E. Jean Carroll Response To DOJ

Case 1:20-cv-07311-LAK Document 16 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
E. JEAN CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
v.
Case No. 1:20-cv-7311 (LAK)
DONALD J. TRUMP,
in his individual capacity,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT
Roberta A. Kaplan
Joshua Matz
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110
New York, New York 10118
(212) 763-0883
Counsel to Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
I. Factual Background ......................................................................................................... 2
A. Trump Sexually Assaults Carroll ............................................................................. 2
B. Carroll Publicly Reveals that Trump Sexually Assaulted Her ................................. 3
C. Trump Slanders Carroll on Three Separate Occasions ............................................ 4
1. June 21, 2019 Statement ..................................................................................... 4
2. June 22, 2019 Statement ..................................................................................... 5
3. June 24, 2019 Statement ..................................................................................... 6
II. Procedural History ........................................................................................................... 7
A. Carroll Files Suit Against Trump in State Court ...................................................... 7
B. Trump Defends the Proceedings in State Court ....................................................... 7
C. The Department of Justice Files a Motion to Substitute .......................................... 8
STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 9
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 10
I. The FTCA Does Not Cover the President ..................................................................... 10
A. The President is Not an Officer or Employee of an Executive Department .......... 11
B. The President is Not an Officer or Employee of an Independent Establishment of

the United States ..................................................................................................... 15
C. Interpretive and Immunity Principles Confirm This Reading of the FTCA .......... 19
II. Trump Was Not Acting Within the Scope of His Job as President When He Defamed
Carroll For Revealing That He Sexually Assaulted Her ................................................ 21
ii
A. New York Law Governs the Scope of Employment Inquiry ................................. 21
B. Under New York Law, A Person Acts Outside the Scope of Their Employment
When They Act for Personal Reasons to Obtain a Personal Benefit ..................... 22
C. Trump Acted Outside the Scope of His Employment in Defaming Carroll .......... 26
1. Notwithstanding the Breadth of their Official Duties, Presidents May

Unquestionably Engage in Personal Conduct Causing Private Wrongs .......... 26
2. Trump Acted for Personal Reasons in Defaming Carroll ................................ 28
D. The Justice Department’s Position Is Meritless ..................................................... 31
III. If the Court Concludes That There Is A Factual Dispute Bearing on Whether Trump is
Covered by the FTCA, It Should Order Discovery or Hold a Hearing ......................... 34
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 36
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Adelson v. Harris,
973 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)....................................................................................... 21
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Quick,

254 F. Supp. 2d 706 (S.D. Ohio 2002) ..................................................................................... 35
BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States,

541 U.S. 176, 124 S. Ct. 1587 (2004) ....................................................................................... 10
Bello v. United States,

93 F. App’x 288 (2d Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 10
Bergeron v. Henderson,
47 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D. Me. 1999) .............................................................................................. 35
Bostock v. Clayton Cty.,

140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) .............................................................................................................. 12
Bowles v. United States,

685 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 9, 21
Cheatum v. Wehle,
5 N.Y.2d 585 (1959) ................................................................................................................. 31
Clark v. McGee,
49 N.Y.2d 613 (1980) ................................................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 31
Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997) ..................................................................... 26, 27, 30, 34
Cooke v. United States,

918 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2019)........................................................................................................ 10
Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger,

444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................ 32, 33
CREW v. Trump,
953 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2019)................................................................................................ 27, 28
Dalehite v. United States,

346 U.S. 15, 73 S. Ct. 956 (1953) ............................................................................................. 20
iv
Davila v. Lang,
343 F. Supp. 3d 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)................................................................................. 10, 28
Demas v. Levitsky,
291 A.D.2d 653 (3rd Dept. 2002) ................................................................................. 23, 25, 32
Does 1-10 v. Haaland,

No. 19-6347, 2020 WL 5242402 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2020) ...................................... 10, 22, 32, 33
Dowd v. Calabrese,
589 F. Supp. 1206 (D.D.C. 1984) ............................................................................................. 22
Dumas v. President of U.S.,

554 F. Supp. 10 (D. Conn. 1982) .............................................................................................. 10
Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enters., Inc. v. Smithsonian,

Inc., 566 F.2d 289 (D.C. Cir. 1977) .......................................................................................... 19
Foretich v. CBS, Inc.,

619 A.2d 48 (D.C. 1993) .......................................................................................................... 22
Franklin v. Massachusetts,
505 U.S. 788, 112 S. Ct. 2767 (1992) ....................................................................................... 20
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board,

561 U.S. 477, 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) ....................................................................................... 13
Freytag v. Commissioner,
501 U.S. 868, 111 S. Ct. 2631 (1991) ....................................................................................... 12
Glacken v. Village of Freeport,

No. 09 Civ. 4832, 2014 WL 1836143 (E.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014)......................................... 31, 32
Greaney v. Ferrer,
278 A.D.2d 154 (1st Dep’t 2000) ............................................................................................. 31
Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno,

515 U.S. 417, 115 S. Ct. 2227 (1995) ................................................................................... 9, 34
Haddon v. United States,

68 F.3d 1420 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................. 18
Haddon v. Walters,
43 F.3d 1488 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................... 12, 17, 18
Heindel v. Bowery Sav. Bank,

138 A.D.2d 787 (3rd Dept. 1988) ....................................................................................... 23, 24
v
Ierardi v. Sisco,
119 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 1997)................................................................................................ 23, 24
Indian Towing Co. v. United States,

350 U.S. 61, 76 S. Ct. 122 (1955) ............................................................................................. 20
Jones v. Clinton,
72 F.3d 1354 (8th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 30
Kirkman by Kirkman v. Astoria Gen. Hosp.,

204 A.D.2d 401 (2nd Dept. 1994) ............................................................................................ 23
Klayman v. Obama,
125 F. Supp. 3d 67 (D.D.C. 2015) ............................................................................................ 10
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump,

928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019)...................................................................................................... 27
Lee v. Bankers Tr. Co.,

166 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 1999)...................................................................................................... 21
N.X. v. Cabrini Med. Ctr.,

97 N.Y.2d 247 (2002) ......................................................................................................... 23, 24
Nicollette T. v. Hosp. for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Inst.,

198 A.D.2d 54 (1st Dept. 1993)................................................................................................ 23
Nixon v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 731, 102 S. Ct. 2690 (1982) ..................................................................... 20, 26, 27, 34
Operation Rescue Nat. v. United States,

147 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................................... 10
Operation Rescue Nat’l v. United States,

975 F. Supp. 92 (D. Mass. 1997) .............................................................................................. 32
Osborn v. Haley,
549 U.S. 225, 127 S. Ct. 881 (2007) ........................................................................................... 9
Overton v. Ebert,
180 A.D.2d 955 (3rd Dept. 1992) ........................................................................... 24, 26, 29, 34
Perks v. Town of Huntington,

251 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) ............................................................................. passim
Polcari v. John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts,

712 F. Supp. 230 (D.D.C. 1989) ............................................................................................... 19
vi
Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

491 U.S. 440, 109 S. Ct. 2558 (1989) ....................................................................................... 20
Rausman v. Baugh,
248 A.D.2d 8 (2nd Dept. 1998) ......................................................................................... passim
Reeves v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc.,

719 F.2d 602 (2d Cir. 1983)...................................................................................................... 21
Reeves v. Am. Broadcasting Cos.,

580 F. Supp. 84 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).............................................................................................. 22
Rivera v. State,
34 N.Y.3d 383 (2019) ......................................................................................................... 22, 23
Riviello v. Waldron,
47 N.Y.2d 297 (1979) ................................................................................................... 23, 30, 35
Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc.,

2 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)..................................................................................... 24, 26
Saleh v. Bush,
848 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 10
Seila Law LLC v. C.F.P.B.,

140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) ........................................................................................................ 13, 26
Stokes v. Cross,
327 F.3d 1210 (D.C. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 31, 35
Swarna v. Al-Awadi,
622 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010)...................................................................................................... 23
Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. NYP Holdings, Inc.,

No. 06 Civ. 11407, 2007 WL 4820968 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2007) .................................... 21, 22
Thompson v. United States,

795 F. App’x 15 (2d Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 19
Trump v. Hawaii,
138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) .............................................................................................................. 26
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP,

140 S. Ct. 2019 (2020) .............................................................................................................. 11
Trump v. Vance,
140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020) .......................................................................................................... 8, 27
vii
United States v. Burr,

25 F. Cas. 30 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) ............................................................................................... 27
United States v. Germaine,

99 U.S. 508 (1878) .................................................................................................................... 12
Weeks v. Oswald,
No. 1:12 Civ. 82, 2012 WL 3012640 (D. Idaho July 23, 2012) ............................................... 35
Weyrich v. New Republic, Ins. Co.,

235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 22
Williams v. United States,

71 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 32
Wilson v. Libby,
535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 10
Wuterich v. Murtha,
562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ 32, 35
Statutes
3 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................... 17
5 U.S.C. § 101 ......................................................................................................................... 12, 13
5 U.S.C. § 104 ......................................................................................................................... 17, 18
5 U.S.C. § 1101 ............................................................................................................................. 18
5 U.S.C. § 3110 ............................................................................................................................. 18
5 U.S.C. § 3347 ............................................................................................................................. 14
15 U.S.C. § 9054(a)(3).................................................................................................................. 15
15 U.S.C. §§ 1501, 1503a, 1503b, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1507b, 1507c, 1508 ................................. 14
20 U.S.C. §§ 3411, 3412 ............................................................................................................... 14
24 U.S.C. § 411 ............................................................................................................................. 18
28 U.S.C. § 2671 .................................................................................................................... passim
28 U.S.C. § 2679(b) ........................................................................................................................ 1
28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) .................................................................................................................... 1, 9
viii
28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1) ............................................................................................................... 10
28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 ................................................................................................................. 1
39 U.S.C. § 201 ............................................................................................................................. 18
42 U.S.C. §§ 3532(a), 3533 .......................................................................................................... 14
42 U.S.C. §§ 7131, 7132 ............................................................................................................... 14
43 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1456 ............................................................................................................... 14
44 U.S.C. § 1501 ........................................................................................................................... 15
46 U.S.C. § 301 ............................................................................................................................. 18
49 U.S.C. § 1111 ........................................................................................................................... 18
49 U.S.C. § 1301 ........................................................................................................................... 18
Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378 (1966) ....................................................................................... 17
Pub. L. No. 100-694, 102 Stat. 4563 (1988) ................................................................................. 20
Other Authorities
4 Fed. Reg. 3864 (Sept. 12, 1939) ................................................................................................ 16
Debates on the Federal Constitution 480 (2d ed. 1863) (James Wilson) ...................................... 26
Gillian Metzger, The Constitutional Duty to Supervise,

124 Yale L.J. 1836 (2015) ........................................................................................................ 13
Exec. Order No. 8248 ................................................................................................................... 16
H.R. Rep. No. 203 ......................................................................................................................... 12
Operation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment Respecting Presidential Succession,

9 Op. O.L.C. 65, 1985 WL 185391 (1985) ............................................................................... 13
Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President,

