Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.

 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Fo nnn MK DATE FILED:__ 6/26/2024 ARLENE DELGADO, Plaintiff, 19-CV-11764 (AT) (KHP) -against- OPINION AND ORDER ON DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., MOTION TO COMPEL TRUMP FOR AMERICA, INC., SEAN SPICER, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS individually, REINCE PRIEBUS, individually, WITHHELD AS PRIVILEGED STEPHEN BANNON, individually, Defendants. anne anne no-one eee X KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff Arlene Delgado moves to compel non-party Eric Trump to produce certain documents withheld as privileged from a production made pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. (ECF No. 321.) The privilege and/or protections asserted are the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. To the extent communications were shared among representatives of Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. (the “Campaign”) and the Trump Organization and their lawyers or consultants, Eric Trump argues that the communications are protected by the so- called common interest privilege. (ECF No. 338.) Plaintiff argues that any privilege or work product protection was waived by including consultants or others outside the attorney-client relationship on emails. Plaintiff also criticizes the privilege log provided as not compliant with Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DOCUMENTS WITHELD AS PRIVILEGED After Plaintiff filed her motion, Eric Trump revised his privilege log to conform to Local Rules and Rule 26 and produced some of the documents previously withheld as privileged.* Now the log reflects approximately 100 documents that have been withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection. There are approximately 26 documents for which both protections are asserted, with the remainder invoking only attorney- client privilege. To the extent documents were shared with representatives of the Campaign and their lawyers (approximately 90 of the withheld documents), Eric Trump invokes the common interest privilege as a basis for saying there has been no waiver of privilege or work product protection. Finally, most of the documents have been withheld in their entirety, but approximately 28 have been produced with only the allegedly privileged portion redacted. The documents can be grouped as relating to the following topics: (1) emails from 2017- 2018 concerning an American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) arbitration that involved a claim that Delgado breached a confidentiality agreement and counterclaims by Delgado similar to the ones alleged in this action and whether such counterclaims would be dropped from the arbitration and lodged in federal court or potentially settled (Log Nos. 1-8, 54-62, 67-71, 79-83); (2) emails from 2019 concerning Delgado’s threat to file and filing of this instant lawsuit in this District and correspondence (and draft correspondence) to Delgado’s counsel concerning same, as well as communications regarding how the suit impacted the pending but dormant 1 The Court is in receipt of letters from Plaintiff and Eric Trump’s counsel regarding Eric Trump’s privilege log and the withholding of documents. (ECF Nos. 362, 363.) The Court has considered those filings and does not believe further briefing is needed to resolve the motion to compel, as the Court has reviewed all the documents in camera and is well familiar with the applicable law. arbitration claims against Delgado (Log Nos. 9-21, 34-40, 84-89); (3) emails from 2020 regarding the instant litigation including a proposed amendment to add Eric Trump as a party (Log Nos. 22-30 32-33); (4) email from 2020 regarding Jason Miller and the instant litigation (Log No. 31); (5) emails from 2020 regarding the arbitration ruling dismissing the Campaign’s claims against Delgado related to alleged breach of the confidentiality agreement (Log Nos. 41-42); (6) emails from 2023 regarding the subpoenaing of Eric Trump in this action (Log Nos. 43, 100-101); (7) emails from 2017 regarding settlement negotiations with Delgado (Log Nos. 46-48, 63-66); (8) emails from 2017 regarding Delgado filing a claim with the New York City Commission on Human Rights (Log Nos. 49-50); (9) emails concerning whether the Campaign or transition team would defend and indemnify Delgado in connection with a matter unrelated to the claims in the arbitration or the instant litigation (Log Nos. 51-53); (10) emails and a document concerning legal invoices from and work done by the Kasowitz Benson Torres law firm to the Campaign, only some of which pertain to Delgado, but