federal investigators seized
last month that are relevant to his case.
Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani. (Photo courtesy of Lev Parnas)
MANHATTAN (CN) In the wake of last month’s sunrise raid of Rudy Giuliani’s home and office, indicted Ukrainian businessman Lev Parnas is now seeking a peek at evidence seized from former President Trump’s longtime personal attorney.
Along with fellow Giuliani-linked businessmen Igor Fruman and Andrey Kukushkin, Parnas was indicted in October 2019, accused of funneling political donations through a limited liability company and employing straw donors.
Southern District of New York prosecutors brought additional counts a year later in a superseding indictment, but attorneys for trio sought the dismissal of both indictments “for a gross violation of the defendants’ attorney-client privilege” arising from an email chain with attorneys and advisers related to their joint cannabis business venture.
Prosecutors “simply chose to treat a distinguished lawyer as if he were the head of a drug cartel,” the Giuliani team wrote in the letter to U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken.
During the raid, the FBI seized electronic devices and other materials from Mr. Giuliani, a personal attorney and close adviser to former President Donald Trump. Prosecutors have asked for the appointment of an outside arbiter to review the seized material for attorney-client privilege.
But defense attorneys say that review shouldn’t happen until they have more information about warrants. They also requested more details about a secret 2019 search warrant, which they say was used to access Mr. Giuliani’s iCloud account but was not subject to review.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On March 5, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken’s (S.D.N.Y.) order dismissing the remaining claims of plaintiff Bobcar Media, LLC (“Bobcar”). On March 30, 2021, Judge Oetken denied a motion for attorneys’ fees by defendant Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc. (“Aardvark”).
Aardvark argued that it was entitled to attorneys’ fees because, under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the case was “exceptional” given Bobcar’s failure to produce a written assignment of patent ownership from the inventors and thus its failure to prove that it had standing to assert infringement claims. Judge Oetken rejected this argument, holding that neither Bobcar’s substantive litigating position nor the manner in which it litigated the case were so exception as to warrant fee-shifting. In so holding, the court noted that “the inventors who were principals of Bobcar had intended to transfer the patent o