LOS ANGELES – In the latest development in the ongoing legal saga pitting adult performer Stormy Daniels against President Donald Trump, one of Trump’s long-time personal attorneys and a Delaware Limited Liability Company which appears to exist solely to make “hush payments” to women who have allegedly had affairs with prominent politicians, Daniels’ legal team filed a motion opposing a requested delay in the case.

Last Friday, embattled attorney Michael Cohen (the man often termed Trump’s “fixer”) filed a motion seeking a 90-day delay in a defamation lawsuit filed against him by Daniels, arguing that because the “facts underlying this action and the criminal investigation related to Mr. Cohen overlap, Mr. Cohen’s Fifth Amendment rights may be adversely impacted if this case proceeds.”

Yesterday, Daniels filed her response opposing the 90-day stay sought by Cohen on behalf of himself, Essential Consultants LLC and President Trump. In her response, Daniels asserts that the “(d)efendants’ application must be denied for many reasons.”

First, Daniel’s argues, the defendants have failed to “proffer any evidence to support such a broad and sweeping remedy.”

“Defendants offer no declaration from Mr. Cohen or Mr. Trump, let alone a declaration establishing the existence of a criminal investigation, or the supposed relationship between the criminal investigation and the facts of this case,” Daniels’ brief states. “They rely exclusively on a declaration from counsel from EC, who himself appears to rely on a single news article from the Internet that is clear hearsay. To invoke the extraordinary and powerful remedy of a stay, Defendants cannot require the Court to simply assume certain facts are true. The Court must be presented with competent admissible evidence. Here, there is none.”

The brief also asserts “the mere fact that an FBI raid occurred does not end the inquiry as Defendants argue.”

Quoting from the case Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, Daniels asserts that the defendants “ignore that there is ‘no absolute right not to be forced to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege.’”

“They also ignore the overwhelming weight of authority denying stays and, even in those limited cases where stays are granted, the requirement to demonstrate that criminal charges have actually been filed,” the brief continues.

The brief also argues that “even if Mr. Cohen’s Fifth Amendment rights were implicated, they have been waived.”

“(Cohen) has filed two separate declarations in this case addressing the facts – with one of them being filed after the FBI raids,” Daniels’ brief notes (with the same italicized emphasis present here). “This is in addition to the myriad public statements issued by Mr. Cohen, including a phone interview with Don Lemon of CNN occurring the day after the raids. Mr. Cohen made the choice to make these public statements with full knowledge of the raids; he cannot now refuse cross-examination.”

In an analysis published on his blog, attorney Ken White said he believes Daniels “has the better argument by far” with respect to the disputed request for a stay of the case.

“She points out that Cohen has already run his mouth extensively about the hush money transaction in the media, so his interest in shutting up can’t be that strong,” White notes in his post. “She points out that Cohen himself initiated an arbitration proceeding to try to shut Clifford up. She points out that Cohen filed a declaration in this civil case about the formation of the contract even after the FBI’s search warrant, and gave a statement about the matter the day after the search.”

While he clearly believes Daniels has the stronger argument, White also said it’s still difficult to predict how the judge, S. James Otero, will rule on the motion to stay the case.

Noting that Otero is “a very no-nonsense judge who likes things to be orderly,” White did predict Otero would rule on the motion “promptly — within days, I suspect.”

“The best thing Cohen has going for him is that he’s only asking for a 90-day stay,” White writes. “Judge Otero may look at this daily-escalating national legal catastrophe and decide that shutting down the civil case for a few months to see how things work out is not a bad idea. Or he may just say Cohen hasn’t carried his burden of showing he need a stay.”