which reflect legal work (Log Nos. 72-78); (11) an email from 2020 regarding Delgado’s text message about Miller (Log Nos. 90-91); (12) emails from 2020 regarding the appointment of an arbitrator/arbitration fees and strategy in arbitration and litigation (Log Nos. 91-99); and (13) emails regarding a new action filed by Delgado (Log Nos. 44-45). In many of the 12 categories, there are duplicates or near duplicates of emails, and different emails reflect extensions of a conversation thread on the same topic. In some instances, email threads concerning certain topics were attached to new threads on new topics. Thus, there is substantial overlap between and among the emails and the twelve categories above are the Court’s best attempt to segregate them into discrete topics. There are several categories of people on the various communications: (1) Eric Trump and lawyers representing the Trump Organization or Eric Trump personally; (2) Michael Glassner, Executive Director of the Campaign, and lawyers representing the Campaign; and (3) Lara Trump in her capacity as an outside consultant to the Campaign (employed at Giles- Parscale Inc., a digital media company). The law firm LaRocca Hornik Rosen Greenberg & Blaha represented both the Trump Organization and the Campaign. Some of the email threads start with an email that is not privileged because it was a communication with Delgado or her counsel and/or the AAA. There are several others copied on certain emails, none of whom were serving as attorneys at the time of the relevant communication, including Donald Trump Jr., Lara Trump, Susie Wiles, and Alina Habba — rather, most were serving as consultants to the campaign. LEGAL STANDARD? The party asserting privilege bears the burden of showing that it applies. See, e.g., United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing von Bulow ex rel. Auersperg v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987)) (privilege waived where inmate conveyed privileged information to his sister over a phone line he knew was being recorded); Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 68-69, 409 N.E.2d 983, 986 (N.Y. 1980) (attorney-client privilege did not apply where existence of attorney-client relationship was not shown); Hoopes v. Carota, 142 A.D.2d 906, 910 ? New York law regarding the attorney-client privilege and the common interest doctrine substantially follows federal law, so the Court cites both. See Gulf Islands Leasing, Inc., v. Bombardier Capital, inc., 215 F.R.D. 466, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (collecting cases). 531 .N.Y.S.2d 407, 410 (App. Div. 1988) (“defendant failed to advance a basis upon which the attorney-client privilege should appropriately be extended to the information sought”). In addition to bearing the burden of establishing privilege, the party asserting privilege bears the burden of showing that privilege was not waived. Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 57 N.E.3d 30, 34-35 (N.Y. 2016); Pearlstein v. BlackBerry Ltd., No. 13-CV- 07060(CM){KHP), 2019 WL 1259382, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019). A. Attorney- Client Privilege In diversity cases such as this, where state law governs the claims, the Court looks to state law for determining applicability of attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., AlU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 07 Civ. 7052(SHS)(HBP), 2008 WL 4067437, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2008) (citations omitted) (applying New York law), modified on reconsideration, No. 07 Civ. 7052(SHS)(HBP), 2009 WL 1953039 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009); see also Fed. R. Evid. 501. “The elements of the attorney-client privilege under New York law are the existence of an attorney-client relationship, a communication made within the context of that relationship for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and the intended and actual confidentiality of that communication.” Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 161 F.R.D. 258, 264 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 82-84, 549 N.E.2d 1183, 1185 (N.Y. 1989)). Although the privilege was designed to promote full and frank communications between a client and counsel, and thereby “promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice,” it is narrowly construed because the application of the privilege renders protected relevant information undiscoverable. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981); see also Hoopes, 142 A.D.2d at 908, 531 N.Y.S.2d at 409 (explaining that the attorney‐client privilege “constitutes an obstacle to the truth‐finding process” and, thus, its  “invocation should be cautiously observed to ensure that its application is consistent with its  purpose”) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted).  There are various types of waivers.  In this case, the only one mentioned in the motion  papers is waiver by disclosure to a person outside of the attorney‐client relationship.  Under  New York law, “[d]isclosure of a privileged document generally operates as a waiver of the  privilege unless it is shown that the client intended to maintain the confidentiality of the  document, [and] that reasonable steps were taken to prevent disclosure....” New York Times  Newspaper Div. of New York Times Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 752 N.Y.S.2d 642, 645‐46  (App. Div. 2002) (citations omitted); see also Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d at 84. However, if the third party  outside of the attorney‐client relationship is an agent of the attorney or client, then the  disclosure may not result in a waiver. See Netherby Ltd. v. G.V. Trademark Investments, Ltd.,  689 N.Y.S.2d 488, 489 (App. Div. 1999) (citing Le Long v. Siebrecht, 187 N.Y.S. 150, 151‐52 (App.  Div. 1921)).  New York courts have developed a two‐prong test to determine whether disclosure by a  party to a purported agent of the party results in waiver of the attorney‐client privilege.  Although no formal agency agreement is required, the party asserting privilege must  demonstrate that when it disclosed the privileged communication to the purported agent: (1) it  had a “ ‘reasonable expectation of confidentiality under the circumstances,’ ” and (2) the  disclosure “was necessary for the client to obtain informed legal advice.” Ross v. UKI Ltd., No.  02‐cv‐9297 (WHP) (JCF), 2004 WL 67221, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2004) (quoting Osorio, 75  N.Y.2d at 84; Nat'l Educ. Training Grp., Inc. v. Skillsoft Corp., No. M8–85, 1999 WL 378337, at *4  (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 1999)). To meet the second prong of the test, the party asserting privilege must demonstrate “that the involvement of the third party [was] nearly indispensable or serve[d] some specialized purpose in facilitating the attorney-client communications.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Likewise, a company's attorney may hire an outside consultant if needed to assist the attorney in rendering legal advice. Communications between the attorney and the consultant in this circumstance also will be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine (discussed below). See, e.g., Ambac Assur. Corp., 57 N.E.3d at 35 (“We have held, for example, that statements made to the agents or employees of the attorney or client, or through a hired interpreter, retain their confidential (and therefore, privileged) character, where the presence of such third parties is deemed necessary to enable the attorney-client communication[.]”). B. Work Product Doctrine Rule 26(b}(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also provides protection to certain documents and communications prepared in anticipation of litigation. The rule provides that “To|rdinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (establishing and articulating application of the work product doctrine); Welland v. Trainer, No. 00-cv-0738 (JSM), 2001 WL 1154666, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2001) (if a document “is created because of the prospect of litigation, analyzing the likely outcome of that litigation” it is eligible for work product protection) (quoting United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1202 (2d Cir. 1998)). “[C]ourts find that the work-product privilege is waived only if disclosure to the third party substantially increases the opportunity for potential adversaries to obtain the information.” Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. Co. of Am., 341 F.R.D. 10, 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (citing Cellco P'ship d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Nextel Commc’'n, Inc., 2004 WL 1542259, at *1 (S.D.NLY. July 9, 2004)). The key factor in determining applicability of the work product doctrine is whether the documents or things were prepared “with an eye toward” or “in anticipation of” or “because of the prospect of litigation.” Ad/man, 134 F.3d at 1196-97 (quoting Hickman, 329 U.S. at 510- 511), 1202 (citing Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Richard L. Marcus, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2024 (3d ed. 1994)). “[T]he doctrine is not satisfied merely by a showing that the material was prepared at the behest of a lawyer or was provided to a lawyer. Rather the materials must result from the conduct of investigative or analytical tasks to aid counsel in preparing for litigation.” Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 384, 393-94 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, a court must determine if the materials would have been prepared in essentially similar form irrespective of the litigation. See Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Ad/man, 134 F.3d at 1202). But, unlike the rule for invoking attorney-client privilege, the predominant purpose of the work product need not be to assist with litigation to be protected; rather, the work product need only have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. See Ad/man, 134 F.3d at 1201-02; Wuiltz, 304 F.R.D. at 393-94. At the same time, the mere prospect of litigation does not confer work product status on documents that are otherwise created for normal business purposes. Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess, Inc., 271 F.R.D. 58, 74 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Work product comes in two forms. Opinion work product consists of the mental  impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of an attorney or other representative of  a party, and is given heightened protection. Id. at 73. Fact work product consists of factual  material, including the results of a factual investigation. Id.; Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1197. This  latter type of work product is subject to disclosure “upon a showing of substantial need and  inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship.” Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 400; see also  Hickman, 329 U.S. at 511‐12; Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1199.  Courts in the Second Circuit have held that “[a] substantial need exists ‘where the  information sought is “essential” to the party's defense, is “crucial” to the determination of  whether the defendant could be held liable for the acts alleged, or carries great probative value  on contested issues.’ ” Gucci Am., 271 F.R.D. at 74‐75 (quoting Nat'l Cong. for Puerto Rican  Rights v. City of New York, 194 F.R.D. 105, 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). The documents must “have a  unique value apart from those already in the movant's possession[.]” FTC v. Boehringer  Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 778 F.3d 142, 155‐56 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Disclosure is warranted only when  the moving party makes a strong showing of the relevance and importance of the fact work  product and that “it is likely to be significantly more difficult, time‐consuming or expensive to  obtain the information from another source[.]” In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., No. 14‐md‐2516  (SRU), 2017 WL 5885664, at *15 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017) (internal citations omitted).  C.  Common Interest Doctrine  The common interest doctrine and/or so‐called joint defense privilege recognizes that  separate parties may share a common legal interest and protects communications shared  between them in furtherance of their common interest.  See, e.g., Sokol v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 07  CIV. 8442, 2008 WL 3166662, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2008). This doctrine has been described as  an exception to the rule that voluntary disclosure of privileged material waives privilege. Id. It  also has been described as an extension of the attorney‐client privilege. U.S. v. Schwimmer, 892  F.2d 237, 243‐44 (2d Cir. 1989); Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No.  109CV1284, 2012 WL 13028650, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 7, 2012) (citation omitted); Gulf Islands  Leasing Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 466, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The common  interest doctrine also applies to the work product doctrine.  Pilkington, 341 F.R.D. at *16.   For the common interest doctrine and/or joint defense privilege to apply, there must be  an oral or written agreement that embodies “a cooperative and common enterprise towards an  identical legal [as opposed to a commercial] strategy.” Globalrock, 2012 WL 13028650 at *2  (emphasis added) (citing Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893 (S.D.N.Y.  1999)). It is paramount that each party to the agreement understand that the communications  between and amongst them are provided in confidence. United States v. Weissman, 195 F.3d  96, 99 (2d Cir. 1999); Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais Suisse S.A., 160 F.R.D. 437, 447  (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (explaining that commonality of interest is more than concurrent interest).  