President Donald Trump’s legal team is seeking clarity on a crucial aspect of the civil lawsuit that nearly cost him $464 million.
In a recent letter submitted to the New York Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers claim that New York Attorney General Letitia James did not follow a court order mandating her to disclose “the preservation practices” related to the case. This demand is just the latest in a series of objections from Trump’s attorneys, who argue that the ongoing case, now under reconsideration, is rife with mistakes.
Trump’s team suspects that James might possess critical evidence—particularly communications with Michael Cohen, who previously served as Trump’s lawyer.
In a detailed account, they referenced a January 2026 article by Cohen on Substack, in which he suggested that during meetings with legal representatives from James’s office, he felt pressured to only provide information that suited the government’s strategy against Trump. Cohen has been a pivotal witness in the civil suit, helping to establish that Trump habitually misrepresented the value of his properties, even mentioning that Trump directed him to meet certain target net-worth figures.
Although the judge turned down a request for additional discovery—a process involving the sharing of relevant case information—he did instruct James to clarify how her office had been managing and preserving data associated with the matter. Trump’s attorneys argue that she has failed to do this effectively.
“The Attorney General’s Office also carefully avoids stating whether any of the requested materials actually exist, and if they do, whether they have been preserved,” Trump’s lawyers noted. They criticized the office for providing only vague responses about its “standard litigation hold procedures,” claiming those have been in place since the investigation began.
This back-and-forth is the latest update in the civil suit James initiated against Trump in 2022, accusing him of routinely inflating property values fraudulently.
After a ruling against him, Trump was ordered to pay $355 million plus interest and was restricted from applying for loans from any bank or financial institution in New York for three years. Additionally, he can’t serve as an officer or director of any New York-based company for two years. Although an appeals court later lifted the financial penalties, James is actively appealing to have them reinstated. Trump, on his side, argues that the case lacks merit and should be dismissed entirely.
Recently, Trump’s legal representatives outlined five key weaknesses they believe disqualify the case. They argue that Attorney General James overstepped her authority since the case revolves around private commercial transactions rather than impacting the public. Furthermore, they assert that Trump’s valuations were subjective assessments that lenders evaluated independently, not fraudulent misrepresentations.
The attorneys declared, “The only supposed ‘victims’ here are a handful of highly sophisticated banks and insurers that have never claimed to be harmed.” They also claim that the prosecution’s theories suggest real estate has only one objective value, which is misleading.
Regarding penalties, they contend that the $450 million disgorgement order is excessive and arguably unconstitutional. Moreover, they argue that the politically charged nature of the case should have halted its progress.
James’s office, in response, indicated through a letter that it has met its disclosure obligations, rejecting the demand for more information about their preservation practices as beyond the scope of judicial discovery.