Op. O.L.C., 2019 WL 2315338 (May 20, 2019) ................................................................ 15, 16
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2 .................................................................................................................. 13
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1 .................................................................................................................. 26
ix
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
There is not a single person in the United States—not the President and not anyone else—
whose job description includes slandering women they sexually assaulted. That should not be a
controversial proposition. Remarkably, however, the Justice Department seeks to prove it wrong.
At the behest of the White House, and following a certification from the Attorney General pursuant
to the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d), federal lawyers have moved to substitute the United
States of America as the defendant in this action. They assert that Defendant Donald J. Trump was
acting within the scope of his employment as President when he defamed Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll,
a woman he sexually assaulted over twenty years ago, as retaliation for revealing his misconduct.
Trump’s defamatory lies included assertions that Carroll had falsely accused other men of rape;
that she was lying about him as part of a secret political conspiracy; that she had fabricated her
accusation to sell books; and that he had never met her (despite a photograph of them together).
Trump also remarked, “she’s not my type.” Compl. ¶ 97. These are the statements that the Justice
Department asks the Court to find that Trump uttered within the scope of his duties as President.
The Justice Department’s motion should be rejected for two reasons. First, the statute cited
in support of the Attorney General’s certification—namely, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA),
28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., as amended by the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)—does not
apply to the President. This is clear from the plain text of the statute, which encompasses a wide
range of federal employees yet conspicuously offers no basis for covering the President. That
textual conclusion is confirmed by a host of constitutional, statutory, legislative, judicial, and
executive branch authorities. The bottom line is that the President enjoys absolute immunity from
damages claims based on conduct within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, but is
not shielded by the FTCA for tortious acts committed within the scope of his employment.
In any event, there is no merit to the Justice Department’s certification that Trump acted
within the scope of his employment as President in defaming Carroll. Under New York law (which
controls), and as confirmed by the Complaint (which must be taken as true), Trump acted for
decidedly personal reasons unrelated to furthering any interests of the United States. Moreover, it
is inconceivable that Trump’s employers—a.k.a., the American people—expect his job to include
viciously defaming a woman he sexually assaulted. In asserting otherwise, the Justice Department
opines that elected officials always act within the scope of their office when speaking with the
press, even about personal matters. See ECF No. 3-1 at 4. But the cases that the Justice Department
cites do not support that categorical claim. No legal authority holds that elected officials may—
within the scope of their federal employment—defame anyone, at any time, for any reason, no
matter how personal their motives or statements, so long as a journalist overhears them.
“Public office does not carry with it a license to defame at will, for even the highest officers
exist to serve the public, not to denigrate its members.” Clark v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 613, 618-19
(1980). If accepted, the Justice Department’s extreme position would distort the law and dishonor
the Office of the Presidency. This Court should therefore deny the motion to substitute.
BACKGROUND
I. Factual Background
A. Trump Sexually Assaults Carroll
One evening between the fall of 1995 and spring of 1996, Carroll went to shop at the
Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan after work. Compl. ¶ 22. As she exited through
the revolving glass doors on the north side of the building, Trump entered through the same doors
from 58th Street (across from the Plaza Hotel). Id. at ¶ 23. Recognizing Carroll—they had met at
least once before, they traveled in similar circles, and Carroll was then a frequent guest on the
Today show as well as the host of the Ask E. Jean show—Trump put his hand up to stop Carroll,
2
saying: “Hey, you’re that advice lady!” Id. at ¶¶ 24-25. Trump told Carroll that he was at
Bergdorf’s to buy a present “for a girl” and asked Carroll to advise him. Id. at ¶ 26. Surprised, but
anticipating the funny stories she might later tell, Carroll agreed to help Trump shop for a gift. Id.
After first considering other items, Trump decided to buy lingerie. Id. at ¶¶ 27-29. When
he and Carroll arrived at the lingerie department, it was uncharacteristically empty, with no sales
attendant in sight. Id. at ¶ 30. Trump snatched a see-through bodysuit and insisted that Carroll try
it on. Id. at ¶ 31. Bemused, Carroll responded that he should try it on himself. Id. Trump and
Carroll then went back and forth, teasing each other about who should try on the bodysuit. Id.
Suddenly, Trump grabbed Carroll’s arm and said, “Let’s put this on.” Id. at ¶ 32. Trump
maneuvered Carroll into a dressing room, shut the door, and lunged at her—knocking her head
against the wall. Id. at ¶¶ 33-36. He then forcibly put his mouth on her lips. Id. at ¶ 36. Shocked
by Trump’s behavior, Carroll shoved him back and burst out in awkward laughter, hoping that he
would retreat. Id. at ¶ 37. But Trump did no such thing: he seized both of Carroll’s arms and pushed
her up against the wall again. Id. at ¶ 38. Trump then jammed his hand under her coatdress and
pulled down her tights. Id. He opened his overcoat, unzipped his pants, pushed his fingers around
Carroll’s genitals, and forced his penis inside of her. Id. at ¶ 39. Carroll resisted, struggling to
break free. She tried to stomp Trump’s foot with her high heels. She tried to push him away.
Finally, she raised a knee up high enough to push him off of her. Id. at ¶ 40. Carroll ran out of the
dressing room, out of Bergdorf’s, and onto Fifth Avenue. Id. at ¶ 41.
B. Carroll Publicly Reveals that Trump Sexually Assaulted Her
Immediately after Trump attacked her, Carroll told two close friends. See id. at ¶¶ 43, 47.
One urged her to report the crime, but the other warned her that Trump would ruin her life if she
did. See id. at ¶¶ 44-48. Carroll chose silence. She knew how brutal Trump could be and was
convinced that nobody would believe her. Like so many other survivors of sexual assault, Carroll
3
also blamed herself. Id. at ¶ 50. Carroll did not mention the assault to another soul for over twenty
years—not wanting to be perceived or to see herself as a victim of rape. Id. at ¶ 53.
For the next two decades, Carroll pursued her career as a writer and advice columnist while
concealing her own trauma. Id. at ¶ 59-60. During the last month of the 2016 election, several
women publicly revealed that Trump had engaged in sexual misconduct. Id. at ¶ 61. Carroll saw
Trump savage their reputations on the national stage. Id. During this period, though, Carroll was
focused on attending to her mother, who was then in hospice care. Id. at ¶ 62. Carroll feared that
speaking up would cause a media storm and destroy her mother’s remaining time. Id. It was only
after her mother died and the #MeToo movement empowered survivors of sexual assault to come
forward that Carroll finally decided to reveal the truth. Id. at ¶¶ 65-73. A writer to her core, and
determined to tell her story on her own terms, Carroll described Trump’s attack in a book released
on July 2, 2019. Id. at ¶¶ 77, 80. On June 21, 2019, New York magazine published a pre-publication
excerpt from Carroll’s book detailing Trump’s attack. Id. at ¶ 79.
C. Trump Slanders Carroll on Three Separate Occasions
Trump responded to Carroll’s account with a slew of lies. He denied the rape. He even
went so far as to insult her physical appearance, saying “she’s not my type.” Id. at ¶ 97. But he did
not stop there: he also denied ever having met Carroll or knowing who she was. Through express
statements and deliberate implications, he accused Carroll of lying about the rape in order to
increase book sales, carry out a political agenda, advance a conspiracy with the Democratic Party,
and make money. Id. at ¶ 11. He also implied that she had falsely accused other men of rape.
Trump made these false and defamatory statements, detailed below, from June 21 to 24, 2019.
1. June 21, 2019 Statement
On June 21, 2019, a Bloomberg reporter, Laura Litvan, tweeted a statement from Trump
concerning Carroll (see below). According to Trump’s initial disclosures here, Deputy White
4
House Press Secretary Judd Deere sent this statement to Litvan. It does not appear this statement
was provided on White House letterhead or with any other signs of official process:
The next day, while departing the White House, Trump made the following statement in
response to a question from a reporter:
5
[Trump]: I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who has also accused
other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation. I think she was
married—as I read; I have no idea who she is—but she was married to a, actually,
nice guy, Johnson—a newscaster.
[Reporter]: You were in a photograph with her.
[Trump]: Standing with coat on in a line—give me a break—with my back to the

camera. I have no idea who she is. What she did is—it’s terrible, what’s going
on. So it’s a total false accusation and I don’t know anything about her. And she’s
made this charge against others.
And, you know, people have to be careful because they’re playing with very
dangerous territory. And when they do that—and it’s happening more and
more. When you look at what happened to Justice Kavanaugh and you look at
what’s happening to others, you can’t do that for the sake of publicity.
New York Magazine is a failing magazine. It’s ready to go out of business, from
what I hear. They’ll do anything they can. But this was about many men, and I was
one of the many men that she wrote about. It’s a totally false accusation. I have
absolutely no idea who she is. There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It
looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next
to me. And I didn’t know her husband, but he was a newscaster. But I have no idea
who she is—none whatsoever.
It’s a false accusation and it’s a disgrace that a magazine like New York—which is
one of the reasons it’s failing. People don’t read it anymore, so they’re trying to get
readership by using me. It’s not good.
You know, there were cases that the mainstream media didn’t pick up. And I don’t
know if you’ve seen them. And they were put on Fox. But there were numerous
cases where women were paid money to say bad things about me. You can’t do
that. You can’t do that. And those women did wrong things—that women were
actually paid money to say bad things about me.
But here’s a case, it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s allowed to do that.
Compl. ¶ 91; see id. at ¶ 110 (photo of Carroll, Trump, and their then-spouses at a social event).
Two days later, during an interview with reporters from The Hill and in response to an
inquiry about Carroll’s accusation, Trump stated, “I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s
not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened.” Id. at ¶ 97. During the June 24
6
interview, Trump discussed a range of topics, including the upcoming 2020 election as well as the
possibility that President Barack Obama might endorse Vice President Biden in that race. 1
II. Procedural History
A. Carroll Files Suit Against Trump in State Court
On November 4, 2019, Carroll filed this action in New York State Supreme Court to redress
the injuries Trump’s defamation caused and to vindicate her reputation through a public airing of
the truth. In her Complaint, Carroll alleged one claim of defamation—and unquestionably alleged
the elements of that claim. First, she identified eleven specific false and defamatory statements
contained within the President’s June 21, 22, and 24 remarks. See Compl. at ¶¶ 85-90, 93-96, 100.
Second, she set forth comprehensive, detailed allegations demonstrating that Trump made each of
these statements with actual malice. See id. at ¶¶ 106-128. Third, the Complaint alleged concrete
reputational and financial harm resulting from Trump’s defamatory statements. See id. at ¶¶ 129-
136. In short, Carroll alleged a strong defamation claim against Trump for his demeaning, false,
and barbaric response to her accusation that he attacked her two decades earlier.
B. Trump Defends the Proceedings in State Court
From the very start of this action, Trump has done everything in his power to stop the truth
from coming out. He first refused to accept service of the Complaint, forcing Carroll to seek leave
of court to serve him through alternative means. NYSECF Doc. No. 15. Trump next filed a motion
to dismiss the Complaint based on his spurious assertion that he was no longer subject to personal
jurisdiction in New York. NYSECF Doc. No. 33. That too was rejected. NYSECF Doc. No. 36.
When those efforts failed, Trump filed a motion to stay this action pending a decision by
the New York Court of Appeals in Zervos v. Trump—a case involving another woman who had
1
Jordan Fabian & Saagar Enjeti, EXCLUSIVE: Trump Vehemently Denies E. Jean Carroll Allegation, Says “She’s
Not My Type”, THE HILL (June 24, 2019).
7
accused Trump of sexual assault. (Trump had previously claimed Zervos’s case was so different
from Carroll’s case that the two should not be assigned to the same judge. NYSECF Docs. No. 25,
43.) In his stay motion, Trump argued that he was entitled to absolute immunity and that resolution
of Carroll’s case should await a decision in Zervos. Notably, this motion was filed just six days
after Carroll served discovery requests on Trump, including one seeking a cheek swab for DNA
to be compared against unidentified male DNA that experts had taken from the Donna Karan dress
that Carroll was wearing that day at Bergdorf’s. On August 6, 2020, shortly after the United States
Supreme Court decided Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020), the New York trial judge
(Saunders, J.), relying on Vance, denied Trump’s motion to stay, thereby restarting the clock for
the pending discovery deadlines. 2 NYSECF Doc. No. 110.
Following the denial of his stay motion, Trump and his lawyers spent the next four weeks
stonewalling Carroll’s efforts to resume discovery. During this period, his private counsel
consistently communicated his intent to litigate Carroll’s claims in state court, including by taking
an interlocutory appeal as of right to the Appellate Division from the denial of Trump’s stay
motion. See Kaplan Affidavit Ex. A-H. But even as Trump’s private counsel in New York made
those statements, his client was hard at work in Washington, D.C. devising another stratagem to
avoid accountability for slandering a woman he had sexually assaulted.
C. The Department of Justice Files a Motion to Substitute
On September 8, 2020—the deadline for Trump to appeal the denial of his stay motion to
the Appellate Division—the Justice Department removed this case to federal district court and
filed a motion to substitute the United States as defendant. As the Attorney General later
2
After the stay was lifted, the date for Trump to respond to Carroll’s Second Set of Document Requests became
August 14, 2020. See Kaplan Affidavit Ex. A. Following a meet and confer, Carroll agreed to extend that deadline to
August 21. See Kaplan Affidavit Ex. B. Nevertheless, Trump refused to produce a single document.
8
acknowledged, the Justice Department took that step in response to a request from the White
