursuant to Sections 314(a) or 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56, including, but not limited to, any such document relating to any financial relationships, 3 JA39 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page43 of5164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 viii. transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, or accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; an document • ossessed or enerated b or communications involvin Selected Deutsche Bank Employees ix. x. relating to any of the above-named individuals, entities, accounts, or transactions, particularly, but not limited to, any such document or communication relating to any financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, or accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; any document not otherwise kept in customary record-keeping systems (including, but not limited to, any document in any personal file or desk file), related to any of the above-named individuals, entities, or accounts and/or any issue or document identified in items i through viii above, including, but not limited to, any such document relating to any financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, or accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government; and any document provided to, discussed with, or generated by any member of Deutsche Bank AG's Management Board, Supervisory Board, or Reputational Risk Committee related to any of the above-named individuals, entities, or accounts and/or any issue or document identified in items i through ix above, including, but not limited to, any such document relating to any financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the abovenamed individuals, entities, and accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government. 2. Any document related to Deutsche Bank AG's program, including, but not limited to, an report or analysis related to the decision to identify an individual or entity as a ; any tracking list of ; an document related to any changes in the tracking lists; any periodic review of ; any internal corres ondence, meeting minutes, or notes relating to ; any memoranda relating to prepared for Deutsche Bank AG's internal credit and risk committees or management and supervisory boards; and any such document or communication relating to any financial relationship, transaction, or tie between any (or any account held by a ) and any foreign individual, entity, or government. 3. An document related to any review or analysis performed by Deutsche Bank AG entitled or any similar study, review, or analysis, including, but not limited to, any such document relating to any financial relationship, transaction, or tie between the relevant account holders or customers and any foreign individual, entity, or government. 4. With respect to the following events or activities: 4 JA40 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page44 of6164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 i. iv. any document related to any review or analysis of those events or activities conducted by or possessed by Deutsche Bank AG or its agents or representatives, including, but not limited to, any document related to any Deutsche Bank AG personnel facilitating or involved in any of those events or activities, the identity of any third-party individual or entity, or the beneficial owner of any third-party entity, involved in any of those events or activities; any record of any transaction involved in, or related to, any of those events or activities; any document related to any request for information issued or received pursuant to Sections 314(a) or 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56; and any document provided to, discussed with, or generated by any member of Deutsche Bank AG's management board or supervisory board related to any event or activity identified above and/or any issue or document identified in items i through iii above. 5. Any document related to any review, stud , anal sis, or communication to or from any U.S. federal, state, or local agency regarding any or immediate family member, including, but not limited to, any government official or entity in which such an individual has been identified as a trustee, settlor, or grantor, beneficiary, beneficial owner, or has or had in any way control over, individually or with others. 6. With respect to: or any account (including, but not limited to, any money market, securities, or trading account or any loan account or structure) in the name of any of the above-named entities, as well as any account in which any of the entities have or have had in any way control over, individually or with others: any document related to account applications, opening documents, KYC, due diligence, and closing documents, including any document identifying: a. any trustee, settlor, grantor, administrator, controlling party, protector, beneficiary, beneficial owner, or signatory; or 5 JA41 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page45 of7164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. b. any relationship manager or account manager; any monthly or other periodic account statement; any document related to any domestic or international transfer of funds in the amount of $10,000 or more, including, but not limited to, any wire transfer, check, cash letter, cashier's check, book entry transfer, or other document indicating the originator, beneficiary, source of funds, or destination of such transfer; any summary or analysis of domestic and international account deposits, withdrawals, and transfers, including, but not limited to, sources of deposits and the destination of withdrawals/transfers, including any wire transfer, check, cash letter, cashier's check, or other monetary instrument; any document related to monitoring for, identifying, or evaluating possible suspicious activity, including suspicious activity identified by Deutsche Bank AG's surveillance/monitoring program or referred by any employee or third-party, including, but not limited to, possible suspicious activity relating to foreign individuals and entities and international funds transfers; any document related to any agreement, business relationship, or business venture (including, but not limited to, joint underwritings, loans, financings or securitizations such as CD0s) between Deutsche Bank AG and any of the above-named entities; any document related to any request for information issued or received by Deutsche Bank AG pursuant to Sections 314(a) or 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56; any document not otherwise kept in customary record-keeping systems (including, but not limited to, any document in any personal file or desk file), related to any entity identified above and/or any issue or document identified in items i through vii above; and any document provided to, discussed with, or generated by any member of Deutsche Bank's Management Board, Supervisory Board, or Group Reputational Risk Committee related to any entity identified above and/or any issue or document identified in items i through viii above. 7. Any document related to any periodic, special, or other review conducted by or for Deutsche Bank AG of any of the individuals, entities, accounts, or transactions identified in items 1 and 6 above, including, but not limited to, any relationship or account history, exposure reports, particular transactions, management and servicing, or any other review associated with Deutsche Bank AG's policies and procedures for loan/credit risk analysis or accounts related to correspondent banking, private banking, public figures, politically prominent persons, or their family members, including, but not limited to, any such document relating to any financial relationships, transactions, or ties between the above-named individuals, entities, and accounts and any foreign individual, entity, or government. 8. An document related to any communication sent or received by Selected concerning any individual, entity, or any issue or document Deutsche Bank Employees identified in items 1 through 7 above, including, but not limited to, any entity in which such an individual has been identified as a trustee, settlor, or grantor, beneficiary, beneficial owner, or has or had in any way control over, individually or with others, or any government official. 6 JA42 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page46 of8164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 RESPONDING TO COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS In responding to the document request, please apply the instructions and definitions set forth below: INSTRUCTIONS In complying with this request, you should produce all responsive documents in 1. unredacted form that are in the possession, custody, or control or otherwise available to Deutsche Bank AG or its agents, employees, or representatives, regardless of whether the documents are possessed directly by you. Documents responsive to the request should not be destroyed, modified, 2. removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual named in the request has been, 3. or is currently, known by any other name, the request should be read also to include such other names under that alternative identification. Each document should be produced in a forni that may be copied by standard 4. copying machines. When you produce documents, you should identify the paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) 5. in the Committee's request to which the document responds. Documents produced pursuant to this request should be produced in the order in 6. which they appear in your files and should not be rearranged. Any documents that are stapled, clipped, or otherwise fastened together should not be separated. Documents produced in response to this request should be produced together with copies of file labels, dividers, or identifying markers with which they were associated when this request was issued. Indicate the office or division and person from whose files each document was produced. Documents produced on paper (those from paper files that you choose to produce as such) shall not contain any permanent fasteners (i.e., staples), but shall be separated based on the divisions between documents as it is maintained in the custodian's files by nonpermanent fasteners (e.g., paper clips, binder clips, rubber bands) or a non-white slip sheet. Each folder and box should be numbered, and a description of the contents of each 7. folder and box, including the paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) of the request to which the documents are responsive, should be provided in an accompanying index. Responsive documents must be produced regardless of whether any other person or 8. entity possesses non-identical or identical copies of the same document. The Committee requests electronic documents in addition to paper productions. If any 9. of the requested information is available in machine-readable or electronic form (such as on a computer server, hard drive, CD, DVD, back up tape, or removable computer media such as thumb drives, flash drives, memory cards, and external hard drives), you should immediately 7 JA43 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page47 of9164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 13 consult with Committee staff to determine the appropriate format in which to produce the information. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed electronically in a manner comparable to the organizational structure called for in (6) and (7) above. 10. Documents shall be produced in accordance with the attached Data Delivery Standards. Alternatively, all documents derived from word processing programs, email applications, instant message logs, spreadsheets, and wherever else practicable, shall be produced in text searchable PDF format. Spreadsheets shall also be provided in their native form. Audio and video files shall be produced in their native format, although picture files associated with email or word processing programs shall be produced in PDF format along with the document it is contained in or to which it is attached. 11. Other than native files produced along with TIFF images in accordance with the attached Data Delivery Standards, every page of material produced to the Committee, whether from paper files or as a text searchable PDF, must contain a unique Bates number. All files produced in PDF fonnat shall be named according to the Bates range that the file contains (e.g. YourCo-00001 - YourCo- 00035.pdf). 12. With respect to the requested wire transfer records, please provide such records in Excel (.xls) format that is enabled (not "read only" format), with separate columns that show each wire transfer field, including, but not limited to, the following fields: "Payment Date," "Amount," "Ordering Customer" #1 through #4, "Ordering Bank" #1 through #5, "Debiting ID," "Debiting Address" #1 through #4, "Credit ID," "Credit Address" #1 through #4, Account Party" #1 through #5, "Ultimate Beneficiary" #1 through #5, "Det_Payment" #1 through #4, and "Bank to Bank" #1 through #6. 13. If any document responsive to this request was, but no longer is, in your possession, custody, or control, or has been placed into the possession, custody, or control of any third party and cannot be provided in response to this request, you should identify the document (stating its date, author, subject and recipients) and explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to be in your possession, custody, or control, or was placed in the possession, custody, or control of a third party. 14. If any document responsive to this request was, but no longer is, in your possession, custody or control, state: a. how the document was disposed of; b. the name, current address, and telephone number of the person who currently has possession, custody or control over the document; c. the date of disposition; d. the name, current address, and telephone number of each person who authorized said disposition or who had or has knowledge of said disposition. 15. If any document responsive to this request cannot be located, describe with particularity the efforts made to locate the document and the specific reason for its disappearance, destruction or unavailability. 8 JA44 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page48 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof10 of 13 16. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this request referring to a document, communication, meeting, or other event is inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive detail is known to you or is otherwise apparent from the context of the request, you should produce all documents which would be responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were correct. 17. The request is continuing in nature and applies to any newly discovered document, regardless of the date of its creation. Any document not produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return date should be produced immediately upon location or discovery subsequent thereto. 18. You should consult with Committee majority staff regarding the method of delivery prior to sending any materials. 19. In the event that a responsive document is withheld on any basis, including a claim of privilege, you should provide a log containing the following information concerning every such document: (i) the reason the document is not being produced; (ii) the type of document; (iii) the general subject matter; (iv) the date, author and addressee; (v) the relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and (vi) any other description necessary to identify the document and to explain the basis for not producing the document. If a claimed privilege applies to only a portion of any document, that portion only should be withheld and the remainder of the document should be produced. As used herein, "claim of privilege" includes, but is not limited to, any claim that a document either may or must be withheld from production pursuant to any statute, rule, or regulation. (a) Any objections or claims of privilege are waived if you fail to provide an explanation of why full compliance is not possible and a log identifying with specificity the ground(s) for withholding each withheld document prior to the request compliance date. (b) Any assertion by a request recipient of any such non-constitutional legal bases for withholding documents or other materials, for refusing to answer any deposition question, or for refusing to provide hearing testimony, shall be of no legal force and effect and shall not provide a justification for such withholding or refusal, unless and only to the extent that the Committee (or the chair of the Committee, if authorized) has consented to recognize the assertion as valid. 20. If the request cannot be complied with in full, it should be complied with to the extent possible, which should include an explanation of why full compliance is not possible. 21. Upon completion of the document production, you must submit a written certification, signed by you or your counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in your possession, custody, or control which reasonably could contain responsive documents; (2) documents responsive to the request have not been destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee since the date of 9 JA45 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page49 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof11 of 13 receiving the Committee's request or in anticipation of receiving the Committee's request; and (3) all documents identified during the search that are responsive have been produced to the Committee, identified in a log provided to the Committee, as described in (18) above, or identified as provided in (12), (13) or (14) above. 22. When representing a witness or entity before the Committee in response to a document request or request for transcribed interview, counsel for the witness or entity must promptly submit to the Committee a notice of appearance specifying the following: (a) counsel's name, firm or organization, and contact information; and (b) each client represented by the counsel in connection with the proceeding. Submission of a notice of appearance constitutes acknowledgement that counsel is authorized to accept service of process by the Committee on behalf of such client(s), and that counsel is bound by and agrees to comply with all applicable House and Committee rules and regulations. 10 JA46 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page50 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof12 of 13 DEFINITIONS 1. The term "Deutsche Bank AG" includes, but is not limited to each of its, subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, divisions, partnerships, properties, groups, special purpose entities, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, or any other entity in which they have or had a controlling interest, and any current or former employee, officer, director, shareholder, partner, member, consultant, senior manager, manager, senior associate, staff employee, independent contractor, agent, attorney or other representative of any of those entities. 2. Each entities listed in items 1 and 6 above includes, but is not limited to, each of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, divisions, partnerships, properties, groups, special purpose entities, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, or any other entity in which they have or had a controlling interest, and any current or former employee, officer, director, shareholder, partner, member, consultant, senior manager, manager, senior associate, staff employee, independent contractor, agent, attorney or other representative of any of those entities. 3. The term "documents in your possession, custody or control" means (a) documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees, or representatives acting on your behalf; (b) documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access; and (c) documents that have been placed in the possession, custody, or control of any third party. 4. The term "document" means any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following: agreements; papers; memoranda; correspondence; reports; studies; reviews; analyses; graphs; diagrams; photographs; charts; tabulations; presentations; marketing materials; working papers; records; records of interviews; desk files; notes; letters; notices; confirmations; telegrams; faxes, telexes, receipts; appraisals; interoffice and intra office communications; electronic mail (e-mail) and attachments; electronic messages; text messages; contracts; cables; recordings, notations or logs of any type of conversation, telephone call, meeting or other communication; bulletins; printed matter; computer printouts; teletype; invoices; transcripts; audio or video recordings; statistical or informational accumulations; data processing cards or worksheets; computer stored and/or generated documents; computer databases; computer disks and formats; machine readable electronic files, data or records maintained on a computer; instant messages; diaries; questionnaires and responses; data sheets; summaries; minutes; bills; accounts; estimates; projections; comparisons; messages; correspondence; electronically stored information and similar or related materials. A document bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be considered a separate document. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. 5. The term "immediate family" means any parent, spouse, child, step child, daughter-inlaw, or son-in-law. 6. The term "administrator or controlling party" means any individual, organization, or entity that established, managed, administered, represented, served as signatory for, or engaged in any transaction on behalf of, or in any way had control over any of, or any account or assets of, the entities identified in or responsive to any of the items above. 11 JA47 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page51 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-2 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof13 of 13 The term "entity" means a corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability 7. company, joint venture, business trust, or any other form or organization by which business or financial transactions are carried out. The term "communication" means each manner or means of disclosure or exchange of 8. information, regardless of means utilized, whether oral, electronic, by document or otherwise, and whether face to face, in meetings, by telephone, mail, telex, facsimile, computer, discussions, releases, delivery, or otherwise. The terms "and" and "or" shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or 9. disjunctively to bring within the scope of this subpoena any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. The singular includes plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The terms "person" or "persons" mean natural persons, firms, partnerships, 10. associations, limited liability corporations and companies, limited liability partnerships, corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, joint ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, other legal, business or government entities, or any other organization or group of persons, and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches, and other units thereof. 11. The terms "referring" "related" "relating" or "concerning," with respect to any given subject, mean anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals with, or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to that subject 12. The term "employee" means agent, borrowed employee, casual employee, consultant, de facto employee, joint adventurer, loaned employee, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional employee, contract employee, contractor, or any other type of service provider. 