The Justice Department mounted a forceful challenge on Tuesday to a federal judge’s order restricting its access to evidence it views as essential to recharging former FBI Director James Comey, accusing Comey’s longtime associate and onetime attorney Daniel Richman of using a calculated legal maneuver to obstruct a renewed criminal case.
In a 20-page filing, government attorneys urged U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to dissolve the temporary restraining order she imposed over the weekend, telling the court the order has already “effectively enjoined the government from investigating and potentially prosecuting Comey.” They argued that Richman’s petition for the return or destruction of his seized records is not a legitimate property request but a deliberate attempt to derail a continuing criminal matter in violation of well-established precedent.
The government opened its filing with a stark assertion about Richman’s true purpose, writing that his Rule 41 motion “is a strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution of James Comey,” and that granting it “would have the effect of serving as a suppression ruling if Comey is indicted again.” They warned that “neither request is legally appropriate,” because federal courts “cannot enjoin the Government from engaging in a federal criminal investigation or a future prosecution.”
DOJ attorneys said that despite Richman’s claims in court, he is not attempting to recover anything at all. According to the government’s position, “Richman does not genuinely want any property back—after all, the government merely has copies of his data.”
The government highlighted that Richman instead demanded deletion of those copies and an order prohibiting “any further use” of the material, confirming for the DOJ that the real aim is “to prevent the government from using the evidence in criminal proceedings.” Attorneys told the court that such an outcome is “an impermissible collateral motion to suppress” dressed up as a civil proceeding.
DOJ attorneys also leaned heavily on the timing of Richman’s request. They noted that Richman offered “no explanation” for why he waited years after the Arctic Haze leak investigation closed in 2021 before seeking the destruction of the same data, arguing that the silence “makes perfect sense once one recognizes that this motion is in substance a suppression motion directed at the Comey prosecution if Comey is reindicted.”
The DOJ also emphasized that the original indictment was dismissed last month without prejudice and that Richman’s suggestion that the case is time-barred is “flatly mistaken,” citing the statute that permits reindictments when a prior indictment is voided.
Richman, who served as a special government attorney from 2015 to February 2017, is a pivotal figure in the Comey investigation because he not only worked closely with Comey during his tenure at the FBI but also briefly represented him after his firing in May 2017.
Internal FBI records from the earlier Arctic Haze leak investigation indicated that Comey used Richman as an outside channel to relay information to the media during periods of damaging coverage tied to the Hillary Clinton email case and the early Trump-Russia investigation. Any seized emails, texts, and device data could directly relate to whether Comey told the truth when he testified under oath in 2020 that he had “never authorized” anyone to serve as an anonymous source, the claim at the center of the now-dismissed indictment against the former FBI director.
The government’s latest filing also contains a direct rebuttal to Richman’s Fourth Amendment arguments. Government attorneys wrote that even if seized material were later challenged, “Rule 41(g) is not intended to deny to the United States the use of evidence permitted by the Fourth Amendment,” nor does it “constitute a statutory expansion of the exclusionary rule.” They added that the Supreme Court has made clear that “even the presentation of such evidence to a grand jury wouldn’t be a sufficient basis to dismiss an indictment,” signaling that the restraining order has imposed a more extreme remedy than the Constitution allows.
Kollar-Kotelly responded on Tuesday afternoon with a new directive signaling she intends to scrutinize the government’s claims before lifting any restrictions. She told the government to file a request by midday on Wednesday if it believes it needs to access Richman’s seized materials to respond to his petition in full.
The judge added she will require any such request to include a proposed filter mechanism to screen out privileged or nonresponsive content, noting that Richman contends the records include “a significant quantum of privileged information involving multiple clients” as well as personal material beyond the scope of the warrants.
She also underscored that the government had already acknowledged the need for a filter process in the prior Comey prosecution, during which a magistrate judge raised concerns about exposure to attorney-client material. She wrote that “a filter protocol may also be warranted in this case” and said Richman must receive an opportunity to assert privilege before any material is made available for government review.
DOJ FACES SETBACKS IN ROAD TO REVIVING COMEY AND JAMES INDICTMENTS
The temporary restraining order remains in place through the end of the week unless the judge lifts it earlier. Even that short window has constrained the department’s timeline for seeking a new indictment, and the tone of Tuesday’s filing makes clear the government views the restrictions as a direct threat to the revival of the Comey case.
The DOJ said the evidence Richman now seeks to wall off is plainly “relevant to ongoing or contemplated investigations and prosecutions,” and that depriving the DOJ of it at this stage would be unreasonable.
