Trump’s attorneys did not directly fight the warrant in an original proceeding before U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart. Rather, they filed a concurrent proceeding, styled as Trump v. United States, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Mon., Aug. 22. That filing did not ask to quash the warrant entirely. Rather, among other things, it asked U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee, to appoint a special master to review the voluminous evidence recovered from Trump’s post-presidential palazzo.
Judge Cannon responded to Trump’s motion on Tues., Aug. 23 by demanding answers to additional questions; Trump’s lawyers proffered responses via a subsequent supporting document filed late in the day on Fri., Aug. 26.
On Saturday evening, Judge Cannon replied that she was inclined to grant the request for a special master due to the “exceptional circumstances presented” by the events at Mar-a-Lago. However, that inclination, she said, was “subject to an opportunity” for additional arguments by both sides, including the U.S. Government.
The US Government never entered an appearance before Judge Cannon to deal with the motion, and that resulted in her issuing an order demanding they show up:
(1) Pursuant to Rule 53(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority, and without prejudice to the parties’ objections, the Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case.
(2) A hearing on the Motion is scheduled for September 1, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. The hearing shall be conducted at the Paul G. Rogers U.S. Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, Courtroom 1, West Palm Beach Florida, Florida 33401.
After the order, Cannon ordered the government “publicly file a response” to Trump’s demands before Tuesday, August 30th. Judge Canon also wants a “more detailed” list of the property seized during the raid and a “particularized notice indicating the status of Defendant’s review of the seized property, including any filter review conducted by the privilege review team and any dissemination of materials beyond the privilege review team.”