12 JA48 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page52 of1164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 Exhibit B JA49 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page53 of2164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 SUBPOENA BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Capital One Financial Corporation To You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives of the United States at the place, date, and time specified below. El to produce the things identified on the attached schedule touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee. . Place of production: Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2129 Date: May 6, 2019 Time: 12:00 PM to testify at a deposition touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee. Place of testimony: Date: Time: to testify at a hearing touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee. Place of testimony: Date: Time: To to serve and make return. Witness my hand and the seal of the House of Representatives of the United States, at the city of Washington, D.C. this day of A ril ,2019 . Chairman or Authorized Member Attest: Clerk JA50 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page54 of3164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 PROOF OF SERVICE Subpoena for Capital One Financial Corporation Address Capital One Financial Corporation, 1680 Capital One Drive, McLean, VA 22102-3491 before the Committee on Financial Services U.S. House of Representatives 116th Congress Served by (print name) David Abramowitz Title General Counsel and Parliamentarian, House Financial Services Committee Manner of service Electronic Mail Date April , 2019 Signature of Server Address Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2129, Washington, D.C. 20515 JA51 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page55 of4164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 SCHEDULE A Custodian of Records Capital One The time period applicable to this subpoena is July 19, 2016 through the present, except for Item "i." and "ii.", for which there is no time limitation. Please provide complete and unredacted copies of the following documents by May 6, 2019: 1. With respect to: The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust; The Trump Organization Inc.; Trump Organization LLC; The Trump Corporation; Trump Old Post Office LLC; Trump Old Post Office Member Corp.; DJT Holdings LLC; DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC; OPO Hotel Manager LLC; OPO Hotel Manager Member Corp.; THC DC Restaurant Hospitality LLC; Trump Acquisition LLC; Trump Acquisition Corp.; Trump International Hotels Management LLC; Trump International Hotels Management Member Corp.; Any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, joint venture, predecessor, or successor of the foregoing; or Any principal, including directors, shareholders, or officers, or any other representatives of the foregoing; or any account (including, but not limited to, any securities or trading account) in the name of any of the above-named entities, as well as any account in which such entities are or were a beneficiary, or beneficial owner, or in which such entities have or have had in any way control over, individually or with others: i. iv. any document related to account opening, due diligence, or closing; any document that identifies, addresses or is related to the identification of any trustee, guarantor, settlor or grantor, administrator or controlling party, protector, beneficiary, beneficial owner or signatory; any document that identifies any relationship manager or account manager; any monthly or periodic statement showing line item detail for all account activity, including, but not limited to, intrabank transfers between any of the accounts, and images of all cancelled checks in excess of $5,000; JA52 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page56 of5164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 any summary record or analysis of account deposits and transfers, including, but not limited to, the sources of the deposits into those accounts and the destination of the transfers from those accounts, including any wire transfer (showing all wire field information and originator-to-beneficiary and bank-to-bank information), check, cash letter or other monetary instrument involving those accounts; vi. any document related to any transfer of funds in excess of $10,000, including, but not limited to, any wire transfer, check, cash letter, or any document indicating the originator, beneficiary, intermediary, source of funds or destination of such transfer; any document related to any possible suspicious activity identified by Capital vii. One Financial Corporation's surveillance or monitoring system or program or referred by any employee or third-party; viii. any document relating to any annual, special, or other reviews of the accounts pursuant to Capital One Financial Corporation's policies and procedures related to the Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money-laundering, and compliance with guidance on Politically Exposed Persons and domestic or foreign public figures or their families; ix. any document, including, but not limited to, any personal file not otherwise kept in customary record-keeping systems, related to any loan or extension of credit requested by or provided to any of the above-named entities; x. any document related to any real estate transaction; and xi. any document related to, or provided in response to: a. any request, subpoena, inquiry or investigation, by any U.S. federal or state agency; b. any notice of administrative, civil, or criminal legal action; c. any subpoena, search warrant, seizure warrant, summons, or other legal writ, notice, or order or request for information, property, or material, including, but not limited to, those issued pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56; Sections 314(a) or 314(b) of that Act, or any other tax, anti-money laundering or bank statute; and d. any request for information made to or by a third party, including, but not limited to any government agency or financial institution. v. 2 JA53 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page57 of6164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 RESPONDING TO COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS In responding to the document request, please apply the instructions and definitions set forth below: INSTRUCTIONS In complying with this request, you should produce all responsive documents in 1. unredacted form that are in the possession, custody, or control or otherwise available to Capital One Financial Corporation'or its agents, employees, or representatives, regardless of whether the documents are possessed directly by you. Documents responsive to the request should not be destroyed, modified, 2. removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual named in the request has been, 3. or is currently, known by any other name, the request should be read also to include such other names under that alternative identification. Each document should be produced in a form that may be copied by standard 4. copying machines. When you produce documents, you should identify the paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) 5. in the Committee's request to which the document responds. Documents produced pursuant to this request should be produced in the order in 6. which they appear in your files and should not be rearranged. Any documents that are stapled, clipped, or otherwise fastened together should not be separated. Documents produced in response to this request should be produced together with copies of file labels, dividers, or identifying markers with which they were associated when this request was issued. Indicate the office or division and person from whose files each document was produced. Documents produced on paper (those from paper files that you choose to produce as such) shall not contain any permanent fasteners (i.e., staples), but shall be separated based on the divisions between documents as it is maintained in the custodian's files by nonpermanent fasteners (e.g., paper clips, binder clips, rubber bands) or a non-white slip sheet. Each folder and box should be numbered, and a description of the contents of each 7. folder and box, including the paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) of the request to which the documents are responsive, should be provided in an accompanying index. Responsive documents must be produced regardless of whether 'any other person or 8. entity possesses non-identical or identical copies of the same document. The Committee requests electronic documents in addition to paper productions. If any 9. of the requested information is available in machine-readable or electronic form (such as on a computer server, hard drive, CD, DVD, back up tape, or removable computer media such as thumb drives, flash drives, memory cards, and external hard drives), you should immediately 3 JA54 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page58 of7164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 consult with Committee staff to determine the appropriate format in which to produce the information. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed electronically in a manner comparable to the organizational structure called for in (6) and (7) above. 10. Documents produced in electronic format should be produced as delimited text with images and native files in accordance with the attached Data Delivery Standards. Alternatively, all documents derived from word processing programs, email applications, instant message logs, spreadsheets, and wherever else practicable, shall be produced in text searchable PDF format. Spreadsheets shall also be provided in their native form. Audio and video files shall be produced in their native format, although picture files associated with email or word processing programs shall be produced in PDF format along with the document it is contained in or to which it is attached. The requested wire transfer records should be produced in Excel (.xls) format that is enabled (not "read only" format), with separate columns that show each wire transfer field, including, but not limited to, the following fields: "Payment Date," "Amount," "Ordering Customer" #1 through #4, "Ordering Bank" #1 through #5, "Debiting ID," "Debiting Address" #1 through #4, "Credit ID," "Credit Address" #1 through #4, Account Party" #1 through #5, "Ultimate Beneficiary" #1 through #5, "Det_Payment" #1 through #4, and "Bank to Bank" #1 through #6. 11. Other than native files produced along with TIFF images in accordance with the attached Data Delivery Standards, every page of material produced to the Committee, whether from paper files or as a text searchable PDF, must contain a unique Bates number. All files produced in PDF format shall be named according to the Bates range that the file contains (e.g. YourCo-00001 - YourCo- 00035.pdf). If any document responsive to this request was, but no longer is, in your possession, 12. custody, or control, or has been placed into the possession, custody, or control of any third party and cannot be provided in response to this request, you should identify the document (stating its date, author, subject and recipients) and explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to be in your possession, custody, or control, or was placed in the possession, custody, or control of a third party. 13. If any document responsive to this request was, but no longer is, in your possession, custody or control, state: a. how the document was disposed of; b. the name, current address, and telephone number of the person who currently has possession, custody or control over the document; c. the date of disposition; d. the name, current address, and telephone number of each person who authorized said disposition or who had or has knowledge of said disposition. 14. If any document responsive to this request cannot be located, describe with particularity the efforts made to locate the document and the specific reason for its disappearance, destruction or unavailability. 4 JA55 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page59 of8164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 15. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this request referring to a document, communication, meeting, or other event is inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive detail is known to you or is otherwise apparent from the context of the request, you should produce all documents which would be responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were correct. 16. The request is continuing in nature and applies to any newly discovered document, regardless of the date of its creation. Any document not produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return date should be produced immediately upon location or discovery subsequent thereto. 17. You should consult with Committee majority staff regarding the method of delivery prior to sending any materials. 18. In the event that a responsive document is withheld on any basis, including a claim of privilege, you should provide a log containing the following information concerning every such document: (i) the reason the document is not being produced; (ii) the type of document; (iii) the general subject matter; (iv) the date, author and addressee; (v) the relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and (vi) any other description necessary to identify the document and to explain the basis for not producing the document. If a claimed privilege applies to only a portion of any document, that portion only should be withheld and the remainder of the document should be produced. As used herein, "claim of privilege" includes, but is not limited to, any claim that a document either may or must be withheld from production pursuant to any statute, rule, or regulation. (a) Any objections or claims of privilege are waived if you fail to provide an explanation of why full compliance is not possible and a log identifying with specificity the ground(s) for withholding each withheld document prior to the request compliance date. (b) Any assertion by a request recipient of any such non-constitutional legal bases for withholding documents or other materials, for refusing to answer any deposition question, or for refusing to provide hearing testimony, shall be of no legal force and effect and shall not provide a justification for such withholding or refusal, unless and only to the extent that the Committee (or the chair of the Committee, if authorized) has consented to recognize the assertion as valid. If the request cannot be complied with in full, it should be complied with to the 19. extent possible, which should include an explanation of why full compliance is not possible. Upon completion of the document production, you must submit a written certification, 20. signed by you or your counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in your possession, custody, or control which reasonably could contain responsive documents; (2) documents responsive to the request have not been destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee since the date of receiving the Committee's request or in anticipation of receiving the Committee's request; 5 JA56 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page60 of9164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Page of 19 and (3) all documents identified during the search that are responsive have been produced to the Committee, identified in a log provided to the Committee, as described in (18) above, or identified as provided in (12), (13) or (14) above. 21. When representing a witness or entity before the Committee in response to a document request or request for transcribed interview, counsel for the witness or entity must promptly submit to the Committee a notice of appearance specifying the following: (a) counsel's name, firm or organization, and contact information; and (b) each client represented by the counsel in connection with the proceeding. Submission of a notice of appearance constitutes acknowledgement that counsel is authorized to accept service of process by the Committee on behalf of such client(s), and that counsel is bound by and agrees to comply with all applicable House and Committee rules and regulations. JA57 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page61 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof10 of 19 DEFINITIONS The term "Capital One Financial Corporation" includes, but is not limited to Capital One 1. Financial Corporation and each of its subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, divisions, partnerships, properties, groups, special purpose entities, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, or any other entity in which they have or had a controlling interest, and any current or former employee, officer, director, shareholder, partner, member, consultant, senior manager, manager, senior associate, staff employee, independent contractor, agent, attorney or other representative of any of those entities. Each entities listed in items 1 and 6 above includes, but is not limited to, each of its 2. parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, divisions, partnerships, properties, groups, special purpose entities, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, or any other entity in which they have or had a controlling interest, and any current or former employee, officer, director, shareholder, partner, member, consultant, senior manager, manager, senior associate, staff employee, independent contractor, agent, attorney or other representative of any of those entities. The term "documents in your possession, custody or control" means (a) documents that 3. are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees, or representatives acting on your behalf; (b) documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access; and (c) documents that have been placed in the possession, custody, or control of any third party. The term "document" means any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature 4. whatsoever, regardless of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following: agreements; papers; memoranda; correspondence; reports; studies; reviews; analyses; graphs; diagrams; photographs; charts; tabulations; presentations; marketing materials; working papers; records; records of interviews; desk files; notes; letters; notices; confirmations; telegrams; faxes, telexes, receipts; appraisals; interoffice and intra office communications; electronic mail (e-mail) and attachments; electronic messages; text messages; contracts; cables; recordings, notations or logs of any type of conversation, telephone call, meeting or other communication; bulletins; printed matter; computer printouts; teletype; invoices; transcripts; audio or video recordings; statistical or informational accumulations; data processing cards or worksheets; computer stored and/or generated documents; comptger databases; computer disks and formats; machine readable electronic files, data or records maintained on a computer; instant messages; diaries; questionnaires and responses; data sheets; summaries; minutes; bills; accounts; estimates; projections; comparisons; messages; correspondence; electronically stored information and similar or related materials. A document bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be considered a separate document. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. The term "immediate family" means any parent, spouse, child, step child, daughter-in5. law, or son-in-law. The term "administrator or controlling party" means any individual, organization, or 6. entity that established, managed, administered, represented, served as signatory for, or engaged in any transaction on behalf of, or in any way had control over any of, or any account or assets of, the entities identified in or responsive to any of the items above. 7 JA58 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page62 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof11 of 19 The term "entity" means a corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability 7. company, joint venture, business trust, or any other form or organization by which business or financial transactions are carried out. The term "communication" means each manner or means of disclosure or exchange of • 8. information, regardless of means utilized, whether oral, electronic, by document or otherwise, and whether face to face, in meetings, by telephone, mail, telex, facsimile, computer, discussions, releases, delivery, or otherwise. The terms "and" and "or" shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or 9. disjunctively to bring within the scope of this subpoena any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. The singular includes plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The terms "person" or "persons" mean natural persons, firms, partnerships, 10. associations, limited liability corporations and companies, limited liability partnerships, corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, joint ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, other legal, business or government entities, or any other organization or group of persons, and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches, and other units thereof. The terms or "relating" "concerning" with respect to any given subject, mean anything 11. that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals with, or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to that subject The term "employee" means agent, borrowed employee, casual employee, consultant, de 12. facto employee, joint adventurer, loaned employee, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional employee, contract employee, contractor, or any other type of service provider. In responding to the subpoena, please apply the instructions and definitions set forth below: Instructions The documents subpoenaed include all those that are in the custody, control or possession, or within the right of custody, control or possession, of Capital One or its agents, employees, or representatives. If the subpoena cannot be complied with in full, it shall be complied with to the extent possible, with an explanation of why full compliance is not possible. Any document withheld on the basis of privilege shall be identified on a privilege log submitted with the responses to this subpoena. The log shall state the date of the document, its author, his or her occupation and employer, all recipients, the occupation and employer of each recipient, the subject matter, the privilege claimed and a brief explanation of the basis of the claim of privilege. If any document responsive to this subpoena was, but no longer is, in you possession, custody, or control, identify the 8 JA59 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page63 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof12 of 19 document and explain the circumstances by which it ceased to be in your possession, custody, or control. Documents shall be produced as delimited text with images and native files in accordance with the attached Data Delivery Standards. Alternatively, all documents derived from word processing programs, email applications, instant message logs, spreadsheets, and wherever else practicable, shall be produced in text searchable PDF format. Spreadsheets shall also be provided in their native form. Audio and video files shall be produced in their native format, although picture files associated with email or word processing programs shall be produced in PDF format along with the document it is contained in or to which it is attached. Other than native files produced along with TIFF images in accordance with the attached Data Delivery Standards, every page of material produced to the Committee, whether from paper files or as a text searchable PDF, must contain a unique Bates number. All files produced in PDF format shall be named according to the Bates range that the file contains (e.g. YourCo00001 - YourCo- 00035.pdf). Documents produced on paper (those from paper files that you choose to produce as such) shall not contain any permanent fasteners (i.e., staples), but shall be separated based on the divisions between documents as it is maintained in the custodian's files by non-permanent fasteners (e.g., paper clips, binder clips, rubber bands) or a non-white slip sheet. 9 JA60 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page64 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof13 of 19 DATA DELIVERY STANDARDS Record productions shall be prepared according to, and strictly adhere to, the following standards: 1. Records produced shall be organized, identified, and indexed electronically. 2. Only alphanumeric characters and the underscore ("_") character are permitted in file and folder names. Special characters are not permitted. 3. Two sets of records shall be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set to the Minority Staff. To the extent the Minority Staff does not have an electronic record review platform, records shall be produced to the Minority Staff in searchable PDF format and shall be produced consistent with the instructions specified in this schedule to the maximum extent practicable. 4. Production media and produced records shall not be encrypted, contain any password protections, or have any limitations that restrict access and use. 5. Records shall be produced to the Committee on one or more CDs, memory sticks, thumb drives, or USB hard drives. Production media shall be labeled with the following information: Case Number, Production Date, Producing Party, Bates Range. 