“At the conference scheduled for today at noon, the Government will provide a detailed update on the status of its production to Michael Cohen’s counsel of a set of the materials seized during the April 9, 2018 searches of Cohen’s premises and electronic devices. As a general matter, the Government expects to report that its production is on schedule, as described in its April 18, 2018 letter to the Court.

The Government also writes, in advance of the conference, to apprise Your Honor that we are prepared to withdraw our objection to the appointment of a Special Master to conduct the review of the potentially privileged materials seized during the April 9 searches, and to propose a compromise position with respect to the privilege review that, we believe, will most efficiently complete the review while honoring the concerns expressed by counsel for Cohen and the intervenors.

Specifically, as set forth in more detail below, we propose that the Special Master directly review the seized materials to determine which appear to be privileged and then hear from both sides before making a final determination. We previously provided the Court with the names of three retired Magistrate Judges for consideration for appointment by the Court as a Special Master in this matter, and have subsequently spoken to some of the candidates we proposed. In that regard, we attach as Exhibit A a letter from retired Magistrate Judge Frank Maas describing his proposed process. The Government supports the process recommended in Judge Maas’s attached letter, namely, use of a technology-assisted review (“TAR”) process to identify potentially privileged material for review in an efficient manner, with an opportunity for Cohen and the intervenors to be heard and to supplement the documents they claim as privileged. Judge Maas recommends this method based on his experience as providing a “timely and cost- effective” way to accomplish the review. He also notes that TAR is “at least as effective as exhaustive manual review, and far more efficient.

For example, Cohen’s counsel could provide a list of clients and attorneys and (on an ex partebasis) some background and context regarding the nature of the attorney-client relationships. The Government could provide (similarly on an ex parte basis) the search warrant affidavit and some background on the Government’s investigation and/or theory of the case, as would be necessary for Judge Maas to make any determinations regarding application of the crime-fraud exception ensuring the efficient completion of the privilege review in a manner that recognizes the important law enforcement interests at stake.”