Attorneys for former President Donald Trump are demanding that New York Attorney General Letitia James clarify her office's evidence preservation practices in the civil fraud case that resulted in a nearly $464 million judgment against him. In a letter filed with the New York Supreme Court, Trump's legal team asserts that James failed to comply with a court order requiring her to detail these practices and efforts.
Central to the argument is the potential withholding of communications between James's office and Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney and a key witness in the trial. Trump's lawyers cite a January 2026 article published by Cohen on Substack, where he claimed to have felt pressured by lawyers from James's office to provide testimony that would secure a judgment against Trump. Cohen testified during the trial that Trump had provided him with specific net-worth figures to use.
While the judge denied a request for additional discovery related to these communications, he did mandate that James's office detail its information preservation procedures. Trump's attorneys contend that the Attorney General's office has not adequately complied, instead offering general statements about "standard litigation hold procedures" without confirming the existence or preservation of any requested materials.
The legal dispute is the latest development in the civil suit filed by James in 2022, which accused Trump of repeatedly misrepresenting property values. A lower court found Trump liable and ordered him to pay $355 million in disgorgement, along with interest, and imposed a three-year ban on obtaining loans from New York financial institutions and a two-year ban on serving as an officer or director of New York companies. An appeals court later vacated the monetary penalties, but James has appealed to have them reinstated.
Trump's defense has argued that the case is fundamentally flawed. Their appeal points to several alleged weaknesses, including that James lacked the authority to bring the case as it involves private commercial transactions rather than public harm. They also contend that Trump's valuations were subjective estimates that lenders independently assessed and that the premise of overvaluation is based on a flawed understanding of real estate value.
Furthermore, Trump's legal team argues that the $450 million disgorgement is excessive and unconstitutional, and that the politically charged nature of the case should have warranted its dismissal. They claim James has not pursued similar enforcement actions against other developers under the state law, Section 63(12), which Trump was accused of violating.
The Attorney General's office has stated that it has met its disclosure obligations. In a letter responding to inquiries, the office objected to demands for "extrajudicial discovery" regarding specific preservation efforts and maintained that it had satisfied the court's order to identify existing and applied preservation practices.