President Donald Trump’s legal representation is demanding an answer to a key question in the civil suit that almost cost him $464 million.
In a letter filed with the New York Supreme Court on Thursday, Trump’s representation is arguing that New York Attorney General Letitia James failed to comply with a court order that required her to present “the preservation practices” and “its preservation efforts.” The demand is the latest objection Trump’s attorneys have used to argue that the case, which is being reconsidered, is full of errors.
Trump’s attorneys believe James may have key evidence she hasn’t turned over — communications with Michel Cohen, a former attorney for Trump.
“In seeking the discovery, defendants rely on a January 16, 2026 article by Cohen, published on the online platform Substack in which he asserted that, in meetings with lawyers from [James’s] office, he had ‘felt pressured and coerced to only provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgement and convictions against President Trump,” a court filing reads.
Cohen was a star witness in the civil suit.
During trial, he helped build the case that Trump had routinely misrepresented the value of his properties and testified that Trump had given him target net-worth numbers to meet.
Although the judge denied the request for additional discovery, the process where parties disclose relevant information about the case, he did require James to detail the process it has used to maintain and preserve information.
Trump’s attorneys maintain James failed to do so.
“[New York Attorney General’s Office] also carefully avoids representing one way or the other whether any requested materials in fact exist, and, if they do, whether NYAG has confirmed that they are being preserved,” they wrote.
“Instead of actually complying with the Order, NYAG has simply recited in general terms that her ‘standard litigation hold procedures’ have been in place since the investigation phase of this matter.”
The back-and-forth is the most recent development of the civil suit James brought against Trump in 2022, accusing him of habitually inflating the value of his property to a fraudulent extent.
After being found liable, Trump was ordered to pay $355 million plus interest in disgorgement and was banned from applying for loans from any New York bank or financial institution for three years.
He was also banned from serving as an officer or director of any New York company for two years.
Although an appeals court later vacated the monetary penalties, James has appealed to reinstate them. Trump, for his part, has argued the case is fundamentally flawed and that it should be thrown out in its entirety
Earlier this month, Trump’s lawyers cited five key disqualifying weaknesses.
They argue that Attorney General James lacked the authority to bring the case, noting that the case involves private commercial transactions rather than harm to the public. They also contend that Trump’s valuations reflected subjective estimates that lenders independently evaluated rather than fraudulent misrepresentations.
“The only supposed ‘victims’ here are a handful of ultrasophisticated banks and insurers that have never claimed to be injured, were eager to do business with President Trump and his family, and made over $100 million from these transactions,” the appeal states.
They further argue that the prosecution’s premise of overvaluation is based on the misguided idea that real estate has one objective value and that deviations from that value must be fraud.
“Under that breathtakingly broad theory, NYAG can second-guess any business transaction in this State on almost any imagined grounds,” attorneys wrote.
And, on the penalties, Trump’s representation argues that the $450 million disgorgement is excessive, unlawful and even unconstitutional.
Finally, the appeal argues that the politically charged nature of the case, on its own, should have been enough to halt its consideration.
“NYAG cannot point to a single Section 63(12) enforcement action against similarly situated developers (or any other type of defendant) based on practices comparable to those alleged here,” the filing states, referring to the state law Trump was accused of violating.
On the matter of its disclosures, James’ office pointed to its own letter in response to an inquiry from Fox News Digital, contending that it had met its disclosure requirements.
TRUMP BACKS REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER TO OUST LETITIA JAMES AMID ONGOING MORTGAGE FRAUD FEUD
“Insofar as Defendants have sought or are seeking more information about OAG’s specific preservation efforts, OAG objects to the demand for this extrajudicial discovery,” the letter reads.
“Moreover, OAG has completely satisfied its obligations under the Court’s Order for OAG to identify the preservation practices that existed and applied and continue to exist and apply.”