6. Records produced to the Committee shall include an index describing the contents of the production. To the extent that more than one CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb drive, box, or folder is produced, each CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb drive, box, or folder shall contain an index describing its contents. 7. All records shall be Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially. 8. When you produce records, you shall identify the paragraph or number in the Committee's Request to which the records respond and add a metadata tag listing that paragraph or number in accordance with Appendix A. 9. a. All submissions must be organized by custodian unless otherwise instructed. b. Productions shall include: 1. A Concordance Data (.DAT) Load File in accordance with metadata fields as defined in Appendix A. 2. A Standard Format Opticon Image Cross-Reference File (.OPT) to link produced images to the records contained in the .DAT file. JA61 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page65 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof14 of 19 3. A file (can be Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, or Adobe PDF) defining the fields and character lengths of the load file. c. The production format shall include images, text, and native electronic files. Electronic files must be produced in their native format, i.e., the format in which they are ordinarily used and maintained during the normal course of business. For example, a Microsoft Excel file must be produced as a Microsoft Excel file rather than an image of a spreadsheet. NOTE: An Adobe PDF file representing a printed copy of another file format (such as Word Document or Webpage) is NOT considered a native file unless the record was initially created as a PDF. 1. Image Guidelines: 1. Single or multi page TIFF files. 2. All TIFF images must have a unique file name, i.e., Bates Number 3. Images must be endorsed with sequential Bates numbers in the lower right corner of each image. 2. Text Guidelines: 1. All text shall be produced as separate text files, not inline within the .DAT file. 2. Relative paths shall be used to link the associated text file (FIELD: TEXTPATH) to the record contained in the load file. 3. Associated text files shall be named as the BEGBATES field of each record. 3. Native File Guidelines: 1. Copies of original email and native file records/attachments must be included for all electronic productions. 2. Native file records must be named per the BEGBATES field. 3. Relative paths shall be used to link the associated native file (FIELD: NATIVEFILELINK) to the record contained in the load file. 4. Associated native files shall be named as the BEGBATES field of each record. 2 JA62 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page66 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof15 of 19 d. All record family groups, i.e., email attachments, embedded files, etc., should be produced together and children files should follow parent files sequentially in the Bates numbering. e. Only 1 load file and one Opticon image reference file shall be produced per production volume. f. All extracted text shall be produced as separate text files. g. Record numbers in the load file should match record Bates numbers and TIFF file names. h. All electronic record produced to the Committee should include the fields of metadata listed in Appendix A. 3 JA63 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page67 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof16 of 19 Appendix A Production Load File Formatting and Delimiters: The first line shall be a header row containing field names. Load file delimiters shall be in accordance with the following: Text Qualifier: (254) o Field Separator: ¶ (20) Multi-Value Separator: ; (59) • o Newline: \n (10) • o. Nested Value Separator: \ (92). • All Date / Time Data shall be split into two separate fields (see below). o Date Format: mm/cld/yyyy—i.e., 05/18/2015 o • Time Format: hh:mm:ss A—i.e., 08:39:12 AM • • Required Metadata Fields Description First Bates number of native file record/email Field Name FIRSTBATES Sample Data EDC0000001 LASTBATES EDC0000001 ATTACHRANGE BEGATTACH EDC0000001— EDC0000015 , EDC0000001 Bates number of the first page of the parent record to the Bates number of the last page of the last attachment "child" record First Bates number of attachment range ENDATTACH EDC0000015 Last Bates number of attachment range , Last Bates number of native file record/email **The LASTBATES field should be populated for single page records/emails. JA64 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page68 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof17 of 19 Field Name CUSTODIAN Sample Data Smith, John Description Email: mailbox where the email resided Attachment: Individual from whom the record originated FROM John Smith Email: Sender Native: Author(s) of record **semi-colon should be used to separate multiple entries • TO Janice; Recipient(s) Coffman, **semi colon should be used to separate multiple LeeW [mailto:LeeW@MS entries N.com] CC Thompson Carbon copy recipient(s) Frank **semi colon should be used to separate multiple [mailto: frank Thompson@ entries cdt.com] Blind carbon copy recipient(s) John Cain **semi-colon should be used to separate multiple entries Email: Subject line of the email Native:• Title Board Meeting of record (if available) Minutes Email: Date the email was sent 10/12/2010 Native: (empty) BCC SUBJECT DATE SENT 07:05 PM GMT TIME SENT/TIME . ZONE TIME ZONE GMT NATIVEFILELINK D:\001\ EDC0000001.msg MIME TYPE MSG Email: Time the email was sent/ Time zone in which the emails were standardized during conversion. Native: (empty) **This data must be a separate field and cannot be • combined with the DATE_ SENT field The time zone in which the emails were standardized during conversion. Email: Time zone Native: (empty) Hyperlink to the email or native file record **The linked file must be named per the FIRSTBATES number The content type of an Email or native file record as . identified/extracted from the header JA65 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page69 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof18 of 19 Field Name TILE_EXTEN Description The file type extension representing the Email or native file record; will vary depending on the email format Sample Data MSG AUTHOR John Smith DATE_CREATED 10/10/2010 TPME_CREATED 10:25 AM DATE_MOD 10/12/2010 TIME_MOD 07:00 PM DATE_ACCESSD 10/12/2010 TIME_ACCESSD 07:00 PM • PIUNTED_DATE 10/12/2010 NATIVEFILESIZ E 5,952 PGCOUNT PATH 1 J:\Shared\Smith .T\October Agenda.doc Personal Folders\Deleted Items\Board Meeting Minutes.msg <000805c2c71b$7 5977050$cb 8306d1@MSN> INTFILEPATH INTMSGID • Email: (empty) Native: Author of the record Email: (empty) Native: Date the record was created Email: (empty) Native: Time the record was created **This data must be a separate field and cannot be combined with the DATE_CREATED field Email: (empty) Native: Date the record was last modified . Email: (empty) - Native: Time the record was last modified **This data must be a separate field and cannot be combined with the DATE_MOD field Email: (empty) Native: Date the record was last accessed Email: (empty) Native: Time the record was last accessed **This data must be a separate field and cannot be combined with the DATE_ACCESSD field Email: (empty) Native: Date the record was last printed Size of native file record/email in KB **Use only whole numbers Number of pages in native file record/email Email: (empty) Native: Path where native file record was stored including original file name Email: original location of email including original file name Native: (empty) • Email: Unique Message ID Native: (empty) 6 JA66 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page70 164 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER Document 51-3 Filed 05/10/19 Pageof19 of 19 Field Name MD5HASH Sample Data d131dd02c5e6eec 4693d9a069 Saff95c 2fcab58712467ea b4004583eb 8fb7f89 Description MD5 Hash value of the record TEXTPATH \TEXT\AAA0001 .txt NATIVEFILEPAT H HANDWRITTEN NATIVESWIES SAGE1 .msg; NATIVES\ATT ACHMENT1. doc YES REDACTED YES Path to the record's text file that contains extracted text to be used for processing. Every record has a relative path to its text file in this field. Note: .These paths may also be fully qualified; and thus do not have to be relative. Path to the record's native file. Every record has a relative path to its native file in this field. Note: These paths may also be fully qualified; and thus do not have to be relative. Field should be marked "YES" if the record has any handwritten notes or other text that is not contained in the text file Field should be marked "YES" if the record contains any redactions, "NO" otherwise Metadata Fields Required Upon Specific Request TAGS FirstPassaespon sive; FirstPass\ForQC FOLDERS JohnDoeDocair stPass If requested—a list of tags assigned to the record. Multiple tags are separated by the multi-value separator, for example: "A; B; C", and nested tags are denoted using the nested value separator, for example: "X\Y\Z". Tags for attachments will appear under the custom field "ATTACHMENT_ TAGS". , If requested—a list of folders of which the record is a part. Multiple folders are separated by the multi-value separator, for example: "A; B; C", and nested folders are denoted using the nested value separator, for example: "X\Y\Z". Folders for attachments will appear under the custom field "ATTACHMENT_ FOLDERS". 7 JA67 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page71 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 3 Plaintiffs, New York, N.Y. 4 v. 19 Civ. 3826(ER) 5 DEUTSCHE BANK, AG, et al., 6 Defendants, 7 8 COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 9 Intervenor Defendant, 10 11 PERMAMENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 12 13 Intervenor Defendant. -----------------------------------x 14 Conference May 22, 2019 2:30 p.m. 15 Before: 16 HON. EDGARDO RAMOS, 17 District Judge 18 19 APPEARANCES 20 21 22 CONSOVOY McCARTHY, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs BY: PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE CAMERON T. NORRIS 23 24 MUKASEY FRENCHMAN & SKLAROFF, LLP Attorneys for Trump Business Entity Plaintiffs BY: MARC L. MUKASEY 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA68 1 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page72 of 164 J5m2tru1 APPEARANCES (continued) 1 2 3 4 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Deutsche Bank, AG BY: RAPHAEL A. PROBER STEVEN R. ROSS 5 6 7 MURPHY & McGONIGLE, PC Attorneys for Defendant Capital One Financial Corp. BY: JAMES A. MURPHY STEVEN D. FELDMAN 8 9 10 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Attorneys for Intervenor Defendants BY: DOUGLAS N. LETTER 11 12 ALSO PRESENT: 13 DANIEL S. NOBLE, Senior Counsel for Investigations U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 14 15 16 17 JENNIFER L. READ, Senior Counsel U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA69 2 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page73 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 (Case called) 2 THE DEPUTY CLERK: 3 3 Counsel, please state your names for the record. 4 MR. MUKASEY: Good afternoon, your Honor. Marc 5 Mukasey, from the law firm of Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff, for 6 what I will call the business entity plaintiffs. 7 With me are Cam Norris and Patrick Strawbridge from 8 the Consovoy McCarthy law firm in D.C. 9 going to be handling most of the argument today, Judge. 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. LETTER: Mr. Strawbridge is Very well. Good morning, your Honor. I am Douglas 12 Letter. I am the general counsel of the United States House of 13 Representatives. 14 Financial Services Committee of the House and Mr. Daniel Noble 15 from the Intelligence Committee of the House. With me today is Jennifer Read from the 16 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 17 MR. MURPHY: Good afternoon, your Honor. 18 James Murphy, of the firm of Murphy & McGonigle. 19 Capital One Financial Corporation. 20 also of Murphy & McGonigle, is here with us. 21 MR. ROSS: My name is I represent My partner Steve Feldman, Good afternoon, your Honor. Steven Ross, 22 from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, on behalf of Deutsche 23 Bank, and with me is my partner Rafi Prober, also on behalf of 24 the bank. 25 THE COURT: Good afternoon to you all. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA70 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page74 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 This matter is on for a hearing on the preliminary 2 injunction application by the plaintiffs, the Donald Trump 3 organizations and the various Trump family members. 4 So, Mr. Strawbridge, whenever you are ready. 5 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 6 7 4 Thank you, your Honor. We appreciate the opportunity to be heard this afternoon. This case requires the court to confront serious 8 questions about the outer reaches of the power of a committee 9 of the House of Representatives to obtain decades worth of 10 private financial information about any individual that its 11 members decide would be a useful case study for some potential 12 legislation. 13 For more than a century, the courts have reiterated 14 time and time again that Congress's powers of investigation, 15 although substantial, are not unlimited. 16 assume the role of the executive branch, in law enforcement, it 17 cannot seek to expose for the sake of exposure, it cannot seek 18 information for which it lacks the authority to act, a 19 committee cannot exceed the scope of its jurisdiction, and it 20 cannot compel production of information that is not pertinent 21 to its stated and valid legislative purpose. 22 Congress cannot The subpoenas challenged here transgress those limits. 23 With startling breadth, they seek private records of virtually 24 every banking transaction or interaction by not only the named 25 plaintiffs, but in some cases their children, their spouses, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA71 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page75 of 164 J5m2tru1 5 1 their in-laws, and in the present case even his grandchildren. 2 Every debit card transaction, every account application, every 3 internal report, every loan document, they want it all. 4 many cases, they say want these documents without time 5 limitation. 6 ten or in some cases three years. 7 epitome of an inquiry into private or personal matters. 8 Congress can make a case study out of the plaintiffs, they can 9 make a case study out of me, out of my friends on the other 10 side, or anyone in this courtroom, including, unfortunately, 11 your Honor. In In other cases, they only want them for the last These subpoenas are the If 12 THE COURT: 13 "case study" in their papers. 14 it. 15 legislative reasons for asking for these documents and for the 16 Trump family documents in particular? 17 I know that the House lawyer used the term They are probably sorry about But, in fact, don't they provide a number of valid MR. STRAWBRIDGE: No, your Honor. We do not believe 18 that they do. And we will say that they generally aver to a 19 number of investigations or goals or potential legislation. 20 But when it comes time to actually talk about what purposes 21 these subpoenas, these investigative acts, what legitimate 22 legislative purpose they advance, they are actually quite 23 specific and they are somewhat narrow and they differ a little 24 bit depending upon which committee, which I am happy to talk 25 about if your Honor would like. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA72 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page76 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 THE COURT: 2 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 6 Sure. Let's start with the Capital One 3 subpoena, which is only issued by the Financial Services 4 Committee. 5 opposition, they actually assert what this particular subpoena 6 is designed to advance -- is, again, invoking language to learn 7 more about unsafe lending practices and money laundering and 8 there is the reference to the fact that they might make some 9 legislative changes to the Bank Secrecy Act or the money 10 The purpose -- and this is on page 16 of their laundering statutes. 11 That is, on its face -- and I would, indeed, encourage 12 the court to look at the House resolution that was cited by the 13 House with respect to supporting that purpose -- that is law 14 enforcement activity, and you can look at the face of the 15 subpoena and distill as much. 16 If you look at the Capital One subpoena, among other 17 things, it asks for all documents concerning transfers in 18 excess of $10,000 -- I'm sure your Honor is familiar with the 19 significance of the 10,000 limit and what that means -- 20 documents concerning any potential violations of various 21 statutes, documents that are related to or produced in response 22 to state or local law enforcement investigations. 23 Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York wanted 24 to launch the broadest possible investigative warrant of the 25 plaintiffs in this case, it could not ask for more than it has SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA73 If the U.S. Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page77 of 164 J5m2tru1 7 1 asked for in the Capital One subpoena, and that's a prime 2 example of how, if you look at the face of the subpoena, the 3 legislative purpose that Congress is using or arguing to 4 advance that particular subpoena is plainly invalid, it plainly 5 encroaches upon the executive's responsibilities for law 6 enforcement. 7 THE COURT: Certainly those requests do touch upon 8 matters that are, maybe not strictly speaking, but generally 9 speaking, within the ambit of law enforcement, but it is also 10 part of the job of Congress, is it not, to continually, if need 11 be, look at the current laws, see whether they are doing the 12 job they were meant to do and, if not, make appropriate 13 accommodations? 14 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: That is true, but the courts have 15 also noted -- and Shelton is very clear about this -- it cannot 16 simply tack on the notion that you are interested in some type 17 of remedial legislation and use that to provide cover for what 18 is essentially a law enforcement investigation. 19 at both who the people are that are targeted and the extent of 20 the documents that the House is seeking, it is plain that that 21 is the activity that they are trying to do. 22 When you look Again, I will refer your Honor to the House 23 resolution. It specifically talks about trying to encourage 24 enforcement of money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act. 25 actually the last line in the House resolution that they cite. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA74 It is Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page78 of 164 J5m2tru1 8 1 And right there you have, on the face of the legislative 2 record, an avowed improper legislative purpose, which McGrain 3 specifically says -- 4 THE COURT: What does the specific language say? 5 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: This is House Resolution 206. There 6 are a number of whereas clauses and, at the end, No. 4 is that 7 the committee urges financial institutions to comply with the 8 Bank Secrecy Act and the anti-money laundering laws and 9 regulations and affirms that financial institutions and 10 individuals should be held accountable for money laundering and 11 terror financing crimes and violations." 12 what that is other than an announced intention to -- 13 THE COURT: It is hard to imagine Or an encouragement to banks and 14 particular individuals, probably individuals, to follow the 15 law. 16 urging? 17 Why isn't that an appropriate thing for Congress to be MR. STRAWBRIDGE: It is certainly an appropriate thing 18 for Congress to urge. I would hope we would all urge that. 19 But it changes when they actually put a series of document 20 requests into a subpoena and seek to compel production of 21 materials that touch upon individuals who might be -- which, I 22 think, when you look at the face of the subpoena, is clearly 23 trying to investigate individuals and entities in this case for 24 violation of those acts. 25 and at that point the cases going back 150 years, all the way At that point it's law enforcement, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA75 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page79 of 164 J5m2tru1 9 1 back to the original case, Kilbourn, make it clear that is not 2 the province of Congress. 3 It is certainly not when we are talking about private 4 affairs. 5 a subpoena about government activity. 6 to people about their actions in official office. 7 subpoena for private financial records, and it is not backed by 8 a valid legislative purpose. 9 enforcement, and so it fails on those grounds alone. 10 I think it is important to emphasize that this is not THE COURT: This is not a subpoena This is a It amounts to attempted law Well, if you take my argument, assume for 11 the sake of argument that it is a valid legislative purpose. 12 If so, is a subpoena directed to an individual with respect to 13 their banking records, where the Congress has been made aware 14 that the individual has engaged in transactions with this 15 particular bank in a fashion that may be violative of the 16 current laws? 17 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Well, investigation of crimes is no 18 less of an executive function than the actual prosecution of 19 them. 20 to investigate whether or not criminal conduct has occurred, 21 that is an executive function, and all the cases say the 22 legislature does not have a general power to inquire into 23 private records to do so. 24 25 So to the extent that what they are attempting to do is THE COURT: But hasn't the Supreme Court said over and over again that the examination about the current state of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA76 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page80 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 affairs, the current state of law enforcement, the current 2 state of the extent to which elected officials are complying 3 with their ethical obligations is an appropriate function for 4 Congress to take? 5 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: So let me break that into two parts 6 because the answer changes a little bit based on your Honor's 7 question. 8 9 With the last thing you said, ethical violations, whatever power Congress has to inquire into that, that is 10 outside the jurisdiction of the committees that issued these 11 subpoenas. 12 respect to the subpoenas. 13 So as a general matter, that is off the table with With respect to Congress's ability to serving the 14 state, of course. 15 a general ability to gather useful information that might 16 advance some actual legislative act, usually legislation. 17 Legislation is basically the only act that is identified here 18 by the House. 19 10 The courts have made clear that Congress has But, again, the courts are equally as clear it cannot 20 cross the line into law enforcement investigation, particularly 21 when you are dealing with private records and private affairs. 22 So in that case these subpoenas transgress those limitations. 23 I will also note -- I will just note as an aside, 24 before I move on to the Deutsche Bank subpoena, the RFPA is an 25 additional independent reason. If your Honor wants to talk SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA77 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page81 of 164 J5m2tru1 11 1 about RFPA somewhat later in the case, I will bracket that, 2 because it obviously applies to both subpoenas and the clients. 3 With respect to the Deutsche Bank subpoena, it suffers 4 from many of the same problems that the Capital One subpoena 5 has. 6 back ten years as a presumptive limit. 7 further in some cases. 8 the named individuals who it seeks to discover information 9 from. 10 It is equally as broad. In fact, it is broader. It goes It goes back even It is a little bit broader in terms of And to the extent that it was issued by the Financial 11 Services Committee, my understanding of the record is that that 12 subpoena was essentially issued twice. 13 were issued by the Financial Services Committee and by the 14 Intelligence Committee. 15 different jurisdictional missions. 16 on the powers that they can exercise as committees of Congress. 