Dominion's Emergency Motion For Protective Relief and To Disqualify Counsel
Dominion's Emergency Motion For Protective Relief and To Disqualify Counsel
v.
Defendant.
1
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 2 of 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................7
2
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 3 of 25
Dominion seeks the Court’s immediate assistance in addressing a flagrant and ongoing
breach of this Court’s order that has already, and will continue to, irreparably harm Dominion,
including, but not limited to, jeopardizing the physical safety of Dominion employees. The facts
are as follows.
with access to Documents produced by Dominion in this case. Prior to three days ago, Lambert
was not an attorney of record in this case and Dominion had no knowledge that she was working
with Byrne. Lambert has a well-documented history of violating court orders and improperly
accessing voting information, activities that have resulted in disciplinary referrals, an indictment,
and an open bench warrant. She never should have been entrusted with these documents in the first
instance—and particularly not without notice to Dominion and this Court. Were there any doubt,
her own explanation of her subsequent actions confirms this: According to Lambert, Byrne
stamped “Confidential” pursuant to the Court’s governing protective order, with individuals
outside of this case. Lambert did so. This instruction, and Lambert’s willing compliance, are clear
But Lambert’s misconduct does not end there. Not only did Lambert follow her client’s
instruction to share Dominion’s documents with an unknown number of individuals, she also filed
dozens of them publicly in an unrelated proceeding (to which Dominion is not a party), and they
have now been viewed by tens of thousands of users on social media. This too is a clear violation
of this Court’s Order. Indeed, these documents are now being used for the specific purpose of
3
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 4 of 25
Predictably, Lambert’s actions have led to new threats to Dominion employees, including,
by way of example only, a voicemail left on Saturday, March 9, accusing Dominion of “breaking
our elections” and stating that “America should just fucking hang all you motherfuckers,” and the
Ex. 1 (redacted). This is not the first time Dominion and its employees have been subjected to
online harassment, or even direct physical threats. Far from it. From social media calls to lynch
Dominion personnel to a man armed with a rifle who came to their offices,1 Dominion’s employees
have directly suffered the consequences of the lies spread by Byrne and his fellow defendants.
They now fear further threats due to conduct of his counsel done at his direction.
When confronted with her breach, Lambert did not claim confusion about what was or was
not permitted under this Court’s Order. Rather, she claimed her contempt of court was required
given that—in her warped view—the documents show evidence of “criminal activity.” Ex. 2.
Never mind that courts have repeatedly, emphatically rejected the notion that Dominion did
anything other than facilitate a secure election in 2020. Or that the documents Lambert disclosed
show absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any “criminal activity.” (Best Dominion can tell, Byrne
1
See https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/elections/judge-grants-restraining-order-
dominion-ceo-after-threats/73-0936af88-365c-4c2c-b8b9-9e65f391ea38.
4
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 5 of 25
and Lambert’s xenophobic conclusion is that any email from non-US-based Dominion personnel
Rather than answer Dominion’s questions about what documents she shared and with
whom, Lambert’s reaction to Dominion’s inquirers was to accuse Dominion’s attorneys of record
Ex. 2.
Meanwhile, Lambert’s client has not shown remorse, but rather took to X to brag about
having personally funded and “authorized” another effort to misuse confidential information—
former Mesa County Election Clerk Tina Peters’ publication of data regarding Dominion’s voting
5
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 6 of 25
Ex. 4 (emphasis added). And he has publicly acknowledged Lambert for her violation of the
Protective Order.
Ex. 5.
These actions should shock the conscience. They reflect a total disregard for this Court’s
orders, to say nothing of the safety of Dominion employees. This Court should not permit this
flagrant disregard for judicial process and the Professional Rules of Conduct.