Further, “[o]nly those communications made in the course of an ongoing common enterprise  and intended to further the enterprise are protected.” Weissman, 195 F.3d at 99; see generally  Lugosch v. Congel, 219 F.R.D. 220, 235‐39 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).  Thus, the party invoking the common interest doctrine must show not only that it shares  a common legal interest with the other party to the communication, but also that the  communication was aimed at furthering that interest. Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. KBC Bank N.V.,  No. 11‐CV‐9490 (ALC), 2016 WL 4154274, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2016); In re Rivastigmine  Patent Litig., No. 05 MD 1661 (HB)(JCF), 2005 WL 2319005, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2005) (collecting cases). DISCUSSION The Court has carefully reviewed all of the documents on the log in camera and finds that there are a few that have been improperly withheld as privileged and a few that can be produced in redacted form because only the top portion of the email threads are privileged. The Court’s rulings on each document on the log are attached at Appendix A. With regard to the common interest doctrine, Eric Trump has explained that in-house counsel for the Trump Organization, Alan Garten, provided him legal advice in both a personal and professional capacity. Eric Trump also explains that he and the Campaign shared a common legal interest, namely, enforcement of a confidentiality agreement that protected Eric Trump, the Trump Organization and the Campaign in an arbitration proceeding brought against Delgado and defense of claims or threatened claims by Delgado against the Campaign and Eric Trump which were first brought in the arbitration as counterclaims and then discontinued in arbitration and asserted in this action, but without Eric Trump as a named party. The Court agrees that the common interest doctrine can protect certain communications here because Eric Trump and the Trump Organization had a common legal interest with the Campaign in the enforcement of the confidentiality agreement and in prosecuting claims against and defending claims by Delgado — all brought or threatened to be brought in the same action. Having reviewed all the communications in question, many are privileged and do in fact concern the conveyance of legal advice or requests for legal advice regarding the arbitration, the litigation or threatened litigation or settlement of the disputes. Further, in most where the Campaign and Eric Trump 1] and the Trump Organization were included, the communications are in furtherance of the common legal interest. In contrast, there are three communications that were shared with Lara Trump, who was employed by Giles-Parscale Inc., a vendor or consultant to the Campaign. No arguments are made as to why Lara Trump was included in any communications, and the only protection asserted with respect to communications shared with her is the attorney-client privilege. Having reviewed the communications to which Lara Trump was included, the Court can discern no reason why the communication was necessary for either the Campaign or Eric Trump to obtain legal advice. Lara Trump, as an employee of an outside consultant to the Campaign, does not have a common legal interest with Eric Trump or the Campaign with respect to the communications at issue. Thus, the attorney-client privilege has been waived by including Lara Trump in communications. Accordingly, documents 1, 2 and 56 must be produced, as the privilege was waived. Similarly, there are communications from Alan Garten to Susie Wiles (susanswiles@msn.com) and Alina Habba (alina.habba@saveamerica45.com) that are not communications seeking or conveying legal advice and therefore are not privileged. These must be produced. There are also communications regarding Delgado posting on the internet that are not privileged because the communications do not seek or convey legal advice and are not work product either. These must be produced. 12 Finally, there are a handful of documents that should be produced in redacted form with only the top email(s) redacted because the bottom portions of the emails are communications with the AAA and/or Delgado and her lawyers and are not privileged. | include at Appendix A the Court’s rulings as to each of the documents on the log. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. By Wednesday, July 3, 2024 Eric Trump shall produce those documents identified on Appendix A in whole or in redacted form. