Trump’s Legal Team Raises New Questions About Letitia James’ Evidence

President Donald Trump’s attorneys are demanding more information from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office as they continue fighting a civil fraud case that once carried a judgment of nearly $464 million.

According to Fox News, in a filing with the New York Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued that James’ office has not fully complied with an order requiring it to explain how it preserved evidence connected to the case.

The attorneys say the missing information could include communications involving Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney and a key witness for prosecutors.

The dispute centers on a January 2026 article Cohen published on Substack. In that post, Cohen claimed he had felt “pressured and coerced” during meetings with lawyers from James’ office and accused them of seeking testimony that would help build their case against Trump.

Trump’s attorneys are seeking to determine whether communications related to those allegations exist and, if so, whether they were preserved.

Although the judge rejected the defense’s broader request for additional discovery, James’ office was ordered to identify its practices for preserving information. Trump’s lawyers now argue that the attorney general’s office has failed to provide the level of detail required.

“Instead of actually complying with the Order,” Trump’s attorneys wrote, the office has relied on general references to its “standard litigation hold procedures.”

James’ office disputes that characterization. In a response cited by Fox News Digital, the attorney general’s office said it had satisfied the court’s order and objected to Trump’s demand for additional information outside the normal discovery process.

The dispute is unfolding as Trump challenges the underlying civil case brought by James in 2022. She accused Trump and his business of manipulating property valuations and financial statements.

Trump was initially ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in financial penalties, but an appeals court later vacated the monetary portion of the judgment. James has appealed that decision, while Trump’s legal team is seeking to have the case dismissed altogether.

In a separate appeal, Trump’s lawyers have argued that James lacked authority to bring the case and that the transactions involved sophisticated lenders and insurers that suffered no claimed losses. They have also challenged the legal basis and size of the original financial penalty.

The latest filing puts the focus on what evidence was preserved during the investigation and whether additional communications could affect the ongoing fight over the case.