For these reasons, and the reasons articulated below, Dominion requests that Lambert, who
only appeared as counsel of record for Byrne this week, be promptly disqualified. Dominion
further requests the Court’s guidance on a process for briefing what sanctions should befall
6
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 7 of 25
Lambert, Byrne, and any other lawyers or individuals whose conduct, following a full accounting
of those acts, warrants it. Dominion does not take lightly a request to disqualify counsel. But no
In sum, Dominion respectfully requests that the Court immediately enter an emergency
order: (1) Requiring Patrick Byrne and his counsel Stefanie Lambert to return or destroy any copies
of Dominion documents in their personal possession; (2) Prohibiting Byrne and Lambert from
accessing Dominion’s confidential documents housed by third-party vendors until the Court has
ruled upon Dominion’s motions to disqualify Lambert and anticipated motion for sanctions; and
(3) Ordering Byrne, Lambert, and Byrne’s prior counsel from the firm of McGlinchey Stafford
PLLC to provide an accounting concerning the breach’s scope and extent. Dominion further
I. BACKGROUND
Given the national security concerns regarding voting machine information and the
personal security concerns for Dominion employees—many of whom have been the subject of
threats in the past—Dominion negotiated, and the Court entered, a strict Protective Order in this
case. Specifically, that order provides that discovery material produced in the litigation (whether
stamped confidential or not) will be used “solely for purposes of this Litigation and no Receiving
Party will provide Discovery Material to any person or entity (including for any other litigation)
or make any Discovery Material public except as permitted by this Order and in this Litigation.”
Ex. 6, ¶ 1. The Order provides specific carve-outs for Dominion’s production in its litigation
against Fox News Network, Fox Corporation, and Newsmax, and for Sydney Powell’s use in the
7
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 8 of 25
disciplinary proceeding against her (subject to a notice requirement) but does not otherwise permit
In addition, under no circumstances can a party unilaterally publicly file materials that have
been marked “Confidential” by the producing party. See id., ¶¶ 12–15, 27.
The Protective Order specifically states that the parties reserve the right to apply “for an
order seeking additional safeguards with respect to the use and handling of Discovery Material or
The Order contains specific requirements in the event of a breach of its terms. Specifically,
it provides that in the event confidential material “is disclosed to any person other than in the
manner authorized by this Order,” or that any party’s counsel (or other non-party) learns “there
was or is likely to be” a breach, the responsible counsel “will immediately inform the Designating
and Producing Party of all pertinent facts relating to the disclosure or loss of confidentiality,
including, if known, the name, address, and employer of each person to whom the disclosure was
made.” Id., ¶ 27. The counsel “responsible for the disclosure or loss of confidentiality will also
make reasonable efforts to prevent disclosure of Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only Discovery
Finally, unlike a typical protective order, this one explicitly provides for the availability of
Id., ¶ 29. While defendants objected to this language, Dominion insisted on its inclusion
given its serious concerns about the security of its information, the safety of its employees,
8
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 9 of 25
The Court retains jurisdiction over all persons subject to the Protective Order to
enforce any obligations arising under it or to impose sanctions for violations. Id., ¶ 30.
B. Supposed Counsel for Patrick Byrne, Stefanie Lambert, violated the protective
order at Byrne’s direction.
This past Monday, March 11, 2024, shortly before close of business, then-counsel of record
for Byrne, Robert Driscoll, notified Dominion via email that “Confidential Discovery Material
produced by Dominion in this case has been disclosed in a public filing in Michigan by Stefanie
Lambert.” Ex. 7. Driscoll explained that Lambert—who at the time had never appeared in this
case—had access to this material “as an attorney for Patrick Byrne who was assisting in this
litigation.” Id. Lambert had signed the Protective Order governing this case, and Driscoll’s email
attached her signed undertaking of the order. See Ex. 8. Driscoll further stated that Lambert shared
Dominion’s Confidential Discovery Material with a non-party (Sheriff Dar Leaf of Barry County,
Michigan) and publicly disclosed Dominion’s Confidential Information as part of a filing she made
in the criminal case People of the State of Michigan vs. Stefanie Lynn Lambert Junttila, currently
pending before the Sixth Circuit Court in Oakland County, Michigan. Ex. 7.