House. See Katie Brenner & Charlie Savage, White House Asked Justice Dept. to Take Over
Defamation Suit Against Trump, Barr Says, N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 9, 2020). It does not appear that the
White House directed the Justice Department to intercede in response to any new facts in this case,
which had been pending for over ten months in state court without any suggestion that it was
somehow a case against the United States. Rather, the Justice Department intervened to shield
Trump from legal accountability only after his state court stall tactics, procedural gambits, and
assertions of immunity were all rejected. This highly irregular maneuver prompted widespread
condemnation from public officials and legal experts—in part because it forced the American
people to pay for Trump’s legal defense in a suit about his private sexual misconduct. 3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This case was removed to federal court upon the Attorney General’s certification under the
Westfall Act that a federal employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at
the time of the tortious conduct alleged in the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d). The Attorney
General’s certification is conclusive of this Court’s removal jurisdiction. See Osborn v. Haley, 549
U.S. 225, 233-34, 127 S. Ct. 881, 889-90 (2007). But his scope of employment determination
under the Westfall Act is judicially reviewable in the posture of a motion to substitute the United
States as defendant. See Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 420, 115 S. Ct. 2227,
2229 (1995). In assessing the Justice Department’s motion to substitute, “[t]he certification is
subject to de novo judicial review.” Bowles v. United States, 685 F. App’x 21, 23 (2d Cir. 2017).
3
See, e.g., Leah Litman, The Justice Department Says Defaming Women is Part of Trump’s Job. Literally., WASH.
POST (September 10, 2020) (expressing doubt “that the Federal Tort Claims Act . . . applies to the President”); Noah
Bookbinder, Now Trump Wants Americans to Pay for his Defense in a Rape-Related Defamation Case, USA TODAY
(September 14, 2020) (“The DOJ move was shocking because it went well beyond the legal standard to argue that the
president’s statements about Carroll were official actions.”).
9
In undertaking that de novo review, this Court must view “the tortious conduct in the light most
favorable to plaintiff” and may consider evidence outside the pleadings to make “findings of fact
with respect to the scope of the tortfeasor’s employment.” Davila v. Lang, 343 F. Supp. 3d 254,
270-71 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Bello v. United States, 93 F. App’x 288, 289-90 (2d Cir. 2004).
ARGUMENT
The Justice Department’s motion should be denied for two reasons: (1) the FTCA does not
cover the President; and (2) even if it does, the President was not acting within the scope of his
employment when he made the eleven defamatory statements alleged in the Complaint.
I. The FTCA Does Not Cover the President
Statutory interpretation “begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well if the text is
unambiguous.” BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183, 124 S. Ct. 1587, 1593
(2004). It is particularly vital to respect that principle in construing waivers of sovereign immunity
such as the FTCA. See Cooke v. United States, 918 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). While several courts
have assumed (without analysis) or suggested (in dicta) that the FTCA covers the President, none
offered any reasons—textual or otherwise—to support that proposition (which does not appear to
have been briefed in those litigations). 4 The Second Circuit has not addressed the question.
The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that covers “any employee of the
Government.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). That broad phrase, however, is given a narrower definition
in 28 U.S.C. § 2671: it covers “officers or employees of any federal agency,” as well as several
4
See, e.g., Does 1-10 v. Haaland, No. 19-6347, 2020 WL 5242402, at *4 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2020); Saleh v. Bush, 848
F.3d 880, 889-92 (9th Cir. 2017); Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697, 712 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Klayman v. Obama, 125 F.
Supp. 3d 67, 85 (D.D.C. 2015); Operation Rescue Nat. v. United States, 147 F.3d 68, 71 (1st Cir. 1998); Dumas v.
President of U.S., 554 F. Supp. 10, 15 (D. Conn. 1982). Mindful of this Court’s page limitations, we are not providing
discussion of these cases, but would be happy to do so if the Court determines it would be helpful.
10
other categories not applicable here. 5 The phrase “federal agency,” in turn, is defined by the FTCA
as including “the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the military
departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting
as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2671.
Reading these provisions together, the relevant question in this case is whether the
President is an “officer[] or employee[]” of any enumerated “federal agency.” Since he obviously
is not an officer or employee of “the judicial and legislative branches,” “the military departments,”
or “corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States,” that leaves
as possibilities only “the executive departments” and “independent establishments of the United
States.” 6 But, as we demonstrate below, those terms have well-understood meanings that are not
consistent with treating the President as covered by the FTCA. This conclusion is supported by a
negative implication from the statutory text: whereas the FTCA does cover “the judicial and
legislative branches,” it explicitly does not cover “the executive branch.” See Trump v. Mazars
USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2034 (2020) (“The President is the only person who alone composes
a branch of government.”). Instead, it applies only to entities—executive departments and
independent establishments—that have long been understood as distinct from the Presidency itself.
A. The President is Not an Officer or Employee of an Executive Department
The phrase “executive departments” has a settled meaning under federal law: it refers to
Cabinet-level agencies. This is confirmed by a host of sources. Most notably, Title 5 of the U.S.
5
Those other categories also include: “members of the military or naval forces of the United States, members of the
National Guard while engaged in training or duty . . . ., and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official
capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation,” and
“any officer or employee of a Federal public defender organization, except when such officer or employee performs
professional services in the course of providing representation under section 3006A of title 18.” 28 U.S.C. § 2671.
6
To the extent the Justice Department argues that the FTCA might elsewhere cover the President as an officer of “the
military departments,” it is implausible that he was acting within the scope of his employment as an officer of the
military when he defamed Carroll. Even if that provision might apply in some cases, this is clearly not one of them.
11
Code—entitled “Government Organization and Employees”—defines “executive departments” as
the fifteen Cabinet-level agencies: the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior,
Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. 5 U.S.C. § 101; see
also Haddon v. Walters, 43 F.3d 1488, 1490 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (describing 5 U.S.C. § 101 as setting
forth an “exclusive list of Executive departments”). While there were fewer Cabinet departments
when the FTCA was enacted in 1946, the U.S. Code set forth an analogous definition of “executive
departments” at that time. See Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1738 (2020) (looking to
time of enactment). And that straightforward definition of the phrase traces all the way back to the
work of the First Congress, which created the “Executive department[s]” of Foreign Affairs and
War—and directed that they be led by a “principal officer.” Act of July 27, 1789, ch. 4, 1st Cong.
28-29 (Foreign Affairs); Act of Aug. 7, 1789, ch. 8, 1st Cong. 49-50 (War).
All three branches of government have recognized this understanding of “executive
departments.” For example, in United States v. Germaine, the Supreme Court held that the phrase
“executive Departments” in the Opinions Clause of the Constitution—which authorizes the
President to “require the opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments”—referred only to Cabinet members. See 99 U.S. 508, 511 (1878). Over a century
later, in Freytag v. Commissioner, the Supreme Court observed that the phrase “executive
departments” in Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was intended and understood by
Congress to refer only to Cabinet-level entities. See 501 U.S. 868, 887, 111 S. Ct. 2631, 2643
(1991) (discussing H.R. Rep. No. 203, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965)). The Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) later embraced this interpretation of “executive departments” in the Twenty-Fifth
12
Amendment—and cited 5 U.S.C. § 101 to support its view. See Operation of the Twenty-Fifth
Amendment Respecting Presidential Succession, 9 Op. O.L.C. 65, 69, 1985 WL 185391 (1985). 7
Giving “executive departments” its settled meaning, the FTCA covers the President on this
basis only if he is an officer or employee of the Cabinet-level agencies. But he is neither of those
things. While American law books are littered with countless theories of the relation between
Presidents and executive departments, nowhere is the President considered to be an officer or
employee of the Department of Commerce. Instead, he maintains a general supervisory power—
anchored in the Vesting, Take Care, and Appointments Clauses—over the executive departments,
each of which has its own employees and is headed by a distinct principal officer subject to Senate
confirmation and statutory limitations. See Seila Law LLC v. C.F.P.B., 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2197-2205
(2020); Gillian E. Metzger, The Constitutional Duty to Supervise, 124 Yale L.J. 1836 (2015).
This understanding is supported by a wide range of sources. Returning to the Opinions
Clause in Article II, it would make no sense to say that the President “may require the opinion . . .
of the principal officer in each of the executive Departments” if he is also, in fact, an officer of
those departments. Nor would it make sense to describe someone else as the “principal officer” of
a department if the President is also an officer there. Indeed, Article II, Section 2 elsewhere
authorizes the appointment of “inferior Officers” by either “the President alone, in the Courts of
Law, or in the Heads of Departments,” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2 (emphasis added)—a rule which
presumes a distinction in identity between “the President” and “the Heads of Departments.”
7
In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Supreme Court ever so slightly
broadened its interpretation of “Departmen[t]” for purposes of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, extending
it to cover principal agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. 561 U.S. 477, 510–11, 130 S. Ct.
3138, 3162-63 (2010). In so doing, it did not alter the settled meaning of “executive departments” and, in all events,
it adhered to an understanding of the phrase “Departmen[t]” that confines it to principal agencies such as the SEC.
13
That distinction runs consistently through federal law. Most notably, it is reflected in the
statutes that create the executive departments and define their personnel—including the
specification of “officer” positions at each agency, none of which defines the President as himself
an “officer.” See, e.g., 43 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1456 (Interior); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1501, 1503a, 1503b, 1505,
1506, 1507, 1507b, 1507c, 1508 (Commerce); 42 U.S.C. §§ 3532(a), 3533 (HUD); 42 U.S.C.
§§ 7131, 7132 (Energy); 20 U.S.C. §§ 3411, 3412 (Education). The organizational plan defined
by those statutes is reflected on the websites of the executive departments, all of which list their
officers and none of which list the President among that group. 8 This reading is also consistent
with the definitive Federal Government Manual from 1946, which shows the President as the sole
officer under “executive” and no appearance by the President in any of the charts for the individual
executive departments or other agencies. See U.S. Government Manual 570, 576-602 (1946).
In addition, countless statutes use disjunctive language—“or”—to refer to the President
and the executive departments as distinct. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act, for example, allows
“the President, a court, or the head of an Executive department” to designate a temporary acting
officer. 5 U.S.C. § 3347. The Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act similarly limits certain
transactions by “the President, the Vice President, the head of an Executive department, or a
8
Department of State, Organizational Chart (Feb. 2020), https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Dept-
Org-Chart-Feb-2020-508.pdf; Department of the Treasury, Organizational Chart,
https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/organizational-chart; Department of Defense, Our Leaders,
https://www.defense.gov/Our-Story/Meet-the-Team/; Department of Justice, Organizational Chart (Feb. 2018),
https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart; Department of the Interior, Interior Leadership, https://www.doi.gov/interior-
leadership; Department of Agriculture, Organization Chart (Aug. 2020),
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-organization-chart.pdf; Department of Commerce,
Leadership, https://www.commerce.gov/about/leadership; Department of Labor, Leadership Team,
https://www.dol.gov/general/contact/contact-phonekeypersonnel; Department of Health and Human Services,
Organizational Chart, https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/orgchart/index.html; Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Leadership, https://www.hud.gov/about/leadership; Department of Transportation, Government
Officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation, https://www.transportation.gov/mission/meet-key-officials;
Department of Energy, Leadership, https://www.energy.gov/leadership; Department of Education, Operating
Structure, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/or/index.html; Department of Veterans Affairs, Functional Organization
Manual Version 5.0 at 3-5, https://www.va.gov/FOM-5-Final-July-2019.pdf; Department of Homeland Security,
Organizational Chart, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_1205_dhs-organizational-chart.pdf.
14
Member of Congress.” 15 U.S.C. § 9054(a)(3). And “Federal agency” is defined for purposes of
the chapter about the Federal Register to mean “the President of the United States, or an executive
department.” 44 U.S.C. § 1501 (emphasis added). And so on.
OLC put the point clearly in a recent decision on testimonial immunity: “[A]s a function
of the independence and autonomy of the President himself,” the President’s immediate advisors
“are constitutionally distinct from the heads of executive departments and agencies, whose offices
are created by acts of Congress, whose appointments require the Senate’s advice and consent, and
whose responsibilities entail the administration of federal statutes.” Testimonial Immunity Before
Congress of the Former Counsel to the President, Op. O.L.C., 2019 WL 2315338, at *2 (May 20,
2019) (emphasis added). That constitutional distinction explains why the President cannot be both
the President and an officer or employee of the “executive departments” under the FTCA.
B. The President is Not an Officer or Employee of an Independent Establishment

