Share and Follow
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis speaks in the Fulton County Government Center during a news conference on Monday, Aug. 14, 2023, in Atlanta. Donald Trump and several allies have been indicted in Georgia over efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state. (AP Photo/John Bazemore)
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked a judge to quash several subpoenas filed by a defendant in the racketeering (RICO) case against former President Donald Trump and others.
Those efforts aim to compel documents and testimony from “numerous members of the District Attorney’s Office,” according to a 36-page filing, inclusive of several exhibits, submitted to the Fulton County Superior Court on Wednesday afternoon.
“The effort should be promptly brought to a close,” the motion to quash obtained by Law&Crime argues. “Georgia law — as well as authority from across the country — predictably frowns on a process that permits counsel for one litigant to compel the testimony of counsel and employees of the opposing party, and there is no justification to depart from that general principle here.”
Willis’s filing comes before a scheduled Feb. 15 hearing over allegations that Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade should be disqualified from the proceedings due to a “conflict of interest” because of alleged self-dealing by way of a nepotistic, romantic relationship that has resulted in the improper use of public funds.
That motion to disqualify was filed in early January by co-defendant Michael Roman, a staff member for Trump’s 2020 campaign.
Earlier this month, Willis and Wade admitted to being in a relationship in response to Roman’s original motion but denied any allegations of wrongdoing. That court filing telegraphed the DA’s intent to try and quash the subpoenas — and complained that any hearing to discuss them would not be an efficient use of the court’s time.
Willis argues that Roman’s subpoenas — 11 in total — do not accurately or in good faith offer the court any relevant information about what information might be gleaned should they be enforced.
“Instead, each of these subpoenas appear transparently to be an attempt to conduct discovery in a (rather belated) effort to support reckless accusations made in prior court filings,” the motion reads. “The subpoenas should be quashed.”
Framing the subpoenas as a “spectacle,” Willis notes that calling opposing counsel to testify “has been predictably criticized by appellate courts” and cites several cases to support the claim.
“The practice is roundly — and rightly — disfavored,” the DA’s office argues in their motion. “This case is no different.”
The motion argues that, while deposing counsel is not forbidden, courts often exercise wide discretion in denying such requests unless the asking party shows a “compelling need” — typically, an inability to obtain the requested information somewhere else.
“Courts consistently quash subpoenas served on opposing counsel in all but the rarest of circumstances,” the motion reads. “Any subpoena for testimony or documents directed to opposing counsel presents a rightfully high hurdle for any litigant to clear, and Defendant Roman cannot make that showing here.”
Rather, the DA argues, the defense seems motivated to generate an unfavorable media environment for the state. This argument reprises one of the key points from the DA’s motion filed last week.
“Disrupt and delay appear to be the primary goal of each of the subpoenas served to District Attorney employees and opposing counsel,” the recent motion reads. “Finally, the indiscriminate breadth with which defendant Roman has sought to secure testimony from District Attorney employees is troubling, and suggests an eye toward public narrative as opposed to legal remedy.”
In addition to subpoenas targeting Willis, prosecutors, and various staffers, Roman is also seeking to subpoena an attorney who represented Wade in his divorce as well as bank records for Wade’s law practice.
Willis says the attempt to subpoena Wade’s attorney is a waste of time because any information he might have is protected by attorney-client privilege. The motion argues the subpoena should be quashed “without the need for public invocation of privilege” because such an invocation “could well lead to more reckless speculation.”
As for the bank records, Willis says Roman is asking for documents that predate the RICO case and, in any event, the information is so sensitive it “cannot possibly justify such a fishing expedition.”
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee will address Roman’s motion at the Feb. 15 hearing — where he is widely expected to take up the issue of the various subpoenas as well.
Law&Crime reached out to Merchant for comment on this story, but no response was immediately forthcoming at the time of publication.