Lambert’s leak had immediate consequences: thousands of social media users have viewed
Dominion’s confidential information. As indicated below, a social media post embedding an email
between Dominion employees marked as “Confidential” and included among the documents
Lambert disclosed had at least 13,600 views as of the date of this filing—and is being cited to stir
up anti-Dominion sentiment.
9
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 10 of 25
Ex. 9 (redacted). The social media user who posted the emails also posted a call for Dominion’s
CEO, John Poulos, to be “hung for sedition,” embedding an affidavit from Dar Leaf that cites to
the Dominion emails provided by Lambert (and indicates Leaf has possession of an undisclosed
number of other Dominion documents). This post has been viewed by at least 81,000 users.
10
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 11 of 25
Ex. 1 (redacted).
Counsel for Dominion responded to Driscoll the same day that he provided notice of
Lambert’s violation of the protective order requesting full information regarding the extent of her
breach and seeking assurance that Lambert no longer had access to Dominion’s confidential
discovery material. Ex. 10. Prior to answering all of Dominion’s questions, Driscoll and the other
11
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 12 of 25
attorneys from his firm withdrew from the case the following day—Tuesday, March 12, 2024. See
Dkt. 72.
C. Lambert refuses to provide information about the scope of her breach and
refuses to confirm she will abide by the Protective Order going forward.
The same day that Driscoll and his colleagues from the McGlinchey firm withdrew—one
day after their close-of-business disclosure of Lambert’s blatant breach of the Protective Order—
Lambert entered her appearance as counsel for Byrne. Dkt. 71. That morning, prior to the
McGlinchey firm’s withdrawal, Dominion met and conferred with counsel for all of the individual
defendants in related litigation before this Court over zoom and informed them that Dominion
intended to raise Lambert’s violation with the Court. Lambert, presumably invited to that call by
the McGlinchey team, joined for the tail end of the conference. Also that day, Dominion’s counsel
emailed Lambert and Byrne’s withdrawn attorneys requesting a list of all persons that they or their
client had given access to Dominion’s documents produced in this litigation (other than what
Byrne’s withdrawn counsel had already disclosed the day before). Ex. 11. Counsel for Byrne did
not provide the requested information. Instead, Lambert responded by accusing Dominion’s
To date, Lambert has not provided Dominion with the requested information regarding to
whom she has disclosed Dominion’s discovery material—as required under the Protective Order—
nor has she confirmed that she will abide by the Protective Order moving forward (not that any
such confirmation would hold any weight at this juncture). Accordingly, out of serious concern
regarding the safety of its confidential information, and its employees, Dominion sent letters to the
notifying them of Lambert’s breach and of the instant request for relief and asking them not to
provide Lambert, Byrne, or members of their team access to Dominion’s confidential information
12
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 13 of 25
until the Court has provided further guidance. Exs. 12 & 13. Dominion provided notice to Byrne’s
counsel (past and present). Lambert responded with her own letters to those vendors the following
day, claiming that Dominion’s confidential discovery materials produced in this litigation are “not
covered by the Amended Protective Order” because again, in Lambert’s view, they are “evidence
only the latest in a long string of conduct demonstrating Lambert’s vendetta against Dominion and
her disregard for the rule of law. Lambert is involved in efforts across at least multiple states to
access information stored in Dominion voting machines, and she has consistently violated court
and ethical rules in the process. The following provides only a sample of her conduct.
After becoming a “Kraken” team attorney in failed efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential
election results in Michigan, which included an effort to impound voting machines, Lambert (who
has also gone by the names Stefanie Junttila and Stefanie Lambert Junttila) was one of nine
attorneys who were reprimanded and referred for sanctions by Judge Linda Parker for “exploit[ing]
their privilege and access to the judicial process” to “disseminate allegations of fraud unsupported
by law or fact.” King v. Whitmer, 556 F. Supp. 3d 680, 688 (E.D. Mich. 2021), aff’d in part, rev’d
in part, 71 F.4th 511 (6th Cir. 2023) and aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 71 F.4th 511 (6th Cir. 2023).
