Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump (left) in 2017 (TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images), New York Attorney General Letitia James (right) on Oct. 18, 2023 (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey)
A lawyer for Ivanka Trump submitted a filing Thursday night that sought to rubbish New York Attorney General Letitia James’ (D) “end run” attempt to compel testimony at former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York.
Attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz, of the law firm Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, said James’ “defective” subpoenas of three corporate entities must be quashed, asserting that Ivanka Trump is “beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.”
“Trial subpoenas are not a means for parties to get discovery, which they failed to obtain during pretrial proceedings. The NYAG, which never deposed Ms. Trump, is effectively trying to force her back into this case from which she was dismissed by a unanimous decision of the Appellate Division, First Department,” the filing said, emphasizing: “Ms. Trump is not a party in this action. Nor is Ms. Trump a New York resident.”
Moskowitz told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron that it’s clear AG James’ office subpoenaed corporate entities TTT, OPO, and 502 Park as part of an “end run around its failure to pursue Ms. Trump’s deposition when it had the chance.”
The lawyer argued there were several reasons why the subpoenas of the aforementioned entities should be quashed:
First, even if the Court were to find that the entities were properly served, Ms. Trump was not properly served, and the NYAG cannot use the entities as an end-around to compel Ms. Trump to testify. Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Ms. Trump because she is a non-party who does not reside and has not resided in New York for almost seven years. Third, entities served with subpoenas may designate witnesses of their choosing—even if the subpoenaing party requests a specific individual. Fourth, even if Ms. Trump were subject to this Court’s jurisdiction and was properly served with the subpoenas, neither of which is true, the Court’s summary judgment order limited the trial to damages and causes of action for which Ms. Trump’s testimony is unnecessary due to being redundant of matters already in the record or immaterial to the issues still in the case.
Ivanka Trump’s lawyer asserted that AG James’s office ostensibly “did not bother even attempting” to satisfy “any of the requirements for service of the subpoenas on Ms. Trump in her individual capacity” because “it knows Ms. Trump is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.”
In addition, the lawyer said, the New York attorney general can’t “compel Ms. Trump’s attendance at trial by serving entities it claims she is affiliated with, TTT and OPO, because neither entity is ‘a party to th[e] action nor under investigation for potential legal violations.””
Even if the subpoenas are “valid,” Moskowitz continued, the corporate entities have the right to “designate their own witnesses,” and requiring Ivanka Trump to “appear at trial in New York and provide live testimony without any limitations is unreasonable.”
Moskowitz claimed that the the attorney general’s office essentially “admitted” that the subpoenas were little more than an attempt to compel a non-party to provide “unlimited testimony not sought in discovery.”
At the end of the filing, the lawyer asked Justice Engoron to enter a protective order “requiring the NYAG to sufficiently limit the scope of testimony to matters pertaining directly to the subpoenaed entities” in the event that the judge decided not to quash the subpoenas.
Read the Ivanka Trump motion to quash here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
