Trump’s Legal Team Challenges Evidence Handling in Civil Case
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has raised concerns about evidence management in a civil suit involving significant financial repercussions. Trump’s attorneys have requested clarification from New York Attorney General Letitia James regarding her office’s adherence to a court order requiring disclosure of their ‘preservation practices.’ This demand follows ongoing disputes in the case, which was initially dismissed but is now under reconsideration.
The legal team suspects James may have undisclosed evidence, particularly communications with Michael Cohen, a former attorney for Trump. This assertion is supported by Cohen’s claims in a January 16, 2026, article on Substack, where he expressed feeling pressured during meetings with James’s office to provide information tailored to strengthen the case against Trump. Cohen’s testimony previously played a central role in illustrating alleged misrepresentations of Trump’s property values during the trial.
Despite the judge’s refusal for further discovery, James has been ordered to outline her office’s procedures for data maintenance and preservation. However, Trump’s lawyers argue that James has not fulfilled this obligation. In their filing, they state that James’s office has avoided confirming whether the requested materials have been preserved.
The ongoing legal battle traces back to a lawsuit filed in 2022, accusing Trump of systematically inflating his property values. Following a liability ruling, Trump faced penalties including a $355 million disgorgement, with restrictions on obtaining loans from New York banks and holding executive office positions within New York companies. Although an appeals court vacated these penalties, James is seeking reinstatement, while Trump calls for the dismissal of the case.
Trump’s lawyers cite five primary objections, arguing that James overstepped her authority and improperly targeted private commercial transactions. They claim Trump’s property valuations were subjective, assessed independently by lenders, and not fraudulent. The appeal emphasizes that alleged victims, characterized as sophisticated banks and insurers, never claimed injury and profited significantly from transactions with Trump.
Additionally, Trump’s attorneys contend that the prosecution overemphasizes real estate’s value variance as fraudulent and criticizes the monetary penalties as excessive and unconstitutional. The legal team suggests the politically charged nature of the case should have precluded its progression, noting a lack of comparable enforcement actions against similar defendants.
In response, James’s office asserts compliance with disclosure requirements, opposing further demands for detailed preservation efforts. The ongoing legal dynamics highlight the complex intersections of law, business, and politics surrounding Trump’s actions.