17 The subpoenas are the same, but to the extent that the 18 Financial Services Committee has issued that subpoena, it 19 suffers from the same defects and essentially amounts to 20 investigatory -- 21 THE COURT: Identical subpoenas Those committees obviously have They have different limits You also complained about the vast breadth 22 of the subpoenas and the fact that they reach to certain of 23 Mr. Trump's children and grandchildren. 24 which the Trump organization is structured require, if a 25 legitimate investigation is going to be conducted, that But doesn't the way in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA78 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page82 of 164 J5m2tru1 12 1 includes the subpoenaing of these records? 2 that it reaches the family members because of the closely held 3 structure of the Trump organizations? 4 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Doesn't it require So obviously I don't agree that it 5 is a legitimate investigation that can be had by Congress in 6 the first place. 7 it, no, I think that at some point when we are talking about 8 the private affairs of officials, Congress lacks general power 9 to inquire into private affairs, and there should be, 10 11 But even if it was, if that's a basis to do obviously, some limitation. This is the concept of pertinence that pops up in the 12 case law, and I would encourage your Honor to particularly 13 focus on the Bergman case, which is a case out of the Southern 14 District involved in an express attempt to narrow, in fact, a 15 successful attempt by a judge in this court to narrow a 16 congressional subpoena. 17 It is one thing to say that we are gathering 18 information as part of a case study or to make some sort of 19 assessment of something to the intelligence system or to the 20 political process, but I don't think that that purpose can mesh 21 when you actually look at the text in the face of the 22 investigative subpoena that's issued. 23 looking for records about minors. 24 for records about in-laws. 25 They are literally They are literally looking If that is a justification, it is a justification to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA79 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page83 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 reach everybody in the country's records. 2 study. 3 or with their in-laws. 4 possibility that somebody is receiving foreign payments, 5 somebody is involved in some sort of banking transaction, and 6 it simply can't be the case that that recitation alone is 7 enough to justify the kind of thorough and impressive 8 investigation into individual records, private individuals, 9 that these subpoenas do. 10 13 Anyone can be a case Anyone can have close relationships with their children There can always be a hypothetical I will note that obviously the Intelligence Committee 11 has powers that are related to monitoring the activities of the 12 intelligence agencies and those types of affairs, but their 13 power does not extend to essentially running parallel 14 intelligence investigations themselves. 15 THE COURT: I'm sorry. So you are suggesting that the 16 committee is running a parallel intelligence investigation with 17 whom? 18 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Well, I would suggest that the 19 subpoena indicates that the act that they are trying to 20 undertake is essentially to run their own intelligence 21 investigation, to do their own surveillance, to obtain their 22 own records about individual private conduct and activity. 23 THE COURT: Why isn't that an appropriate legislative 24 purpose if what they are trying to do is figure out how do we 25 prevent foreign sovereigns from influencing our internal SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA80 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page84 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 elections? 2 that's happening now, don't they have to know how it is 3 happening? 4 Shouldn't they have to know how? MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 14 To the extent Well, there are obviously a variety 5 of ways in which they may be able to obtain that information 6 through other sources the committee has available to it. 7 question is whether -- 8 9 THE COURT: They can. The They can also get that information by virtue of these subpoenas, no? 10 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Well, so we disagree that they can 11 do that in this case. 12 guess this would be the second point. 13 do have some authority to inquire into those types of matters, 14 the face of the subpoena, again, belies the information they 15 are actually seeking is pertinent to that legitimate purpose. 16 The subpoenas are not limited to foreign transactions. 17 subpoenas are not limited to interactions with known potential 18 enemies or rogue states. 19 domestic transactions. 20 transactions. 21 face of the subpoenas alone, you can see it is not pertinent to 22 the asserted purpose that the Intelligence Committee is relying 23 on. 24 25 They certainly cannot do so -- and I To the extent that they The The subpoenas literally ask for all They ask for records of all account They are so overly broad that, looking at the THE COURT: But you would agree, would you not, that to the extent I determine that it is a facially legitimate SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA81 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page85 of 164 J5m2tru1 15 1 legislative function, at that point I can't go and look at the 2 subpoena and read it line by line and determine, okay, you can 3 get this category of documents and not that category of 4 documents? 5 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 6 for a couple of different reasons. 7 No. Actually I disagree with that First of all, when you are determining whether or not 8 it is a facially legitimate legislative purpose, the language 9 that is used specifically is that the investigative act has to 10 have a facially legitimate legislative purpose. 11 the investigative act is the subpoena. 12 look at the text of the subpoena and make an assessment as to 13 whether or not we think it is confined to the legitimate 14 purpose or if it stretches into an illegitimate purpose. 15 In this case So we can certainly There are examples in the cases -- Bergman is one of 16 them, Tobin is another -- where courts have taken it upon 17 themselves to narrow subpoenas and narrow categories of 18 information that Congress can obtain. 19 is authorized to do that. 20 basically say the subpoenas are invalid; and if the committees 21 want to reissue newly valid subpoenas, they can do so, and we 22 can -- 23 THE COURT: I think that your Honor I think you are also authorized to Well, let me ask you, have you had that 24 conversation with the committees? 25 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: We did raise with the committees SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA82 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page86 of 164 J5m2tru1 16 1 whether they had any interest in narrowing the subpoenas and if 2 it was something that they were willing to discuss. 3 receive a response. We did not 4 I think if you look at the Bean case, Fusion GPS, both 5 district courts that handled that at one point had directed the 6 parties to sit down and negotiate. 7 D.C. Circuit, is another where the court urged the parties to 8 sit down and try to narrow their differences at least, if not 9 eliminate them. The AT&T case, from the Obviously if the court ordered us to do that, 10 we would be happy to do so. 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Okay. One point on the argument on a 13 preliminary injunction proceeding, under the Citibank standard, 14 which I know your Honor is familiar with, we merely need to 15 raise serious questions on the merits because I think our 16 irreparable harm is well established in the case law and 17 indisputable in this case. 18 19 THE COURT: of this case? 20 21 22 Is that standard applicable on the facts MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Yes. I don't see why it would not be. THE COURT: Isn't there case law suggesting that where 23 it is the function of a government agency or a government 24 regulation that's being tested or challenged, that the party 25 has to make a finding of likelihood of success and cannot SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA83 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page87 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 2 resort to the less stringent standard? MR. STRAWBRIDGE: No. I don't think that that 3 exception applies in this case in part because this is not an 4 administrative agency or a law enforcement agency. 5 congressional subpoena. 6 17 This is a I will note that the Eastland case from the D.C. 7 Circuit, which the procedural posture of that case was not 8 disagreed with by the Supreme Court, the Eastland case 9 basically supports the view that in this case, when you have 10 these types of serious questions and you run the obvious risk 11 of disclosure, which would not only basically resolve the case 12 but would moot the ability to obtain further review, a 13 preliminary injunction can be imposed on this posture, because 14 we have met that. 15 think it would satisfy it on a preliminary injunction standard 16 at this point, not only with respect to our arguments regarding 17 legitimate legislative purpose, but also with the RFPA. 18 19 Even if the regular standard applied, we And I would like to talk about the RFPA for just a few minutes if I can. 20 THE COURT: Sure. 21 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: The Right to Financial Privacy Act 22 plainly applies to the individuals who are named in some of the 23 subpoenas. 24 committees of the House of Representatives are not government 25 authorities as defined in the act. The House's argument, obviously, is that the And that argument is not SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA84 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page88 of 164 J5m2tru1 18 1 well taken. 2 text of the statute. 3 defined as "any department or agency of the United States." 4 The fact that it is the department and the agency means the 5 word "department" must be doing some work there that agency is 6 not. 7 encompass the entire executive branch, so "department" must 8 mean something more than that. 9 It is inconsistent with both the purpose and the Government authority, as you know, is "Agency" is typically interpreted in federal statutes to Moreover, there are several references to Congress or 10 Congress-controlled investigators in the text of the RFPA 11 which, if the RFPA was not intended to cover Congress, there 12 would be no reason to make the limited exceptions or allowances 13 for certain congressional investigations outside the RFPA 14 requirements. 15 THE COURT: But hasn't the Supreme Court already 16 defined "Congress" outside of the terms "agency or department 17 of the United States." 18 19 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: That is the Bramblett -- I'm sorry, that is the -- 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 22 MR. LETTER: 23 THE COURT: 24 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 25 Interestingly not. Hutcheson? Hubbard or Hutcheson? Hubbard. Hubbard. So Hubbard, in 1995, overruled Bramblett, which was the case from around 1950 or so. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA85 That Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page89 of 164 J5m2tru1 19 1 case interpreted, for purposes of 1001, that false statements 2 made to Congress or false statements made to an agency or 3 department of the United States did not include Congress. 4 Setting aside the fact that that is a criminal statute, that it 5 has different interpretive principles that apply to 6 interpreting that, that does absolutely no help for the 7 committee because the act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 8 was enacted in 1978. 9 decades was Bramblett. In 1978, the governing law for several Bramblett had plainly applied that 10 exact same language to cover Congress. 11 Court cases I would refer you to, Cannon v. University of 12 Chicago and Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, that say 13 when we interpret a statute and we are thinking what is the 14 definition that Congress would have presumed based on legal 15 interpretations, we use the legal interpretations that were in 16 place at the time the statute was passed. 17 decision can't affect what Congress intended in 1978. 18 it explain why the GAO has a particular exemption and why there 19 is a reference to congressional committees receiving documents 20 as outside the RFPA's particular procedures if Congress has 21 never intended to cover this. 22 And there are Supreme Obviously a 1995 Nor does I will also note that after that decision came down in 23 1995 in Hubbard, Congress very quickly amended 1001 to revert 24 to the old understanding that of course was in place in 1978 25 and added Congress back into the scope of the false statement SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA86 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page90 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 20 statute. 2 We raise serious questions on both the RFPA claim as 3 well as the legitimate legislative purpose challenge. 4 one of them are sufficient to meet the requirements for 5 preliminary injunctive relief, and we would certainly urge the 6 court to give us a preliminary injunction, then we can proceed 7 with relative speed to a final hearing on the merits. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Either What about the balance of equities? The balance of equities in this 10 case, I think, favor the plaintiffs here for a couple of 11 reasons. 12 We are willing to expedite this case. We have 13 expedited this case all along. 14 the other side has worked with us. 15 particularly long period of time to proceed to a final 16 judgment. 17 develop the record that we would need for full briefing. 18 would be no harm to that modest extension of time to submit 19 these documents. 20 aren't going anywhere. 21 remaining Congress. 22 court no later than the fall. 23 They deserve a full and fair hearing. 24 25 I appreciate that counsel on We would not need a 30, 60, 90 days I think would be sufficient to The documents are being preserved. THE COURT: There They There is adequate time remaining in the This could be resolved by the district These are important issues. So you object to the consolidation of the -SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA87 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page91 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: We do object to consolidation. 21 We 2 do have some additional record that we would like to develop in 3 this case. 4 The courts are very clear that consolidation requires some type 5 of fair notice to parties and the opportunity to prepare for 6 trial. 7 We think we should have the opportunity to do so. THE COURT: I believe Judge Mehta gave you an 8 opportunity to supplement the record in the case before him in 9 connection with his decision to consolidate. 10 11 Did you in fact add to the record there? MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Yes, we did. We submitted a couple 12 of documents. 13 that case. 14 documents in that case with some of the committee 15 correspondence and other related matters. 16 We were given three days to add to the record in We took some steps and we did supplement the In this case, of course, it is two different 17 committees. 18 discovery we would like voluntarily to be able to obtain from 19 those committees. 20 in terms of responsive pleadings, so we would very much like to 21 know what facts are or may not be disputed for purposes of 22 final judgment. 23 We would like the opportunity to explore what Obviously we have not heard from the House There is also some interesting information that could 24 be developed perhaps about the RFPA claim, both factually and 25 legally, that would benefit from further briefing and further SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA88 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page92 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 argumentation. 2 3 So for all of those reasons, I suggest that we should proceed to an actual hearing on the merits. 4 5 22 THE COURT: case? What would discovery look like in this Are there any facts that need to be developed? 6 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Yeah, as I just said, we do think -- 7 well, here is an example of some facts we would like to 8 develop. 9 papers in which there may be further legislative statements or There has been additional time since we filed our 10 public legislative statements from members or from the 11 committees that we would like the opportunity to explore and to 12 put into the record. 13 We think that there is some interesting both factual 14 and legal development that could be done on the RFPA claim. 15 The RFPA applied to trusts, trusts would be considered persons 16 within the reach of the House of Representatives. 17 obviously benefit from some additional time to develop facts 18 about who are the targets of the subpoenas and entities that 19 are targets of the subpoenas as well as what the original 20 legislative expectation and understanding of the RFPA's scope 21 was. 22 23 24 25 We would We would also like the opportunity, as I said, to look to -THE COURT: Why isn't that a purely legal question? Why can't we just look at the legislative history. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA89 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page93 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 23 Because in some case there might be 2 a question about who are the representatives. Not to get too 3 technical, but if you look at the Capital One subpoena, for 4 example, after listing the entities that the committee is 5 seeking discovery from, they include language that they also 6 want basically the accounts and the documents of any principal, 7 including directors, shareholders, officers, other 8 representatives of the foregoing. 9 factual record that could be developed as to who that would There at least is some 10 encompass and how broad the subpoenas actually are as well as 11 the RFPA's ability. 12 If I can just make one more note before I sit down? 13 THE COURT: 14 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 15 Yes. Although I am obviously happy to address any other questions your Honor has. 16 THE COURT: Go ahead. 17 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: In the 1950s, as you are aware, a 18 lot of the cases that are at issue here revolved around the 19 activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee, an 20 investigation into the extent to which people were involved 21 with disfavored political organizations at the time. 22 notwithstanding the fact that those obviously raised difficult 23 and important questions and there was a strong desire to defer 24 to congressional prerogatives, the Supreme Court reiterated 25 that Congress lacks the ability to just generally inquire into SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA90 And Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page94 of 164 J5m2tru1 24 1 the private affairs of citizens and it emphasized that a 2 measure of added care on the part of the House or Senate in 3 authorizing the use of compulsory process by their committees 4 would suffice and be a small price to pay to uphold the 5 principles of limited constitutional government. 6 statement of principle is no less true today than it was 60 7 years ago, and I encourage the court to heed it and to grant us 8 the preliminary injunction. 9 THE COURT: 10 Mr. Letter. 11 Folks want to put the signs down, please? 12 MR. LETTER: 13 My friend, Mr. Strawbridge, has made an eloquent That Thank you. Thank you, your Honor. 14 presentation. 15 position he is advocating is contrary to numerous decades of 16 numerous Supreme Court opinions. 17 basically to overrule a whole batch of Supreme Court opinions, 18 which I will be happy to discuss because of the breadth of his 19 argument today. 20 Several problems with it, unfortunately, for the Mr. Strawbridge is asking you Before I get more into it, though, I want to just 21 raise two things. One is probably the best brief of the House 22 of Representatives today is the opinion issued the other day by 23 Judge Mehta in district court in DC. 24 that these arguments being made today are identical to what was 25 made before him except for the right to financial privacy, Judge Mehta recognized SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA91 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page95 of 164 J5m2tru1 25 1 which I will get to, and he rejected all of them. 2 rejected them so soundly that he then also denied a stay 3 pending appeal because he said there is absolutely no merit to 4 any of these arguments because they are directly contrary to 5 Supreme Court precedent. 6 Which leads me to my second point: In fact, he McGrain. McGrain 7 v. Daugherty, Teapot Dome, I think, as Judge Mehta recognized, 8 if you read that opinion, you could probably just switch in the 9 name "Trump" and it would be almost identical of the claims 10 that were made, the kinds of arguments that Mr. Strawbridge is 11 making today. 12 Supreme Court. 13 They were all rejected unanimously by the Not a single justice bought those arguments. THE COURT: Mr. Letter, let me ask you this. I 14 appreciate the broad authority that's given to Congress to 15 investigate in connection with its legislative charter, but is 16 it appropriate for Congress, even acting within its appropriate 17 realm, to identify a particular individual, much less the 18 president of the United States, and label him and his 19 organization and his family as a case study in an effort to 20 carry out its job? 21 MR. LETTER: Several responses, your Honor. 22 First of all, McGrain, McGrain focused specifically on 23 I think it was Harry Dougherty, the disgraced Attorney General, 24 part of the Teapot Dome. 25 below had quashed that subpoena because it said you are The opinion talks about how the court SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA92 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page96 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 focusing on an individual. 2 activities. 3 Mr. Strawbridge. 4 no, that doesn't work. 5 26 You are engaging in law enforcement As I say, it is almost identical words to And the Supreme Court again unanimously said, As far as focusing on an individual and a case study, 6 a couple of points, your Honor. The Financial Services 7 Committee here issued a whole batch of subpoenas. 8 talking about two here. 9 quite a few people, quite a few entities having nothing to do We are only There were quite a few others and 10 with Mr. Trump or his family. 11 subpoenas here, the one to Deutsche Bank, lists a whole batch 12 of other individuals and other organizations. 13 redacted them from the public record. 14 with Mr. Trump. 15 Even the subpoena, one of the So Mr. Trump is here arguing: I think we have They have nothing to do This is focusing on me. 16 It is not. 17 people. 18 important, because this is not -- and I cannot emphasize this 19 enough, this is being totally misportrayed -- this is not an 20 investigation just about Mr. Trump and his family. 21 It is focusing on him among any number of other And I will address why that is so, why that is THE COURT: But it is easy to argue with the breadth 22 of the subpoenas that have been issued, right? I mean you are 23 going back ten years. 24 categories of documents, you are going back even further than 25 that. And then with respect to certain You are reaching out as far as Mr. Trump's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA93 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page97 of 164 J5m2tru1 27 1 grandchildren. If this were an ordinary civil case, I would 2 send you guys into a room and tell you don't come out until you 3 come back with a reasonable subpoena. 4 MR. LETTER: Right. Absolutely, your Honor. Why does 5 this go back so far? 6 page -- I think it is about 3 through 6 of our brief here, 7 where we talk about the numerous things that we are 8 investigating, and we are talking about money laundering, we 9 are talking about using lots of foreign entities and Because remember, and I refer you to 10 particularly Russian money flowing from oligarchs into the 11 United States over a sustained period of time. 12 So clearly we have to go back in time. Mr. Trump has 13 had a relationship with Deutsche Bank for many, many years and, 14 as you know, one of the reasons, you could say, we are looking 15 at Deutsche Bank, we are focusing on Deutsche Bank paid 16 immensely heavy fines because of its involvement in these kinds 17 of activities. 