The Michael Cohen court drama continues.

We previously wrote about a motion for a protective order filed by attorney Peter Gleason seeking a protective order as to records seized from Michael Cohen that pertained to certain accusers against former NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Court Filing: Trump and Michael Cohen were aware of Schneiderman alleged assaults in 2013.

Please see that prior post for background and a copy of the motion. The short version is that Gleason asserted that he had been contacted by certain accusers of Schneiderman in or prior to 2013, and that retired journalist Stephen Dunleavy allegedly discussed those accusers with Donald Trump. Gleason asserted that he had reason to believe Cohen was involved as well:

I discussed the matter with a retired journalist by the name of Stephen Dunleavy who suggested and offered to discuss the matter with Donald Trump. Mr. Dunleavy did indeed discuss this very matter with Mr. Trump as evidenced by a phone call I received from Attorney Michael Cohen.

During my communications with Mr. Cohen I shared with him certain details of Scheinderman’s vile attacks on these two women.

The extent of Mr. Cohen memorializing any of our communications is unknown. However, these two women’s confidentiality, as victims of a sexual assault, should be superior to that of any unrelated subpoena.

Furthermore, the letter to the Court dated May 9, 2018, raises concerns of what appears to be reckless behavior on the part of Mr. Avenatti, particularly in the event his client should be given leave to intervene.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Court issue a protective order and seal any and all correspondence that Mr. Cohen may have memorialized regarding our communications which pertain to Mr. Scheinderman’s assault on these two women.

Gleason filed a follow up Memo of Law in which he raised certain concerns about having records regarding the Schneiderman accusers made available to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) attorney Michael Avenatti, who in turn responded to the accusations in an Objection to the motion.

On May 24, 2018, the Court ruled and denied the motion for a protective order:

Mr. Gleason has moved for a protective order over purportedly privileged information that Mr. Gleason states he has disclosed to Mr. Cohen “in furtherance of [Mr. Gleason J’s role as an attorney investigating a potential claim and or representing clients.” (ECF No. 51, at 5-6.) Mr. Gleason appears to be arguing that the “common interest” exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege should apply to those disclosures. However, Mr. Gleason’s submission does not allege facts that meet the test for a finding of “common interest,” which requires that the parties and their respective counsel have decided upon and undertaken a “joint defense effort or strategy.” See Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, Mr. Gleason’s motion is DENIED.

Just another bizarre sideshow in the Michael Cohen court saga.