Joint Filing On Special Master Candidates

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
________________________________/
THE PARTIES’ JOINT FILING RESPECTING THE COURT’S APPOINTMENT OF

A SPECIAL MASTER
In compliance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Court’s Order (Docket Entry (“D.E.”)
64, at 24), the parties conferred on September 7-9, 2022, and submit this joint filing which:
● lists proposed special master candidates;
● attaches each party’s detailed proposed order of appointment in accordance
with Civil Rule 53(b); 1 and
● identifies the substantive points on which the parties were able to agree and not
agree.
Proposed Special Master Candidates
The Government proposes two candidates. Plaintiff proposes two candidates. The
Government received the Plaintiff’s proposed candidates shortly after 6:00 p.m. on the date
1
The Plaintiff’s proposed order is attached as Exhibit A, and the Government’s proposed
order is attached as Exhibit B.
1
of this filing. The Government and the Plaintiff will advise the Court about their respective
positions on the other party’s proposed candidates on Monday, September 12, 2022.
Government’s Proposed Candidates
The Honorable Barbara S. Jones (ret.) – retired judge of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, partner in Bracewell LLP, and special master in In re:
in the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 28, 2021 and In the Matter of Search Warrants
Executed on April 9, 2018.
The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith (ret.) – retired Circuit Judge of the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, special counsel in Hunton Andrews Kurth
LLP, and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.
Plaintiff’s Proposed Candidates
The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie (ret.) – former Chief Judge of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, served on the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, formerly the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
Paul Huck, Jr.—founder, The Huck Law Firm, former Jones Day partner, former
General Counsel to the Governor, former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Florida.
Areas of Substantive Agreement Between the Parties
The headings in the areas of agreement and disagreement follow paragraphs 3(b) of
this Court’s order (D.E. 64, at 24) and Civil Rule 53(b)(2).
1. Reporting and Judicial Review
2
The parties agree on reducing the default 21-day review period in Civil Rule 53(f)(2)
to 10 days.
2. Engagement of Professionals, Support Staff, and Expert Consultants
The parties agree that the Special Master may request the assistance of additional
professionals, support staff, or expert consultants from the parties and ultimately this Court.
Areas of Substantive Disagreement Between Each Party’s Proposed Order
The paragraphs below list the substantive differences between the parties’ proposed
orders. The parties’ more detailed suggested protocols are set forth in each party’s Proposed
Order. As stated orally in the parties’ meet and confer, the Government plans to make
available to Plaintiff copies of all documents recovered during the search that the Government
assesses to be unclassified, both personal items and documents and Government documents
(Presidential records). In addition, the Government will return to Plaintiff his personal items
that were not commingled with records bearing classification markings. 2
1. Duties and Limitations
Plaintiff’s position is that the Special Master should review all Seized Materials,
including documents with classification markings. Plaintiff also contends that the Special
Master should examine the documents to evaluate potential Executive Privilege claims. The
Plaintiff does not believe that the Special Master should, or needs to, consult with the
National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). To the extent that the Special
2
The Government notes that such property was within the scope of what the search
warrant authorized.
3
Master determines such a need, the Plaintiff would suggest that the parties be heard by the
Special Master, and possibly this Court, before that step is undertaken.
The Government’s position is that the Special Master should not review documents
with classification markings; should not adjudicate claims of Executive Privilege (but should
submit to NARA any documents over which such claims are made); and should consult with
NARA on the determination of Presidential records.
The parties generally agree on the categories of documents into which the materials to
be reviewed by the Special Master should be allocated. Although Plaintiff originally identified
five categories and the Government has four, that difference is only because Plaintiff
separated personal items from personal documents. The Government combines those two
personal categories and thus has one fewer category – four rather than five – and the Plaintiff
agrees to these four categories of allocation before assessing the issue of Executive Privilege’s
impact on these categorizations.
Plaintiff believes the Government’s objection to the Special Master reviewing
documents they deem classified is misplaced. First, the Government’s position incorrectly
presumes the outcome—that their separation of these documents is inviolable. Second, their
stance wrongly assumes that if a document has a classification marking, it remains classified
in perpetuity. Third, the Government continues to ignore the significance of the Presidential
Records Act (“PRA”). If any seized document is a Presidential record, Plaintiff has an
absolute right of access to it while access by others, including those in the executive branch,
has specified limitations. Thus, President Trump (and/or his designee) cannot be denied
4
access to those documents, which in this matter gives legal authorization to the Special Master
to engage in first-hand review. 3
The principal difference in the parties’ workflow is that Plaintiff sends materials
categorized by his counsel directly to the Special Master, while the Government proposes that
it review Plaintiff’s categorization by logs to determine if it agrees or disagrees with the
categorization. The Government anticipates that it may agree on many of the categorizations
and thus minimize the workload of the Special Master and expedite the review. The Plaintiff
contends that a full review of all seized documents remains an important part of the Special
Master‘s duties, even if the parties ultimately agree as to the return of various seized items.
As the Government has already reviewed and categorized the seized materials, the Plaintiff
believes a review by the Plaintiff, and submission to the Special Master, is the appropriate
process.
2. Access to Information and Ex Parte Communications
Both parties agree that the Special Master’s report and recommendations must be
provided to the Parties to allow either or both to seek the Court’s review. Because its workflow
transmits all categories of documents to the Special Master without logs, Plaintiff proposes
authorization for regular ex parte communications on categorization with only the Special
Master’s final report and recommendation disclosed to the Government.
By contrast, the Government proposes to review Plaintiff’s proposed designations
before they go to the Special Master in order to minimize the number of disputes. The
3
Plaintiff anticipates filing a deeper analysis of these issues in upcoming filings.
5
Government’s proposed workflow has the additional benefit of minimizing ex parte
communications and enhancing the perceived fairness and transparency of the review
process.
3. Compensation and Expenses
Plaintiff proposes to split evenly the professional fees and expenses of the Special
Master and any professionals, support staff, and expert consultants engaged at the Master’s
request.
The Government’s position is that, as the party requesting the special master, Plaintiff
should bear the additional expense of the Special Master’s work.
4. Schedule for Review
The Government sets a deadline of October 17, 2022, within which to complete the
review process. Plaintiff suggests that 90 days likely will be required given the volume of
documents, but ultimately defers to the Court and to the selected Special Master.
Conclusion
The parties are available to appear before the Court either in person or telephonically
to discuss the Special Master candidates and to resolve the outstanding issues in the proposed
appointment orders.
Respectfully submitted,
/s Juan Antonio Gonzalez

