Trump v. Vance - Denial of Stay - August 21, 2020
Trump v. Vance - Denial of Stay - August 21, 2020
Trump v. Vance - Denial of Stay - August 21, 2020
remand. The President filed the SAC, stating two claims: that
bad faith. By Order dated August 20, 2020, the Court granted
Appeals for the Second Circuit (see Dkt. No. 73) and an
1 In his Motion, the President indicated his intent to also seek a stay
pending appeal from both the Second Circuit and the United States Supreme
Court. (Id. at 1 n.*.) Furthermore, the President notes that the District
Attorney has agreed to stay enforcement for seven calendar days after the
date of a decision by this Court. (Id. at 1.) In the event the Second
Circuit or the Supreme Court grants a stay within seven calendar days of
the Court’s August 20 Decision, the instant Order would, of course, be
2
Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM Document 75 Filed 08/21/20 Page 3 of 9
598 F.3d 30, 37 (2d Cir. 2010). The movant must show “(1)
Hometown Info, Inc., 375 F.3d 190, 192 (2d Cir. 2004)
without force. Nevertheless, and in case neither appellate court sees fit
to grant a stay, the Court issues this Order to provide its views on
whether a stay is warranted.
3
Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM Document 75 Filed 08/21/20 Page 4 of 9
his favor.
4
Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM Document 75 Filed 08/21/20 Page 5 of 9
People v. Bonelli, 945 N.Y.S.2d 539, 541 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012).
5
Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM Document 75 Filed 08/21/20 Page 6 of 9
and that relief was denied at every turn. While the Supreme
Court did quote United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 702
Supp. 3d 194, 206 (D.D.C. 2017). But the rights at issue here
6
Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM Document 75 Filed 08/21/20 Page 7 of 9
Doe Co., that “neither this Court nor the Court of Appeals
Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 501 n.14 (1975)).) But Mazars
2 The President’s citation to John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 488 U.S.
1306, 1309 (1989) (Marshall, J., in chambers), is inapposite. There, the
Supreme Court prevented the disclosure of a document in part because its
disclosure would “pose[] a substantial risk of jeopardizing an important
ongoing grand jury investigation.” Id. at 1308. The risk here is
essentially the opposite: preventing Mazars’ production of the documents
would further obstruct a grand jury investigation that has already been
delayed by this litigation for almost one year.
7
Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM Document 75 Filed 08/21/20 Page 8 of 9
has entered an appearance here and all parties agree that the
(2d Cir. 2019). The Court does not understand the President
with a court order than he is, and so the fact that the
the President has not made this necessary showing, the Court
*31-32.
Accordingly, it is hereby
8
Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM Document 75 Filed 08/21/20 Page 9 of 9
SO ORDERED.
__
____
_ __
___
________
__ ____ _ __
____
__
___
_________________________ ____
__
Vi
ict
ctor
or
Victor r Marrero
Mar
arre
rero
rer
ro
U S.
U. S D
D.
.J
U.S.D.J.J.
.