Judge Parker’s scathing ruling described their efforts as a “profound and historic abuse of the
judicial process.” Id. The Sixth Circuit reversed sanctions as to Lambert not because the district
court erred in its finding regarding the baseless nature of the litigation Lambert chose to associate
herself with, but because she simply appeared too late in the case. See King v. Whitmer, 71 F.4th
13
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 14 of 25
In August 2022, Michigan’s governor, attorney general, and secretary of state submitted a
complaint to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission calling for disciplinary action and
potential disbarment against Lambert, noting that she and others “orchestrated a coordinated plan
to gain access to voting tabulators” in four Michigan counties. Ex. 16 at 2. Lambert is now facing
a felony indictment on multiple charges related to alleged tampering with voting systems following
the 2020 election, including a charge for “undue possession of a voting machine,” with a criminal
trial scheduled for April 2024. Ex. 17. Earlier this month, an Oakland County Circuit Court judge
issued a bench warrant for Lambert’s arrest after multiple failures to appear and comply with court
Lambert’s effort to gain access to Dominion information by any means possible—and her
disregard for judicial rules in the process—has not been limited to Michigan. Lambert served as
counsel in a Pennsylvania state case involving a decision by two Fulton County commissioners
to allow unauthorized access to and copying of voting systems and data. See generally Cnty. of
Fulton v. Sec’y of Commonwealth, 292 A.3d 974 (Pa. 2023). In April 2023, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court issued sanctions against the county and its attorneys based on repeated violations
of a court protective order prohibiting unauthorized voting machine inspections and referred
Lambert (whose pro hac vice application had been repeatedly rejected and who therefore never
2
A copy of the bench warrant was not available in time for this filing, but it is referenced
on the case docket accessible at
https://courtexplorer.oakgov.com/OaklandCounty/SearchCases/ViewAction?CaseNo=9UFUJkd
XZ3J5uZ7u9W2zOA%3D%3D, and has been reported on by multiple news publications. See, e.g.,
Danielle Ferguson, LAW360, “Atty Who Skipped Vote-Tampering Hearing Can’t Ditch Warrant”
(March 13, 2024), available at https://www.law360.com/pulse/courts/articles/1813432/atty-who-
skipped-vote-tampering-hearing-can-t-ditch-warrant; Jon King, MICHIGAN ADVANCE, “Warrant
for Lambert Junttila remains as she misses another hearing in tabulator tampering case” (March
13, 2024), available at https://michiganadvance.com/2024/03/13/warrant-for-lambert-junttila-
remains-as-she-misses-another-hearing-in-tabulator-tampering-
case/#:~:text=Matis%20issued%20the%20warrant%20for,as%20directed%20by%20the%20cour
t.
14
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 15 of 25
appeared) for disciplinary review in Michigan. Id. at 1019–20 (noting that even without her formal
admission, the Court was “not powerless to call attention to Attorney Lambert’s own role in the
misconduct”). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the county “and its various attorneys”
had “engaged in a sustained, deliberate pattern of dilatory, obdurate and vexatious conduct and
have acted in bad faith throughout these sanction proceedings.” Id. at 979.