of the United States
If the President is not an officer or employee of the “executive departments,” that leaves
only one possible textual basis for concluding that he is covered by the FTCA: namely, that he is
an officer or employee of an “independent establishment[] of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2671.
On the face of the statute, however, there is little to commend this interpretation. The text refers
separately to “the executive departments” and “the judicial and legislative branches,” suggesting
that it does not cover the entirety of “the executive branch.” And it would be strange for Congress
to tuck the President within the FTCA’s coverage by referring obliquely, in the fourth clause of
the definitional term—between “the military departments” and “corporations primarily acting as
instrumentalities or agencies of the United States”—to “independent establishments.” Congress is
not presumed to hide elephants in mouseholes, nor should we expect it to hide Presidents within
subsidiary (and in this case quaternary) definitional terms.
15
Once again, both text and history confirm this interpretation. The Attorney General has
described the White House as the referring agency for purposes of the Westfall Act certification
here. Although it is conceivable that the Justice Department will also refer to the Executive Office
of the President (EOP), neither office ranks as an “independent establishment[]”—and, in any
event, the President is not actually designated as an officer or employee of either entity.
Starting with the plain meaning of the text, the FTCA does not define “independent
establishments” (and when the Act was passed in 1946, neither did Title 5). But that year, the U.S.
Government Manual identified 26 “independent offices and establishments” in its authoritative
organizational chart of the executive branch—and EOP and the White House Office were not
among them. See U.S. Government Manual 570 (1946). Instead, they were placed beside the
President and labeled “permanent staff agencies.” Id. This was consistent with how they had been
understood since their creation in 1939—at which point they were neither ranked nor situated
among other entities expressly described as “independent establishments.” 9
In 1966, Congress added a definition for “independent establishment” to Title 5, deeming
it for purposes of that title to mean an “establishment in the executive department (other than the
United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) which is not an Executive
department, military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an
9
President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the EOP and White House Office as part of a large-scale reorganization of
the executive branch. See Exec. Order No. 8248, 4 Fed. Reg. 3864 (Sept. 12, 1939). The EOP was created to ensure
that “the President will have adequate machinery for the administrative management of the Executive branch of the
Government.” Id. The White House Office was to be a “division[] of the Executive Office of the President” designed
“to serve the President in an intimate capacity in the performance of the many detailed activities incident to his
immediate office.” Id. § II(1). His Executive Order did not describe either entity as “independent.” This was a telling
omission, since the very same Executive Order addressed itself directly to several “independent establishments” and
announced the President’s intent to rearrange them. Specifically, President Roosevelt intended to “set up a Federal
Security Agency, a Federal Works Agency, and a Federal Loan Agency, and then to distribute among the 10 executive
departments and these 3 new agencies, the major independent establishments in the Government.” 84 Cong. Rec.
4,708, 4,710 (1939) (Reorganization Plan No. I—Message from the President). Those “major independent
establishments,” in turn, included the Social Security Board and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Id.; see also U.S.
Government Manual 473, 475 (1939) (illustrating which independent establishments were moved into which
component). Again, there was no mention of EOP or the White House Office as “independent establishments.”
16
independent establishment.” Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378, 379 (1966) (codified at 5 U.S.C.
§ 104). At the same time, the U.S. Government Manual continued to reflect the distinction between
what were then called “independent agencies” and other entities in the executive branch, including
the White House and the EOP. See Contents, U.S. Gov’t Manual at v-vii (1966/67). 10
This is no coincidence. In Haddon v. Walters, the D.C. Circuit held that the Executive
Residence at the White House does not fall within the definition of “independent establishment”
in 5 U.S.C. § 104. 43 F.3d 1488, 1490 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In reasoning directly applicable to this
case, Haddon based its conclusion mainly on 3 U.S.C. § 112, where Congress allowed “[t]he head
of any department, agency, or independent establishment of the executive branch of the
Government [to] detail, from time to time, employees of such department, agency, or establishment
to the White House Office, the Executive Residence at the White House, the Office of the Vice
President, the Domestic Policy Staff, and the Office of Administration.” Id. As Haddon noted,
“[t]hat Congress distinguished the Executive Residence from the independent establishments,
whatever they may be, suggests that Congress does not regard the Executive Residence to be an
independent establishment, as it uses that term.” Id. Whereas Haddon highlighted § 112’s
reference to the “Executive Residence,” here the notable phrase is “White House Office.” But the
conclusion is the same: “Congress has used the term ‘independent establishment’ in distinction to
10
That remained true after passage of the Westfall Act in 1988: the 1988 version of the U.S. Government Manual
dutifully separated “The President of the United States,” the “Executive Office of the President,” and “The White
House Office,” from “Executive Agencies” consisting of “Departments,” “Independent Establishments and
Government Corporations,” “Guide to Boards, Committees, and Commissions,” and “Quasi-Official Agencies” on
the other. U.S. Government Manual at v-vii (1988/89). In fact, most recent version of the U.S. Government Manual
draws the same distinction between the President, EOP, the White House Office, and what it now calls “Independent
Agencies and Government Corporations” (but historically described as “independent establishments”).
17
the [White House Office] . . . [which] suggests that Congress does not regard the [White House
Office] to be an independent establishment, as it uses that term.” See id. 11
It is not only courts and Congress that have noted the distinction between “independent
establishments” and the White House and EOP. In 2009, OLC noted that it has “espoused more
recently” the view that “EOP is not an independent establishment” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
§ 104. See Memorandum for Gregory B. Craig, Counsel to the President, from David J. Barron,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Application of 5 U.S.C. § 3110
to Two Proposed Appointments by the President to Advisory Committees 15 (Sept. 17, 2009). Eight
years later—while addressing a definition of “Executive agency” that includes “independent
establishments”—OLC concluded that “the White House Office is not an ‘Executive agency’
insofar as the laws on employment and compensation are concerned.” Application of the Anti-
Nepotism Statute to a Presidential Appointment in the White House Office, Op. O.L.C., 2018 WL
5653623, at *5 (Jan. 20, 2017); see also id. (discussing Haddon and observing that “the general
treatment of the White House Office under title 3 instead of title 5 undergird this conclusion”).
Two final points support this conclusion. First, in many other contexts, Congress has
denominated entities as “independent establishments”—yet it has not does so for the White House
Office or EOP. 12 And second, in construing the term “independent establishments” in the FTCA
context, courts have considered only entities like the Postal Service, the Smithsonian Institution,
and the Kennedy Center; the logic of these decisions does not suggest that Congress covered the
11
The D.C. Circuit dismissed FTCA claims as outside the scope of employment in a related case by the same plaintiff
against a White House electrician. Haddon v. United States, 68 F.3d 1420 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The court did not address
in that case whether the employee fit within § 2671’s definition in the first place—neither party raised it in their brief.
12
For instance, the Office of Personnel Management “is an independent establishment in the executive branch.” 5
U.S.C. § 1101. So are the Federal Maritime Commission, 46 U.S.C. § 301, the U.S. Postal Service, 39 U.S.C. § 201,
and the Surface Transportation Board, 49 U.S.C. § 1301. The National Transportation Safety Board is also an
independent establishment, 49 U.S.C. § 1111, along with the Armed Forces Retirement Home, 24 U.S.C. § 411.
18
President and the Kennedy Center in a single statutory breath. See Thompson v. United States, 795
F. App’x 15, 18 n.3 (2d Cir. 2019) (USPS); Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enters., Inc. v.
Smithsonian, Inc., 566 F.2d 289, 296 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (Smithsonian); Polcari v. John F. Kennedy
Center for Performing Arts, 712 F. Supp. 230, 231-32 (D.D.C. 1989) (Kennedy Center).
In any event, the President is not covered under the FTCA’s “independent establishments”
language because he is not an officer or employee of the White House Office or the EOP. To start,
he is plainly not an “employee” of either entity, both of which exist to support him. Nor is he an
officer of the EOP or the White House Office. In fact, he is not even part of these offices. As the
U.S. Government Manual confirms, the President occupies a constitutional office at the head of
the executive branch: he is not an “officer” of his own support staff. The White House Office itself
has acted consistent with that view: the President is not listed as an officer or employee in EOP’s
annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. See EOP, Annual Report to Congress
on White House Office Personnel (June 26, 2020). The White House website says the EOP is
“overseen by the White House Chief of Staff.” See White House, The Executive Branch. And under
the Obama Administration, too, the Plum Book—created by congressional committees based on
information from the Office of Personnel Management—did not list President Obama as part of
the EOP or the White House Office. See U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Policy and Supporting Positions 2-6 (Dec. 1, 2016).
In sum, while the President is the Executive Branch, he is not an officer or employee of
any discrete executive department or any independent establishment within it.
C. Interpretive and Immunity Principles Confirm This Reading of the FTCA
Two final considerations confirm that the President is not covered by the FTCA. First, the
FTCA does not include an express statement that it applies to the President, even though Congress
ordinarily must include such clear language in a statute that covers the President (and that may in
19
some cases constrain his ability to take charge of his own legal defense). See Public Citizen v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 465-67, 109 S. Ct. 2558, 2564-65 (1989). Indeed, it was the absence
of such an express statement in the APA—passed just two months before the FTCA—which later
led the Supreme Court to hold that its definition of “agency” could not be applied to the President.
See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-01, 112 S. Ct. 2767, 2775-76 (1992). 13
Second, reading the FTCA in this manner coheres with long-settled principles of absolute
immunity. The President has historically been treated as absolutely immune for damages liability
based on actions within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 731, 756, 102 S. Ct. 2690, 2704 (1982); id. at 758, 102 S. Ct. 2690 & n.1 (Burger, C.J.,
concurring). Given the unique nature of his office, there is likely little daylight between the scope
of the President’s employment for FTCA purposes and the scope of his official responsibilities for
absolute immunity purposes. (Indeed, as discussed above, in this very case Carroll spent months
litigating Trump’s assertion of absolute immunity.) And so Congress would have had no reason—
either in 1946, or in 1988 when the Westfall Act made the FTCA an exclusive remedy, Pub. L.
No. 100-694, 102 Stat. 4563 (1988)—to include the President in the FTCA’s coverage. 14
13
The Justice Department’s Supreme Court brief in Franklin is consistent with the reasons given above for concluding
that the President is not an officer or employee of a “federal agency” as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 2671: “The
term ‘agency’ would be a peculiar way to refer to the President in any event, since an ‘agency’ is generally understood
as being responsible to a principal. The President, of course, is not the agent of any principal, but rather is the
principal—the constitutional officer in the Executive Branch to whom the agencies in that Branch are responsible.”
Br. for Appellants at 30 n.16, Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 112 S. Ct. 2767 (No. 91-1502).
14
Consulting legislative history only deepens this gulf between the FTCA’s purposes and the President’s duties. When
the FTCA was enacted, “[u]ppermost in the collective mind of Congress were the ordinary common-law torts,” and
“the example which is reiterated in the course of the repeated proposals for submitting the United States to tort liability
is negligence in the operation of vehicles.” Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 28, 73 S. Ct. 956, 964 (1953),
abrogated on other grounds, Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76, 76 S. Ct. 122, 130 (1955). There is
no reason to believe that legislators concerned mainly with automobile accidents committed by the likes of postal
workers saw any need to cover the President. Until Bivens, there were “fewer than a handful of damages actions” ever
filed against the President, Nixon, 457 U.S. at 750 n.31, 102 S. Ct. at 2701, confirming that Congress had no particular
need to apply the FTCA to the single federal official with the broadest immunity attached to his office.
20
II. Trump Was Not Acting Within the Scope of His Job as President When He Defamed
Carroll For Revealing That He Sexually Assaulted Her
In the alternative, the Justice Department’s motion should be denied because Trump was
not acting within the scope of his office or employment when he defamed Carroll.
A. New York Law Governs the Scope of Employment Inquiry
Whether an officer or employee acted “within the scope of his or her employment for
purposes of the Westfall Act is determined by reference to ‘principles of respondeat superior of
the state in which the alleged tort occurred.’” Bowles, 685 F. App’x at 24 (citation omitted). Here,
Trump’s acts of defamation “occurred” in New York. As the Second Circuit has noted, New York
treats defamation as a “conduct regulating rule” and therefore the “situs of the tort” controls the
choice of law analysis. Lee v. Bankers Tr. Co., 166 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 1999). “Because ‘the
locus of the tort is where the plaintiff suffered injury, often the Court can resolve the choice of law
analysis [in a defamation action] simply by observing the state of plaintiff’s domicile and
presuming that the publication injured him in that state.’” Adelson v. Harris, 973 F. Supp. 2d 467,
476 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted); accord Reeves v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 719 F.2d
602, 605 (2d Cir. 1983) (“[T]he state of the plaintiff’s domicile will usually have the most
significant relationship to the case.”); Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. NYP Holdings, Inc., No.
06 Civ. 11407, 2007 WL 4820968, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2007) (“Where the plaintiff suffered
injury usually determines the locus of the tort in an action for defamation.”). Carroll is domiciled
in New York. That is where she suffered the greatest injury to her reputation. Therefore, the tort
at issue in this case “occurred” in New York and New York law governs the inquiry into whether
Trump acted within the scope of his employment. See Bowles, 685 F. App’x at 24.
To be sure, where a “defamatory statement is published nationally, there is only a
‘presumptive’ rule that the law of plaintiff's domicile applies.” Adelson, 973 F. Supp. 2d at 477
21
(citation omitted). Yet even then, “[i]t is most often assumed that the state of plaintiff’s domicile
is where the greatest injury occurred, and that this is the state with the most significant interest in
the litigation.” Test Masters, 2007 WL 4820968, at *4. Here, both of those factors cut decisively
in favor of concluding that Trump’s acts of defamation “occurred” in New York. And so do a host
of additional factors: Trump made the statements in direct response to an essay published in a New
York magazine; the subject matter of his statements concerned conduct that occurred exclusively
in New York; Trump himself was a New York resident when the underlying events occurred and
remains a New York resident (as evidenced by his failed objections to personal jurisdiction in the
state court); and this case was filed in a New York forum. See Reeves v. Am. Broadcasting Cos.,
580 F. Supp. 84, 90 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (applying California law to a multistate defamation action
because plaintiff was a California resident, suffered the most injury in California, and the
defamatory statement focused on activities that took place in California, “notwithstanding” that
the defamatory statement “was broadcast nationwide from Washington, D.C.”). 15
B. Under New York Law, A Person Acts Outside the Scope of Their Employment
When They Act for Personal Reasons to Obtain a Personal Benefit
“Under the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer . . . may be held
vicariously liable for torts, including intentional torts, committed by employees acting within the
scope of their employment.” Rivera v. State, 34 N.Y.3d 383, 389-90 (2019). “The employer may
15
The Sixth Circuit’s choice of law analysis in Does 1-10 v. Haaland is instructive. See No. 19-6347, 2020 WL
5242402 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2020). In that FTCA case, the plaintiffs filed suit in Kentucky, alleging that Senator
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) and Representative Debra Haaland (New Mexico) had defamed them through
statements published on their official Congressional Twitter accounts. On those facts, the Sixth Circuit easily
concluded that “the conduct—i.e., the allegedly defamatory tweets—occurred in Kentucky because Plaintiffs live in
Kentucky and the tweets were accessible in that state.” Id. at *5 (citations omitted). The same fundamental logic
controls the analysis here: Trump’s statements were aimed at a New York resident, injured that resident in New York,
concerned conduct that had occurred in New York, and were accessible in New York.
To the extent relevant, the same result obtains under D.C.’s choice of law rules, where the “the law to be applied [in
defamation cases] is that of the place where the plaintiff suffered injury by reason of [her] loss of reputation.” Weyrich
v. New Republic Ins. Co., 235 F.3d 617, 626 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Dowd v. Calabrese, 589 F. Supp. 1206, 1210
(D.D.C. 1984)); see also Foretich v. CBS, Inc., 619 A.2d 48, 54 n.9 (D.C. 1993).
22
be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is
generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment.” Id. (citation omitted). However,
“[l]iability attaches ‘for the tortious acts of . . . employees only if those acts were committed in
furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment.’” Id. (citation
omitted); see also Nicollette T. v. Hosp. for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Inst., 198 A.D.2d 54, 54–
55 (1st Dept. 1993) (“[T]he mere fact that an employee’s actions . . . occurred during the time of
his employment, does not conclusively demonstrate that said actions were within the scope of his
employment or that he was performing said acts in the furtherance of his employer’s business.”
(citations omitted)). In assessing whether a person acted within the scope of their employment,
New York courts often consider “[t]he connection between the time, place and occasion for the
act; the history of the relationship between employer and employee as spelled out in actual
practice; whether the act is one commonly done by such an employee; the extent of departure from
normal methods of performance; and whether the specific act was one that the employer could
reasonably have anticipated.” Riviello v. Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 303 (1979).
As a matter of first principles, however, “there is no respondeat superior liability for torts
committed by the employee for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s
business.” Heindel v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 138 A.D.2d 787, 788 (3rd Dept. 1988); accord Swarna
v. Al-Awadi, 622 F.3d 123, 144–45 (2d Cir. 2010); N.X. v. Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 N.Y.2d 247, 251
(2002); Demas v. Levitsky, 291 A.D.2d 653, 661 (3rd Dept. 2002); Kirkman by Kirkman v. Astoria
Gen. Hosp., 204 A.D.2d 401, 402 (2nd Dept. 1994). “Under such circumstances, the conduct—
although occurring during the course of his employment—is outside the scope of [his]
employment.” Ierardi v. Sisco, 119 F.3d 183, 188 (2d Cir. 1997). That rule controls even if “an
activity which benefits an employee personally could also have a possible benefit to the employer.”
23
Overton v. Ebert, 180 A.D.2d 955, 957 (3rd Dept. 1992); see also id. (finding that an employee
acted outside the scope of his employment when he “was acting for his own personal convenience
and benefit and not in the furtherance of any duty owed to [his employer]”).
Unsurprisingly, most applications of the “personal motives” doctrine have occurred in
cases involving sexual assault, sexual harassment, or defamation claims arising from or relating to
sexual misconduct. See Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 522, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
(“New York courts consistently have held that sexual misconduct and related tortious behavior
arise from personal motives and do not further an employer’s business, even when committed
within the employment context.”); see also Ierardi, 119 F.3d at 188–89 (employee acted outside
scope of employment in harassing another employee); N.X., 97 N.Y.2d at 251 (surgeon acted
outside scope of employment in sexually assaulting patient); Heindel, 138 A.D.2d at 788 (mall
security guard acted outside scope of employment in sexually assaulting juvenile). In Rausman v.
Baugh, for example, the Second Department overturned a finding that questions of fact precluded
a determination of whether a hospital employee had acted “within the scope of her employment”—
or instead “solely for personal motives”—in making an allegedly defamatory accusation of sexual
harassment against another employee. 248 A.D.2d 8, 9-10 (2nd Dept. 1998). Rausman held that
there was no basis for imposing liability on the employer for on “an employee’s allegedly false
accusation of sexual harassment,” since such accusations were not made pursuant to “a duty to the
employer.” Id. at 12. Rausman added that making “defamatory” allegations of “alleged sexual
harassment” was “certainly not a part of [the employee’s] job description.” Id. at 13.
Perks v. Town of Huntington, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), further illustrates
this principle. There, William Perks (Huntington’s Harbor Master) alleged that Councilwoman
Susan Scarpati-Reilly “maneuvered herself into a position as one of his supervisors, whereupon
24
she initiated a sexual relationship with him and—once he terminated the relationship—sexually
harassed, defamed, and conspired against him.” Id. at 1148. Among other causes of action, Perks
alleged two defamation claims against Scarpati-Reilly. See id. at 1164-1171. On both of these
claims, Perks also sought recovery from Huntington on a respondeat superior theory—and on both
claims, Judge Young (sitting by designation) granted summary judgment for Huntington, finding
that Scarpati-Reilly had acted in furtherance of personal motives. See id.
His reasoning as to the first defamation claim is especially instructive. That claim arose
from a false police report Scarpati-Reilly filed against Perks shortly after he terminated their sexual
relationship and she began retaliating against him for doing so. In holding that she acted outside
her employment in filing the report—and that she had instead acted with “personal motives”—
Judge Young relied on four considerations: (1) her official duties did not require her to file police
reports against Town employees; (2) her official position conferred no special authority to file such
reports; (3) Huntington had not instructed her to engage in such behavior; and (4) her filing of the
report “did not yield any benefit for Huntington or further its interests.” Id. at 1167. In response,
Scarpati-Reilly objected that she was “always [a] Councilwoman”—an “elected official twenty-
four hours a day”—and so “Everything that I do I’m acting as Councilwoman for the Town of
Huntington.” Id. But Judge Young rejected her position as “the standard for determining when to
place vicarious liability upon Huntington for Scarpati-Reilly’s actions.” Id. Instead, he looked
“objectively at whether a given action taken by Scarpati-Reilly” fell within her employment,
concluding that this defamatory statement did not because it resulted from personal motives. Id.
As these cases confirm, when a person acts for private reasons, or to obtain private gain,
they do not act within the scope of their employment. That rule applies in the defamation context.
E.g., Demas v. Levitsky, 291 A.D.2d 653, 661 (3rd Dept. 2002). It applies to public officials. See
25
Perks, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 1167. It applies even if the employee can identify some incidental benefit
to the employer. See Overton, 180 A.D.2d at 957. And it applies with particular force in cases
where an employee’s personal motives arise from or relate to sexual misconduct. See, e.g., Perks,
251 F. Supp. 2d. at 1164-1171; Ross, 2 F. Supp. 2d at 531; Rausman, 248 A.D.2d at 9-10.
C. Trump Acted Outside the Scope of His Employment in Defaming Carroll
1. Notwithstanding the Breadth of their Official Duties, Presidents May

