Judge rejects Eastman’s request for return of phone seized by investigators

A federal judge on Friday rejected a motion from former President Trump’s attorney John Eastman requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) return his phone, which it obtained from a search warrant in June. 

Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Brack said in his ruling that Eastman failed to show either irreparable injury resulting from not having possession of his phone or an “inadequate remedy at law.” 

Brack previously denied the Trump attorney’s motion for a temporary restraining order preventing investigators from accessing his phone in July, ruling that he failed to demonstrate an “immediate, irreparable harm” that would result. 

The FBI originally obtained Eastman’s phone while executing a search warrant on him in June. The DOJ received a new search warrant for Eastman’s phone in late July after his legal challenge began. 

Eastman was majorly involved in Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, standing behind the argument that former Vice President Mike Pence had the power to refuse to count certain state’s electors during the certification of the vote. 

Eastman’s name has been repeatedly mentioned during the public hearings of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, which specifically emphasized his role at its third hearing in June. 

Eastman argued that the court should order the DOJ to return his phone and retain a copy of “whatever information it could have lawfully searched.” He also said the government’s possession of his phone for more than two months is unreasonable. 

But the DOJ argued that Eastman’s claims are without merit, as he has already bought a replacement phone and has never contacted the government to request the phone’s return. It also pointed to Eastman previously saying that he does not need a physical phone. 

The government stated that if it received a request for the phone, it would look to reach a reasonable accommodation with its investigative needs. 

Brack said in his ruling that Eastman’s motion is premature, but the court is directing both parties to communicate about a “realistic timeline” for the physical phone to be returned. 

Brack said Eastman can file an additional motion if the parties cannot reach an agreement on the issue.