Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 86 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CRIMINAL NUMBER:
v.
1:18-cr-00032-2-DLF
CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND
CONSULTING LLC
Defendant.
DEFENDANT CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC’S RESPONSE
TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING SCHEDULING
Defendant Concord Management and Consulting LLC (“Defendant” or “Concord”), by
and through undersigned counsel, respectfully states as follows:
On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 7:21 PM, the Court ordered the parties to appear for a
“status hearing” on Monday January 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM. (Jan. 4, 2019 Minute Order.) The
Court did not follow its normal practice of consulting in advance with the parties regarding
availability. The parties appeared at 11:00 AM. The Court took the bench at approximately
11:35 PM. First, the Court excoriated undersigned counsel for recent pleadings that the Court
characterized as attacks on the Special Counsel. (Transcript of Jan. 7, 2019 Hearing at 4-5.)
Then the Court announced its intention to proceed with a hearing on a pending motion even
though neither party asked for a hearing, nor had the Court advised the parties to prepare for such
hearing. The Defendant respectfully refused to proceed, and then the Court requested that the
Defendant advise the Court by the end of the day today, January 8, 2019, of Defendant’s
availability to participate in a sealed hearing regarding its Motion to Compel Discovery from the
United States (Dkt. 78).

1

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 86 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 4

It is clear that at each court appearance the government has been represented by ten or
more lawyers and investigators working for the Special Counsel, the U.S. Department of Justice
National Security Division, and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Each
one of these individuals is an experienced attorney, perfectly capable of advocacy on behalf of
the government. None of them, in pleadings or in court, have expressed any problems with the
content or tone of Defendant’s filings other than vigorously opposing the relief sought. For a
reason unknown to undersigned counsel, the Court took it upon itself to defend the Special
Counsel, creating at a minimum an appearance of bias or prejudice in favor of the government.1
See United States v. Bostick, 791 F.3d 127, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Kavanaugh, J.) (noting that “a
showing of an appearance of bias or prejudice sufficient to permit the average citizen reasonably
to question a judge’s impartiality is all that must be demonstrated to compel recusal”) (quoting
United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1981)) (emphasis original).
Perhaps more importantly however, the Court did not consider the fact that while the
mainstream media has largely ignored Defendant’s pending motions, when the word “Judge”
appears before a person’s name, this political adornment suggests to the public that there now is
some higher level of wisdom than among the mere mortal lawyers in the case, and as such, every
single mainstream media organization repeated the Court’s words as gospel.

The direct

consequence was swift and clear; that is, undersigned counsel have received overnight and
continuing today a flow of hatred in the form of voicemail and electronic mail from selfproclaimed patriots containing threats, intimidation, and the desire that both undersigned counsel

Regardless of the Court’s intent, the media reported the Court’s words as a defense of the
Special Counsel. See Charlie Gile and Rich Schapiro, Trump-appointed judge defends Mueller,
scolds
lawyer
for
Russian
firm,
NBCNews,
Jan.
7,
2019,
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-appointed-judge-defends-muellerscolds-lawyer-russian-firm-n955756.
1

2

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 86 Filed 01/08/19 Page 3 of 4

promptly die. One communication specified that the cause of death for Ms. Seikaly should be by
fire. Apparently some of these brave self-proclaimed patriots were whipped into their frenzy by
a cable television entertainer unknown to undersigned counsel named Rachel Maddow who
devoted a significant portion of her variety program to the words spoken by the Court yesterday.
So while counsel’s words used in advocacy can hurt, the words of a Judge can have devastating
consequences.
To the specific issues raised by the Court yesterday, undersigned counsel are available at
the Court’s convenience for a sealed hearing on the grand jury matter but respectfully note that in
light of the Court’s order during yesterday’s sealed proceedings, there appears to be no reason
for a hearing. Defendant notes that all it was seeking in the first place was for the Special
Counsel to explain the manner by which it obtained the information.2
Finally, Defendant would note that yesterday the Court stated that Defendant would only
prevail on the pending discovery motion if the facts and law were on Defendant’s side.
(Transcript of Jan. 7, 201 Hearing at 5.) Unfortunately, it appears that the Court believes it is the
burden of the Defendant to establish it is entitled to discovery as opposed to the burden of the
Special Counsel to establish that Defendant is not entitled to discovery. Given the fact that there
is no case law to support the Special Counsel’s position in this case, Defendant remains
perplexed by the Court’s statement, but will leave that argument for another day.
Dated: January 8, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

The tone of Defendant’s reply pleading regarding this issue (Dkt. 85) was intended to highlight
the fact that in his opposition memorandum the Special Counsel simply opposed the request,
cited no case authority in his pleading, and provided no declaration or affidavit to the Court
under seal or otherwise. It is curious why the Court was not offended by the Special Counsel’s
filing as well.
2

3

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 86 Filed 01/08/19 Page 4 of 4

CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND
CONSULTING LLC
By Counsel,
/s/Eric A. Dubelier
Eric A. Dubelier
Katherine Seikaly
Reed Smith LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 – East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-414-9200 (phone)
202-414-9299 (fax)
edubelier@reedsmith.com
kseikaly@reedsmith.com

4