Unquestionably Engage in Personal Conduct Causing Private Wrongs
The Constitution provides that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. “This grant of authority establishes the
President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory
and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Nixon, 457 U.S. at 750, 102 S. Ct.
at 2701. These responsibilities include “enforcement of federal law,” “conduct of foreign affairs,”
and “management of the Executive Branch.” Id. As a matter of history and tradition—and by virtue
of being held “directly accountable to the people through regular elections,” Seila Law, 140 S. Ct.
at 2203—the President also “possesses an extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and
on their behalf.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2417-18 (2018). The President thus enjoys a
“unique status under the Constitution.” Nixon, 457 U.S. at 750, 102 S. Ct. at 2701. He must be
available, at all times, to lead the Nation. In a sense, he “never adjourns.” Clinton v. Jones, 520
U.S. 681, 713, 117 S. Ct. 1636, 1653 (1997) (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment).
But the President “is a person as well as an institution.” Laurence H. Tribe, AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 631 (3d ed. 2000). While in office, “far from being above the laws, he is
amenable to them in his private character as a citizen . . . .” 2 J. Elliot, DEBATES ON THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION 480 (2d ed. 1863) (James Wilson). And as Chief Justice Marshall anticipated, the
demands of a President’s “duties as chief magistrate” are not so “unremitting” as to consume “his
26
whole time.” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (C.C.D. Va. 1807). The Supreme Court has
thus recognized that the President may engage in private acts beyond the “‘outer perimeter’ of his
official responsibility,” Nixon, 457 U.S. at 756, 102 S. Ct. at 2704; that he remains “subject to the
laws for his purely private acts,” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 696, 117 S. Ct. at 1645; and that he can be
investigated for private criminal deeds, see Vance, 140 S. Ct. at 2426-27. These cases confirm that
Presidents retain a personal capacity—and the ability to commit private wrongs—while in office.
Indeed, more than any other recent president, Trump has repeatedly insisted that aspects of
his conduct in office are private and personal. In a pending petition for certiorari, for example, he
asserts that “blocking third-party accounts from interacting with the @realDonaldTrump account
is a purely personal action.” See Trump v. Knight First Amendment Institute, No. 20-197, at 14
(U.S. Aug. 20, 2020) (emphasis added); see also id. at 10 (describing Trump’s “always personal
decision to block respondents from his own account”). Trump argues that his conduct in blocking
Twitter users from his account is “well within the ambit of . . . personal pursuits,” see id. at 15
(citation omitted)—and not subject to First Amendment limitations—even though he frequently
uses that very same Twitter account to make momentous official announcements. See Knight First
Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226, 231-32 (2d Cir. 2019). Trump thus insists upon a
broad view of his purely private, non-Presidential conduct while in office. This outlook extends to
and purports to justify his choice to maintain a substantial ownership stake in the Trump
Organization. See CREW v. Trump, 953 F.3d 178, 185 (2d Cir. 2019). In response to claims that
he is thereby violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, Trump has argued that he
is free to engage in purely private commercial transactions with foreign governments, so long as
he does not receive “compensation for services rendered . . . in an official capacity or in an
27
employment (or equivalent) relationship with a foreign government.” Motion to Dismiss at 32,
District of Columbia v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 1596, ECF. 21 (Sept. 29, 2017).
Whatever the ultimate merits of Trump’s position in these cases, his filings confirm that
this is not a President who views his every word and deed as Presidential. By his own confession,
Trump sometimes perceives himself as acting in a purely personal capacity—and as pursuing his
own private purposes—while in office. Consistent with Burr, Nixon, Clinton, and Vance, there can
thus be no doubt that Trump’s scope of employment is not all-encompassing, and that it leaves
room for purely private pursuits that may (as occurred here) result in private wrongs.
2. Trump Acted for Personal Reasons in Defaming Carroll
On June 21, 2019, Carroll revealed to the public that Trump had sexually assaulted her in
New York City over twenty years earlier. Trump responded by denying the assault, insisting that
he had never met Carroll, and saying “she’s not my type.” Compl. ¶¶ 97-98. He then went further,
making numerous false and defamatory statements—including that Carroll had lied to (a) increase
book sales; (b) carry out a political agenda; (c) advance a secret conspiracy with the Democratic
Party; and (d) make money. See id. ¶ 11. He also defamed Carroll by pointedly implying that she
had falsely accused other men of rape. See id. The question before the Court is whether, in making
these specific statements, Trump was acting within the scope of his employment or was instead
acting based on personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the interests of the United States.
In answering that question, the Court views “the tortious conduct in the light most favorable
to plaintiff” based upon the factual record before it. See Davila, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 270-71. Here,
that record consists almost entirely of the Complaint. And significantly, the Complaint sets forth
comprehensive allegations concerning Trump’s motives for making these statements—all of
which must be accepted as true. See Compl. ¶¶ 106-128. To summarize: Trump knew who Carroll
was when he raped her, id. at ¶¶ 106-112; he knew in June 2019 that he had assaulted her and that
28
his denials were false, id. at ¶¶ 113-115; he deliberately lied, and spoke with no concern for the
truth, in accusing Carroll of fabricating the accusation as part of a political conspiracy, a plot to
increase book sales, or in exchange for payment, id. at ¶¶ 116-18; he deliberately lied, or spoke
with no concern for the truth, in charging that Carroll had falsely accused other men of sexual
assault, id. at ¶¶ 118-119; and he engaged in these barbaric attacks because they were familiar to
him based on his prior public response to credible reports that he had assaulted women, id. at ¶¶
122-127. Simply put, Trump “knew he was lying when he said that Carroll had fabricated her rape
accusation for a hodgepodge of unsavory reasons that he himself had invented out of whole cloth.”
Id. at ¶ 128. Further, Trump did not lie to advance any interest of the United States or the Executive
Branch; he did not consider such interests at all. He lied to protect himself from the truth and, after
he knowingly lied about the sexual assault itself, “he surrounded that central lie with a swarm of
related lies in an effort to explain why [Carroll] would invent an accusation of rape.” Id. at ¶ 13.
Under New York law, these particularized allegations—which stand unrefuted and must
be read in Carroll’s favor—support only a single conclusion: Trump “was acting for his own
personal convenience and benefit and not in furtherance of any duty owed” by virtue of his office.
See Overton, 180 A.D.2d at 957. He was not acting within the scope of his employment.
This conclusion is bolstered by at least seven additional considerations. First, the substance
of Trump’s statements reeks of personal animus; it is inconceivable that Trump aimed to do his
job as President by implying that Carroll is too unattractive for him to sexually assault her. The
same is true of his eleven defamatory statements. See Perks, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 1171 (considering
contents of statement); Rausman, 248 A.D.2d at 9-10 (asking whether defamer was acting pursuant
to job description). Second, Trump’s statements concern allegations of sexual assault, which New
York law recognizes as especially likely to engender personal motives at odds with (or indifferent
29
to) employment interests. See supra at 24. Third, Trump was under no Presidential obligation to
make these defamatory statements. See Perks, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 1167. And in tone and substance
these statements were not of the kind “commonly done” by Presidents; there is no history of
Presidents defaming citizens who report sexual assault. See Riviello, 47 N.Y.2d at 303. 16 Fourth,
Trump’s attacks on Carroll do not reflect anything unique to his current position, or involve any
Presidential prerogative, but rather track a modus operandi of purely private conduct stretching
back decades. See Compl. at ¶¶ 122-127; see also Cert. Petn., Trump v. Knight, No. 20-197, at 9-
14 (arguing that continuity with Trump’s pre-office use of Twitter confirms personal nature of use
while in office). Fifth, since Trump took office, his administration has referred nearly all questions
about his sexual misconduct to private lawyers or campaign counsel, thus treating these matters as
personal in nature. 17 Sixth, the context in which Trump made some of his defamatory statements
shows irregular procedures. See Riviello, 47 N.Y.2d at 303. The June 21 statement appears to have
been hurriedly dictated by Trump and conveyed to a reporter, who tweeted the image of his
statement on a page lacking any official markings. Finally, the conduct here is far more obviously
based on personal motives—and unrelated to his job as President—than conduct he has elsewhere
described as private. See id. at 302. Trump views his commercial dealings with Russia and China
as personal, not presidential. He views blocking people from a platform on which he has fired
Cabinet secretaries as personal, not presidential. Only in a world gone mad could it somehow be
presidential, not personal, for Trump to slander a woman who he sexually assaulted.
16
In Clinton v. Jones, the plaintiff alleged a defamation claim against Clinton, but this claim was based on statements
by his alleged agents (including his presidential press secretary) rather than any statements by Clinton himself. See
Jones v. Clinton, 72 F.3d 1354, 1359 n.7 (8th Cir. 1996). The fact that this claim involved an alleged plot between
Clinton and his White House Secretary likely explains why the Supreme Court described it as potentially falling within
the “outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities.” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 686, 117 S. Ct. at 1640.
17
For example, when a reporter inquired about whether Trump provided “hush money” to conceal an alleged affair,
Trump stated, “Michael is my attorney, and you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen.” Stormy Daniels and Trump: The
conflicting statements, BBC NEWS (August 23, 2018).
30
For all these reasons, a straightforward application of New York law confirms that Trump
was acting outside the scope of his employment in making each of the statements identified in the
Complaint as false and defamatory. The motion to substitute must therefore be denied. 18
D. The Justice Department’s Position Is Meritless
In its five-page brief, the Justice Department addresses none of the above. It does not
consider New York law. It does not cite or discuss the Complaint. It does not attach any additional
evidence. Instead, it rests its argument on a categorical assertion that “elected officials act within
the scope of their office or employment when speaking with the press, including with respect to
personal matters.” See ECF No. 3-1 at 4. But as should now be clear, that argument is inconsistent
with New York law, which holds that employees fall outside the scope of their employment if they
act in pursuit of private purposes while disregarding or disrupting duties owed to their employer.
There is no authority in New York for an unqualified “elected official” exception to this rule. See,
e.g., Perks, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 1167 (finding an elected official acted outside the scope of her
employment while defaming the plaintiff in police reports and a newspaper advertisement);
Glacken v. Village of Freeport, No. 09 Civ. 4832, 2014 WL 1836143, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 8,
2014) (finding the Mayor of Freeport acted outside the scope of his employment while defaming
the plaintiff and noting “a mayor’s activities may, depending on the circumstances, fall within the
scope of his employment at any time of the day and in diverse locations” (emphasis added)). 19
18
Although New York laws governs and supplies a more restrictive rule of respondeat superior liability than does
D.C., the ultimate outcome would be the same under D.C. law. See Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210, 1216 (D.C. Cir.
2003) (“The District of Columbia’s formulation of th[e scope of employment] test excludes from the scope of
employment all actions committed solely for the servant’s own purposes.”). Since D.C. law does not apply to this
case, and to comply with the Court’s page limits, we have not briefed that issue, but we can submit a supplemental
brief on the application of D.C. scope of employment law if the Court so desires.
19
Consistent with this understanding, and based on deeply rooted public policy principles, New York courts have
carefully restricted the scope of the absolute privilege against defamation liability afforded to elected officials for
statements made in the context of performing their public duties. See Clark v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 613, 618-19 (1980);
Cheatum v. Wehle, 5 N.Y.2d 585, 593 (1959); Greaney v. Ferrer, 278 A.D.2d 154, 155 (1st Dep’t 2000).
31
The cases cited by the Justice Department do not demonstrate otherwise. To start, none of
them applies New York law; they all apply law from states with a broader view of respondeat
superior. For instance, Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659, 663
(D.C. Cir. 2006), applies D.C.’s expansive respondeat superior test, which is governed by cases
taking a significantly narrower view of the “personal motives” exception than do New York cases.
Compare id. at 664-65, with cases cited supra at 23-26. And unlike in the New York cases cited
above, the D.C. cases cited in C.A.I.R. focus on the general activity in which the defendant was
engaged (speaking to the press), rather than on the specific act alleged to remove his conduct from
the scope of employment (the defamatory statement). Compare id. at 664-65, with cases cited
supra at 25-26, 32. 20 The Justice Department’s authorities are inapposite on these grounds alone.
Moreover, all five of its cases involve statements by Members of Congress on pending
legislative matters or public events of widespread political interest. See Does 1-10 v. v. Haaland,
2020 WL 5242402, at *6, *8 (6th Cir. 2020) (Senator Warren and Representative Haaland “were
reasonably connecting Plaintiffs’ rhetoric and clothing to President Trump in order to comment on
an event that had received widespread press attention and that resonated with the pressing issue of
funding for the border wall.”); Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375, 385 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (statement
by the Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Defense
regarding military killing of Iraqi civilians); C.A.I.R., 444 F.3d at 662 (statement by Member of
Congress that C.A.I.R. was the “fund-raising arm for Hezbollah”); Williams v. United States, 71
F.3d 502, 507 (5th Cir. 1995) (statement by Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee on
a plaintiff’s lobbying in relation to a pending appropriations bill); Operation Rescue Nat’l v. United
20
C.A.I.R. also notes the defendant’s interest in maintaining a positive reputation in his profession and potentially
campaigning for re-election. New York courts, in contrast, have held that defendants who advanced similar interests
were acting outside the scope of their employment. See Glacken, 2014 WL 1836143, at *6 (campaigning); Demas,
291 A.D.2d at 661 (scientist who sought to advance “his own reputation in the academic community”).
32
States, 975 F. Supp. 92, 94–95 (D. Mass. 1997) (statement by Senator Kennedy on legislation
scheduled to be considered by the Senate the next day). None of these cases involved statements
remotely analogous to Trump’s personal attacks on Carroll. There is a world of difference between
Members of Congress making controversial comments on affairs of state and the President
repeatedly slandering a private citizen to punish her for revealing that he sexually assaulted her.
That is particularly true in light of the comprehensive allegations in the Complaint concerning
Trump’s motives for defaming Carroll. Compare Haaland, 2020 WL 5242402, at *6 (“[T]he
Senator’s employer was his constituents and he served them by fully informing them of his views
and working to pass legislation he believed would benefit them.”), with Compl. ¶ 128 (“Trump
thus knew he was lying when he said that Carroll had fabricated her rape accusation for a
hodgepodge of unsavory reasons that he himself had invented out of whole cloth. He knew she
was telling the truth because he knew who she was and he knew that he had raped her.”).
The Justice Department assigns overwhelming weight to the fact that “when providing the
challenged statements, the President was speaking to or responding to inquiries from the press.”
ECF No. 3-1 at 5. To be sure, elected officials may sometimes need to comment on their private
lives to do their jobs effectively and maintain their constituents’ trust. See Haaland, 2020 WL
5242402, at *7; C.A.I.R., 444 F.3d at 665-66. But no case holds that press statements automatically
fall within elected officials’ scope of employment—and no case finds that a federal official acted
within their employment by defaming a private citizen for private conduct while discussing their
own private affairs. See C.A.I.R., 444 F.3d at 666 (disagreeing that its holding “would immunize
many federal employees for any gratuitous slander in the context of statements of a purely personal
nature”). It would be startling and unprecedented to hold that federal officials act within their jobs
in defaming any citizen—at any time, for any reason, no matter how personal or private their
33
slanderous statements—because doing so might incidentally improve their political or electoral
position. See Overton, 180 A.D.2d at 957 (personal motives defeat a scope of employment finding
even if the activity “could also have a possible benefit to the employer”); see also Clinton, 520
U.S. at 696, 117 S. Ct. at 1645 (Presidents can engage in “purely private acts”); Nixon, 457 U.S.
at 756, 102 S. Ct. at 2704 (there is an “outer perimeter” on the President’s official duties).
In fact, the Justice Department’s position here bears an unnerving resemblance to the most
disreputable claim advanced by President Trump’s lawyers in the recent impeachment trial. There,
Professor Alan Dershowitz argued that Trump can engage in official acts for personal gain—
without risking loss of his job as President—so long as he believes that advancing his own personal
interests in abusing power will incidentally benefit the nation by helping to keep him in office. See
Philip Bump, Trump’s Impeachment Team Argues That Anything He Does to Win Reelection Isn’t
Impeachable, WASHINGTON POST (Jan 29, 2020) (“[I]f a president does something, which he
believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be [an impeachable offense].”).
Here, the Justice Department implies that Trump can engage in private tortious acts for personal
gain—without exceeding the scope of his employment as President—so long as he believes that
advancing his own personal interests in harming other citizens will incidentally benefit the nation
by improving his political standing. This reasoning has no place in any discussion of the American
presidency. Rather, it calls to mind King Louis XIV’s famous declaration, “L’état, c’est moi.”
III. If the Court Concludes That There Is A Factual Dispute Bearing on Whether Trump
is Covered by the FTCA, It Should Order Discovery or Hold a Hearing
For the reasons set forth above, the Court can and should overturn the Attorney General’s
certification that Trump’s tortious conduct is covered by the FTCA. See Gutierrez, 515 U.S. at
420, 423-437, 115 S. Ct. at 2229, 2231-37. At the very least, however, it should conclude that
Carroll has “alleged sufficient facts that, taken as true, would establish that [Trump’s] actions
34
exceeded the scope of [his] employment.” Stokes, 327 F.3d at 1215. In that event, the proper course
is to order “limited discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve [the] material factual
dispute regarding the scope of [Trump’s] employment.” See id. at 1214 (citations omitted); see
also Wuterich, 562 F.3d at 381; Riviello, 47 N.Y.2d at 303 (“[B]ecause the determination of
whether a particular act was within the scope of the [worker’s] employment is so heavily dependent
on factual considerations, the question is ordinarily one for the jury.”).
Indeed, courts have ordered discovery in FTCA cases where plaintiffs raised material
factual disputes as to whether defendants acted with personal motives—and thus outside the scope
of their employment—in making defamatory statements. See Weeks v. Oswald, No. 1:12 Civ. 82,
2012 WL 3012640, at *8 (D. Idaho July 23, 2012); Bergeron v. Henderson, 47 F. Supp. 2d 61, 79
(D. Me. 1999); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Quick, 254 F. Supp. 2d 706, 708 (S.D. Ohio 2002). 21
21
Carroll approached the Justice Department about discovery shortly after this case was removed to federal court and
sought to reach a consensual resolution of the issue. The Justice Department, however, took the position that it would
oppose any discovery unless the Court concluded that Carroll was entitled to it under the standard set forth above.
35
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Government’s motion to
substitute the United States as defendant should be denied or, in the alternative, that the Court
should hold an evidentiary hearing into whether Trump acted within the scope of his employment
as President in defaming Carroll on June 21, June 22, and June 24, 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Roberta A. Kaplan
October 5, 2020
Roberta A. Kaplan
Joshua Matz
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110
(212) 763-0883
Counsel to Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll
36
Case 1:20-cv-07311-LAK Document 16-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
E. JEAN CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:20-cv-07311
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his personal capacity,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE
I, ROBERTA A. KAPLAN, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows:
1. I am a partner of the law firm Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP and counsel for
Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll (“Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned action.
2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to Substitute.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a letter sent from R.
Kaplan to M. Kasowitz on August 8, 2020.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a letter sent from R.
Kaplan to P. Burgo on August 13, 2020.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter sent from P.
Burgo to R. Kaplan on August 17, 2020.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a letter sent from R.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a letter sent from R.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a letter sent from P.
Burgo to R. Kaplan on August 31, 2020.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a letter sent from R.
Kaplan to P. Burgo on September 1, 2020.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a letter sent from P.
Burgo to R. Kaplan on September 2, 2020.
Dated: October 5, 2020