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Florida Bar No. 897388
99 NE 4th Street, 8th Floor
6
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: 305-961-9001
Email: [email protected]
/s Jay I. Bratt
JAY I. BRATT
CHIEF
Counterintelligence and Export Control
Section
National Security Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Illinois Bar No. 6187361
Tel: 202-233-0986
/s/ James M. Trusty

James M. Trusty
Ifrah Law PLLC
1717 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202)524-4176
(pro hac vice)
/s/ Christopher M. Kise

Christopher M. Kise
Chris Kise & Associates, P.A.
201 East Park Avenue
5th Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone: (850) 270-0566
/s/ M. Evan Corcoran

M. Evan Corcoran
SILVERMAN|THOMPSON|SLUTKIN|WHITE,
LLC
400 East Pratt Street – Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 385-2225
(pro hac vice)
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 9, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of
Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
/s Juan Antonio Gonzalez

Florida Bar No. 897388
99 NE 4th Street, 8th Floor
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: 305-961-9001
Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 1 of 8

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER OF

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Pursuant to Rule 53(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this
Court’s inherent powers and authority, and subject to a declaration under penalty of perjury
attesting to the absence of any ground for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455, [name] is
appointed Special Master.
Duties
2. The Special Master will review the materials seized during the August 8, 2022,
execution of a court-authorized search warrant at the premises located at 1100 S. Ocean Blvd.,
Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (the “Seized Materials”); including any materials with
classification markings. The specific duties of the Special Master are as follows and will
include all powers necessary to carry out those duties:
a. Identifying personal items and documents in the Seized Materials;
1
b. Conducting a privilege review of the Seized Materials and making
recommendations to this Court as to privilege disputes between the parties (including
Executive Privilege);
c. Identifying any Presidential Records in the Seized Materials and
making recommendations to this Court as to any classification disputes between the parties;
d. Additional duties may be assigned to the Special Master by the Court in
subsequent orders, upon notice to the parties and an opportunity to be heard with regard to
such additional duties; and
e. Once the Special Master has completed the review process set forth in
this Order and any dispute has been fully adjudicated, any documents identified as
Presidential records will be returned to the Archivist of the United States, and the process
under the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 2204, will be followed to determine the
assertion of any restriction on access.
3. The Special Master will have the full authority set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c).
4. To review the Seized Materials (other than documents with classification
markings), the Special Master will follow a precise workflow:
a. For documents identified by the government’s filter team as potentially
privileged –
i. the government will provide copies of the potentially privileged
documents to Plaintiff’s counsel;
ii. Plaintiff’s counsel will review the potentially privileged
documents and provide a privilege log to the Special Master stating for each document
whether Plaintiff claims that the document is privileged, whether the document sought to be
2
withheld is an attorney-client communication or subject to the qualified work-product
immunity, or some other basis (including Executive Privilege), and the basis for that claim
sufficient to enable the government, Special Master, and Court to assess that claim; and
iii. if the government agrees with Plaintiff’s position, the document
will be returned to Plaintiff; if not, the dispute will go to the Special Master and, if the parties
disagree with the Special Master’s report and recommendation, to this Court for de novo
review and decision;
b. For the Seized Materials excluding documents identified by the
government’s filter team as potentially privileged –
i. the government will provide copies of those documents to
Plaintiff’s counsel;
ii. Plaintiff’s counsel will review those documents, allocate them to
one of four mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive categories, and prepare a log
similar to the privileged log in 4(a)(ii) sufficient to support the categorization into one of the
four categories, which are:
aa. Personal items and documents – not privileged,
bb. Personal documents – privileged as attorney-client
communications or qualified work-product immunity,
cc. Presidential records – not claimed as Presidential
