Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 1:23-cr-257-TSC
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
________________________________/
EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ON
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO SEAL
At 11:58 AM this morning, the government filed a motion for leave to file a document
under seal (the “Motion for Leave”). The government did not request Defendant’s position on the
Motion for Leave, or otherwise notify Defendant it would be filing the Motion for Leave. Shortly
thereafter, the Court entered an order granting the Motion for Leave without allowing Defendant
the opportunity to respond. Doc. 70 (the “Order”).
Local Criminal Rule 47(b) allows parties 14 days to respond to all motions except as
directed by the Court. The Court may only “treat a motion as conceded” if it is unopposed or if “a
memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time.” Id. This procedure is further required by the
Due Process clause and fundamental fairness. Thus, as a matter of course, the Court should allow
Defendant sufficient time to respond to every motion filed in this matter. See, e.g., Amor v. Arizona,
No. CV-06-499-TUC-CKJ, 2010 WL 960379, at *15 (D. Ariz. Mar. 15, 2010) (“[L]itigation is not
a one-way street. Defendants have the right to defend against allegations in a court of law. . . . As
such, each and every defendant has the right to respond to motions.”).
Because Defendant did not have the opportunity to respond to the Motion for Leave,
Defendant respectfully requests the Court vacate the Order and re-consider the Government’s
Motion for Leave following the receipt of Defendant’s responsive filing. Defendant further Page 2 requests the Court allow Defendant reasonable time to time to review the government’s pleadings,
proposed sealed exhibits, and relevant authority in preparing his response. See LCrR 47(b)
(allowing parties 14 days to respond to motions).
Dated: September 5,
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Blanche, Esq. (PHV)
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall St., Suite New York, NY (212) 716-
/s/Gregory M. Singer
John F. Lauro, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. jlauro@laurosinger.com
Gregory M. Singer, Esq. (PHV)
gsinger@laurosinger.com
Filzah I. Pavalon, Esq. (PHV)
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa St., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL (813) 222-Counsel for President Donald J. Trump
Due to the exigency presented by the government’s impending filing, Defendant did not confer
with the government prior to filing this motion.
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 48 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 1:23-cr-257-TSC
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
________________________________/
EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ON
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO SEAL
At 11:58 AM this morning, the government filed a motion for leave to file a document
under seal (the “Motion for Leave”). The government did not request Defendant’s position on the
Motion for Leave, or otherwise notify Defendant it would be filing the Motion for Leave. Shortly
thereafter, the Court entered an order granting the Motion for Leave without allowing Defendant
the opportunity to respond. Doc. 70 (the “Order”).
Local Criminal Rule 47(b) allows parties 14 days to respond to all motions except as
directed by the Court. The Court may only “treat a motion as conceded” if it is unopposed or if “a
memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time.” Id. This procedure is further required by the
Due Process clause and fundamental fairness. Thus, as a matter of course, the Court should allow
Defendant sufficient time to respond to every motion filed in this matter. See, e.g., Amor v. Arizona,
No. CV-06-499-TUC-CKJ, 2010 WL 960379, at *15 (D. Ariz. Mar. 15, 2010) (“[L]itigation is not
a one-way street. Defendants have the right to defend against allegations in a court of law. . . . As
such, each and every defendant has the right to respond to motions.”).
Because Defendant did not have the opportunity to respond to the Motion for Leave,
Defendant respectfully requests the Court vacate the Order and re-consider the Government’s
Motion for Leave following the receipt of Defendant’s responsive filing. Defendant further
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 48 Filed 09/05/23 Page 2 of 2
requests the Court allow Defendant reasonable time to time to review the government’s pleadings,
proposed sealed exhibits, and relevant authority in preparing his response. See LCrR 47(b)
(allowing parties 14 days to respond to motions).1
Dated: September 5, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Blanche, Esq. (PHV)
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall St., Suite 4460
New York, NY 10005
(212) 716-1250
/s/Gregory M. Singer
John F. Lauro, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 392830
jlauro@laurosinger.com
Gregory M. Singer, Esq. (PHV)
gsinger@laurosinger.com
Filzah I. Pavalon, Esq. (PHV)
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa St., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 222-8990
Counsel for President Donald J. Trump
1
Due to the exigency presented by the government’s impending filing, Defendant did not confer
with the government prior to filing this motion.
2
Back to 