Because access to or release of Dominion’s voting equipment and software implicates both
Dominion’s proprietary concerns and election integrity in general, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court ordered that “[a]ny effort to seek access to, or release of, the voting equipment” must be
directed to the court.” Id. at 1020. Yet despite this clear order that any future permission to provide
access to or release of the voting equipment (including its software) be requested from the court,
Lambert’s client Fulton County publicly voted to allow a forensic report regarding Dominion’s
systems and other confidential evidence to be used by other “clients of Stefanie Lambert with
common interests.” Ex. 18. Dominion was forced to file an emergency motion to enforce the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order. The court granted the motion, enjoining dissemination of
Raffensperger, No. 1:17-CV-2989-AT, 2023 WL 7463462 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 10, 2023), the court
found that Lambert directed the transmission of a disc drive with forensic material copied at the
Coffee County Elections Office—which uses Dominion Voting equipment and software—to a
private investigator in her employ, compromising that county’s election equipment and data. Id.
at *23. Lambert further disseminated the information on that drive, sharing it with a “digital
15
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 16 of 25
Repeatedly failing in the courts, Lambert has taken her campaign against Dominion to
social media—including as recently as March 15, 2024, when she publicly posted an email
exchange involving one of Dominion’s vendors to the “X” social media platform in a post
claiming “subversion and vote shifting.” Ex. 3. Previously, in a December 28, 2023, letter posted
widely across the “X” social media platform, Lambert asked U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan to
investigate a bizarre (and nonexistent) conspiracy involving Dominion voting machines, former
U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, and the federal U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Ex. 20.
And in February 2024, she again took to X to falsely accuse Dominion CEO John Poulos of
perjury during his December 2020 testimony before the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee—
even though this same committee found no evidence of machine fraud or company wrongdoing
Lambert’s representation to Dominion that she violated the Protective Order at Byrne’s
direction continues a pattern of willful misconduct not only by Lambert, but also by Byrne.
According to a March 9, 2024, post by Byrne on X, he “authorized” the activity of Mesa County
clerk Tina Peters, who has been indicted for her involvement in the internet publication of
confidential digital images of Dominion Voting Systems equipment and related passwords, Ex.
22 at 6, and he paid the “cyber-forensics” person who assisted her. Ex. 5 (screenshot supra, p.6).
As with Lambert, Dominion has not received any information regarding to whom Byrne has
disclosed Dominion’s confidential information nor any assurances that he will abide by the terms
of the Protective Order going forward—though any such assurances would ring hollow given
16
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 17 of 25
II. ARGUMENT
The Court “has inherent authority to prevent misconduct under the discovery rules.”
Lebron v. Powell, 217 F.R.D. 72, 77 (D.D.C. 2003); see also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.
32, 44–45 (1991) (a “primary aspect” of a court’s inherent power “is the ability to fashion an
appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process”). Indeed, this “inherent power
extends to a full range of litigation abuses.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46; Young v. Office of U.S.
Senate Sergeant at Arms, 217 F.R.D. 61, 65 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing courts’ “inherent power to
Both Lambert and Byrne have abused the discovery process and willfully violated the
protective order entered by this Court. Lambert does not deny this: on the contrary, she admits that
she disclosed Dominion’s confidential documents produced in discovery and that she did so
pursuant to directions from of her client and her unilateral assessment—based on false claims that
have been rejected by every court to consider Dominion’s involvement in the 2020 election—that
those documents somehow relate to “criminal acts.” Ex. 2. Meanwhile, Dominion’s confidential
documents have been viewed by tens of thousands of users on social media due to Lambert’s
wanton disregard for her obligations under the protective order entered by this Court—a copy of
which Lambert herself signed. It is not the case that she was unaware of the Court’s order (nor
does she claim otherwise). Given Lambert’s knowing breach of the Protective Order and her
continued refusal to abide by its requirements and provide Dominion with full information
regarding dissemination of Dominion’s discovery material by her and her client, Dominion is
deeply concerned about further disclosures in violation of the Protective Order. This includes
disclosure not only of sensitive business information, but of personal information about Dominion
17
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 18 of 25
employees that could be publicly posted to “dox” those employees and put them and their families
The Court should exercise its inherent authority to ensure compliance with its orders and
immediately enter an emergency order (1) requiring Lambert and Byrne to return or destroy any
copies of Dominion discovery material in their possession, (2) prohibiting Lambert and Byrne
from accessing Dominion’s confidential documents housed by third-party vendors until the Court
has ruled upon Dominion’s motion to disqualify and forthcoming motion for sanctions, and
(3) ordering Byrne and Lambert to provide a full accounting—in the form of a sworn affidavit—
detailing the scope and extent of their breach, as previously requested in Dominion’s March 12,
• The date of any fee agreement between Lambert and Byrne and the scope of
representation or, if no such agreement exists, the date on which Lambert and Byrne
• An accounting from Byrne’s outside vendor showing what documents Byrne and
or Lambert accessed, on what date, and whether they were downloaded; as well as
any other data the vendor indicates may be helpful to Dominion’s or this Court’s
18
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 19 of 25
• An account of every step Lambert and Byrne’s prior counsel from the McGlinchey
firm, has already undertaken or that is underway to determine the scope of the
(including in court filings in any cases outside of this case); (ii) how and when they