New York, New York Roberta A. Kaplan
-2-
EXHIBIT A
DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884

DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com
August 10, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq.

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
1633 Broadway
Re: Carroll v. Trump, Index No. 160694/2019 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.)
Dear Marc:
We write on behalf of Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll in the above-referenced action following the
Court’s decision denying Defendant’s motion for a stay of proceedings pending the Court of
Appeals’ adjudication of Zervos v. Trump. See Doc. No. 110. As a result of that decision, the
relevant deadlines in the Court’s Preliminary Conference Order dated December 12, 2019 are no
longer “temporarily stayed.” Doc. No. 39 at 2. This letter sets forth our understanding of the current
status of this case and discovery in this case as a result of the Court’s recent decision.
As you might recall, the Order and Stipulated Briefing Schedule that the Court entered on
February 3, 2020, adjourned all discovery and extended the deadlines in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 6
of the Preliminary Conference Order “by the amount of time from January 31 to the date of the
Court’s decision on Defendant’s motion to stay, plus five business days.” Doc. No. 39 at 2.
According to our calculations, the period from January 31 to August 7, 2020, represents a total of
190 days.
As a result, Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Document

Requests (originally January 30, 2020) is now August 14, 2020, and the date set by Plaintiff’s First
Notice to Submit to Physical Examination (originally March 2, 2020) is now September 15, 2020.
We can be flexible with respect to the location and method for obtaining Defendant’s DNA sample
in order to accommodate security needs or other issues. Please let us know if you would like to
discuss. The other relevant upcoming dates are as follows:
x The parties shall furnish insurance coverage on or before August 21, 2020.
x The parties shall (a) exchange names and addresses of all eye witnesses and notice
witnesses, statements of opposing parties, and photographs, or, if none, provide an
affirmation to that effect on or before August 21, 2020; (b) serve demands for
discovery and inspection on or before August 21, 2020, objections to which shall
be stated on or before September 18, 2020.
x The parties shall serve: (a) any demand for a bill of particulars on or before August
21, 2020; and (b) any bill of particulars on or before September 18, 2020.
x A telephonic compliance conference with Judge Saunders shall be held on

September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
x The parties shall complete all depositions on or before October 20, 2020.
x The end date of all pre-trial disclosure is November 9, 2020.
x Plaintiff shall file a note of issue/certificate of readiness on or before November 10,

2020.
x The parties shall make any dispositive motion(s) on or before 60 days from the
filing of the note of issue.
We recognize that Defendant’s prior counsel served us with a notice to take Plaintiff’s
deposition on January 23, 2020, with a date for her deposition of February 13, 2020. Please let us
know when you would like to take Plaintiff’s deposition. We assume that you would also like to
take the depositions of Plaintiff’s friends Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin—in whom Plaintiff
confided shortly after President Trump sexually assaulted her—and are happy to get their
availability so that you do not have to issue subpoenas and send a process server to their homes
during the COVID pandemic. In light of COVID, we are operating under the assumption that all
depositions will be taken remotely by video. Other than the individuals mentioned above, we are
not aware of any other fact witness who needs to be deposed, but are happy to discuss further if
you disagree.
Given that the deadline for depositions will soon be upon us, we attach as Exhibit A
Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition to Defendant Donald J. Trump. Although the deposition notice
specifies September 21, 2020 as the date for Defendant’s deposition, we are happy to work with
you to identify a date, method, and location that accommodates Defendant’s schedule. We propose
that Defendant first provide us with a DNA sample, so that our experts can have an opportunity to
test it before we take his deposition. 1
To be sure, we fully recognize your client’s unique position and will “accommodate the
President’s needs.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 709 (1997); see also id. at 691-92 (“We assume
1
We assume that you will want to take the deposition of someone at the Forensic Analytical Crime Lab, but since we
don’t want to have to do that twice, it makes sense to do so only after we have received and analyzed Defendant’s
DNA sample.
that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the
White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule.”). At the same time, “several
Presidents . . . have given testimony,” id. at 709, and have “responded to written interrogatories,
given depositions, and provided videotaped trial testimony,” id. at 692 n.14. Because the United
States Supreme Court has made it clear that Presidents are not exempt from giving testimony in
civil cases, we fully expect that Defendant will testify in a timely manner. President Clinton made
time to testify under oath about allegations of sexual harassment, and so President Trump can
surely make time to testify about allegations of sexual assault and defamation. His testimony about
what he did (and what he said) will strike to the very heart of the case and offer evidence that
cannot be obtained from any other sources. He is obviously required to provide it.
Finally, out of an abundance of caution, we note that the parties previously stipulated that
they would “meet and confer regarding the timing of [an appeal of any adverse ruling on
Defendant’s motion to stay] prior to taking any action before the Appellate Division, First
Department.” Doc. No. 39 at 2. We are hopeful that Defendant now recognizes, as did Judge
Saunders, that Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020), leaves no doubt that his claim to
presidential immunity necessarily fails. If you intend to appeal Judge Saunders’ decision to the
First Department, however, please let us know when you would like to meet and confer about such
an appeal.
Very truly yours,
Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq.
cc: Counsel of Record (via email)

(;+,%,7$

6835(0(&28572)7+(67$7(2)1(:<25.
&2817<2)1(:<25.
( -($1&$552//
Plaintiff ,QGH[1R
DJDLQVW
+RQ9HUQD/6DXQGHUV
'21$/'-75803LQKLVSHUVRQDOFDSDFLW\
Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DONALD J. TRUMP
3/($6(7$.(127,&(7+$7SXUVXDQWWR&3/5'HIHQGDQW'RQDOG-7UXPS
LVUHTXLUHGWRDSSHDUIRUDGHSRVLWLRQXSRQRUDOH[DPLQDWLRQEHIRUHDQRWDU\SXEOLFRURWKHUSHUVRQ
ZKRLVDXWKRUL]HGE\ODZWRDGPLQLVWHURDWKV7KHGHSRVLWLRQZLOOWDNHSODFHRQ6HSWHPEHU
HLWKHUUHPRWHO\E\YLGHRDWWKH:KLWH+RXVHRUDWWKHRIILFHVRI.DSODQ+HFNHU )LQN
//3)LIWK$YHQXH6XLWH1HZ<RUN1HZ<RUNRUDWVXFKRWKHUORFDWLRQGDWH
DQG WLPH DV PD\ EH PXWXDOO\ DJUHHG XSRQ E\ WKH SDUWLHV 7KH GHSRVLWLRQ ZLOO EH UHFRUGHG E\
VWHQRJUDSKLFPHDQVDQGPD\EHUHFRUGHGE\YLGHRPHDQV
'DWHG1HZ<RUN1HZ<RUN %\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$XJXVW 5REHUWD$.DSODQ
-RVKXD0DW]
0DWWKHZ-&UDLJ
.$3/$1+(&.(5 ),1.//3
)LIWK$YHQXH6XLWH
1HZ<RUN1HZ<RUN
7HO
)D[
UNDSODQ#NDSODQKHFNHUFRP
MPDW]#NDSODQKHFNHUFRP
PFUDLJ#NDSODQKHFNHUFRP
Counsel for Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll

EXHIBIT B
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE 7110
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118
TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883
WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM
August 13, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Paul J. Burgo, Esq.