18 And that raises, by the way, another point. Remember 19 that a significant part of these subpoenas are directed at 20 Deutsche Bank. 21 analyze this? 22 memos? 23 other banks wouldn't touch him? 24 used in particular ways, especially given the fine that 25 Deutsche Bank paid for some of the activities in which it was We are asking Deutsche Bank for how did you What was your policy on that? What kinds of Why were you lending money to Mr. Trump when numerous And why was the money being SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA94 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page98 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 2 28 involved? So you have to go back quite a few years. Any kind of 3 serious investigation involving financial, you know, 4 complicated and very large amounts of money, financial affairs 5 are going to go back years and years, and so that is exactly 6 why we are asking for it. 7 THE COURT: The concern is primarily, as I understand 8 you, foreign entanglement. 9 domestic documents? 10 MR. LETTER: Why are you asking for all of the Your Honor, that is only one part of it. 11 And in addition, remember that if there is money flowing in 12 from Russian oligarchs and money being laundered and being a 13 source for Russian oligarchs to move money out of Russia to 14 here, you have to look at where is it going here? 15 projects? 16 major financial trouble, okay? 17 come in and rescue, and why? 18 What kind of So there was a project in Chicago that ran into Why did -- did Deutsche Bank So it is all tied together, especially if what you are 19 investigating is, is Russian money, Russian and other money, 20 coming into the United States as a good way of laundering it, 21 and then how is it being used in the United States? 22 of impact does it have in the United States? 23 24 25 THE COURT: What kind Why isn't this a criminal investigation of the Trump organization? MR. LETTER: I'm glad you asked that, your Honor. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA95 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page99 of 164 J5m2tru1 29 1 Very clear answer that I gave -- same thing I gave to 2 Judge Mehta. 3 prosecute anybody. 4 absolutely have no authority to investigate a criminal matter 5 and send somebody to jail. 6 The United States House of Representatives cannot We cannot send anybody to jail. THE COURT: We But you can get a truckload of documents 7 and then hand them over to a prosecutor who would ordinarily 8 have to comply with the RFPA. 9 MR. LETTER: Well, we would expect that, your Honor. 10 If the House of Representatives does a major investigation and 11 discovers criminal activity, of course we would turn that over 12 to law enforcement people. 13 14 15 THE COURT: But again, if this is the -- Could you do that in conjunction with a prosecutor? MR. LETTER: I don't know the answer to that. That 16 would probably raise all sorts of very serious issues. 17 not at all what's happening here. 18 concern there, your Honor, of the bill of attainder since the 19 Congress cannot focus its legislative activity on accusing 20 somebody in particular of a crime. 21 It is You have would have a big But, again, that's not what's happening here. There 22 has been no allegation whatsoever that the House of 23 Representatives is in collusion with the Trump-led Justice 24 Department. 25 That's not what's happening here. And in addition, again, your Honor, remember I keep SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA96 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page100 of 164 J5m2tru1 30 1 coming back to McGrain, McGrain was an investigation into 2 criminal activity by, among others, Attorney General Dougherty. 3 Watergate, Watergate was obviously investigating criminal 4 activity. Whitewater, there were allegations of criminal 5 activity. It is clear that the House can investigate matters 6 that may indeed be criminal, but it is not a law enforcement 7 investigation. 8 THE COURT: So what is the outer line? If these 9 proposals that you are making or if the justification that you 10 are providing for why this is a facially legitimate legislative 11 purpose, clearly the plaintiffs would make at least a 12 reasonable argument that these are also arguably criminal 13 matters that are being investigated. 14 How far can I go in giving Congress the leeway that obviously I 15 am required to give? 16 MR. LETTER: Where do I draw the line? Your Honor, with all due respect, you 17 answered your own question earlier. 18 clear, again, with all due respect, you do not have the power 19 to do that. 20 The Supreme Court has made That is not your task. The Supreme Court -- and, again, I'm not making this 21 up -- the Supreme Court said this, in the Watkins case, "Power 22 to investigate is broad." 23 far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate 24 under the Constitution." 25 or we can look into things which Congress might legislate or Eastland, "It is as penetrating and Barenblatt, "Congress might legislate SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA97 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page101 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 decide, upon due investigation, not to legislate." 2 says, "Legislation could be had." 3 THE COURT: 4 MR. LETTER: 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. LETTER: McGrain So then what am I doing here? I'm sorry? So then what am I doing here? Your Honor, we did not bring this case. 7 Again, I come back to Judge Mehta. 8 clearly wrong and, as Judge Mehta pointed out, no judge has 9 done what Mr. Strawbridge is asking you to do in an extremely 10 31 Judge Mehta said this is so long time. 11 THE COURT: But he has pointed to cases where judges 12 have at the very least directed the parties to narrow the scope 13 of subpoenas. 14 MR. LETTER: I'm not aware that in any of these cases 15 that happened, your Honor. 16 doing a very major, complex investigation across a whole 17 industry, not just Mr. Trump, a whole industry. 18 into major questions about serious, serious possible amendments 19 to -- 20 21 THE COURT: MR. LETTER: 23 THE COURT: 25 We are looking You mentioned that there were other parties besides Mr. Trump and his organization? 22 24 And these are totally -- we are Yes. What can you tell me about that, if anything? MR. LETTER: Your Honor, we have redacted from -- not SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA98 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page102 of 164 J5m2tru1 32 1 publicly disclosed, it is a list of I think about nine or ten 2 others; and then, as I say, we have completely separate 3 subpoenas that were issued simultaneously to this one, I don't 4 know, about ten, I think, by memory. 5 and I think it was about ten or so, and they have nothing to do 6 with Mr. Trump. 7 They all come through me, So we are doing a very big, very serious investigation 8 on behalf of the American people to see whether we need new 9 legislation, do we need to tighten things or, remember I said, 10 or not to legislate. 11 up. 12 "When determining the legitimacy of a congressional act, courts 13 do not look to the motives alleged to have prompted it." 14 McSurely, a D.C. Circuit case, "There is no requirement that 15 every piece of information gathered in such an investigation be 16 justified before the judiciary." 17 And, again, I wasn't making those words This is the Supreme Court of the United States, Eastland, There is a key separation of powers issue here, and 18 Mr. Strawbridge knows this very well. 19 Judge Mehta ruled as he did. 20 THE COURT: There is a reason So can I go only as far as making a 21 determination that there is a facially legitimate legislative 22 purpose here and that's it? 23 MR. LETTER: Yes, your Honor. The Supreme Court has 24 given that instruction. And, again, that makes perfect sense 25 under our separated powers principle in our Constitution. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA99 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page103 of 164 J5m2tru1 33 1 Again, there is a reason why the Supreme Court said that. 2 is not me as the current general counsel of the House. 3 has been going on for a very long time. 4 It This As you know, Judge Mehta quoted at the beginning, the 5 very beginning of his opinion, President Buchanan was furious 6 that Congress was focusing on him and accusing him of all sorts 7 of bad and horrible things, and that is part of the role of 8 Congress. 9 the president. That's why we have a Congress. We are a check on And that's why, again, this case, a major theme 10 of ours is this case is here only because of a massive and 11 fundamental misunderstanding by Mr. Trump about the legislative 12 branch. 13 can't focus on him, we can't investigate him. 14 absolutely wrong and it shows a very serious misunderstanding 15 of the way the law has developed since the very beginning of 16 our country. 17 He clearly views us as some sort of nuisance, and we This is all I just want to look before I switch to Right to 18 Financial Privacy. 19 moment. If your Honor would give me one more 20 The one other thing I want to mention is Judge Mehta 21 did talk about the informative power of Congress supported by 22 the Rumely decision from the Supreme Court, and so I urge your 23 Honor to look at that because Judge Mehta obviously felt that 24 that was a key point. 25 asked me about that on a couple of occasions, and you can see In fact, during the hearing there he SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA100 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page104 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 34 that in his opinion. 2 I know one of the things I wanted to mention. 3 Mr. Strawbridge talks about family, in-laws, grandchildren, 4 etc. 5 They hide assets. 6 their relatives in charge. 7 their grandchildren. 8 financial fraud do. 9 Come on, your Honor. We know lots of people do things. They create dummy corporations. They put They put things in the names of This is what people who are committing I once handled a case, your Honor, when I was at the 10 Justice Department for many years, I handled a case involving a 11 drug lord. 12 South America, in the names of two of his teenaged daughters. 13 He had put entire companies, a major drug chain in This is not some unusual and strange investigation 14 that we are doing here. 15 Mr. Strawbridge can really talk about, oh, my gosh, in-laws, 16 can you imagine investigating in-laws, Jared Kushner is the 17 son-in-law of president Trump. 18 an individual are also part of the subpoena. 19 THE COURT: And indeed, indeed, your Honor, before And his businesses and him as But he is also part of the administration 20 in some advisory capacity. 21 Mr. Trump has that are not nearly, presumably, as involved in 22 his administration. 23 MR. LETTER: 24 a family business. 25 Motor Company. But there are other in-laws that Because Mr. Kushner has, like Mr. Trump, Remember, we are not talking about Ford We are talking about a family business. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA101 And, Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page105 of 164 J5m2tru1 35 1 indeed, one of the reasons why this is the way it is is 2 because, as everybody knows, Mr. Trump has refused to do what 3 so many others in his position do, which is disclose. 4 voluntarily disclosed, we probably wouldn't have to do nearly 5 as much in the way of subpoenaing. If he 6 THE COURT: But he is not required to disclose. 7 MR. LETTER: He is absolutely not, your Honor. 8 not. 9 financial disclosure under the Ethics in Government Act. 10 He is Except by statute he is required, for instance, to make THE COURT: So long as we are talking about the 11 documents, Mr. Letter, let me ask you this, because it also 12 touches upon the irreparable harm issue. 13 these documents from Deutsche Bank and Capital One. 14 you going to do with them? 15 MR. LETTER: Let's say you get What are Your Honor, they will be analyzed in 16 depth by the staffs of the two committees. They will be poured 17 over and looked through, as well as, remember I said, we are 18 gathering material from any number of other banks about other 19 individuals and entities -- 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. LETTER: 22 One is the Intelligence Committee, and the At that point are they public? There are two different rules here. 23 Intelligence Committee, their normal mode of operation is, no, 24 they would not be public. 25 received in what's called executive session. The documents like this would be The committee SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA102 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page106 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 36 could vote to make them public if it wished. 2 The Financial Services Committee, the chairman can 3 decide to make them public or not, as she decides, as she 4 determines. 5 would look at things, we would be willing to talk to 6 individuals involved to see whether there is certain material 7 that should or shouldn't be redacted, etc. 8 9 We But ultimately it is up to the Congress of the United States to decide what the people of the United States should 10 hear. 11 length. 12 We don't just willy-nilly disclose things, no. And, again, Judge Mehta went through this at some THE COURT: I think I may have read this somewhere in 13 the public record, but was there some discussion on the part of 14 the parties concerning maintaining the confidentiality of the 15 documents even if they are produced by the banks, whether the 16 Congress would commit to maintaining their confidentiality? 17 18 MR. LETTER: I don't -- if you will hold on one moment, your Honor. 19 (Counsel confer) 20 MR. LETTER: 21 22 23 24 25 No, your Honor, we have not had any discussions like that. THE COURT: Is that something that you are willing to consider? MR. LETTER: We, of course, will listen to them. And, again, I gave the same answer to Judge Mehta where there it was SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA103 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page107 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 the Oversight Committee. 2 willing to talk with them. 3 presentation from them. 4 We will listen to them. We are We are willing to hear a But ultimately -- and, again, this is a matter -- it 5 is a separation of powers issue. 6 the United States. 7 serve, as well as a legislative function, an informative 8 function, that's why they were elected. 9 there. 10 37 This is for the Congress of If the Congress determines that it should That's why they are This is not like a court case. THE COURT: Now, the Right to Financial Privacy Act 11 obviously involves a strong sentiment in this country that 12 individuals, private individuals, financial lives ought be kept 13 private to the extent possible except if you are a judge or 14 government lawyer. 15 MR. LETTER: 16 privacy, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. LETTER: 19 THE COURT: Exactly. You and I, we don't have We do not, but we agree to that. Yes. So therefore, if Mr. Trump and the 20 organization and the other individual plaintiffs have that 21 right and these documents are turned over to Congress, who is 22 not on record as being willing to commit to their 23 confidentiality, why isn't that irreparable harm? 24 that irreparably damage the Trumps and the Trump organization? 25 MR. LETTER: Why doesn't Your Honor, it could be -- if your Honor SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA104 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page108 of 164 J5m2tru1 38 1 decides that we are right on the law, based on a massive amount 2 of Supreme Court precedent, then you would need to decide 3 should you nevertheless issue a preliminary injunction or 4 should you, like Judge Mehta, consider should you issue a stay 5 pending appeal because of the harm to them, and that's a factor 6 you could take into account. 7 right. 8 merits, then you shouldn't be granting an junction. 9 know, the Supreme Court said that in Winter. 10 We say Judge Mehta got that If you don't have really any good argument on the And, as we And you can do it either under, as Judge Mehta did, 11 converting it under Rule 65, but you don't even have to do 12 that. 13 that comes to most readily to mind, because I worked on it, was 14 Munaf. 15 a preliminary injunction. 16 case on the merits here. 17 irreparable injury if Mr. Munaf said, Do not release me to 18 Iraqi officials. 19 that maybe there would be irreparable injury, but the Supreme 20 Court said you don't have a case on the merits. 21 is no case here on the merits. The Supreme Court -- we cited you several cases, the one The Supreme Court said -- it was up before the court on The Supreme Court said there is no There clearly would have been Bad things will happen to me. 22 THE COURT: 23 that aspect of the analysis? 24 MR. LETTER: 25 Nobody denied Again, there So do I understand you to be conceding No, your Honor. Obviously I concede that if the documents are out, it is then irreparable. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA105 But if we Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page109 of 164 J5m2tru1 39 1 are talking about how that ties in with things like the public 2 interest, I will just go to that and then come back to the 3 right to financial privacy, with your Honor's permission. 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. LETTER: Very well. There is massive public interest in 6 disclosure here. 7 probably could do this in 60 days, 80, 90 days. 8 Congress has a limited time. 9 THE COURT: 10 MR. LETTER: 11 THE COURT: 12 13 Mr. Strawbridge said, well, you know, I Remember that How long does this Congress have? The Congress lasts two years, so. . . So 90 days is comfortably within that period of time. MR. LETTER: I assume. I may be wrong about this, and 14 Mr. Strawbridge is free to get up and tell me I am wrong. 15 suspect that if you rule in the House's favor here, he will be 16 appealing, just as Judge Mehta's ruling was appealed I think it 17 was the next morning. 18 be an appeal. 19 Court of Appeals, he will file a cert. petition. 20 Mr. Trump said, Thank goodness I have got the Supreme Court. 21 will go to them any time I can. 22 I So we are talking about then there will I'm guessing also that once it is upheld by the As you know, I So the judicial proceedings here, for instance, the 23 Miers case, the Holder case, these things dragged on for a very 24 long time, and we desperately do not want that to happen here. 25 That's not how this should happen. And in fact your Honor the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA106 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page110 of 164 J5m2tru1 40 1 Supreme Court in Eastland chided the lower courts and said, you 2 know, this is what happens when you interfere with House 3 investigations. 4 investigation there. 5 for a long time, and that's not supposed to be the way that 6 this works. 7 I'm sorry. I think it was a Senate What happens is these things then drag on Right to financial privacy. First, I was very 8 interested to hear, well, Mr. Strawbridge noted that Hubbard 9 had reversed Barenblatt, but he said but the statute here was 10 passed while Barenblatt was still the law. There is a serious 11 problem with that, your Honor. 12 recall. 13 long time. 14 wrong before. 15 States" does not apply to Congress, and they applied that rule 16 in that case, even though when 1001 was passed, it was way 17 before that time. 18 again, it asks you to ignore Supreme Court precedent. Hubbard involved 1001, as I I think that statute has been around for a very, very The Supreme Court said, You know what? We were This phrase "department or agency of the United So that argument doesn't get any -- well, 19 So a couple of things: 20 One, Hubbard says, directly on point, these words 21 22 don't cover Congress. Two, this is a key point, when the Right to Financial 23 Privacy Act was being considered, the Justice Department 24 suggested an express provision that it would cover Congress. 25 Big surprise, congress took that out and it was not part of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA107 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page111 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 legislation. 2 suggested. 3 41 So it is not there, even though it was expressly Another thing is, just three years before that statute 4 was passed, the Supreme Court had, in Eastland, upheld the 5 ability of the House to get these very kind of financial 6 records. 7 silentio, with no indication that it meant to do this, Congress 8 meant three years later, after Eastland, to give up this very 9 power the Supreme Court had just said, well, of course you So what we are being asked to believe here is, sub 10 have, with never saying so, Congress meant to do that. 11 likelihood of that is basically nil. 12 something to say, you know what, we are going to change the law 13 that the Supreme Court just retold us again for the umpteenth 14 time is our power. 15 The Somebody would have said Another interesting thing is there can be punitive 16 damages under that statute. 17 that Congress wanted to provide punitive damages against 18 itself, again, with no indication whatsoever that that is what 19 it was doing. 20 So we are being asked to believe In addition, as Mr. Trump argues in his brief, he says 21 look at Section 3403 of the statute, which says records can be 22 turned over only for a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. 23 Well, as your Honor and I were just talking, the House doesn't 24 do law enforcement inquiries. 25 means, again, Congress would have been passing this statute That's not what we do. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA108 So that Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page112 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 basically cutting off its own ability to do this kind of 2 investigation without a single word to that effect. 3 42 In addition, there are other statutes, the Dual 4 Compensation Act, for example, 5 U.S.C. 553(1), where Congress 5 does expressly make the statute apply to itself. 6 So this, too, this is not a good argument. We don't 7 have a whole lot of case law in it to point to, but it is not a 8 reason to grant a preliminary injunction. 9 injunction could be to freeze the status quo, to say, whoa, we Preliminary 10 have to do some -- I have got a lot of factual work to do. 11 This is not a factual inquiry. 12 or not? 13 This is does the statute apply With regard to the facts, I am very puzzled. 14 Mr. Strawbridge said he is going to engage in discovery, and 15 you pushed back at one point saying, Why is this not just a 16 legal issue? 17 against the House of Representatives. 18 makes that absolutely clear, speech or debate clause immunity. 19 There is no discovery here. 20 Chairman Schiff or Chairwoman Waters. 21 here. 22 Mr. Strawbridge cannot engage in any discovery The Eastland decision He can't take the deposition of There is no discovery He can do his own investigation of -- I think he was 23 talking about trying to see what the history of the Right to 24 Financial Privacy statute is, etc. 25 congressional documents, etc., but he can't do any discovery. He can look through more SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA109 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page113 of 164 J5m2tru1 1 So that's why we are here. 43 This is a pure legal 2 question. I don't understand why there would be any more 3 briefing. We have had plenty of briefing and we are having a 4 lengthy hearing. 5 There is no need for anything further here. 6 (Continued on next page) Mr. Strawbridge can make any points he wants. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA110 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page114 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 2 3 THE COURT: 44 Why don't you speak, if you would, to the balance of the equities. MR. LETTER: The balance of the equities, as I said, I 4 realize, yes, they've got the irreparable injury. 5 documents are out, they're out. 6 pointed out in the Exxon case, just because documents are 7 turned over to Congress, that itself is not irreparable injury. 8 The question is if Congress was going to disclose them. 9 just turning it over to Congress is not irreparable injury. 10 If the Although, remember, we had So The balance of the equities primarily are that we're 11 very limited in time, and so we need to move forward on what is 12 an extremely important investigation that the American people, 13 at some point, need to know about. 