provided it; (iii) every occasion on which they did so; and (iv) for each such
B. The Court should disqualify Lambert from serving as counsel for Byrne.
“[A] federal court has the power to control admission to its bar and to discipline attorneys
who appear before it.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43 (citing Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. 529, 531, 6 L.Ed.
152 (1824)). “[T]he district court bears responsibility for supervising the members of its bar and
its exercise of this supervisory duty is discretionary.” Groper v. Taff, 717 F.2d 1415, 1418 (D.C.
Cir. 1983).
Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 17, 20 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation omitted). The District
of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct govern the practice of law in this District. Id.
If the Court finds that an attorney violated the rules, the D.C. Circuit has held that
disqualification is appropriate where the lawyer’s “ability to act as a zealous and effective advocate
for the client” is compromised, or if the representation poses “a substantial possibility of an unfair
19
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 20 of 25
advantage to the current client because of counsel’s prior representation of the opposing party.”
Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 1984), vacated on other
grounds, 472 U.S. 424 (1985). Absent these circumstances, a court should grant disqualification
only “in cases of truly egregious misconduct likely to infect future proceedings.” Id. This is that
D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not “[k]nowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion
that no valid obligation exists.” Lambert has willfully violated this rule.
Lambert knew of her obligations under the Protective Order: she signed a copy
acknowledging as much. Ex. 8. Despite this, she both directly shared Dominion’s confidential
information with an unauthorized third party and publicly filed dozens of pages of it in another,
separate matter (to which Dominion was not a party). See Ex. 7. When confronted with her
violation, she did not feign ignorance of her duties under the Court’s order. Instead, she claimed
that she had provided “evidence of criminal acts” to “law enforcement,” at Byrne’s direction. Ex.
2; see also Exs. 14 & 15. And she has further failed to comply with Protective Order by refusing
to provide Dominion with full information regarding the persons to whom she has disclosed
Lambert does not, and cannot, contest the requirements set forth in the Protective Order,
which itself contemplates sanctions if breached. Rather, she apparently believes that she has the
unilateral authority to decide whether or not she needs to comply. As a barred, licensed attorney,
Lambert is well aware that court orders are not optional (and, lest she had any doubt, the
disciplinary referrals, bench warrant, and sanctions entered against her by various courts have
20
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 21 of 25
surely apprised her of that fact). The only question for this Court, then, is whether her violation
Motions to disqualify arise rarely, and hardly ever outside the context of conflicts of
interest. But the facts of this case are not ordinary. Given Lambert’s well-documented historical
efforts to obtain and misuse Dominion confidential information, her pattern of disregard for
judicial rules, and her willful and ongoing violation of the Protective Order in this case, the only
way to ensure the integrity of this litigation moving forward is to remove Lambert from this case.
In Koller, the D.C. Circuit explained that disqualification should be granted only in
exceptional cases because “less prejudicial” means are “ordinarily available to deal with ethical
improprieties by counsel.” Koller, 737 F.2d at 1056. Specifically, the Circuit Court listed such
alternative sanctions:
[T]he court may issue a formal reprimand or, in more serious cases, a contempt
citation either during or after the proceedings; it may also refer possible ethical
improprieties to the disciplinary bodies of the local bar or, in the case of attorneys
admitted pro hac vice, to the bar of the attorney’s home state.