1633 Broadway
Dear Paul:
We write on behalf of Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll in the above-referenced action to follow up

on our telephonic meet-and-confer earlier today.
Even though your firm has been involved in this case for many months1—and thus you
should be fully aware of the issues and discovery deadlines—you claimed during our call this
morning that you are still “getting up to speed” and requested a 30-day extension of all deadlines.
As a courtesy, we will agree to extend the August 14 deadline for a response to our Second Set of
Document Requests to August 21, 2020. But we cannot agree to any other extensions of the
existing schedule at this time. A one-week extension on your response to Plaintiffs Second Set of
Document Requests seems to us to be entirely reasonable since we have never perceived this as a
document-intensive case and would be surprised if responding to those requests were burdensome.
(If we are somehow mistaken in this regard, please let us know by explaining why). Regardless,
your client received those requests many months ago and should have no difficulty responding by
August 21, 2020.
With that one exception, there is no basis at this point to extend any other discovery
deadlines. You filed a motion to stay discovery on February 4, 2020. That motion was denied on
August 7, 2020. Your client is not entitled to a defacto extension of your rejected stay motion on
the ground that sophisticated lawyers at his own firm profess unfamiliarity with the issues in his
case. And frankly, we are concerned that the reason why you asked for a 30-day extension may
1 Specifically, you filed your notice of appearance in this case on February 4, 2020. See Doc. No. 42. Your partners,
Marc Kasowitz and Christine Montenegro, filed notices of appearance on that same day. See Doc. Nos. 40, 4L
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2
have been to continue your client’s strategy of needless delay, which has already impeded progress
in this litigation for the better part of a year. As we discussed, you certainly have the right to file
an appeal from Judge Saunders’s order any time before September 7, 2020. You do not have the
right to an automatic extension of all discovery deadlines while you decide whether to appeal, nor
do you have the right to pause discovery as part of a calculated effort to obtain the maximum delay
possible before appealing. Of course, separate from your assertion that you are not sufficiently “up
to speed” on the issues in this case—which strikes us as surprising, given the importance of the
issues and who your client is—you have not identified any reason why you are otherwise unable
to comply with the existing schedule. Accordingly, we expect that you will comply with all
discovery deadlines set forth in our letter dated August 10,2020, with the one exception being that
the August 14, 2020 deadline is now changed to August 21, 2020.
Very truly yours.

EXHIBIT C
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP

1633 BROADWAY ATLANTA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019 HOUSTON
Paul J. Burgo LOS ANGELES
Direct Dial: (212) 506-1865 (212) 506-1700 MIAMI
Direct Fax: (212) 835-5265
PBurgo@Kasowitz.com FAX: (212) 506-1800 NEWARK
SAN FRANCISCO
SILICON VALLEY
WASHINGTON DC
August 17, 2020
BY EMAIL

Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
350 Fifth Avenue
Suite 7110
New York, NY 10018
rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com
Dear Robbie:
I write in response to your August 13, 2020 letter to me.
Your letter incorrectly characterizes our August 13th meet-and-confer. We stated during
our call that we needed a 30-day extension to respond to the discovery deadlines given that we
had just taken over the case from Larocca Hornik Rosen & Greenberg LLP in late July. While
we filed a notice of appearance in the case earlier, our role was limited solely to briefing and
arguing the stay of the Carroll action in light of the pending appeal in Zervos v. Trump before
the Court of Appeals. We played no role whatsoever in any discovery matters in this case, as
your firm was well aware, having directed its communications concerning such matters solely to
Mr. Rosen’s firm.
Your letter also fails to acknowledge that we had asked that you extend the courtesy of
additional time for discovery since the expedited schedule in this case had been set prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic. As we mentioned on the call, we will let you know within the next few
days whether we are appealing the Court’s denial of defendant’s stay motion. In all other cases
during these challenging times, including those involving the President, the parties have worked
cooperatively and readily accommodated such requests. Moreover, the President’s assertion of
his Constitutional immunity -- a threshold issue in this case -- and our request for a reasonable
accommodation are not a “de facto extension of [our] stay motion” or part of a “calculated effort
to obtain the maximum delay possible before appealing.” Rather, courts have recognized the
need for such accommodations. See, e.g. Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 721 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
(directing District Court to “provide a reasonable stay to allow the President an opportunity to
appeal”); see also Zervos v. Trump, 171 A.D.3d 110, 127 (1st Dep’t 2019) (noting that “we must

August 17, 2020
Page 2
[assume] here, that reasonable accommodations would be made with respect to the President’s
schedule”) And, as you know, the Supreme Court recently in Trump v. Vance reaffirmed that
“[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive … should inform the conduct
of the entire proceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery.” 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2430
(2020) (citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997)).
You indicated the meet-and-confer that while you were not inclined to agree to a 30-day
extension in the event that we are appealing the denial of the stay, you would make a proposal
for us to consider. Instead of making such a proposal, you have unilaterally and unreasonably
extended the deadline by only one week and demanded that we respond by August 21 to the
Plaintiff’s Second Set of Document Requests, which are objectionable as, among other things,
unduly burdensome and patently overbroad. Thus, in an effort to meet and confer, we again ask
that you agree to a modest extension of 21 days (assuming the President’s duties allow) for all
existing deadlines. We reserve all rights.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Burgo
EXHIBIT D
TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883
August 18, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Paul J. Burgo, Esq.

1633 Broadway
Re: Carroll v. Trump, Index No. 160694/2019 (Sup. Ct, N.Y. Cty.)
Dear Paul:
I write in response to your letter of yesterday’s date.
For starters, we remain puzzled by your assertion that despite entering an appearance in
this matter on February 4, 2020, you have not familiarized yourself sufficiently with the factual
issues in this case, consulted with your client, or prepared for the possibility that your motion to
stay proceedings would be denied. In fact, I distinctly remember raising discovery issues during
my oral argument before Judge Saunders on your motion for a stay against your partner Christine
Montenegro on March 4, 2020. As a result, there is no excuse for a lack of preparation on your
part, and it certainly does not excuse satisfaction of your client’s obligations.
You further suggest in your August 17 letter that COVID-19 presents an impediment to the
current schedule. We recognize that these are challenging times and for that reason, we agreed to
extend the deadline for your response to our Second Set of Document Requests. However, you
still fail to identify any specific discovery obligation that you are unable to comply with as a result
of the pandemic. Indeed, as I am sure you are well aware given the many litigations handled by
your law firm, discovery in civil cases has been proceeding apace, including both the production
of documents using secure internet technology and the taking of depositions, the later of which
have been happening with surprising ease via Zoom, Live Litigation, and other similar platforms.
See, e.g., AO/129/20, Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts in
New York State (June 22, 2020) (“[C]ounsel and litigants are strongly encouraged to pursue
discovery in cooperate fashion and to employ remote technology in discovery whenever
possible.”). As noted in my August 13 letter, we have been operating on the assumption that your
client does not have a huge number of responsive documents since this case does not relate to any
of his businesses. You did not attempt to disabuse us of that assumption in your August 17 letter.
Given the resources available to you, it is implausible that you literally cannot make progress on
producing documents or complying with any other discovery requests without an additional three-
week extension, especially since we are willing to accept documents on a rolling basis. If you can
explain with some specificity exactly which deadlines you are unable to satisfy as a result of
pandemic-related challenges, we remain happy to consider such a request.
Finally, you articulate once again your client’s position that he is entitled to absolute
immunity—a claim that (1) Judge Saunders has rejected, (2) was twice rejected in the Zervos
proceedings, and (3) rests on anti-democratic premises which the Supreme Court has firmly
rejected each time it has considered them (under Presidents Trump, Clinton, and Nixon). To be
sure, we appreciate the importance of ensuring that “respect that is owed to the office of the Chief
Executive . . . inform[s] the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the time and scope of
discovery.” Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2430 (2020) (citation omitted). But your client
seems to have time on his hands: it appears that he has played golf at least seven times so far this
month and has also spent considerable time campaigning (which, as you know, does not qualify
as an official Presidential duty). He also found time to defame our client, E. Jean Carroll, after she
revealed that he had sexually assaulted her. If Donald Trump has the time to attack our client, he
also has the time to answer in court for his brutality. In any event, given that the discovery requests
in this case were served seven months ago, and have been suspended only by virtue of the pendency
of your own meritless stay motion, we believe we have more than sufficiently accommodated the
demands on your client’s time. At this point, it is his duty to follow the law—and that means
complying with (or at least responding to) our discovery requests, which he and you have now had
many months to consider.
Given the above, we cannot agree to an across-the-board extension of “21 days (assuming
the President’s duties allow).”1 Again, if there are specific deadlines that you believe you cannot
meet, please let us know what they are and explain with specificity why you cannot meet them.
Otherwise, we anticipate that your client will do what every other American must do: respect the
legal process and obey the law. Accordingly, your client’s responses to our Second Set of
Document Requests are due this Friday, August 21, 2020.
Very truly yours,
1 We note that, as a practical matter, you have not really changed your position on the length of your requested
extension since you made your original request for a 30-day extension on August 13.
EXHIBIT E
DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884

DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com
August 26, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Paul J. Burgo, Esq.

1633 Broadway
Dear Paul:
I write in response to the Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Document
Requests that Defendant Donald J. Trump served on August 21, 2020.
As we have stated on multiple occasions, we do not expect discovery in this action to be

particularly burdensome. We are operating on the assumption that your client does not have a large
number of responsive documents, and you have not attempted to dissuade us of that assumption.
We are also are mindful that your client’s position as President will inform the “timing and scope
of discovery,” Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2430 (2020), and thus we remain willing to meet
and confer with respect to the scope of particular requests for which, it turns out, Defendant has
substantial responsive documentation in his possession, custody, or control.
But Defendant cannot unilaterally decide to forgo participation in discovery. Judge

Saunders, the First Department, and the Supreme Court have already rejected Defendant’s claims
of presidential immunity, just like the Supreme Court rejected the immunity claims of Presidents
Clinton and Nixon before him. Yet it now appears that Defendant, through the assertion of blanket
and inapplicable objections and overboard claims of executive privilege, is trying to achieve de
facto immunity—what he (unsuccessfully) tried to do by motion practice—as this case moves
ahead.
Below we identify several overarching concerns relating to Defendant’s Responses and

Objections. In connection with each of these concerns, we request basic information that we hope
will pave the way to a productive meet-and-confer. Absent responses to the inquires we set forth,
it is difficult to see how the parties might constructively engage on Defendant’s Responses and
Objections without the Court’s involvement.
First, in response to 27 of our 39 requests (Request Nos. 2-4, 6-17, 19-21, 23, 30-37),
Defendant asserts a series of generalized and conclusory objections, and then takes the position
that no responsive documents will be produced.
But the objections Defendant asserts are, by and large, inapplicable on their face. For
example, Request No. 2 seeks documents concerning Plaintiff; Request No. 3 seeks documents
concerning the article and book in which Plaintiff disclosed her sexual assault at the hands of
Defendant; and the requests that immediately follow seek documents concerning Defendant’s three
defamatory statements on which this case turns. Defendant objects to each on the ground, inter
alia, that the request “seeks documents which are neither relevant to any party’s claim or defense
or to the subject matter of this lawsuit.”
That objection defies logic. Given the nature of the relationship between the parties, it is
virtually impossible that documents concerning Plaintiff or her two publications, or documents
concerning Defendant’s own defamatory statements, could be considered irrelevant to this action.
And those are just a few of the deficiencies that plague Defendant’s Responses and
Objections. As you know, CPLR 3122(a)(1) requires that a party objecting to a request for
documents state “with reasonable particularity the reasons for each objection.” Your recitation of
identical, conclusory, and often plainly inapplicable objections in response to each and every
request violates both the text and spirit of this rule.
In order to move discussions in productive direction, no later than by August 31, 2020,
please (1) identify any of the above-listed requests for which you claim no responsive documents
exist, and (2) for any request for which responsive documents do exist, identify the specific
objection on which you are standing to withhold those documents.
Second, in response to the remaining 12 requests (Request Nos. 1, 5, 18, 22, 24-29, 38-39),
Defendant also asserts generalized and facially inapplicable objections, but then states some
version of “[s]ubject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the General Objections,”
Defendant will produce “non-privileged, responsive documents, if any, . . . at an appropriate time
and place.”
As with the previous set of requests, the blanket and misguided nature of Defendant’s
objections makes meaningful discussion of those objections impossible. By way of example,
Request No. 39 seeks all documents Defendant “intend[s] to introduce into evidence at trial in this
Action.” Defendant declares that request “overly broad, unduly burdensome” and contends that it
“seeks documents which are neither relevant to any party’s claim or defense or to the subject matter
of this lawsuit.” It requires no explanation why that is a nonsensical position to take.
Once again, to move discussions in productive direction, by August 31, please (1) identify
any requests for which you claim no responsive documents exist, (2) for any request for which the
“subject to” language means you are withholding responsive documents, identify the specific
objection on which you are standing to withhold those documents, and (3) for any documents you
do intend to produce, confirm whether you have somehow concluded that now is not the
“appropriate time and place” to produce them.
Third, Defendant objects to “each and every Request to the extent that they seek documents
protected by the Executive Privilege presumptively applicable to all Presidential communications.
Defendant further objects to each and every Request, and in particular, Paragraph 6 of the
Instructions, on the ground that the President need not ‘assert executive privilege to narrow the’
Requests or make a decision on executive privilege as to a ‘large array of documents.’”
There is no reason to think that the executive privilege has any application here. As you
know, “[t]hat privilege safeguards the public interest in candid, confidential deliberations within
the Executive Branch.” Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2032 (2020); see also Seife
v. United States Dep’t of State, 298 F. Supp. 3d 592, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“The [presidential
communications] privilege protects communications in performance of a President’s
responsibilities, of his office, and made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.”
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). The privilege seeks to further the public
interest by allowing for “complete candor and objectivity from [presidential] advisers.” United
States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974).
The discovery that Plaintiff has requested obviously does not involve a matter of
governmental concern or relate in any way to Defendant’s performance of his presidential duties.
Instead, Plaintiff seeks discovery regarding Defendant’s private conduct—specifically, his
defamation of Plaintiff after Plaintiff accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Any
communications that Defendant may have had about Plaintiff, his assault, or his defamatory
statements do not become protected “presidential” communications simply by virtue of his status
of President. The Court has already rejected Defendant’s claim to presidential immunity because
this lawsuit concerns his private, rather than official, conduct. He cannot obtain de facto
presidential immunity by withholding responsive documents about his private conduct on the
theory that those documents concern his official duties.
Please confirm by August 31 whether you intend to stand on your assertion of executive
privilege to withhold responsive documents and, if so, identify the requests to which that assertion
applies.
Fourth, Defendant asserts a general objection to “each and every Request” on the ground
that “they are not limited to a reasonable timeframe” and goes on to assert timeframe objections
to certain specific requests as well (Request Nos. 25-28).
Given that it has been just over a year since Defendant defamed Plaintiff, the vast majority
of Plaintiff’s requests are, by their very subject matter, limited to a narrow timeframe. And in the
few instances where Defendant specifically objects to a request “because it has no time limitation,”
the documents sought are so limited in nature that it should not be burdensome to produce
documents from a multi-year period. However, please let us know if we have underestimated, for
example, the number of “purchase records or sales receipts” for Defendant’s purchases at Bergdorf
Goodman (Request No. 26), or the number of documents reflecting “payments or offers of
payments that [Defendant] made” in relation to allegations of “sexual assault or other unwanted or
inappropriate sexual contact” (Request No. 35). If we have, we are willing to meet and confer on
an appropriate time limitation that might alleviate the burden of producing extensive documents
in response to such requests.
Please also confirm by August 31 whether you intend to stand on your timeframe objection
to withhold or refuse to search for any responsive documents and, if so, identify the requests to
which that objection applies.
* * *
We look forward to your response by August 31 and are hopeful that it will help facilitate
a productive and focused meet-and-confer. Please let us know if you are available for such a meet-
and-confer on September 1, 2, or 3. In the meantime, we reserve all rights pursuant to CPLR
§§ 3124 and 3126.
Very truly yours,