communications privileged,
dd. Presidential records – claimed as Presidential
communications privileged (hereinafter, “Executive Privilege”).
3
Reporting and Judicial Review
5. Within seven days following the date of this order, the Special Master will
consult with counsel for the parties and provide the Court with a scheduling plan setting forth
the procedure and timeline for concluding the privilege review and adjudicating any disputes
as to privilege. The scheduling plan should include a process for resolving disputes as to
privilege.
6. The Special Master will file all written scheduling plans, orders, reports, and
recommendations on the electronic docket, along with any additional information that the
Special Master believes will assist the Court in reviewing those scheduling plans, orders,
reports, and recommendations. Any potentially privileged, confidential, or national security
material that is filed will be done so under seal. The Special Master will, during the pendency
of this matter, including any appeals, preserve any and all documents or other materials
received from the parties.
7. The Special Master will make ex parte reports to the Court on an ongoing basis
concerning the progress in resolving the issues above as the Special Master believes
appropriate or as the Court requests.
8. The parties may file objections to, or motions to adopt or modify, the Special
Master’s scheduling plans, orders, reports, or recommendations no later than ten calendar
days after the service of each, and the Court will review those objections or motions, and any
procedural, factual, or legal issues therein, de novo.
Access to Information
9. The Special Master will have access to individuals, information, documents,
and materials relevant to the orders of the Court that are required to perform the Special
4
Master’s duties, subject to the terms of this Order of Appointment. Such materials will be
provided to the Special Master on an ex parte basis as the Special Master sees fit in connection
with potentially privileged materials. The Special Master may communicate ex parte with the
Court or either party to facilitate the review; provided, however, that all final decisions will be
served simultaneously on both parties to allow either party to seek the Court’s review.
10. At a minimum, the Government will provide to the Special Master a copy of
the Seized Materials, the search warrant executed in this matter, and the redacted public
version of the underlying application materials for the search warrant.
Compensation and Expenses
11. Each party will bear 50% of the professional fees and expenses of the Special
Master and any professionals, support staff, and expert consultants engaged at the Master’s
request. The procedures for establishing and paying the Special Master’s compensation and
expenses will be determined in a later order. Within seven days following the date of this
order, the Special Master and counsel for the parties will confer on this issue and the Special
Master will submit a proposal for the Court’s approval as to the procedures for paying the
Special Master’s compensation and expenses.
Engagement of Professionals, Support Staff, and Expert Consultants
12. If the Special Master determines that the efficient administration of the
Master’s duties requires the assistance of additional professionals, support staff, or expert
consultants, the Master may submit a work proposal to the parties, who will have five business
days to submit comments, after which time the Special Master may submit the proposal to
the Court for consideration.
5
Other Provisions
13. As an agent and officer of the Court, the Special Master and those working at
the Special Master’s direction will enjoy the same protections from being compelled to give
testimony and from liability for damages as those enjoyed by other federal judicial adjuncts
performing similar functions.
14. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2), the Court directs the Special Master to
proceed with all reasonable diligence and in any event to conclude its review and
classifications by _______________.
15. The Special Master will be discharged or replaced only upon order of this
Court.
16. The parties and their agents and employees will observe faithfully the
requirements of this Order of Appointment and cooperate fully with the Special Master in the
performance of their duties.
requirements of this Order of Appointment, cooperate fully with the Special Master in the
performance of their duties, and comply with the judicial protective order that shall follow –
which will set forth restrictions on the disclosure by any person with access to Seized
Materials and any documents generated in connection with this Order of Appointment.
18. The Court reserves the right to remove the Special Master if the Court finds
that the parties are not expeditiously completing this work.
6
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this ___ day of
September 2022.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
7
s/