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 363. SO ORDERED. New York, New York Kethauct Hf fier June 26, 2024 Katharine H. Parker U.S. Magistrate Judge 13 APPENDIX A Privilege Log # Document ID Email To Email From Email Cc Date Sent Ruling Basis 1 TRU1_15371_00000061 Michael Glassner Lara Trump Eric Trump 8/22/2017 Presence of 3d party on m> >; Alan Garten No 2 TRU1_15371_00000062 lara@gilesparscale.com Michael Glassner Eric Trump 8/22/2017 Presence of 3d party on >; Alan Garten No 3 TRU1_15371_00000071 Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 9/23/2017 Correspondence between client and attorney. > Yes - ACP 4 TRU1_15371_00000072 Eric Trump Michael Glassner 10/6/2017 Produce first email dated ; Lawrence Rosen mp.com> Zaino, Rosen, McPartland; ; CC'ing Saylor, Celli & Alan Garten Abady. Yes in part. 5 TRU1_15371_00000077 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump 11/2/2017 Correspondence between ; communications in ; Michael S. Glassner interest. Yes - ACP 6 TRU1_15371_00000079 Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 11/6/2017 Correspondence between client and attorney. > Yes - ACP 7 TRU1_15371_00000082 Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 1/23/2018 Correspondence between client and attorney. > Yes - ACP 8 TRU1_15371_00000083 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump 1/23/2018 Correspondence between Yes - ACP 9 TRU1_15371_00000223 etrump@trumporg.com; Lawrence Rosen 11/12/2019 Correspondence between agarten@trumporg.com client and attorney; communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 10 TRU1_15371_00000224 Attachment to: TRU1_15371_00000223 Correspondence between client and attorney; work product prepared in anticipation for litigation. Yes - ACP; WP 11 TRU1_15371_00000225 etrump@trumporg.com Lawrence Rosen 11/12/2019 Correspondence between client and attorney. 15 TRU1_15371_00000238 etrump@trumporg.com; Lawrence Rosen Patrick Mcpartland 12/6/2019 Correspondence between Alan Garten communications in >; Michael Glassner furtherance of common prepared in anticipation for litigation. Yes - ACP; WP 16 TRU1_15371_00000240 Lawrence Rosen Michael Glassner Patrick Mcpartland 12/6/2019 Correspondence between ; m> communications in ; Alan Garten interest; work product litigation. Yes - ACP; WP 17 TRU1_15371_00000241 Michael Glassner Eric Trump Patrick Mcpartland 12/6/2019 Correspondence between ; Lawrence m> m> communications in Rosen furtherance of common ; interest. Alan Garten ; Michael Glassner m> communications in ; Alan Garten interest. Yes - ACP 19 TRU1_15371_00000287 etrump@trumporg.com Lawrence Rosen agarten@trumporg.com 12/23/2019 Top email dated 12/23 from Rosen to Trump can be redacted as privileged; remainder produced because it is correspondence with Delgado attorneys. Yes in part. 20 TRU1_15371_00000289 Lawrence Rosen Michael Glassner 12/24/2019 Top two emails privileged, ; it is correspondence with ; Alan Garten ; Lawrence m> it is correspondence with Rosen Delgado attorneys. ; Alan Garten Yes in part. t @t 22 TRU1_15371_00000339 agarten@trumporg.com; Lawrence Rosen Patrick Mcpartland 5/13/2020 Correspondence between etrump@trumporg.com; communications in interest. Yes - ACP 23 TRU1_15371_00000342 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump Patrick Mcpartland 5/13/2020 Correspondence between ; m> communications in ; Michael Glassner interest. Yes - ACP 24 TRU1_15371_00000343 Lawrence Rosen Alan Garten Patrick Mcpartland 5/13/2020 Correspondence between ; m> communications in ; Michael Glassner interest. ; Alan Garten m>; Donald Trump Jr. communications in furtherance of common >; Michael Glassner interest. Yes - ACP 29 TRU1_15371_00000348 agarten@trumporg.com; Lawrence Rosen Patrick Mcpartland 5/13/2020 Correspondence between mglassner@donaldtrump. communications in etrump@trumporg.com; furtherance of common Donald Trump Jr. interest. Yes - ACP 30 TRU1_15371_00000349 Lawrence Rosen Alan Garten Patrick Mcpartland 5/13/2020 Correspondence between ; m> communications in com; Eric Trump furtherance of common ; Donald Trump Jr. Yes - ACP 31 TRU1_15371_00000362 etrump@trumporg.com Lawrence Rosen agarten@trumporg.com; 6/5/2020 Correspondence between mglassner@donaldtrum client and attorney; p.com communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 32 TRU1_15371_00000363 Donald Trump Jr. Lawrence Rosen Patrick Mcpartland 6/5/2020 Correspondence between ; communications in mglassner@donaldtrump. furtherance of common com; interest. agarten@trumporg.com Yes - ACP 33 TRU1_15371_00000364 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump Patrick