A federal judge in the District of Columbia has largely rejected the government’s attempts to modify an earlier order compelling it to return materials seized from attorney and law professor Daniel Richman, following a finding that the government violated Richman’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court firmly reiterated that the government must return the unlawfully obtained files, allowing only a single, controlled copy to be held by a neutral third party—the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—not by the Department of Justice itself.
The dispute centers on digital evidence initially gathered during investigations related to former FBI Director James Comey. Richman, a friend and confidant of Comey, had his devices searched under various warrants in 2019 and 2020. However, the situation escalated when the government conducted a subsequent, warrantless search of this material in 2025, leading to a finding by Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick in the Eastern District of Virginia that Richman’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.
Following that finding, Richman sought the return of his property from the D.C. District Court, which issued an order on December 12, 2025, mandating the return of all seized materials and copies.
Government Seeks Clarification, Claims Destruction Risk
In response to the return order, the government filed emergency motions arguing that compliance would require it to “delete or destroy evidence” lawfully obtained under the original 2019 and 2020 warrants. The government also sought to lodge any retained copies with the Department of Justice’s Litigation Security Group (LSG) rather than the Eastern District of Virginia, citing concerns over handling classified or privileged information.
In a Memorandum Opinion issued on December 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly dismissed the government’s arguments, emphasizing that the initial order never required the destruction of evidence.
“The Court has not required the Government to delete or destroy anything,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote, clarifying that the order simply required the return of Richman’s materials, with the option for the government to deposit one copy with the Eastern District of Virginia, which could access it later via a new, valid search warrant.
Failure to Segregate Dooms Retention Claim
A key factor in the court’s decision was the government’s failure to properly segregate data seized under the earlier, lawful warrants.
The opinion notes that when executing the 2019 and 2020 warrants, the government appears to have failed to separate files responsive to the warrants from non-responsive material. The government itself admitted it “cannot currently point to a segregated collection” of material identified as responsive during those initial seizures.
This failure proved fatal to the government’s later actions. Because the government had not kept a clean, segregated set of responsive data, its 2025 search of the complete digital images was conducted without proper authorization—a “plainly unreasonable” search under the Fourth Amendment.
The court ruled that since the government cannot point to material lawfully retained under the 2019/2020 warrants, those warrants offer no justification for retaining any of Richman’s seized materials or copies now.
The judge also rejected the government’s attempt to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to revisit the issue of the 2019/2020 seizures. The court found that the issue was “ripe for argument” during the original motion for return of property, and the government’s failure to raise it then appeared to be a “strategic choice,” which Rule 60(b)(6) is specifically designed *not* to remedy.
Limited Concession on Classified Material
The court did grant a minor modification related to classified material. The government expressed concern that returning all materials might force disclosure of a single document identified as “up-classified” to Confidential after Richman received it in 2017.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly agreed to amend the order to explicitly allow the government to delete this single document before returning Richman’s property. However, the court stressed this permission does not grant the government the right to conduct any *further* review for classified material without a new warrant.
Regarding privilege concerns, the court clarified that the order only required the return of Richman’s original materials and copies thereof, not derivative work created by government attorneys or agents based on their review.
Denial of DOJ Custody
The government’s request to lodge the copy of the materials with the DOJ’s Litigation Security Group (LSG) was firmly denied. Richman opposed this, stating, “. . . the fox must not be permitted to guard the henhouse.” The court agreed, maintaining that the copy must be held by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to ensure neutrality and safekeeping, potentially in a secure facility like a SCIF, as suggested by Richman.
Ultimately, the court granted the government’s motions only to the extent necessary to allow the deletion of the one identified classified document. All other demands by the government to alter the scope of the return order—including requests to keep copies or avoid returning the originals—were denied.