14 legislation so that, you know, Russian oligarchs are not using 15 the United States' banking system as a way to launder money and 16 all of the impacts that that has. 17 Maybe we'll have some major Another thing, and this one is directed to say, and, 18 Mr. Trump, we really do want to know -- and this is a key part 19 of what the Intelligence Committee is set up to do -- we want 20 to find out is our government, at its highest levels, being 21 subject to influence of foreign governments that the American 22 people don't know about. 23 the President or people close to him, like Mr. Kushner and 24 others, are they beholden to foreign financial interests 25 because of their major personal financial dealings that they Either because of financial ties, is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA111 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page115 of 164 J5MPTRU2 45 1 will not disclose and have, thus far, resisted disclosing to 2 the American people? So if that is true, if they are subject to this kind 3 4 of influence and control by foreign entities and foreign 5 leaders, the public interest is that we know that immediately, 6 as fast as possible. 7 that's the balance of the equities, your Honor, and again I'm 8 back to McGrain, Judge Mehta, Munaf. 9 argument here. 10 We're way overdue in knowing that. So There is simply no The Supreme Court has made that absolutely clear. 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. LETTER: 13 THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you, your Honor. Before we get back to Mr. Strawbridge, did 14 the banks want to say anything about that? 15 way down here. 16 Okay. 17 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: You came all the Mr. Strawbridge. My friend, Mr. Letter, said that he 18 was not aware of any example of a schema being narrowed. We 19 cite in our papers a number of examples where just that 20 happened either by ordinance, order or basically instructing 21 the parties to go negotiate. It happened in Bergman in 1975. 22 It happened in Tobin in 1962. The DC circuited remanded the 23 case and ordered the parties to negotiate over a congressional 24 subpoena in AT&T in 1976. 25 case, both Judge Chutkan and Judge Leon required the parties to And last year, in the Fusion GPS SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA112 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page116 of 164 J5MPTRU2 46 1 sit down and at least try to narrow, if not resolve, their 2 differences. THE COURT: 3 4 But I suppose if I did that here, it would be cold comfort to you. 5 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 6 THE COURT: 7 If I did that here, it would be cold comfort to you. 8 9 I'm sorry? MR. STRAWBRIDGE: and willing to discuss. Well, we remain open and reasonable So as long as we're not being 10 required, or at least the banks are not being required to turn 11 over documents, we are always happy to engage in reasonable 12 discussions. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: So Mr. Letter talked a lot about 15 McGrain. I just want to direct the Court to McGrain on two 16 particular facts. 17 initially a document request, as well as congressional 18 testimony. 19 banking records, including transactions over $25,000 at the 20 time, which was in excess of $300,000 in modern time. Interesting fact about McGrain is there was The document request, in fact, sought private 21 The House withdrew the document subpoena. 22 before the court in McGrain, and when the court issued its 23 decision in McGrain, it said something very important. 24 noted the difference, in talking about how much it could credit 25 the asserted legislative purpose of the House, it specifically SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA113 It was not It Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page117 of 164 J5MPTRU2 47 1 said that it was not as if an inadmissible or unlawful object 2 was affirmatively or definitely avowed by the committee. 3 made a difference that the committee did not say it was going 4 to engage in an impermissible purpose, such as law enforcement 5 investigation. 6 It Now, what we just heard from Mr. Letter up here was a 7 lot about Russian oligarchs, and financial fraud, and failure 8 to disclose, and the need to expose to the American people 9 certain information about the Trump organization and Mr. Trump. 10 That is not the House's legitimate legislative role. 11 exposure expressly for the sake of exposure, and it's 12 completely confirmatory of what -- we actually don't need to 13 take Mr. Letter's word for it. 14 It is The Congressional record page that they cited, this is 15 from Chairman Waters' Financial Services Committee, stood up 16 and gave a statement about the investigations that she was 17 doing. 18 she specifically says: 19 the global financial system raises numerous questions regarding 20 the actors who are involved in these money laundering schemes 21 and where the money is going. 22 Financial Services Committee is investigating the questionable 23 financing provided to President Trump and the Trump 24 organization that lead banks, like Deutsche Bank, to finance 25 this real estate properties. This is on page H2698 of the Congressional record, and The movement of illicit funds through This is precisely why the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA114 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page118 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 48 You can read this entire page of the Congressional 2 record. 3 You won't find reference to any other organizations. 4 targeting one particular private party, one particular party's 5 financial transactions, and if they are believed, then someone 6 should suggest otherwise. 7 You won't find reference to any other individuals. They are Judge Mehta's decision, respectfully, we disagree with 8 aspects of it, but it has very little bearing on the questions 9 here because it involved a different committee, which has 10 different jurisdiction and different assertive legislative 11 purposes. 12 jurisdiction of either of the committees here. 13 14 15 Ethics and disclosure, for example, is outside the THE COURT: I'm sorry, which? What's outside the jurisdiction? MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Ethics and disclosure principles, 16 which is what some of Mr. Letter referred to and which was the 17 basis for some of Judge Mehta's decision. 18 Obviously, the RFPA claim was not before Judge Mehta, 19 but the real concern with the larger view that Judge Mehta 20 took, and I think your Honor appropriately hit upon it, was the 21 lack of any limiting principle. 22 if anyone's private affairs can simply be inquired into under 23 the view that, well, we need to know something about the 24 banking law; we have a remedial statute that we might want to 25 undertake, then the ability to come to court and to enforce the If anyone can be a case study, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA115 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page119 of 164 J5MPTRU2 49 1 separations of powers and to prevent Congress from exercising 2 the general ability to investigate anybody they want, their 3 private affairs -- this is not McGrain involving the Attorney 4 General; these are private individuals, that the dates of these 5 subpoenas almost exclusively apply to a time before anybody was 6 a candidate, let alone elected to office -- then we have really 7 lost the entire purpose of all these Supreme Court cases and 8 their repeated assertion that there are limitations upon 9 Congress' power. Those limitations have been overstepped here. 10 We 11 remain willing to follow whatever the Court does, but I think 12 we have easily satisfied the substantial question test for 13 preliminary injunction, and we ask the Court to enter one. 14 THE COURT: 15 What we're going to do is we're going to take -- I'm 16 Thank you, Mr. Strawbridge. sorry, Mr. Letter. 17 MR. LETTER: 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. LETTER: May I just address one point, your Honor? Sure. Thank you. Mr. Strawbridge talked about 20 narrowing the subpoenas, but I may have misunderstood. 21 thought his argument was that because these are so broad, that 22 shows that they are invalid. 23 that his client would be willing to say, okay, you can have all 24 of the records, but instead of six years, let's limit it to 25 four. I I don't think I've ever heard I'm fairly sure that's not what he's talking about. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA116 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page120 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 Again, I think his argument is because it's so broad, that 2 shows it's illegitimate. 3 THE COURT: He said, I think no less than twice, that 4 he was willing to sit down and have a reasonable discussion 5 about limiting the subpoenas. 6 MR. LETTER: Fine. If you are going to order that, 7 your Honor, I hope you'll order that that be done extremely 8 fast because I'm fairly sure it will be evident immediately 9 that it is not a serious endeavor. 10 11 THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you. So we're going to take ten minutes, and then I'll come out and give you my decision. 12 (Recess) 13 THE COURT: 14 going to read this. 15 history is any guide, it's going to take me about 40, 45 16 minutes to read or so. 17 if any of you wish to leave before I finish reading, I would 18 just ask that you do so as unobtrusively as possible. 19 Everyone, please be seated. Now, I'm It's approximately 25 pages, and if I won't chain you to your chairs, but On April 15, 2019, two subcommittees of the United 20 States House of Representatives issued subpoenas to Deutsche 21 Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation. 22 financial and account information concerning President 23 Donald J. Trump, his children, members of their immediate 24 family, and several entities associated with his family. 25 50 The subpoenas seek Two weeks later, plaintiffs filed the above-captioned SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA117 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page121 of 164 J5MPTRU2 51 1 suit, claiming that the subpoenas violate the United States 2 Constitution and the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the 3 “RFPA”. 4 that would prohibit the Committees from enforcing the subpoenas 5 and prohibit the banks from complying with the subpoenas until 6 the resolution of this lawsuit. This bench ruling addresses 7 that motion. 8 9 Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction The question presented in plaintiffs’ motion is straightforward: Does the Committees’ subpoenas violate the 10 Constitution or the RFPA? 11 and hearing from them today, the Court is convinced that the 12 answer is no. 13 the subpoenas. 14 After reviewing the parties’ briefs Accordingly, I will not enjoin enforcement of The Court begins by addressing two preliminary 15 matters: the applicable standard for a preliminary injunction, 16 and the Committees’ request for consolidation. The Court begins with the applicable standard of 17 18 review. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 19 establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 20 is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 21 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 22 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 23 Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 24 U.S. 7. 25 In this circuit, if a plaintiff does not establish a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA118 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page122 of 164 J5MPTRU2 52 1 likelihood of success on the merits, a preliminary injunction, 2 nonetheless, may issue if the plaintiff shows that there exists 3 sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them 4 a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping 5 decidedly toward the plaintiff. 6 Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 7 30. 8 however. Citing Citigroup Glob. Mkts., It is not enough that the question be substantial, Regardless of whether the plaintiff opts to show 9 10 likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious 11 question going to the merits, the plaintiff always must 12 demonstrate that irreparable harm is likely, absent the 13 injunction. 14 preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, 15 and it is never awarded as of right. 16 674. 17 At all times, the Court remains mindful that Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. Next, the Court denies committees’ request for 18 consolidation. In their opposing papers, the committees asked 19 the Court to consolidate this hearing with a trial on the 20 merits, pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure. 22 consolidation would violate their rights to due process. 23 Ultimately, the Court concludes that any decision to 24 consolidate is of little consequence here. 25 not prejudiced by the denial of a consolidation, given that the Plaintiffs opposed consolidation on the ground that The Committees are SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA119 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page123 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 2 53 Court will not enjoin them from enforcing their subpoenas. Conversely, if the Court chooses to consolidate 3 the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, 4 there is a slight risk that plaintiffs will be prejudiced, 5 notwithstanding that Plaintiffs have yet to adequately explain 6 what further discovery, briefing, witnesses, and time is needed 7 before they will be ready for a trial on the merits. 8 9 In any event, to ensure that plaintiffs are not prejudiced, the Court will deny the committees’ application for 10 consolidation. 11 merits, however, the Court appreciates the urgency with which 12 matters concerning two coordinate branches of government should 13 proceed, and the limited universe of facts that may be subject 14 to discovery. 15 Should this matter ultimately proceed to the Turning to the merits of plaintiffs’ motion. The 16 Court finds that while plaintiffs have shown that they will 17 suffer irreparable harm, absent a preliminary injunction, they 18 are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims, that the 19 questions presented in their motion are not sufficiently 20 serious in light of Supreme Court precedent and the plain text 21 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the balance of hardships 22 and equities, in conjunction with consideration of the public 23 interest, do not weigh in their favor. 24 concludes that a preliminary injunction is inappropriate. 25 Consequently, the Court The Court begins with whether Plaintiffs have SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA120 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page124 of 164 J5MPTRU2 54 1 demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm absent an 2 injunction, because if there is not a likelihood of irreparable 3 harm, then the Court need not grapple with the constitutional 4 and statutory issues in this case. 5 Plaintiffs allege that if this Court does not 6 intervene to preserve the status quo, there will 7 be no way to unring the bell once the banks give Congress the 8 requested information. 9 The Court agrees. In this circuit, it is well settled 10 that individuals whose financial records 11 are subpoenaed possess a privacy interest in their personal 12 financial affairs that gives them standing to move to quash a 13 subpoena served on a non-party financial institution, which is 14 why all parties appear to agree that plaintiffs have standing 15 to challenge subpoenas that were issued to them directly. 16 Citing Arias-Zeballos v. Tan, reported at 2007 WL 210112. 17 In this case, the inevitable impingement of the 18 same privacy interests that suffice to confer standing to 19 plaintiffs also suffice to demonstrate a likelihood of 20 irreparable harm. 21 the disclosure of private, confidential information is the 22 quintessential type of irreparable harm that cannot be 23 compensated or undone by money damages. 24 v. City of New York, report at 2019 WL 91990. 25 Courts in this circuit have recognized that Citing, Airbnb, Inc. It is true that some courts outside of this circuit SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA121 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page125 of 164 J5MPTRU2 55 1 have questioned whether the mere disclosure of information, 2 absent evidence of misuse or unauthorized disclosure by the 3 receiving party automatically constitutes irreparable 4 injury. 5 102 F. Supp. 3d 194, from the District of D.C. 6 the opinion, however, that plaintiffs possess strong privacy 7 interests in their financial information such that unwanted 8 disclosure may properly constitute irreparable injury, without 9 an additional showing of likelihood of misuse or unauthorized 10 11 See, e.g., Baker DC v. National Labor Relations Bd., The Court is of disclosure by the recipient. The committees disagree and proffer two arguments why 12 the Court should find that plaintiffs have failed to show a 13 likelihood of irreparable harm. 14 persuasive, and in fact, in oral argument, I understood them to 15 concede that the Trump organization and Trump family members 16 would suffer irreparable harm. 17 Neither argument is First, the committees contended that plaintiffs have 18 provided no actual evidence of their potential injury, but the 19 very act of disclosure to Congress is itself the injury that is 20 both inevitable, absent an injunction, and irreparable. 21 The Committees attempt to differentiate between 22 disclosure to Congress and disclosure to the public, arguing 23 that the former is somehow not a cognizable injury. 24 is unpersuaded. 25 their records private from everyone, including congresspersons, The Court Here, plaintiffs have an interest in keeping SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA122 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page126 of 164 J5MPTRU2 56 1 and that interest necessarily will be impinged by the 2 records’ disclosure to the committees. 3 committees have not committed one way or the other to keeping 4 plaintiffs’ records confidential from the public once received. 5 6 In any event, the Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of irreparable harm absent an injunction. 7 The Court begins with the statutory claim, because 8 there is no need to address plaintiffs’ constitutional claim if 9 the committees are bound by the RFPA and have, in fact, 10 violated it. 11 Plaintiffs contend that the committees issued the 12 challenged subpoenas in violation of the requirements of the 13 RFPA. 14 access to or obtain copies of information containing the 15 financial records of any customer from a financial institution 16 unless certain notification and certification requirements are 17 met. 18 The RFPA provides that no government authority may have Plaintiffs argue that Congress is a government 19 authority for purposes of the RFPA and that, as government 20 authorities, the committees failed to act in accordance with 21 the RFPA before issuing the challenged subpoenas. 22 23 24 25 The Court disagrees. The Committees have provided sound arguments why the RFPA does not apply to Congress. First, as mentioned above, the RFPA applies to government authorities. While plaintiffs urge the Court to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA123 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page127 of 164 J5MPTRU2 57 1 resort to Black Law’s Dictionary to define this statutory term, 2 it is unnecessary. 3 "government authority" in RFPA. 4 "government authority" means any agency or department of the 5 United States, or any officer or agent thereof. 6 Congress expressly defined the term Pursuant to that statute, Thus, if Congress is not an agency or department of 7 the United States, then the statute does not apply to Congress. 8 The Court finds the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hubbard v. 9 United States, reported at 514 U.S. 695 controlling here. 10 There, the Court explored the reach of 18 U.S.C. 1001, a 11 statute criminalizing knowingly false representations made in 12 any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency 13 of the United States. 14 The question presented was whether 1001 applies 15 to false statements in judicial proceedings. 16 that it didn’t and instead generally only refers to the 17 Executive Branch. 18 context of the statute strongly suggests that the phrase was 19 intended to describe more than just the Executive Branch. 20 In so holding, the Court expressly overruled its prior decision 21 in United States v. Bramblett, which held that the phrase 22 “department,” as used in 1001, referred to the 23 executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. 24 25 The Court held The Court held that it didn't unless the Of course, the RFPA arises in a different title of the United States Code, but the Supreme Court’s interpretation in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA124 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page128 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 Hubbard wasn’t limited to any particular statutory provision. 2 Rather, the Court found that a straightforward interpretation 3 of the phrase “department or agency” leads inexorably to the 4 conclusion that the phrase only covers the Executive Branch. 5 58 Moreover, as detailed in the Committees’ papers, the 6 structure and context of the RFPA makes clear that Congress did 7 not believe it was binding itself to the RFPA. 8 point need not be said. Congress is not bound by the RFPA. More on this Plaintiffs are also unlikely to succeed on the merits 9 10 of their constitutional claim. 11 that the committees’ subpoenas violate the Constitution, the 12 Court concludes that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the 13 merits. 14 Turning to plaintiffs’ claim As today’s argument and the parties’ moving papers 15 make clear, plaintiffs challenge the committees’ 16 subpoenas on four principal grounds: the committees’ subpoenas 17 are not supported by a legitimate legislative purpose; the 18 committees’ subpoenas are really an unlawful exercise 19 of law-enforcement power; the committees’ subpoenas are overly 20 broad; and finally, the committees’ motives in issuing the 21 subpoenas render the subpoenas unlawful, as they seek 22 exposure for the sake of exposure. 23 The Court addresses and rejects, each argument in 24 turn, and begins by setting forth the legal principles guiding 25 its analysis. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA125 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page129 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 59 A review of the relevant case law makes clear that the 2 Committees’ investigative power is broad, yet not unlimited. 3 Article 1 of the United States Constitution vests Congress with 4 all legislative powers. 5 refer to Congress’ investigative powers, Congress’ authority 6 to investigate matters related to contemplated legislation is 7 beyond debate. 8 9 While Article 1 does not expressly As the Supreme Court has explained, there can be no doubt as to the power of Congress, by itself or through its 10 committees, to investigate matters and conditions relating to 11 contemplated legislation. 12 American and English institutions, is indeed co-extensive with 13 the power to legislate. 14 including of course the authority to compel testimony, either 15 through its own processes or through judicial trial, Congress 16 could be seriously handicapped in its efforts to exercise its 17 constitutional function wisely and effectively. 18 v. United States, 349 U.S. 155. This power, deeply rooted in Without the power to investigate, Citing Quinn 19 So too is the committees’ general authority to issue 20 subpoenas well settled, given that committee members serve as 21 the representatives of the parent assembly in collecting 22 information for a legislative purpose and their function is to 23 act as the eyes and ears of the Congress in obtaining facts 24 upon which the full legislature can act. 25 States, 354 U.S. 178. Watkins v. United SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA126 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page130 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 60 As alluded to in the quotes recited, congressional 2 investigations must be in furtherance of a legislative purpose. 3 As the Supreme Court has explained, an essential premise in 4 this situation is that the House or Senate shall have 5 instructed the committee members on what they are to do with 6 the power delegated to them. 7 Congress, in the first instance, to ensure that compulsory 8 process is used only in furtherance of a legislative 9 purpose. It is the responsibility of the That requires that the instructions of an 10 investigating committee spell out that group’s jurisdiction and 11 purpose with sufficient particularity. Those instructions are 12 embodied in the authorizing resolution. That document is the 13 committee’s charter. Citing Watkins again. 