Mcpartland 6/5/2020 Correspondence between ; m> communications in ; furtherance of common mglassner@donaldtrump. interest. com; Alan Garten 34 TRU1_15371_00002261 "Ginsberg, Benjamin L." Alan Garten Lawrence Rosen 8/27/2019 Correspondence between ; client and attorney; m> m> Eric Trump communications in ; Matthew Maron interest; work product litigation. Yes - ACP/WP 35 TRU1_15371_00002262 Lawrence Rosen Michael Glassner Eric Trump 8/27/2019 Correspondence between ; >; Matthew Maron communications in ; Alan Garten m>; Stewart Crosland interest; work product om> litigation. Yes - ACP/WP 36 TRU1_15371_00002263 Michael Glassner "Crosland, Stewart" Eric Trump 8/27/2019 Correspondence between ; Lawrence com> >; Matthew Maron communications in Rosen ; m>; "Crosland, Stewart" interest; work product "Ginsberg, Benjamin L." litigation. m>; Alan Garten Yes - ; Lawrence Rosen mp.com> >; Matthew Maron communications in ; ; Lawrence com> >; Matthew Maron communications in Rosen ; m>; "Crosland, Stewart" interest. "Ginsberg, Benjamin L." m>; Alan Garten Yes - ACP p.com> communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 42 TRU1_15371_00002307 Alex Cannon Eric Trump 10/10/2020 Correspondence between .com> communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 43 TRU1_15371_00002867 Eric Trump Alan Garten 9/13/2023 Correspondence between g.com> communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 44 TRU1_15371_00002989 Susie Wiles Alan Garten 1/2/2024 Not requesting or providing ; Alina Habba g.com> ; Eric Trump 45 TRU1_15371_00002991 Alan Garten Alina Habba 1/2/2024 Not requesting or providing ; Susie Wiles erica45.com> ; Eric Trump m> communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 47 TRU1_15371_00003558 "Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 7/6/2017 Correspondence between (etrump@trumporg.com) client and attorney. " Yes - ACP 48 TRU1_15371_00003559 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump 7/6/2017 Correspondence between Yes - ACP 49 TRU1_15371_00003579 Michael Glassner Lawrence Rosen Alan Garten 8/1/2017 Correspondence between m>; "Eric Trump communications in (etrump@trumporg.com furtherance of common )" interest. Yes - ACP 50 TRU1_15371_00003580 Lawrence Rosen Michael Glassner Alan Garten 8/1/2017 Correspondence between m>; "Eric Trump communications in (etrump@trumporg.com furtherance of common )" interest. Yes - ACP 54 TRU1_15371_00003592 Michael Glassner Lawrence Rosen "Eric Trump 8/11/2017 Correspondence between (etrump@trumporg.com client and attorney; p.com> )" communications in ; Alan Garten interest. Yes - ACP 55 TRU1_15371_00003593 Attachment to TRU1_15371_00003592 Work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes - WP 56 TRU1_15371_00003597 Eric Trump Michael Glassner 8/22/2017 Presence of 3d party on ; Alan Garten mp.com> ; lara@gilesparscale.com No 57 TRU1_15371_00003639 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump Alan Garten 10/4/2017 Correspondence between m> communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 58 TRU1_15371_00003640 Alan Garten Eric Trump 10/4/2017 Correspondence between ; Lawrence Rosen m> communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 59 TRU1_15371_00003641 Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 10/4/2017 Correspondence between client and attorney; >; Alan Garten communications in interest. Yes - ACP 60 TRU1_15371_00003642 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump 10/4/2017 Correspondence between ; communications in interest. Yes - ACP 61 TRU1_15371_00003661 Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 11/2/2017 Top email dated 11/2 from Rosen to Trump, Garten, >; Alan Garten Glassner redacted as ; Michael S. Glassner correspondence with AAA & Yes in part. 62 TRU1_15371_00003663 Lawrence Rosen Alan Garten 11/2/2017 Top two emails redacted as ; correspondence with AAA & ; Michael S. Glassner Yes in part. 63 TRU1_15371_00003681 Lawrence Rosen Michael Glassner 11/28/2017 Correspondence between ; communications in (etrump@trumporg.com) furtherance of common " interest. Yes - ACP 64 TRU1_15371_00003682 Michael Glassner Eric Trump 11/28/2017 Correspondence between ; Lawrence m> communications in 67 TRU1_15371_00003715 "Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen Alan Garten 1/8/2018 Correspondence between (etrump@trumporg.com) communications in ; Michael Glassner interest; work product litigation. Yes - ACP; WP 68 TRU1_15371_00003716 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump Alan Garten 1/8/2018 Correspondence between ; m> communications in interest; work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes - ACP; WP 69 