← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Richman v. United States

No. 1:25-mc-00170 District · Decided Decided
Court
D.D.C.
dcd
Judge
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly 42
Decided
Apr 21, 2026
Filed
Nov 26, 2025
Judge (CL)
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly 42
Filed (CL)
Nov 26, 2025
CL Status
terminated

Case Overview

Daniel Richman sued the federal government, seeking the return ot deletion of material seized by the government during its investigation of James Comey.


The Application

History

Richman sought return or deletion of materials seized from him during the Comey investigation, requiring the court to determine whether the government's ongoing retention served a legitimate law enforcement purpose or whether Richman's constitutional rights required their return or destruction.

The Conclusion

On November 26, 2025, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided the case, resolving Richman's claims regarding the seized materials and the government's obligation to return or delete them.

Outcome History (5)

  1. Dec 6, 2025 District
    TRO granted Partial relief

    Temporary Restraining Order granted in part, deferring in part.

  2. Dec 12, 2025 District
    Dismissed Relief denied

    Petitioner's Motion for Return of Property granted, remaining requests for TRO and Motion to Dissolve TRO denied as moot.

  3. Dec 15, 2025 District
    Other Partial relief

    Government's Motion to Clarify and Modify Order and Extend Compliance Deadline granted in part, deferred in part.

  4. Dec 23, 2025 District
    Other Relief denied

    Several motions (for order, for leave to copy, to clarify, and to modify and clarify) granted in part and denied in part.

  5. Jan 27, 2026 District
    Other Neutral

    Government's Consent Motion granted, compliance certification deadline extended to January 28, 2026.

Federal Court TMR-798029a2 Investigation of James Comey May 18, 2026

Case Analysis

Issue

Whether the government must return or delete materials seized from Daniel Richman during its investigation of James Comey.

Rule

Materials seized from a third party not under investigation are subject to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure; the government must return such materials when no longer needed for law enforcement purposes or if continued retention violates constitutional rights.

Analysis

Richman sought return or deletion of materials seized from him during the Comey investigation, requiring the court to determine whether the government's ongoing retention served a legitimate law enforcement purpose or whether Richman's constitutional rights required their return or destruction.

Conclusion

On November 26, 2025, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided the case, resolving Richman's claims regarding the seized materials and the government's obligation to return or delete them.

Overview

Daniel Richman sued the federal government, seeking the return ot deletion of material seized by the government during its investigation of James Comey.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support