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
________________________________/
THE UNITED STATES’ PROPOSED ORDER OF

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Pursuant to Rule 53(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this
Court’s inherent powers and authority, and subject to a declaration under penalty of perjury
attesting to the absence of any ground for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455, [name] is
appointed Special Master.
Duties
2. The Special Master will review the materials seized during the August 8,
2022, execution of a court-authorized search warrant at the premises located at 1100 S.
Ocean Blvd., Palm Beach, Florida 33480; provided, however, the Special Master will not
review any materials with classification markings (hereinafter the remaining materials will
be referred to as the “Seized Materials without Classification Markings”). 1 The specific
1
As this process moves forward, if the government identifies any potentially classified
information within the contents of any of the Seized Materials without Classification Markings,
the government will so advise the Court and propose actions to ensure that any such material is
duties of the Special Master are as follows and will include all powers necessary to carry out
those duties:
a. Identifying personal documents and items in the Seized Materials
without Classification Markings;
b. Conducting a privilege review of the Seized Materials without
Classification Markings and adjudicating privilege disputes between the parties; provided,
however, that the only privileges to be adjudicated by the Special Master are the attorney-
client privilege and work-product immunity;
c. In categorizing Seized Materials without Classification Markings as
personal items or documents, on the one hand, or Presidential records, on the other hand,
the Special Master will consult with the National Archives and Records Administration
(“NARA”); the government will facilitate the Special Master’s consultations with NARA;
and
d. Additional duties may be assigned to the Special Master by the Court
in subsequent orders, upon notice to the parties and an opportunity to be heard with regard
to such additional duties.
3. The Special Master will have the full authority set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P.
53(c).
4. To review the Seized Materials without Classification Markings, the Special
Master will follow a precise workflow:
a. For documents identified by the government’s filter team as potentially
privileged –
handled appropriately.
2
i. the government’s filter team will provide copies of the
potentially privileged documents to Plaintiff’s counsel;
ii. Plaintiff’s counsel will review the potentially privileged
documents and provide a privilege log to the government’s filter team stating for each
document whether Plaintiff claims that the document is privileged, whether the document
sought to be withheld is an attorney-client communication or subject to the qualified work-
product immunity, and the basis for that claim sufficient to enable the government’s filter
team, Special Master, and Court to assess that claim; and
iii. if the government’s filter team agrees with Plaintiff’s position,
the document will be returned to Plaintiff; if not, the dispute will go to the Special Master
and, if either party disagrees with the Special Master’s report and recommendation, to this
Court for de novo review and decision;
b. For the remaining approximately 11,000 documents – namely, the
Seized Materials without Classification Markings and excluding documents identified by
the government’s filter team as potentially privileged –
i. the government will make copies of those documents available
to Plaintiff’s counsel;
ii. Plaintiff’s counsel will review those documents, allocate them
to one of four mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive categories, and no later than
September 26, 2022, prepare a log similar to the privilege log in 4(a)(ii) sufficient to support
the categorization into one of the four categories, which are:
aa. Personal documents and items – not privileged,
3
bb. Personal documents – privileged as attorney-client
communications or qualified work-product immunity,
cc. Presidential records – not claimed as Presidential
communications privileged,
dd. Presidential records – claimed as Presidential
communications privileged (hereinafter, “Executive Privilege”).
iii. For any documents and items claimed by Plaintiff as personal
documents and items – not privileged, the Special Master will review the claim in
consultation with NARA;
iv. For any documents claimed by Plaintiff as personal documents
– privileged as attorney-client communications or qualified work-product immunity, the
Special Master will submit those additional potentially privileged documents to the
government’s filter team and follow the process in 4(a);
v. For any documents identified as Presidential records – not
claimed by Plaintiff as subject to Executive Privilege, those documents shall remain in
custody of the government, with copies sent to the Archivist of the United States, and may
be used by the government forthwith for any lawful purpose, including in the government’s
criminal investigation;
vi. For any documents identified as Presidential records – claimed