TRU1_15371_00003738 Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 1/25/2018 Correspondence between client and attorney; work > product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes - ACP; WP 70 TRU1_15371_00003753 "Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 3/1/2018 Top email dated 3/1 from (etrump@trumporg.com) Rosen to Trump redacted as " privileged; bottom email is Delgado counsel. Yes in part. 71 TRU1_15371_00003756 "Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 3/5/2018 Top two emails redacted as (etrump@trumporg.com) privileged; bottom email is " correspondence with AAA & Yes in part. 72 TRU1_15371_00003873 "Michael Glassner Alan Garten 8/16/2018 Correspondence between (mglassner@donaldtrum communications in ; Eric Trump interest. Yes - ACP 73 TRU1_15371_00003875 Attachement to TRU1_15371_00003873 Correspondence between client and attorney. Yes - ACP 74 TRU1_15371_00003879 Alan Garten Eric Trump 8/16/2018 Correspondence between ; "Michael Glassner m> communications in (mglassner@donaldtrum furtherance of common p.com)" interest. Yes - ACP 75 TRU1_15371_00003880 Eric Trump Alan Garten 8/16/2018 Correspondence between ; "Michael Glassner m> communications in (mglassner@donaldtrum furtherance of common p.com)" interest. Yes - ACP 76 TRU1_15371_00003882 Alan Garten Michael Glassner 8/16/2018 Correspondence between ; Eric Trump mp.com> communications in interest. 80 TRU1_15371_00003908 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump 9/13/2018 Top two emails redacted as correspondence with AAA & Delgado counsel. Yes in part. 81 TRU1_15371_00003909 Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 9/13/2018 Top three emails redacted as privileged; bottom emails are > correspondence with AAA & Delgado counsel. Yes in part. 82 TRU1_15371_00003928 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump 11/7/2018 Not requesting or providing No. 83 TRU1_15371_00003929 Eric Trump Lawrence Rosen 11/7/2018 Rosen's response; not providing legal advice. > No. 84 TRU1_15371_00004021 Lawrence Rosen Alan Garten Eric Trump 8/27/2019 Correspondence between ; > communications in interest; work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes - ACP/WP 85 TRU1_15371_00004023 Alan Garten "Ginsberg, Benjamin Lawrence Rosen 8/27/2019 Correspondence between ; client and attorney; > ; Matthew Maron interest; work product ; "Michael Glassner litigation. (mglassner@donaldtrum p.com)" ; "Crosland, Stewart" Yes - ; Michael Glassner >; Matthew Maron communications in ; "Ginsberg, m> interest; work product Benjamin L." prepared in anticipation of ; Alan Garten ACP/WP 88 TRU1_15371_00004037 Michael Glassner "Ginsberg, Benjamin Eric Trump 9/4/2019 Correspondence between ; Alan Garten ; Matthew Maron communications in ; Lawrence Rosen m> interest. ; "Crosland, Stewart" 89 TRU1_15371_00004038 "Ginsberg, Benjamin L." Eric Trump Matthew Maron 9/4/2019 Correspondence between client and attorney. > Yes - ACP 93 TRU1_15371_00004085 Michael Glassner Lawrence Rosen Patrick Mcpartland 2/4/2020 Correspondence between ; m> communications in etrump@trumporg.com; furtherance of common agarten@trumporg.com interest; work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes - ACP/WP 94 TRU1_15371_00004086 Lawrence Rosen Alan Garten Patrick Mcpartland 2/4/2020 Correspondence between ; m> communications in ; Eric Trump interest; work product litigation. Yes - ACP/WP 95 TRU1_15371_00004114 Michael Glassner Lawrence Rosen etrump@trumporg.com; 3/16/2020 Correspondence between agarten@trumporg.com client and attorney; p.com> communications in furtherance of common interest; work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes - ACP/WP 96 TRU1_15371_00004115 Lawrence Rosen Alan Garten Eric Trump 3/16/2020 Correspondence between ; > communications in interest; work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes - ACP/WP 97 TRU1_15371_00004116 Alan Garten Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump 3/17/2020 Correspondence between ; Michael Glassner > communications in interest. Yes - ACP 98 TRU1_15371_00004124 Michael Glassner Lawrence Rosen etrump@trumporg.com; 3/23/2020 Correspondence between agarten@trumporg.com; client and attorney; p.com> Patrick Mcpartland communications in interest. Yes - ACP 99 TRU1_15371_00004125 Lawrence Rosen Eric Trump Alan Garten 3/23/2020 Correspondence between ; m>; Patrick Mcpartland communications in m> interest. Yes - ACP 100 TRU1_15371_00004479 Alan Garten Eric Trump 8/23/2023 Correspondence between .com> communications in furtherance of common interest. Yes - ACP 101 TRU1_15371_00004480 Eric Trump Alan Garten 8/23/2023 Correspondence between g.com> communications in