Id. at 1056 n.49. This illustrates precisely why disqualification is appropriate—and necessary—
here. Courts have imposed not just one of these lesser sanctions on Lambert for her misconduct in
pursuit of her campaign against Dominion and her misuse of its information—she has been subject
• Referred Lambert for disciplinary review in Michigan for her role in misconduct involving
repeated protective order violations in a Pennsylvania case, Cnty. of Fulton, 292 A.3d at
1019;
21
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 22 of 25
• Reprimanded her and referred her for sanctions for “disseminat[ing] allegations of fraud”
• Issued a bench warrant for Lambert’s arrest after multiple failures to comply with court
orders in a case related to alleged tampering with voting systems following the 2020
As her “pattern of dilatory, obdurate and vexatious conduct” shows, Cnty. of Fulton, 292 A.3d at
979, Stefanie Lambert is entirely unfazed by court reprimands and disciplinary proceedings. Her
Lambert’s conduct plainly meets the requirements for civil contempt,3 but an order holding
Lambert in contempt does not provide any meaningful relief to Dominion. Having demonstrated
that she has no qualms about violating this Court’s orders (or those of any other court), Dominion
cannot be in the position of entrusting Lambert with highly sensitive, confidential information that
impacts its business, and the safety of its own employees and our nation’s election workers. This
is particularly so given the widespread conspiracy theories about Dominion already pervading the
internet (thanks to the defamatory campaigns of the defendants in this case). Information about
Dominion now draws interest, and social media allows for its viral dissemination. Just one week
after Lambert leaked Dominion’s confidential emails, they have been viewed by thousands of
social media users, and even just a single post referencing those emails has been viewed by tens
of thousands more. See Exs. 1 & 9. The only viable means of ensuring the security of Dominion’s
confidential information and the safety of its employees is to disqualify Lambert from serving as
3
Civil contempt sanctions may be imposed when a party “violates a definite and specific court
order” of which the party is aware. Pigford v. Veneman, 307 F. Supp. 2d 51, 55–56 (D.D.C. 2004).
22
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 23 of 25
C. Dominion reserves the right to move for additional sanctions against Byrne
and any other party or non-party found to have violated the Court’s Protective
Order.
Lambert has represented that she violated the Protective Order at the direction of Patrick
Byrne. Ex. 2. Like Lambert, Byrne has yet to provide Dominion with any information regarding
any other persons to whom he has disclosed Dominion’s discovery material—though he has
publicly acknowledged his attorney for her improper disclosure. Ex. 5. Dominion does not
presently have sufficient information about Byrne’s conduct to determine what sanctions it intends
to seek. However, Dominion insisted on an express provision in the Protective Order empowering
the Court to impose severe sanctions for leaking confidential information because it feared
precisely this scenario. Dominion reserves the right to seek sanctions from Byrne and any other
persons bound by the Protective Order that it learns have violated its terms. Dominion will raise a
schedule for such motion with the Court during the hearing set for Monday, March 18, 2024.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth here, Dominion respectfully requests that the Court immediately
enter an emergency order (1) requiring Patrick Byrne and counsel Stefanie Lambert to return or
(2) prohibiting Byrne and Lambert from accessing Dominion’s confidential documents housed by
third-party vendors until the Court has ruled upon Dominion’s motions to disqualify Lambert and
anticipated motion for sanctions as to Byrne, and (3) ordering Byrne and Lambert to provide the
information listed supra, pp.18–19. Dominion further requests that this Court disqualify Lambert
23
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 24 of 25
24
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN Document 75 Filed 03/15/24 Page 25 of 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Davida Brook, hereby certify that on March 15, 2024, true and correct copies of the
forgoing was served via email on counsel of record for every party in US Dominion, et al. v. Patrick
25