by Plaintiff as subject to Executive Privilege, copies of those documents will be sent to the
Archivist of the United States, and the process under the Presidential Records Act, 44
U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., may thereafter be followed.
4
Reporting and Judicial Review
5. Within seven days following the date of this order, the Special Master will
consult with counsel for the parties and provide the Court with a scheduling plan setting
forth the procedure and timeline for concluding the privilege review and adjudicating any
disputes as to privilege. The scheduling plan should include a process for resolving disputes
as to privilege.
6. The Special Master will file all written scheduling plans, orders, reports, and
recommendations on the electronic docket, along with any additional information that the
Special Master believes will assist the Court in reviewing those scheduling plans, orders,
reports, and recommendations. Any potentially privileged, confidential, or other sensitive
material that is filed will be done so under seal. The Special Master will, during the
pendency of this matter, including any appeals, preserve any and all documents or other
materials received from the parties.
7. The Special Master will make ex parte reports to the Court on an ongoing basis
concerning the progress in resolving the issues above as the Special Master believes
appropriate or as the Court requests.
8. The parties may file objections to, or motions to adopt or modify, the Special
Master’s scheduling plans, orders, reports, or recommendations no later than ten calendar
days after the service of each, and the Court will review those objections or motions, and
any procedural, factual, or legal issues therein, de novo.
Access to Information
9. The Special Master will have access to individuals, information, documents,
and materials relevant to the orders of the Court that are required to perform the Master’s
5
duties, subject to the terms of this Order of Appointment. Such materials will be provided to
the Special Master on an ex parte basis as the Special Master sees fit in connection with
potentially privileged materials. The special master may communicate ex parte with the
Court or either party to facilitate the review; provided, however, that all final decisions will be
served simultaneously on both parties to allow either party to seek the Court’s review.
10. In particular, the government will provide to the Special Master a copy of the
Seized Materials without Classification Markings, the search warrant executed in this
matter, and the redacted public version of the underlying application materials for the
search warrant.
Compensation and Expenses
11. Plaintiff, as the party who requested the Special Master, will bear 100% of the
professional fees and expenses of the Special Master and any professionals, support staff,
and expert consultants engaged at the Master’s request. The procedures for establishing and
paying the Special Master’s compensation and expenses will be determined in a later order.
Within seven days following the date of this order, the Special Master and counsel for the
parties will confer on this issue and the Special Master will submit a proposal for the Court’s
approval as to the procedures for paying the Special Master’s compensation and expenses.
Engagement of Professionals, Support Staff, and Expert Consultants
12. If the Special Master determines that the efficient administration of the
Master’s duties requires the assistance of additional professionals, support staff, or expert
consultants, the Master may submit a work proposal to the parties, who will have five
business days to submit comments, after which time the Special Master may submit the
proposal to the Court for consideration.
6
Other Provisions
13. As an agent and officer of the Court, the Special Master and those working at
the Master’s direction will enjoy the same protections from being compelled to give
testimony and from liability for damages as those enjoyed by other federal judicial adjuncts
performing similar functions.
14. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2), the Court directs the Special Master
to proceed with all reasonable diligence and in any event no later than October 17, 2022.
15. The Special Master will be discharged or replaced only upon order of this
Court.
requirements of this Order of Appointment and cooperate fully with the Special Master in
the performance of their duties. Consistent with and in furtherance of this Order of
Appointment, the Court will separately enter a judicial protective order that among other
provisions will require the Special Master; any professionals, support staff, and expert
consultants retained by the Special Master; and any of Plaintiff’s counsel and their staff who
receive Seized Materials without Classification Markings during the review process not to
disclose or disseminate such materials or their contents pending this Court’s decision on
their disposition.
7
17. The Court reserves the right to remove the Special Master if the Court finds
that the parties are not expeditiously completing this work.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this ___ day of
September 2022.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
8
s/

Joint Filing On Special Master Candidates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joint Filing On Special Master Candidates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

THE PARTIES’ JOINT FILING RESPECTING THE COURT’S APPOINTMENT OF

● lists proposed special master candidates;

● attaches each party’s detailed proposed order of appointment in accordance

with Civil Rule 53(b); 1 and

Proposed Special Master Candidates

Government’s Proposed Candidates

Executed on April 9, 2018.

LLP, and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Candidates

Areas of Substantive Agreement Between the Parties

1. Reporting and Judicial Review

2. Engagement of Professionals, Support Staff, and Expert Consultants

Areas of Substantive Disagreement Between Each Party’s Proposed Order

that were not commingled with records bearing classification markings. 2

1. Duties and Limitations

NARA on the determination of Presidential records.

impact on these categorizations.

Plaintiff believes the Government’s objection to the Special Master reviewing

to engage in first-hand review. 3

it review Plaintiff’s categorization by logs to determine if it agrees or disagrees with the

2. Access to Information and Ex Parte Communications

Master’s final report and recommendation disclosed to the Government.

By contrast, the Government proposes to review Plaintiff’s proposed designations

Government’s proposed workflow has the additional benefit of minimizing ex parte

3. Compensation and Expenses

should bear the additional expense of the Special Master’s work.

4. Schedule for Review

/s Juan Antonio Gonzalez

/s/ James M. Trusty

/s/ Christopher M. Kise

/s/ M. Evan Corcoran

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 9, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

/s Juan Antonio Gonzalez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER OF

It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

appointed Special Master.

include all powers necessary to carry out those duties:

a. Identifying personal items and documents in the Seized Materials;

b. Conducting a privilege review of the Seized Materials and making

recommendations to this Court as to privilege disputes between the parties (including

c. Identifying any Presidential Records in the Seized Materials and

d. Additional duties may be assigned to the Special Master by the Court in

such additional duties; and

assertion of any restriction on access.

4. To review the Seized Materials (other than documents with classification

markings), the Special Master will follow a precise workflow:

a. For documents identified by the government’s filter team as potentially

i. the government will provide copies of the potentially privileged

documents to Plaintiff’s counsel;

ii. Plaintiff’s counsel will review the potentially privileged

withheld is an attorney-client communication or subject to the qualified work-product

iii. if the government agrees with Plaintiff’s position, the document

review and decision;

b. For the Seized Materials excluding documents identified by the