EXHIBIT F

Direct Fax: (212) 835-5265
SAN FRANCISCO
SILICON VALLEY
WASHINGTON DC
August 31, 2020
Via Email
350 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 7110
Re: Carroll v. Trump, Index No. 160694/2019 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.).
Dear Robbie,
We write in response to your August 26, 2020 letter to me, which mischaracterizes, among
other things, defendant’s discovery obligations and the applicability of the executive privilege in
this case. As detailed below, we are willing to meet and confer regarding defendant’s responses
and objections to the Requests, but your letter provides no basis for defendant to withdraw any of
his objections.
As you know all of our communications and responses are subject to and reserving all
rights, under the Supremacy Clause and Article II of the United States Constitution, from a state
court exercising jurisdiction over a sitting President while he or she serves as President, including
the President’s right to appeal the Court’s denial of the stay in this action, and any other applicable
rights or protections pertaining to the President.
First, while we are attempting to accommodate you by providing a response to your letter
in the timeframe you requested, it is improper for plaintiff to unilaterally demand a response at the
time most convenient to plaintiff, given “[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief
Executive . . . ., [which] is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding,
including the timing and scope of discovery.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997).
Second, defendant stands by his objection that the Requests are improper because they are
not limited by any timeframe whatsoever. The purported incident alleged in plaintiff’s Complaint
(Compl. pp. 5-7) allegedly occurred almost twenty-five years ago, and multiple requests seek
information from the beginning of time to the present. (See, e.g., Request Nos. 2 and 25-37.) For
example, Request No. 26, seeks -- without any time limitation -- all of defendant’s purchase
records or sales receipts at Bergdorf Goodman. Plaintiff has not offered any explanation as to why
such documents from the beginning of time are discoverable, particularly in light of the
unnecessary burden such a request would impose on defendant.

Roberta Kaplan, Esq.
August 31, 2020
Page 2
Plaintiff asserts in response only that defendant should first collect and search for
documents from the beginning of time and then, after ascertaining whether responsive documents
exist, meet and confer as to whether the time frame for the Requests would be unduly
burdensome. That stands the correct process on its head. It is not defendant’s burden to formulate
reasonably limited requests for plaintiff -- the onus is “on the party seeking disclosure to
demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence
or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims.” Stepping
Stones Assocs., L.P. v. Scialdone, 148 A.D.3d 855, 855 (2d Dep’t 2017).
Attempting to shift the burden to the defendant in such a manner is improper in any case,
but given that the requests are directed to the President, it is particularly improper. See Cheney v.
U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 383, 388 (2004) (the President is not required to bear the
burden of critiquing unacceptable discovery requests “line by line”). Thus, we are willing to meet
and confer regarding defendant’s responses provided that plaintiff first properly tailors her
requests.
Third, you write that the executive privilege does not apply because “plaintiff seeks
discovery regarding Defendant’s private conduct.” (Letter at 3.) That is not so. “Presidential
communications are presumptively privileged.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708 (1974).
“No court has ever declined to treat executive communications as presumptively privileged on the
grounds that the matters discussed involved private conduct.” See In re Grand Jury Proceedings,
5 F. Supp. 2d 21, 25 (D.D.C.), aff'd sub nom. In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and
aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom. In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir.
1998). Moreover, the executive privilege encompasses confidential communications concerning
preparations for the President’s public statements, which are precisely the communications that
Requests seek here. See New York Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 499 F. Supp. 2d 501, 516
(S.D.N.Y. 2007).1
Your letter baselessly claims that defendant cannot withhold documents on the basis of the
executive privilege because the “Court has already rejected Defendant’s claim to presidential
immunity.” (Letter at 3.) However, the Court’s ruling denying defendant’s request for a stay on
1
Your reliance upon Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019 (2020) and Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 is
misplaced. Neither of these cases held that the executive privilege is inapplicable to Presidential communications
that relate to a President addressing his or her constituents. In fact, in Nixon, the Supreme Court assumed that the
executive privilege presumptively did apply to the President’s communications concerning the break-in at the
Democratic National Committee’s headquarters -- there could hardly be more conduct more “private” than the
Watergate break in. The Supreme Court nonetheless held that the privilege could be overcome only by a showing of
“demonstrated, specific need in a criminal trial.” Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (emphasis added). This case, by
contrast, involves a civil claim in which plaintiff has not even attempted to make a showing of demonstrated,
specific need. And privilege played no role whatsoever in Mazars, given that, unlike here, the subpoena was
directed to pre-Presidential records and the President “did not . . . resist the subpoenas by arguing that any of the
requested records were protected by executive privilege.” Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2028.

August 31, 2020
Page 3
the basis that the Supremacy Clause purportedly does not bar a state court action against a sitting
President has nothing to do with the application of an evidentiary privilege, such as the executive
privilege. Thus, contrary to your assertion, the Court’s ruling in no way is relevant to or, bars
defendant from, asserting and withholding documents on the basis of the executive privilege.
Finally, defendant will not be available for a deposition on the unilateral date chosen by
plaintiff of September 15, 2020.
Very truly yours,
Paul J. Burgo
EXHIBIT G

TEL (212) 763-0883 i FAX (212) 564-0883
September 1,2020
VIA EMAIL
Paul J. Burgo, Esq.

1633 Broadway
Re: Carroll v. Trump, Index No. 160694/2019 (Sup. Ct, N.Y. Cty.)
Dear Paul:
I write in response to your letter of yesterday’s date.
It has been nearly a month now since the Court denied your motion for a stay on August 7.
Since that time, on behalf of our client E. Jean Carroll, we have been trying to get you to answer a
simple question: whether your client, Donald Trump, intends to comply with that ruling, produce
documents, and participate in discovery. Despite the exchange of at least five letters on these topics
in the past few weeks, we still don’t have a clear answer. While we are pleased to hear that you
would be willing to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs Second Set of Document Requests and
we are certainly willing to discuss limiting the date ranges for certain requests, a meet and confer
will not be productive if you persist in suggesting that Defendant will never actually produce any
documents in response to our Requests.
To move the conversation forward, my last letter dated August 26, 2020 asked you to
identify the requests for which you claim no responsive documents exist and, for the remaining
requests, asked you to identify the specific basis on which you are withholding relevant documents.
As to any documents that you are not withholding on the basis of executive privilege, I asked you
to confirm whether you have somehow decided that now is not the “appropriate time and place”
to produce them. Unfortunately, you again have refused to do so. In response, you instead repeated
a few absurdly overgeneralized objections and offered a primer on executive privilege (which we
will, of course, honor if there is a sound, particularized basis for the exercise of that privilege over
a discrete subset of relevant, responsive documents).
So let me state my question once again even more directly: are you in possession of
relevant, responsive materials as to which Defendant does not assert a claim of executive privilege?
And if you are, do you agree that, pursuant to Judge Saunders’ order, now would be the
“appropriate” time for you to produce them to us?
My client, who was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in the mid-1990’s, is tired of
waiting. Please respond to this letter no later than by 9:30 a.m. tomorrow so that we can ascertain
whether it will be necessary to raise this issue with the Court. In the meantime, we continue to
reserve all rights.
Very truly yours,

EXHIBIT H

Direct Fax: (212) 835-5265
SAN FRANCISCO
SILICON VALLEY
WASHINGTON DC
September 2, 2020
Via Email
350 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 7110
Re: Carroll v. Trump, Index No. 160694/2019 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.).
Dear Robbie,
I write in response to your September 1, 2020 letter.
As you know, all of our communications and responses are subject to and reserving all
rights, under the Supremacy Clause and Article II of the United States Constitution, from a state
court exercising jurisdiction over a sitting President while he or she serves as President, including
the President’s right to appeal the Court’s denial of the stay in this action, and any other applicable
rights or protections pertaining to the President.
As a courtesy, we are again responding within your unilateral deadline, but kindly refrain
from setting such deadlines going forward. As you know, this case is, at a minimum, governed
by, in the words of the Supreme Court, the “‘[h]igh respect that is owed to the office of the Chief
Executive.’” Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2430 (2020) (quoting Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.
681, 707 (1997)). We are not in a position -- nor, of course, is the President required -- to respond
to your unilaterally imposed deadlines.
Please be advised that we will likely appeal to the First Department Judge Saunders’ order
denying defendant’s motion for a stay, but a final decision has not yet been made. We will let you
know as soon as we can. However, especially now that the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit granted President Trump a stay yesterday in Trump v. Vance, No. 20-2766 (2d Cir.
Sept. 1, 2020), it is highly likely that the appellate courts will likewise grant a stay if we do appeal.
(See also NYSCEF No. 49 at 8-10 (courts grant the President stays pending appeal as a matter of
deference).) Thus, to avoid unnecessary expense and waste of judicial and party resources, we
suggest, and hereby request, that you now consent to a stay pending the appeal before the Court of
Appeals in Zervos v. Trump.

September 2, 2020
Page 2
In the meantime, we reiterate our willingness to meet and confer concerning plaintiff’s
improper requests, including formulating reasonable timeframes, narrowing the scope of the
requests to avoid implicating the executive privilege, and entering a mutually agreeable
confidentiality order.
Very truly yours,
Paul J. Burgo

E. Jean Carroll Response To DOJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E. Jean Carroll Response To DOJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E. Jean Carroll Response To DOJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main subject of the document?

What is the main subject of the document?

What is the defendant arguing in their memorandum of law?

What is the defendant arguing in their memorandum of law?

Case 1:20-cv-07311-LAK Document 16 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO

Counsel to Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1

I. Factual Background ......................................................................................................... 2

A. Trump Sexually Assaults Carroll ............................................................................. 2

B. Carroll Publicly Reveals that Trump Sexually Assaulted Her ................................. 3

C. Trump Slanders Carroll on Three Separate Occasions ............................................ 4

1. June 21, 2019 Statement ..................................................................................... 4

2. June 22, 2019 Statement ..................................................................................... 5

3. June 24, 2019 Statement ..................................................................................... 6

II. Procedural History ........................................................................................................... 7

A. Carroll Files Suit Against Trump in State Court ...................................................... 7

B. Trump Defends the Proceedings in State Court ....................................................... 7

C. The Department of Justice Files a Motion to Substitute .......................................... 8

STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 9

I. The FTCA Does Not Cover the President ..................................................................... 10

A. The President is Not an Officer or Employee of an Executive Department .......... 11

B. The President is Not an Officer or Employee of an Independent Establishment of

A. New York Law Governs the Scope of Employment Inquiry ................................. 21

1. Notwithstanding the Breadth of their Official Duties, Presidents May

2. Trump Acted for Personal Reasons in Defaming Carroll ................................ 28

D. The Justice Department’s Position Is Meritless ..................................................... 31

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Quick,

BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States,

Bello v. United States,

Bostock v. Clayton Cty.,

Bowles v. United States,

Cooke v. United States,

Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger,

Dalehite v. United States,

Does 1-10 v. Haaland,

Dumas v. President of U.S.,

Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enters., Inc. v. Smithsonian,

Foretich v. CBS, Inc.,

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board,

Glacken v. Village of Freeport,

Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno,

Haddon v. United States,

Heindel v. Bowery Sav. Bank,

Indian Towing Co. v. United States,

Kirkman by Kirkman v. Astoria Gen. Hosp.,

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump,

Lee v. Bankers Tr. Co.,

N.X. v. Cabrini Med. Ctr.,

Nicollette T. v. Hosp. for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Inst.,

Operation Rescue Nat. v. United States,

Operation Rescue Nat’l v. United States,

Perks v. Town of Huntington,

Polcari v. John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts,

Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

Reeves v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc.,

Reeves v. Am. Broadcasting Cos.,