14 However, that Congress must investigate in 15 furtherance of a legislative purpose does not mean that the 16 Congress is constrained to investigations in furtherance of 17 contemplated legislation in the form of a bill or statute. 18 Congress performs may different functions attendant to its 19 legislative function under the Constitution. 20 Congress’ power also includes a more general informing 21 function, that is, the power of the Congress to inquire into 22 and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in 23 agencies of the Government. 24 25 Again citing Watkins. Put simply, the power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA127 That Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page131 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 power is broad. 2 administration of existing laws, as well as proposed or 3 possibly needed statutes. 4 our social, economic or political system for the purpose of 5 enabling Congress to remedy them. 6 departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, 7 inefficiency or waste. 8 9 10 11 It encompasses inquiries concerning the It includes surveys of defects in It comprehends probes into Citing Watkins. While broad, Congress’ investigative powers are not unlimited. Rather, its powers are subject to several limitations, five of which will be mentioned now. First, the subject of any inquiry must be one on which 12 legislation could be had. 13 This means that, in determining the constitutionality of 14 requests for information, pursuant to a congressional 15 investigation, a court must first determine whether an 16 investigation is related to a valid legislative purpose, for 17 Congress may not constitutionally require an individual to 18 disclose his political relationships or other private affairs 19 except in relation to such a purpose. 20 United States, 360 U.S. 109. 21 Citing Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504. Citing Barenblatt v. Second, the Bill of Rights is applicable to 22 congressional investigations as to all forms 23 of governmental action, and serves to limit Congress’ 24 investigative powers. 25 61 Third, while the public is entitled to be informed SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA128 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page132 of 164 J5MPTRU2 62 1 concerning the workings of its government, the Supreme Court 2 has made clear that this entitlement cannot be inflated into a 3 general power to expose, where the predominant result can only 4 be an invasion of the private rights of individuals. 5 Fourth, since Congress may only investigate into those 6 areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it 7 cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive 8 province of one of the other branches of the Government. 9 Lacking the judicial power given to the Judiciary, it cannot 10 inquire into matters that are exclusively the concern of the 11 Judiciary. 12 exclusively belongs to the Executive. 13 Neither can it supplant the Executive in what Citing Barenblatt. Fifth, and finally, when analyzing the investigative 14 boundaries of congressional subcommittees, such as the 15 committees here, the committees’ investigative boundaries are 16 defined by its source. 17 the committees, their powers are further restricted to the 18 missions delegated to them, i.e., to acquire certain data 19 to be used by the House or the Senate in coping with a problem 20 that falls within its legislative sphere and, consequently, no 21 witness can be compelled to make disclosures on matters 22 outside that area. 23 Citing Eastland. Thus, with respect to Among other sources to consider in ascertaining a 24 subcommittee's boundaries in a given investigation, courts may 25 consider the congressional resolutions authorizing the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA129 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page133 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 investigation, the committee’s jurisdictional statements, and 2 statements of the members of the committee. 3 States, 404 F.2d 1292. 4 Shelton v. United The committees’ subpoenas have a legitimate 5 legislative purpose. 6 subpoenas lack a legitimate legislative purpose. 7 disagrees. 8 9 63 Plaintiffs argue that the committees’ The Court The Committee of Financial Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued substantively identical 10 subpoenas for records to Deutsche Bank on April 15. 11 day, the Committee of Financial Services issued a similar 12 subpoena to Capital One Financial Corporation. 13 through their subpoenas, seek financial records and account 14 information related to Plaintiffs that mostly date back to 15 2010. 16 example, documents related to account applications, 17 opening documents, know your customer, due diligence, 18 et cetera, revealing financial relationships between plaintiffs 19 and any foreign individuals, entities, or governments, there is 20 no time limitation. 21 That same The committees, However, with respect to some records, such as, for In analyzing whether the committees acted within their 22 constitutional boundaries, the Court first looks to each 23 committee’s respective jurisdiction. 24 Committee on Financial Services, according to Rule X of the 25 Rules of the House of Representatives for the With respect to the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA130 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page134 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 116th Congress, the Committee on Financial Services enjoys 2 jurisdiction over matters relating to, among other subjects, 3 banks and banking, including deposit insurance and federal 4 monetary policy, insurance generally, international finance, 5 and international financial and monetary organizations. 6 64 According to Rule X, as a standing committee, the 7 Committee on Financial Services is also charged with general 8 oversight responsibilities to assist the House of 9 Representatives in its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of, 10 among other subjects, the application, administration, 11 execution, and effectiveness of federal laws; and, importantly, 12 conditions and circumstances that may indicate the necessity or 13 desirability of enacting new or additional legislation. 14 The Committee on Financial Services contends that it 15 is investigating whether existing policies and programs at 16 financial institutions are adequate to ensure the safety and 17 soundness of lending practices, and the prevention of loan 18 fraud. 19 It points the Court to news sources reporting that 20 financial institutions have issued more than $1 trillion in 21 large corporate loans, called leveraged loans, to heavily 22 indebted companies that may be unable to repay those 23 loans. 24 practices of financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank, 25 for loans issued to the Trump family and companies controlled It contends that it’s investigating the lending SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA131 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page135 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 65 by President Trump. 2 Citing news sources reporting that over the years, 3 Deutsche Bank has provided more than $2 billion in loans to 4 President Trump, despite concerns raised by senior bank 5 officials regarding some of the loans. 6 investigating industry-wide compliance with banking statutes 7 and regulations, particularly anti-money laundering policies. 8 Importantly, it points to House Resolutions 9 originating in the committee and predating the subpoenas, that It contends that it’s 10 support its representations to the Court. 11 Resolution 206, introduced by Chairwoman Maxine Waters on 12 March 8, 2019, and passed by a floor vote on March 13, 2019, 13 the House expressed that money laundering and other financial 14 crimes are serious threats to our national and economic 15 security, and resolved to acknowledge that the lack of sunlight 16 and transparency in financial transactions poses a threat 17 to our country; to support efforts to close money laundering 18 loopholes; to encourage transparency; to detect and deter 19 financial crimes; and to urge financial institutions to comply 20 with various anti-money laundering laws and regulations. 21 For example, House The Committee on Financial Services believes that the 22 challenged subpoenas further its investigations bearing upon 23 the integrity of the U.S. financial system and the national 24 security, including bank fraud, money laundering, foreign 25 influence in the U.S. political process, and the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA132 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page136 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 counterintelligence risks posed by foreign powers’ use of 2 financial leverage. 3 66 It maintains that the banks’ lending practices, 4 including loans made to plaintiffs, are an important piece to 5 that investigation, as the subpoenas seek records relating to 6 individuals and entities, including plaintiffs, that may have 7 served as conduits for illicit funds or may not have 8 been properly underwritten, and the public record establishes 9 that they serve as a useful case study for the broader problems 10 11 being examined by the committee. Based on the aforementioned, the Court concludes that 12 this committee’s investigation and attendant subpoenas are in 13 furtherance of a legitimate legislative purpose, plainly 14 related to the subjects on which legislation can be had. 15 With respect to the Permanent Select Committee on 16 Intelligence, according to Rule X, this committee enjoys 17 jurisdiction over matters relating to, among other subjects, 18 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of all other 19 departments and agencies of the government, and the 20 organization or reorganization of a department or agency of the 21 government, to the extent that the organization or 22 reorganization relates to a function or activity involving 23 intelligence or intelligence-related activities. 24 25 The Permanent Select Committee is also charged with special oversight functions. Specifically, the Committee is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA133 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page137 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 charged with, among other responsibilities, reviewing and 2 studying on a continuing basis laws, programs, and activities 3 of the intelligence community. 4 67 The Intelligence Committee contends that it is 5 currently investigating efforts by Russia and other foreign 6 powers to influence the U.S. political process during and since 7 the 2016 election, including financial leverage that foreign 8 actors may have over President Trump, his family, and his 9 business, and the related counterintelligence, national 10 11 security, and legislative implications. Moreover, the Committee contends that it is evaluating 12 whether the structure, legal authorities, policies, and 13 resources of the U.S. Government’s intelligence, 14 counterintelligence, and law enforcement elements are adequate 15 to combat such threats to national security. 16 Committee justifies its subpoena on the ground that its 17 investigation requires an understanding of Mr. Trump’s complex 18 financial arrangements, including how those arrangements 19 intersect with Russia and other foreign governments and 20 entities. 21 The Intelligence The Committee further argues that this inquiry is, by 22 definition, not limited to Mr. Trump’s time in office and, 23 given the closely held nature of the Trump Organization, must 24 include his close family members. 25 Intelligence Committee points to a press release by its Among other items, the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA134 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page138 of 164 J5MPTRU2 68 1 Chairman, dated February 6, 2019, in which Chairman Schiff 2 stated that the Intelligence Committee would conduct a rigorous 3 investigation into efforts by Russia and other foreign entities 4 to influence the U.S. political process during and since the 5 2016 U.S. election; and that the Committee would work to 6 fulfill its responsibility to provide the American people with 7 a comprehensive accounting of what happened, and what the 8 United States must do to protect itself from future 9 interference and malign influence operations. 10 In this press release, Chairman Schiff further stated 11 that the committee also plans to develop legislation and policy 12 reforms to ensure the U.S. government is better positioned to 13 counter future efforts to undermine our political process and 14 national security. 15 Based on the aforementioned, the Court concludes that 16 this Committee’s investigation and attendant subpoena is in 17 furtherance of a legitimate legislative purpose, plainly 18 related to subjects on which legislation can be had. 19 Plaintiffs contend that the committees’ purported 20 agendas are solely focused on oversight and transparency, 21 which, in a vacuum, are not legitimate legislative purposes 22 that can justify subpoenaing a private citizen. But Congress’ 23 investigative power is not judged in a vacuum. As explained in 24 Barenblatt, the congressional power of inquiry, its range and 25 scope, and an individual's duty in relation to it, must be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA135 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page139 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 viewed in proper perspective. 2 resistance to it are to be judged in the concrete, not on the 3 basis of abstractions. 4 69 The power and the right of And here, the Committees seek financial information 5 pertinent to specific areas of investigation on which 6 legislation could be had. 7 Shelton, in deciding whether the purpose is within the 8 legislative function, the mere assertion of a need to consider 9 remedial legislation may not alone justify an investigation As the D.C. Circuit recognized in 10 accompanied with compulsory process, but when the purpose 11 asserted is supported by references to specific problems which 12 in the past have been or which in the future could be the 13 subjects of appropriate legislation, then a court cannot say 14 that a committee of the Congress exceeds its broad power when 15 it seeks information in such areas. 16 17 18 Simply put, the committees’ subpoenas all are in furtherance of facially legitimate legislative purposes. Next, and relatedly, plaintiffs contend that the 19 committees’ subpoenas as “outrageously broad,” given the 20 information the committees seek long predates the President’s 21 election to office, reaches well beyond the transactions 22 associated with foreign parties, and encompasses reams of 23 account records for entities, individuals, children, and 24 spouses, who have never even been implicated in any probe. 25 Plaintiffs contend that the financial conduct of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA136 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page140 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 private citizens years before they were anywhere near public 2 office, has nothing to do with government oversight. 70 3 The Court finds Plaintiffs’ contention unpersuasive. 4 Based on the cases cited by the parties in their papers, they 5 seem to agree that so long as the requested information in the 6 subpoenas are pertinent to legitimate legislative purposes of 7 the committees, the subpoenas are not overly broad, and the 8 Court need not conduct a line-by-line review of the information 9 requested. The Supreme Court has previously concluded that where 10 11 the records called for by a subpoena were not plainly 12 incompetent or irrelevant to any lawful purpose of a 13 subcommittee in the discharge of its duties, but, on the 14 contrary, were reasonably relevant to the inquiry, then such 15 records are, in fact, pertinent. 16 States, reported at 364 U.S. 372. Citing McPhaul v. United As noted by Judge Mehta in his opinion earlier this 17 18 week, the standard adopted by the Supreme Court is a forgiving 19 one. 20 seek plaintiffs’ financial information mostly dating back to 21 2010. 22 necessary to investigate serious and urgent questions 23 concerning the safety of banking practices, money laundering in 24 the financial sector, foreign influence in the U.S. political 25 process, and the threat of foreign financial leverage, Here, as mentioned earlier, the committees’ subpoenas The committees contend that this information is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA137 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page141 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 including over the President, his family, and his business. 2 In light of the scope of the committees’ 3 investigations, the Court finds the committees’ requests for 4 information, while undeniably broad, is clearly pertinent to 5 the committees’ legitimate legislative purposes. 6 the Court will not engage in a line-by-line review of the 7 subpoenas’ requests, merely because some requests may be more 8 pertinent than others. 9 71 Consequently, As the Supreme Court has made clear, the wisdom of 10 congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial 11 veto, nor is the legitimacy of a congressional inquiry to be 12 defined by what it produces. The very nature of the 13 investigative function, like any research, is that it takes the 14 searchers up some blind alleys and into nonproductive 15 enterprises. 16 no predictable end result. 17 To be a valid legislative inquiry, there need be Citing Eastland. Next, the plaintiffs challenge the subpoenas on the 18 ground that the committees have never identified a single piece 19 of legislation within their respective jurisdictions that they 20 are considering. 21 goes, it is also irrelevant. 22 legislation prior to the start of an investigation; it need not 23 pass a bill; and it need not have particular legislation in 24 mind when conducting a legitimate, lawful investigation in aid 25 of its legislative function. While that argument may be true as far as it Congress need not issue proposed SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA138 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page142 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 72 As the Supreme Court noted in Watkins, most of 2 instances of use of compulsory process by the first Congress 3 concerned matters affecting the qualification or integrity of 4 their members or came about in inquiries dealing with suspected 5 corruption or mismanagement of government officials. 6 very little use of the power of compulsory process in early 7 years to enable the Congress to obtain facts pertinent to the 8 enactment of new statutes or the administration of existing 9 laws. 10 There was As explained by the Second Circuit, it is immaterial 11 that in the past a particular committee has proposed but little 12 legislation. Information gained by a committee might well aid 13 Congress in performing its legislative duties, in deciding that 14 the public welfare required the passage of new statutes or 15 changes in existing ones, or that it did not. 16 United States v. Josephson, 165 F.2d 82. 17 Again, as stated earlier, and quoting the Supreme 18 Court in Eastland, the subject of the congressional 19 inquiry simply must be one “on which legislation could be had.” 20 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ argument on this point fails. 21 Next, the Committees contend that, at best, the 22 Committees seek these documents so they can conduct 23 law-enforcement activities that the Supreme Court has held are 24 reserved to the other branches. 25 Supreme Court has made clear that the power to investigate The Court disagrees. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA139 The Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page143 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 should not be confused with any of the powers of law 2 enforcement. 3 to the Executive and the Judiciary. 4 349 U.S. 155. 5 73 Those powers are assigned under our Constitution Quinn v. United States, However, the Supreme Court has also made clear that a 6 congressional investigation is not transformed into the invalid 7 exercise of law enforcement authority merely because the 8 investigation might possibly disclose crime or wrongdoing. 9 Citing McGrain. 10 Similarly, the Supreme Court has recognized that while 11 it may be conceded that Congress is without authority to compel 12 disclosures for the purpose of aiding the prosecution of 13 pending suits, the authority of Congress, directly or through 14 its committees, to require pertinent 15 disclosures in aid of its own constitutional power is not 16 abridged because the information sought to be elicited may also 17 be of use in such suits. 18 Citing Sinclair, 279 U.S. at 295. The Supreme Court has clearly acknowledged that many 19 powers of government overlap. 20 congressional investigation has morphed into an impermissible 21 law enforcement investigation, the critical inquiry is whether 22 Congress has exercised an exclusive power of the Judiciary or 23 Executive. 24 25 Thus, in determining whether a For example, in Barenblatt v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed an individual’s conviction for contempt SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA140 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page144 of 164 J5MPTRU2 74 1 of Congress arising from his refusal to answer questions 2 posited to him by a subcommittee of the House of 3 Representatives. 4 whereas “Congress may only investigate into those areas 5 in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot 6 inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of 7 one of the other branches of the Government.” 8 9 In so holding, the Supreme Court noted that Similarly, in Kilbourn, the Supreme Court limited congressional investigative power to situations where “[1] the 10 investigation which the committee was directed to make was 11 judicial in character; and [2] could only be properly and 12 successfully made by a court of justice; and [3] related to a 13 matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a 14 judicial proceeding.” 15 Likewise, in Tenney v. Brandhove, the Supreme Court 16 stated that in order “to find that a committee’s investigation 17 has exceeded the bounds of legislative power it must be obvious 18 that there was a usurpation of functions exclusively vested in 19 the Judiciary or the Executive.” 20 Here, however, it is not obvious that the committees 21 usurped any powers exclusively vested in the Judiciary or the 22 Executive when it issued the challenged subpoenas. 23 nothing here to suggest that the sole function of the 24 challenged subpoenas is to amass evidence either to prosecute 25 plaintiffs, civilly or criminally. On the contrary, the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA141 There is Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page145 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 committees have provided ample justification establishing 2 clear, legitimate legislative purposes for the information 3 requested in the subpoenas. 4 Accordingly, contrary to plaintiffs’ protestations, 5 the Court finds that the committees’ investigations and 6 attendant subpoenas do not constitute impermissible law 7 enforcement activities. 8 9 75 Finally, plaintiffs contend that regardless of whether the challenged subpoenas further legitimate legislative 10 purposes, this Court should, nonetheless, enjoin the banks from 11 complying with them because the committees really want to 12 collect and expose the financial documents of the President and 13 his children and grandchildren for the sake of exposure. 14 In response, the committees contend that plaintiffs’ 15 contention is unsupported by anything other than political 16 rhetoric and press statements, and note that even if plaintiffs 17 had provided some basis to question the committees’ motives, 18 the Court should not look behind the legitimate legislative 19 purpose of the investigations. 20 The Court agrees with the committees. The committees’ 21 alleged ulterior motives, even if such exist, are insufficient 22 to vitiate their subpoena powers. 23 quote Watkins for the notion that there is no congressional 24 power to expose for the sake of exposure. 