I took a look at the case-initiating document (a letter from the United States Attorney’s office to the district judge) requesting that the court appoint a special master to review electronic devices seized from Rudy Giuliani and Victoria Toensing. Docket No. 1, In the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 28, 2021, 1:21-mc-00425 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2021). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .1.0_5.pdf
The government's letter argued, with citation to caselaw, that a filter team is “a ‘common procedure’ … and considered protective of the attorney-client privilege.” The letter goes on to state that appointment of a special master is restricted to “exceptional circumstances,” which “may exist where the search involves the files of a criminal defense attorney with cases adverse to the United States Attorney’s Office, ‘thus raising Sixth Amendment concerns that would not otherwise be present … or where the attorney represents the President of the United States such that any search may implicate not only the attorney-client privilege but the executive privilege [referring to the search of Michael Cohen’s office].” Letter at 2 (citations omitted).
The letter was written in an adversarial proceeding, and thus is not necessarily a balanced or comprehensive treatment of the applicable law. However, the various U.S. Attorneys’ offices have a generally good reputation for not filing deceitful papers. Furthermore, the district court’s subsequent order granting the government's request appeared to agree with the government's statement of applicable law. See Docket No. 20 at 3 ("The use of a filter team is a common procedure in this District and has been deemed adequate in numerous cases to protect attorney-client communications"). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 20.0_1.pdf
The court also rejected Giuliani and Toensing's request that the devices be immediately returned to their counsel, for them to determine in the first instance which materials would be turned over to the government.
As the court held,
Docket No. 20 at 2-3 (cleaned up).in effect, they ask the Court to require the Government to proceed by subpoena rather than by search warrant. Guiliani’s and Toensing’s position lacks legal support. The search warrants at issue here were based on judicial findings of probable cause — supported by detailed affidavits — to believe that evidence of violations of specified federal offenses would be found at the locations to be searched. There is no legal requirement for the Government to proceed by subpoena, nor is there any basis for the subject of an investigation to require it to do so.
Based on this very limited research, it appears that Trump is probably not entitled to review by a special master, because he is neither a criminal defense lawyer with federal clients nor currently the President. In addition, he's probably waived any right to such a review by not filing a motion immediately.
The court's decision also had some interesting discussion about unsealing probable cause affidavits while an investigation is active and no indictments have been handed down. Giuliani had "request[ed] that the Court unseal the affidavits submitted in support of the 2019 and 2021 warrants so he can challenge their legality." The court gave this request short shrift.
Docket No. 20 at 4-5.[H]e is not entitled to a preview of the Government’s evidence in an ongoing investigation before he has been charged with a crime.
Giuliani cites no precedent — and the Court is aware of no authority — for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment (or any other constitutional or statutory provision) gives a person who has not been charged a right to review a search warrant affidavit during an ongoing investigation. See, e.g., Matter of Eye Care Physicians of Am.,100 F.3d 514, 517(7th Cir. 1996).
Assuming that the search warrant affidavits are “judicial documents” to which the First Amendment and common law right of access applies, the Court finds that the presumption of access is plainly outweighed by the need to protect a grand jury investigation that is ongoing. “Among other things, if matters relating to grand jury proceedings became public, prospective witnesses may be deterred from testifying, those who do testify may be less likely to do so truthfully, targets of investigations may flee, and persons who are the subject of an ultimately meritless investigation may face public embarrassment.” United States v. Haller, 837 F.2d 84, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
If Giuliani is charged with a crime, of course, he will be entitled to production of the search warrant affidavits as part of discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. He will also be able to file motions challenging the warrants under Rule12. But such disclosure is premature at the present stage.
In light of the preemptory rejection of this request for unsealing a probable cause affidavit, it's a little curious to me that Judge Reinhart so quickly determined that release of a redacted version of the golf club affidavit was required. However, the government has already conceded that the search was unusual and the subject of extraordinary public interest, and it's hard to disagree. As for Trump's ability to mount a general attack on the legality of the search before he's been indicted, good luck with that.
s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" 
