Nathan Wade, the former special prosecutor who once quarterbacked Fulton County’s election interference case against President Donald Trump and more than a dozen others, is suing AT&T for handing over his cellphone records to defense attorneys as they sought to remove him from the probe.
In a suit filed Tuesday in federal district court in Atlanta, Wade alleged the telecommunications giant violated his privacy and “jeopardized both his well-being and public safety when it unlawfully released” more than 14,000 pages of his cellphone data, including precise location data, and call and text records, without properly notifying him.
“AT&T’s reckless disregard for Mr. Wade’s safety, and its violation of both the law and its own promises to its users, has robbed Mr. Wade of his privacy and led to years of harassment and mental anguish,” Wade’s attorneys argued in the filing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The data, although never admitted to the case record, drew even more intense media interest to the case at a time when Wade was under scrutiny for his one-time romantic relationship with his then-boss, Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis. Wade resigned from the racketeering case a month later, following an order from a Fulton judge, and by the end of the year the entire DA’s office was stripped of the case.
The matter is currently before the state Supreme Court, which has yet to announce if it will take up the issue.
In February 2024, defense attorneys subpoenaed Wade’s cell records as they sought to show he was in a previously undisclosed romantic relationship with Willis. They argued the relationship constituted a conflict of interest that tainted the election interference probe.
At the time, the defense was trying to poke holes in under-oath testimony from Willis and Wade that their romantic relationship did not begin until after the latter had been hired to work on the case in late 2021. An investigator hired by Trump subpoenaed Wade’s cell records for much of the 2021 calendar year, as well as the early weeks of 2024, after defendant Michael Roman’s attorney first alleged Willis and Wade were in an “improper” relationship.
Wade’s attorneys argued AT&T produced the records in response to the subpoena, which they described as “secret,” without giving Wade adequate notice or an opportunity to object. They said the only heads-up Wade received was in an emailed “dear valued customer” letter that landed in their client’s spam folder, and that Wade was left “completely unaware of the impending privacy breach.
His attorneys also said the cellphone provider did not take steps to redact Wade’s personal information, and that once it was disseminated publicly it set off “an avalanche of violent and racist threats to Mr. Wade’s safety that continue to this day.”
“It showed the location of his home, the places he frequented, and the locations of his friends’ and associates’ homes, as well as First Amendment protected activities including with whom he associated and where he worshipped,” his attorneys wrote.
“It allowed complete strangers to put together composites of his routines: they knew where he slept, where he ate, where he exercised, what doctors he visited, and where he socialized.”
Wade’s attorneys argued the disclosure also exposed confidential details about the criminal case, including the identities of certain witnesses who spoke with the special prosecutor. Wade is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees from AT&T.
In a statement, AT&T said, “We dispute the claims in this lawsuit and will vigorously defend ourselves.
“Like all companies, we are required by law to comply with valid legal process, including subpoenas issued in connection with court proceedings. We are committed to following the law while respecting the privacy of our customers.”
Wade and his lead attorneys did not respond to a request for comment. Trump’s lead Atlanta attorney, Steve Sadow, declined to comment, as did a spokesperson for the Fulton DA’s office.
Case frozen
The underlying election interference case remains frozen as the DA’s office fights to be reinstated after a state appeals courts ruled in December that Willis’ relationship with Wade constituted a conflict of interest and removed her.
Wade’s lawsuit comes about 17 months after the fight over the cellphone and other personal records played out before a Fulton County judge.
Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ultimately declined to admit Wade’s cellphone data to the case record, but much of its contents quickly made it into the public domain.
The records showed Wade appeared to make at least 35 visits to the Hapeville neighborhood where Willis was living before the DA had hired him to lead the election interference case. That appeared to contradict testimony from Wade that he had visited Willis at her condo no more than 10 times before he was hired in November 2021.
Prosecutors cast doubt on the relevancy and accuracy of the records.
“The records do nothing more than demonstrate that Special Prosecutor Wade’s telephone was located somewhere within a densely populated multiple-mile radius where various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs and other businesses are located,” the DA’s office stated in one court motion. Willis also provided copies of calendar entries to support the contention that she and Wade were not necessarily in the same place at the same time — including entries she said showed she was at the office or at murder crime scenes.
At the time, some experts interviewed by the AJC questioned the accuracy of the cellphone records. Others said the technology was generally accepted in court proceedings around the nation and considered trustworthy.
Wade resigned from the case in March 2024, after McAfee gave Willis an ultimatum: either she or Wade needed to step aside.
Rachel Kaufman, a defense attorney unaffiliated with the election case, disputed Wade’s argument that AT&T acted improperly regarding the subpoena. She said the subpoena “was proper under Georgia law.”
AT&T, she said, had “no reason to not turn over records pursuant to a lawful proper subpoena,” nor did she believe the provider was required to notify Wade before producing them unless that was explicitly agreed to somewhere in its contract with Wade.
“Any damages he suffered since AT&T’s compliance with the subpoena are the unfortunate result of his own conduct,” Kaufman said.
Wade’s attorneys noted their client was using a special AT&T network designed for law enforcement and first responders that’s advertised for having heightened data security protections.
Staff writer Rosie Manins contributed to this article.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
