Feds issue second subpoena to Bridgeport
BRIDGEPORT — Last summer, the U. S. attorneys’ offices for Connecticut and the Southern District of New York subpoenaed City Hall, and Mayor Joe Ganim’s administration engaged an outside attorney and a Manhattan- based consultant to handle its response.
It was the second federal subpoena for Bridgeport within six months.
Those revelations were contained in an Aug. 1, 2019, contract — obtained this week by The Connecticut Post — between Bridgeport’s municipal law department, Guidepost Solutions and James DeVita, a White Plains- based trial lawyer specializing in white collar criminal defense and complex civil litigation.
Guidepost was originally hired by the city last February, days after federal authorities subpoenaed documents related to a criminal probe of Bridgeport’s public facilities department, scrap metal sales and municipal contracts. According to a Feb. 12 contract between City Attorney R. Christopher Meyer and Guidepost, the firm — as Ganim announced last February — was to “perform an independent inquiry into ( the
city’s) procurement, contracting and administrative services” and suggest improvements.
But there was a second, separate contract signed in August involving Guidepost and, additionally, DeVita that until this week was not made public.
And, according to that document, Guidepost and DeVita were focused on Bridgeport’s response to a second federal subpoena, issued July 17, 2019, by the U. S. attorneys for Connecticut and the Southern District of New York.
Specifically, Guidepost was retained by DeVita but paid by Bridgeport to consult with DeVita on “legal strategy” and on “advising” his “client,” the city. DeVita, according to his online professional profile, was an assistant U. S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1981 to 1989 before moving into private practice.
No additional details about that July subpoena, including whether it involved the public facilities case from earlier in 2019 or a separate criminal investigation, were available from the mayor’s office, the city law department, the U. S. attorneys’ offices or Guidepost and DeVita.
“Subpoenas are part of the grand jury process and are therefore, by statute, secret,” James Margolin, chief public information officer for the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement. “We cannot confirm the issuance of subpoenas, let alone share contents of subpoenas or provide copies ... assuming for purposes of discussion that they have been issued.”
A spokesman for the Connecticut U. S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment for this story, as did Guidepost. The FBI did not return requests for comment and DeVita’s office said he was unavailable.
Meyer in a brief interview refused to talk about the subpoena. He, however, said DeVita’s and Guidepost’s work was “ongoing.”
Rowena White, spokesperson for Ganim’s office, re- directed questions about “any investigation related to any subpoena that may have been received by the city” to Meyer.
“The city is unable to acknowledge any subpoena,” she added.
The existence of the second subpoena is just the latest development in the continued questions surrounding Guidepost’s work for the Ganim administration, which for the past year has provided scant public details about the firm’s activities.
Earlier this month, the Connecticut Post reported that Guidepost between last August and Feb. 11 had so far billed Bridgeport $ 250,430.45, prompting one of Meyer’s staff — Attorney Mark Anastasi — to meet with the council’s budget committee in midFebruary to brief them on the situation.
Anastasi at that time said that Guidepost had been sidetracked from its review of Bridgeport’s contracting policies to produce documents for unspecified “pending litigation.” That work, Anastasi told council members, involved “data- mining” and “electronic- discovery.”
“This is technical data retrieval from computers, emails, texts,” Anastasi said at the time.
Anastasi also told the budget committee that “the bulk of” Guidepost’s charges to the city were for that work.
In fact, municipal invoices The Post recently reviewed that detail Guidepost’s expenses show the majority of those were incurred from August to November 2019. Meetings involved topics such as “data collection issues” and preparing “chain of custody forms” — documents used in criminal investigations to keep track of evidence.
Anastasi repeatedly told the budget committee he could not tell them about the litigation Guidepost was working on.
“Some of these involve personnel matters,” Anastasi said on Feb. 10. “I really can’t get into specifics other than things are pending.”
DeVita, meanwhile, has so far been paid $ 37,463.75 — $ 13,323.75 in June, weeks before entering into the August contract for the second subpoena, and $ 11,815 in September and $ 12,325 in November, according to Bridgeport’s online budget website.
Several City Council members contacted by The Post said they were concerned to be just now learning about the second subpoena. Chief among them was Maria Pereira.
Both Pereira and The Post separately sought copies of Guidepost’s February contract from the municipal law department, which earlier in the week responded by emailing that document along with the August contract involving DeVita to all 20 council members.
Pereira noted how Anastasi while meeting with the budget committee cited “attorney- client privilege” as another reason he could not be more forthcoming about Guidepost’s activities.
“We are the clients,” said Pereira Friday, noting Meyer and his office represent city government. “The subpoena is ( to) the city. ... They don’t only owe an explanation to the 20 members of the council. They owe an explanation to every Bridgeport taxpayer and resident. This is their money.”
Pereira had previously submitted a resolution calling on the Ganim administration to provide another council committee — contracts — detailed information on Guidepost. That resolution is pending before the council.
The contracts committee’s co- chairs, Council members Jeanette Herron and Ernie Newton, on Friday said they should have been informed about the August subpoena.
“We need to be kept in the loop ... seeing as we give them extra money ( in the law department budget) to hire outside counsel,” Newton said. “We should know at all times what’s going on and who’s doing what.”
Herron added, “We need to be made aware of what’s transpiring. I don’t think people seem to understand we’re equal to the mayor.”
Matthew McCarthy, who attended Anastasi’s midFebruary presentation on Guidepost as a budget committee member, said whatever the federal investigation, it has clearly had a financial impact on the budget.
“We should be kept in the loop on anything financially related to the city,” McCarthy said, adding: “I would sure like to know more.”