25 In their papers, plaintiffs That much is true. Had plaintiffs read further, however, they would SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA142 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page146 of 164 J5MPTRU2 76 1 realize that the propriety of legislative motives is not a 2 question left to the courts. 3 the same paragraph relied upon by plaintiffs: 4 that there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of 5 exposure. 6 concerning the workings of its government. 7 inflated into a general power to expose, where the predominant 8 result can only be an invasion of the private rights 9 of individuals. 10 As the Supreme Court explained in We have no doubt The public is, of course, entitled to be informed That cannot be But a solution to our problem is not to be found in 11 testing the motives of committee members for this purpose. 12 Such is not our function. 13 vitiate any investigation which had been instituted by a 14 House of Congress if that assembly's legislative purpose is 15 being served. 16 Their motives alone would not Put simply, even in the face of investigations in 17 which the predominant result is exposure of an individual’s 18 privacy, courts generally lack authority to halt an 19 investigation otherwise supported by a facially legitimate 20 legislative purpose. 21 The Supreme Court has repeated this over and over 22 again. See, e.g., Eastland, at 508 (“Our cases make clear that 23 in determining the legitimacy of a congressional act, we do not 24 look to the motives alleged to have prompted it.”); Sonzinsky 25 v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 ("Inquiry into the hidden SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA143 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page147 of 164 J5MPTRU2 77 1 motives which may move Congress to exercise a power 2 constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of 3 courts.”); Smith v. Kansas City Title & Tr. Co., 255 U.S. 180, 4 (“Nothing is better settled by the decisions of this court than 5 that, when Congress acts within the limits of its 6 constitutional authority, it is not the province of the 7 judicial branch of the government to question 8 its motives.”); and United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 9 ("It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this 10 Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute 11 on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.”). 12 Of course, it is true that abuses of the investigative 13 process may imperceptibly lead to abridgment of protected 14 freedoms. 15 addressed thoroughly by the Supreme Court in prior decisions. 16 The Supreme Court has detailed the remedy for all left 17 uncomfortable with the idea of a congressional committee 18 probing through the financial history of an individual on 19 grounds, pretextual, even if technically legal. 20 In Barenblatt, the Supreme Court said: Citing Watkins. But this danger, too, has been "It is, of 21 course, true that if there be no authority in the judiciary to 22 restrain a lawful exercise of power by another department of 23 the government, where a wrong motive or purpose has impelled to 24 the exertion of the power, that abuses of a power conferred may 25 be temporarily effectual. The remedy for this, however, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA144 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page148 of 164 J5MPTRU2 78 1 lies not in the abuse by the judicial authority of its 2 functions, but in the people upon whom, after all, under our 3 institutions, reliance must be placed for the correction of 4 abuses committed in the exercise of a lawful power." 5 In other words, the correction of abuses committed in 6 the exercise of a lawful power is a matter left to voters, not 7 judges. 8 a subject of the committees’ investigation is a subject on 9 which the scope of the Court’s inquiry is narrow. 10 11 Moreover, the propriety of making plaintiffs’ finances Citing Eastland. The wisdom of this approach is beyond reproach. As 12 explained by the Supreme Court, inquiries into congressional 13 motives or purposes are a hazardous matter. 14 391 U.S. at 383. 15 or vindictive motives are readily attributed to legislative 16 conduct and as readily believed. 17 Citing O’Brien, And in times of political passion, dishonest Thus, as the Court stated in Barenblatt, so long as 18 Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the 19 Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the 20 motives which spurred the exercise of that power. 21 the Court finds that the committees’ alleged ulterior motives, 22 assuming they exist, do not vitiate the legitimate legislative 23 purposes supporting the challenged subpoenas. 24 25 Accordingly, At bottom, the committees’ power to issue and enforce the subpoenas at issue is well settled. What’s more, it is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA145 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page149 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 appropriate to observe that just as the Constitution forbids 2 the Congress to enter fields reserved to the Executive and 3 Judiciary, it imposes on the Judiciary the reciprocal duty of 4 not lightly interfering with Congress’s exercise of its 5 legitimate powers. 6 79 Citing Hutcheson, 369 U.S. at 622. Having been satisfied that the committees have 7 exercised their legitimate powers in issuing the challenged 8 subpoenas, the Court concludes that plaintiffs are highly 9 unlikely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional 10 claim, a conclusion that weighs against preliminary injunctive 11 relief. 12 The Court now turns to whether they have, nonetheless, 13 shown sufficiently serious questions going to the 14 merits of their claim, along with a balance of hardships tipped 15 decidedly in their favor. 16 To begin, the Court notes that, based on the facts of 17 this particular case, it is uncertain whether plaintiffs may 18 show entitlement to injunctive relief merely by showing serious 19 questions going to the merits. 20 The Second Circuit has explained that where the moving 21 party seeks to stay government action taken in the public 22 interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme, the 23 district court should not apply the less rigorous "serious 24 questions" standard and should not grant the injunction unless 25 the moving party establishes, along with irreparable injury, a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA146 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page150 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 likelihood that he will succeed on the merits of his claim. 2 Citing Citigroup, 598 F.3d at 35. 3 80 This exception reflects the idea that governmental 4 policies implemented through legislation or regulations 5 developed through presumptively reasoned democratic processes 6 are entitled to a higher degree of deference and should not be 7 enjoined lightly. 8 Here, of course -- let me read ahead -- plaintiffs 9 contend that they have identified several serious questions 10 warranting preservation of the status quo because if the Court 11 accepts the committees’ view of the law, then Congress can 12 issue a subpoena on any matter, at any time, for any reason, to 13 any person, and there is basically nothing a federal court can 14 do about it. 15 But, as previously explained, that is not the case. 16 There are several limits to the Committees’ power to 17 investigate in aid of its legislative functions. 18 Plaintiffs similarly point out that the question 19 whether the RFPA applies to Congress is one that this Court 20 will be the first in the country to decide. 21 may be true, plaintiffs’ statutory argument fails to rise to 22 the level of “serious,” as the plain text and structure of the 23 RFPA, along with binding Supreme Court precedent interpreting 24 substantively identical language, strongly undercut their 25 proposed interpretation of the statute. But, while that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA147 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page151 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 81 Finally, plaintiffs urge the Court to go the way of 2 the Court of Appeals in Eastland by staying this case pending a 3 decision on the merits. 4 stayed enforcement of a congressional subpoena directing a bank 5 to produce the financial records of an organization. 6 ultimate question decided in Eastland is the same presented 7 here, that is, whether a congressional subpoena issued to a 8 third party was a product of legitimate legislative activity, a 9 question, by the way, answered in the affirmative by the In Eastland, the Court of Appeals While the 10 Supreme Court, the procedural postures differ greatly, 11 warranting a different result here. 12 Central to the Court of Appeals’ decision to grant a 13 stay in Eastland, aside from its determination that 14 irreparable harm was likely to befall plaintiffs absent 15 intervention, was its determination that serious constitutional 16 questions were presented by this litigation, which require more 17 time than is presently available for proper consideration. 18 Citing 488 F.2d at 1256. 19 The challenged subpoena in that case was issued on 20 May 28, 1970, with a return date of June 4. The organization 21 sued to enjoin compliance with the subpoena on June 1. 22 district court denied the injunction on June 1. 23 the record is unclear as to when the organization noted an 24 appeal, at most, the Court of Appeals had two days to review 25 the merits of plaintiff’s arguments before the return date was SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA148 The Thus, while Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page152 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 to take effect. 2 Indeed, the Court of Appeals noted that the decisive 3 element in their decision to stay the case was that, absent a 4 stay, the case would be mooted on the same morning that their 5 decision issued. 6 have reviewed plaintiff’s application, a stay was a prudent 7 move by the Court of Appeals. 8 9 82 Consequently, with only, at most, two days to Here, plaintiffs first filed suit on April 29, 2019. So the Court had the case before it for roughly three weeks, as 10 compared with, at most, two days in Eastland; and, while the 11 instant motion remains pending, the committees have agreed not 12 to enforce the subpoenas. 13 time necessary to thoroughly consider the merits of 14 plaintiffs’ motion. 15 opinion of Judge Mehta of the D.C. District Court. 16 Consequently, the Court of Appeals’ actions in Eastland has 17 little bearing here. 18 So the Court had the benefit of the As well, I should note, the thorough Moreover, the biggest difference between the 19 circumstances before this Court and the Court of 20 appeals in Eastland is clear. 21 did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s opinion in 22 Eastland, which reversed the Court of Appeals in an 23 eight-to-one decision, laying out the same framework the Court 24 uses today to resolve this case. 25 The Court of Appeals in Eastland So, while the question at the heart of this case SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA149 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page153 of 164 J5MPTRU2 83 1 concerning the extent congressional power may have been an open 2 and serious one before, it is not nearly so serious today. 3 Of course, use of congressional subpoena power to receive from 4 a third party a sitting President’s financial records will 5 always be serious in that the outcome will have serious 6 political ramifications. 7 In the context of judicial interpretation, however, 8 the word “serious” relates to a question that is both serious 9 and open to reasonable debate. Otherwise, every complaint 10 challenging the power of one of the three coordinate branches 11 of government would result in preliminary relief, regardless of 12 whether established law renders the complaint unmeritorious. 13 Indeed, every litigant that comes before the Court seeks relief 14 that is she considers serious. 15 That cannot be the law. Whereas, here, a subdivision of Congress acts 16 plainly within its constitutional authority, preliminary 17 injunctive relief will not issue simply because the plaintiff 18 challenges that authority. 19 entitlement to extraordinary and drastic relief in the form of 20 a preliminary injunction. 21 More is required to demonstrate The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not raised 22 any serious questions going to the merits. As the above 23 analysis makes clear, the Supreme Court has likely foreclosed 24 the path plaintiffs ask this Court to travel. 25 settled that the committees possessed the power to issue It is well SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA150 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page154 of 164 J5MPTRU2 84 1 and enforce subpoenas of the type challenged by Plaintiffs, and 2 it is also plain, based on standard constructions of statutory 3 interpretation and prior Supreme Court cases, that the RFPA 4 is no hurdle to the committees’ efforts to obtain the financial 5 information sought. 6 Accordingly, the Court finds that the statutory 7 questions in this case are not sufficiently serious in light of 8 the governing law. 9 plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the balance of the In any event, as explained below, 10 hardships weighs in their favor. 11 questions were sufficiently serious, injunctive relief remains 12 unwarranted. 13 Accordingly, even if the The Court finds that Plaintiffs have also failed to 14 establish that the balance of equities and hardships, along 15 with the public interest, favor a preliminary injunction. 16 These factors merge when the Government is the opposing party. 17 Citing Nken, 556 U.S. at 435. 18 The Court has found that the committees’ subpoenas are 19 likely lawful. Thus, delaying what is likely lawful 20 legislative activity is inequitable. 21 balance of hardships, plaintiffs compare the irreparable harm 22 that they are likely to suffer with what they maintain is the 23 committees’ sole potential hardship, namely, some delay before 24 receiving the documents if the committees activities are deemed 25 lawful. With respect to the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA151 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page155 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 Plaintiffs maintain that courts have consistently held 2 that such harm is given little weight. 3 committees have alleged a pressing need for the subpoenaed 4 documents to further their investigation, and it is not the 5 role of the Court or plaintiffs to second guess that need, 6 especially in light of the Court’s conclusions that the 7 requested documents are pertinent to what is likely a lawful 8 congressional investigation. 9 85 But here, the What’s more, because the House of Representatives is 10 not a "continuing body,” see Eastland, 421 U.S. at 512, any 11 delay in the proceedings may result in irreparable harm to the 12 committees. 13 hardships and equities do not tip in plaintiffs’ favor, much 14 less decidedly in their favor, as the standard in this circuit 15 requires. Thus, the Court finds that the balance of 16 Turning to the public interest, plaintiffs contend 17 that this factor weighs strongly in favor of preserving the 18 status quo because applying the law in a way that violates the 19 Constitution is never in the public’s interest and no public 20 interest in advanced by allowing the committees to 21 enforce illegal subpoenas. 22 presupposes the subpoenas’ illegality. 23 These rationales, of course, Here, the Court has already determined that there is a 24 strong likelihood that the committees actions are lawful, and 25 courts have long recognized a clear public interest in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA152 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page156 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 maximizing the effectiveness of the investigatory powers of 2 Congress. 3 86 See e.g. Exxon Corp. v. F.T.C., 589 F.2d 582. And, in the committees’ words, “Plaintiffs’ contrary 4 argument ignores the clear and compelling public 5 interest in expeditious and unimpeded Congressional 6 investigations into core aspects of the financial and election 7 systems that touch every member of the public.” 8 9 10 The Court agrees and, therefore, finds that the public interest weighs strongly against a preliminary injunction. As the Supreme Court noted in Watkins, “it is 11 unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the 12 Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for 13 legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to 14 respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress 15 and its committees, and to testify fully with respect to 16 matters within the province of proper investigation.” 17 Here, the Court finds that the challenged subpoenas 18 fall within the province of proper congressional investigation. 19 Accordingly, the Court will not enjoin the committees’ efforts 20 to enforce the subpoenas. 21 Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the Court should 22 issue an injunction to preserve the status quo because refusing 23 to do so may otherwise moot their right to appeal, a classic 24 form of irreparable harm. 25 The Court is unpersuaded. Plaintiffs will have ample SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA153 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page157 of 164 J5MPTRU2 87 1 time to appeal the Court’s decision before it takes effect. 2 The committees have already agreed to 3 suspend enforcement of the subpoenas until seven days following 4 resolution of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 5 Once the Court’s decision is entered on the docket, 6 plaintiffs may immediately appeal the decision to the Court of 7 Appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1). 8 plaintiffs are free to ask the Court of Appeals for a stay 9 pending review of this Court’s decision, which the Court of Moreover, 10 Appeals will have discretion to grant, if warranted. 11 Plaintiffs need not reinvent the wheel in applying for a stay, 12 given the substantial overlap between factors justifying a stay 13 and preliminary injunction. 14 418. See e.g. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 15 Plaintiffs simply can, likely will, and almost 16 certainly must, proffer the same arguments raised here. 17 Indeed, the Court takes judicial notice that plaintiffs filed a 18 notice of appeal the following morning after the D.C. district 19 court ruled against them in that case earlier this week. 20 contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments, refusal to issue an 21 injunction here would not moot plaintiffs’ right to an appeal. 22 For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs’ motion 23 for a preliminary injunction is denied. 24 opinion of the Court. 25 Thus, That constitutes the And with that, Mr. Strawbridge, is there anything else SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA154 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page158 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 that we need to do today? 2 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Yes, your Honor. 88 This may just be 3 pro forma, in light of your Honor's opinion. 4 are required to request a stay of the district court pending 5 appeal. 6 the record that we are requesting a stay. 7 Court desires or wants briefing on that, or if it would like to 8 make the ruling clear now. That result may be preordained, but I want to put on THE COURT: 9 I don't know if the That application is denied. MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 10 I do believe we All right. Then I also take it that 11 no administrative stay? The Court of Appeals' own 12 administrative stay is appropriate at this time? 13 THE COURT: 14 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. LETTER: 17 unless you have any questions. 18 THE COURT: 19 their next steps? 20 appeal? 21 That is correct. Thank you, your Honor. Mr. Letter? I have nothing further, your Honor, I don't. What do the parties expect to be Mr. Strawbridge, I assume there will be an MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Obviously, I haven't had a chance to 22 talk to anybody yet, but that's probably a safe bet. 23 obviously, confer with our client and take appropriate action 24 as quickly as we can. 25 THE COURT: We will, We will put a short order on the docket as SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA155 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page159 of 164 J5MPTRU2 1 soon as practicable. 2 MR. STRAWBRIDGE: 3 THE COURT: 4 5 Okay. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Unless there is anything else, we are adjourned. (Adjourned) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 JA156 89 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, Document Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page160 Case 59 Filed 05/22/19 Pageof1 164 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 5/22/2019 DONALD J. TRUMP; DONALD J. TRUMP, JR.; ERIC TRUMP; IVANKA TRUMP; THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC; DJT HOLDINGS LLC; DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC; TRUMP ACQUISITION LLC; and TRUMP ACQUISITION, CORP., Plaintiffs, – against – DEUTSCHE BANK AG and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., ORDER 19 Civ. 3826 (ER) Defendants, – and – COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Intervenor-Defendants. Ramos, D.J.: For the reasons set forth on the record in today’s hearing, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED, and the Committees’ application for consolidation is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 26. It is SO ORDERED. Dated: May 22, 2019 New York, New York _________________________ Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J. JA157 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, Document Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page161 Case 59 Filed 05/22/19 Pageof2 164 of 2 2 JA158 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, Document Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page162 Case 60 Filed 05/24/19 Pageof1 164 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DONALD J. TRUMP, DONALD J. TRUMP JR., ERIC TRUMP, IVANKA TRUMP, and THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC, DJT HOLDINGS LLC, DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC, TRUMP ACQUISITION LLC, and TRUMP ACQUISITION, CORP., Docket No. 1:19-cv-03826-ER NOTICE OF APPEAL Plaintiffs, - against DEUTSCHE BANK AG and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., Defendants, and COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Intervenor-Defendants. Plaintiffs (Donald J. Trump; Donald J. Trump Jr.; Eric Trump; Ivanka Trump; The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust; The Trump Organization, Inc.; Trump Organization LLC; DJT Holdings LLC; DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC; Trump Acquisition LLC; and Trump Acquisition, Corp.) hereby appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit this Court’s order from May 22, 2019, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay pending appeal. See Dkt. 59. JA159 Case 1:19-cv-03826-ER 19-1540, Document Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page163 Case 60 Filed 05/24/19 Pageof2 164 of 2 Dated: May 24, 2019 Respectfully submitted, s/ Marc L. Mukasey Marc L. Mukasey Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff LLP 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 347-527-3940 [email protected] s/ Patrick Strawbridge Patrick Strawbridge CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC Ten Post Office Square 8th Floor South PMB #706 Boston, MA 02109 [email protected] Counsel for The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Trump Acquisition LLC, and Trump Acquisition, Corp. William S. Consovoy Cameron T. Norris CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 3033 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 Arlington, VA 22201 (703) 243-9423 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 24, 2019, I filed this notice via the CM/ECF system, which will notify counsel for all parties in this case. Dated: May 24, 2019 s/ Patrick Strawbridge -1- JA160 Case 19-1540, Document 37, 07/01/2019, 2598263, Page164 of 164 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I filed a true and correct copy of this joint appendix with the Clerk of this Court via the CM/ECF system, which will notify all counsel who are registered CM/ECF users. Dated: June 18, 2019 /s/ Patrick Strawbridge PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC Ten Post Office Square 8th Floor South PMB #706 Boston, MA 02109 (617) 227-0548 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants