Thread by @meghanncuniff

Reviewing the history of Michael Avenatti’s requests to access his law firm's servers means revisiting the crucial role of the court-appointed receiver for the bankrupt firm. This thread tracks the evolving argument through court filings and my past reporting. ⚖️🧵⚖️

Avenatti 1st raised issue in July 2019, calling it "critical" to his defense.
"…government counsel wrote that if the defense wants access to the servers, '...you will need to raise those specific concerns with the Receiver.'" bit.ly/3Db02Nc

The receiver was Brian Weiss, a CPA who eventually was replaced by court-appointed trustee Richard Marshack. This happened after Weiss moved Eagan Avenatti into Ch 7 bankruptcy, which thwarted several lawsuits against the firm over misappropriated money. bit.ly/388h1By

One issue? The servers were Weiss’ responsibility, given his control of the law firm. Prior to the feds seizing them as part of the criminal probe, their location was a point of contention between Avenatti and Weiss, as Avenatti's July 2019 request (posted above) explains.

Weiss was represented by an uncle-nephew lawyer duo whose filings will make your neck hurt because they are *always* misaligned (and nearly impossible to copy/paste from 🙄) Like prosecutors, Jack and John Reitman have a penchant for footnotes. bit.ly/3mvUY03

On behalf of Weiss, the Reitmans opposed Avenatti accessing the servers. And they detailed a lot of reasons for doing so. "Moreover, there is a genuine fear that the data contained in the servers may be tampered with..." bit.ly/3mvUY03

Their filing touches on what we heard in court last week: Feds say Avenatti never said anything about looking specifically for Tabs software. “Avenatti has been unwilling to specify in any reasonable fashion what information he wants to access and why…”

Avenatti's August 2019 reply to Reitman focuses a lot on the need for Avenatti so he can continue representing clients as a lawyer. "Many of his current cases have important deadlines and trial dates that are fast-approaching."

"Currently, Mr. Avenatti cannot adequately represent his clients or transfer his clients’ documents to new counsel while the government and receiver hold these documents hostage." Here's the full filing on Google Drive: bit.ly/38a2PId

Judge Selna rejected Avenatti’s request: “Unfettered access is simply a different turn of phrase to conduct a fishing expedition.” Prosecutors were already producing materials, including “correspondence with victim clients, account materials, and EA LLP’s QuickBook records.”

Key in ruling: “The Government has acknowledged its obligation to produce all documents within the scope of the search warrants as well as its Brady and Giglio obligations.” Full order: bit.ly/3msfvCQ

But the issue kept coming up. In this May 2020 status report, Avenatti's lawyer Dean Steward talks of the extreme hardship he's enduring having to sort through the enormous amount of discovery in the case, and prosecutor's continuing disclosures. bit.ly/3kfZBZv

Prosecutors replied in a status report that includes a section labeled: "Defendant Has Received Detailed Records Relating to the Costs and Expenses Associated with the Victims’ Cases"
Full filing on Google Drive: bit.ly/2UG2s55

As filings indicate (along with my memory of these hearings), the focus wasn't on discovery but on Avenatti's purported lack of resources. Judge actually requested briefing on effects of "a party having but failing to apply resources in terms of a speedy trial and other rights."

But the focus turned more to the servers as seen through the next filings. Here, prosecutors liken Avenatti's search request to allowing him to search paralegal Judy Regnier's house or the law firm office "to see if the government missed anything." bit.ly/3kmk5Q6

Then Avenatti filed this: "Contrary to the government’s claims...the critical cost documentation for each of the alleged victim clients (and other clients for that matter) was not generally kept by the firm and organized by client-matter in Quickbooks." bit.ly/2UMNZEI

Judge Selna soon requested briefs specifically regarding "what legal obligation exists at this point for the government to allow access" to the database, and Avenatti outlined his concerns here. bit.ly/3D5Y5BT

USA's brief touches on what they're saying now: Avenatti never mentioned Tabs. "...although defendant claims that the EA LLP digital devices have categories of “critical” documents, he again fails to offer any specific information to support this claim." bit.ly/3mrmnQJ

Judge Selna again wasn't swayed by Avenatti's access argument. But again, this is long before the word 'Tabs' had been mentioned in court or in the filings.

Fast forward to the trial, and @Tabs3Software's prominent product placement. "WHAT IS TABS?" Avenatti has pushed it to forefront of his defense, and he's shown that his paralegal told investigators about it back in July 2019. My story here explains more: bit.ly/2W3ffQ1

As I shared last night, Judge Selna's weekend search order legally reopened a long-expired search warrant, and modified its scope. To have that happen during trial seems *very* extraordinary. (Anyone heard of it before?)

The briefs that come in tonight should tell us a lot about where the Tabs issue will stand when Judge Selna takes up Avenatti's mistrial motion over it tomorrow at 8 a.m.
Motion: bit.ly/3g5uRZX
Opposition: bit.ly/3j7zPY2
Reply to opp: bit.ly/3sP2ZhW

Here's Avenatti's Tabs report: "As of this filing, defendant’s review of the Tabs data has been extremely limited. However, even this preliminary review shows that the prejudice to the defendant in not receiving this data long before trial is significant." bit.ly/2WhuVPq

Regarding an earlier tweet, I realized it’s not so much Avenatti’s filing that lays out the pre-arrest fight over the server location, it’s the Reitman uncle-nephew lawyer duo’s. Full filing on Google Drive: bit.ly/3mvUY03