A federal judge in Florida has smacked down former president Donald Trump’s request to keep New York State Attorney General Letitia James and her staff from viewing documents related to a trust that holds most of his assets as part of an ongoing fraud lawsuit against him, his family and his eponymous company.
Mr Trump had filed a lawsuit of his own against Ms James in November after Ms James’ staff asked Mr Trump’s team for documents pertaining to a Florida-based trust pursuant to a subpoena served on the ex-president during the investigation and as a result of the lawsuit’s discovery process.
The lawsuit had initially been filed in state court, but was moved to federal court by Ms James because she is not a Florida resident. It asked the court for an injunction preventing Ms James “either personally, through an agent or through any other persons acting in active concert or participation with her, from requesting, demanding, possessing or disclosing the 2020 or 2022 amendments” to Mr Trump’s trust documents.
Judge Donald Middlebrooks denied the request, citing Mr Trump’s “to meet any of the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction”.
“Defendant raises four reasons – all of which are likely correct – why Plaintiff has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits. First, it is not at all clear that a federal court sitting in West Palm Beach, Florida, has personal jurisdiction over the Attorney General of New York. Second, this action is barred by New York’s interstate sovereign immunity. Third, this action is barred by issue and claim preclusion. And fourth, this action is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,” he wrote, with the last reason referring to a Supreme Court holding that federal courts – other than the Supreme Court itself – can’t review state court decisions.
Judge Middlebrooks also noted that Ms James’ office had agreed that any trust documents it recieved could be redacted to conceal Mr Trump’s estate planning information, and said that concession negated Mr Trump’s argument that turning over his estate documents could allow them to leak and be published, causing him harm.
After he denied the request, the jurist also wrote in a footnote that Mr Trump and his team was being “urged” to reconsider opposing Ms James’ pending motion to dismiss the underlying lawsuit, writing that the case “has all the telltale signs of being both vexatious and frivolous” – two words that indicate the filing of the lawsuit may have ran afoul of legal ethics rules or rules of the court itself.
