Judge scolds feds over discovery dispute in slush fund case

In court, a magistrate judge cautioned the Trump administration: "No matter who is running the show, the rules apply to everyone."ALEXANDRIA Va. (CN) — A federal judge Friday warned the U.S. Department of Justice that it must comply with a basic facet of the legal process and produce information in a court battle over the anti-weaponization fund once championed by the Trump administration.“It is your job to get the client to understand what is legal and what is not,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis told Andrew Block, senior counsel to the associate attorney general.Filed in May, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd’s lawsuit is challenging the $1.8 billion fund, intended to compensate people who claim they were targeted by the federal government. The money emerged from a proposed settlement of a lawsuit Trump filed against his own administration, claiming the disclosure of his tax returns by a former government contractor entitled him to $10 billion in damages.While Attorney General Todd Blanche has maintained the fund is dead, President Donald Trump has continued to defend the idea.During the hearing, Davis berated attorneys on both sides for not attempting good-faith negotiations over document production — a process that is “not my way or the highway,” the judge said. He gave them a week to iron out their issues. But he had strong words in particular for the DOJ.“I realize you’re not the one running the show, counselor,” Davis told Block. “No matter who is running the show, the rules apply to everyone.”The judge also buttonholed Floyd’s attorneys from Democracy Forward over whether they had attempted to reform their discovery requests to resolve differences with Block.Democracy Forward attorneys contend that the Justice Department is not complying with even the most basic discovery requests. When the group’s attorneys demanded information regarding the conception, creation and implementation of the fund, DOJ attorneys complained the request was too broad given the number of employees at the agency.Concerning requests for production of documents, the Justice Department “simply made more specific statements that they are not producing any documents,” wrote Catherine Carroll, senior legal adviser with Democracy Forward, in a court brief. Government attorneys previously hadn’t objected to the requests, she said, until the documents were due. In responses, they refused to work with Democracy Forward attorneys to craft a reasonable search for information and declared that they “stand on their objections” to the requests.Beyond that, the DOJ objects to demands because attorneys disagree with the notion that the plaintiffs are entitled to discovery documents “despite the fact that the district court judge has twice ordered that discovery must proceed in this matter and thus already implicitly overruled all of these objections.”Separately, Block has asked the court to dismiss the case on grounds that Democracy Forward failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.“Plaintiffs challenge an anti-weaponization fund that has never existed and will not exist, and a third-party settlement agreement to a civil action in another district with which they have a policy disagreement,” he wrote in a motion filed last week.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads