Summary of D.C. District Court rulings (12/23/98 - 5/17/99) regarding:

Cara Leslie Alexander (plantiff) v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (defendant) - Civil Action No. 96-2123, 97-1288

NOTE: All links are to pdf files located at the D.C. District Court Web site.

Memorandums & Orders filed on December 23, 1998 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Designation of Witness Concerning -WHODB- (White House Office Database) Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Upon consideration of this motion, defendant Executive Office of the President’s opposition, and plaintiffs’ reply thereto, the Court will DENY plaintiffs’ motion, as discussed and ordered below.

IV. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Re-Designation of Witness Concerning "WHODB" Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is DENIED without prejudice. In this regard, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs may submit to defendant EOP (Executive Office of the President) interrogatories and requests for production in order to receive responses to questions posed by plaintiffs' counsel at Jackson's deposition to which Jackson did not adequately respond.
  2. Plaintiffs' request to take new Rule 30(b)(6) oral depositions on the WhoDB pursuant to a re-designation of such witnesses is DENIED without prejudice.
  3. Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is DENIED.
  4. Plaintiffs may renew their motion to compel a re-designation of a Rule 30(b)(6) WhoDB witness, for good cause shown, after they have received written discovery responses and taken the deposition of Betsy Pond.
  5. Leave to depose Ms. Pond is HEREBY GRANTED, sua sponte.

Harold Ickes - MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Non-Party Harold Ickes, for Appointment of a Special Master, for Criminal Contempt and Perjury Proceedings, and for Sanctions, Including Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Upon consideration of this motion, the oppositions of defendant Executive Office of the President and non-party Ickes, and plaintiffs' replies thereto, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiffs' motion, as discussed and ordered below.

V. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Harold Ickes, for Appointment of a Special Master, for Criminal Contempt and Perjury Proceedings, and for Sanctions, Including Attorneys' Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. In this regard, the Court ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' request for the appointment of a special master is DENIED.
  2. Plaintiffs' request that non-party Ickes produce all documents under his control at his residence in Salt Air, on Fire Island, New York and at 16 West 77th St., New York City, and all of the documents he removed from the White House is DENIED as moot.
  3. Plaintiffs' motion to compel answers to the following two questions posed at his deposition is GRANTED:
    4. (a) "Did [your counsel] show you whether or not or did she tell you whether or not she found documents that were responsive to [plaintiffs'] subpoena?"
    (b) "Did you go through the various document requests in the subpoena with your counsel?"
  4. Plaintiffs' request for leave to re-depose Ickes is granted only on the following subject matter:
    5. (a) Ickes' search for documents at his Fire Island vacation home.
    (b) Ickes' knowledge of the search for documents in the 35-50 boxes he removed from the White House, including what his counsel told him regarding the adequacy, means, and results of that search.
    (c) Ickes' conversation with the President regarding Ms. Willey.
    (d) Follow-up questions that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issues listed in sub-paragraphs (a)-(c).
  5. Plaintiffs' request for the Court to institute contempt and perjury proceedings against Ickes is DENIED.
  6. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions against Ickes and his counsel is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on February 25, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [448] to Compel Further Testimony from J. Lowe Davis and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Non-Party Davis's Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Upon consideration of both motions, non-party Davis's opposition to plaintiffs' motion, plaintiffs' reply thereto, and plaintiffs' opposition to non-party Davis's motion, the Court will DENY plaintiffs' motion and GRANT non-party Davis's Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, as discussed and ordered below.

II. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Testimony From Non-Party J. Lowe Davis and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is DENIED.
  2. Non-Party J. Lowe Davis's Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is GRANTED. Non-party Davis is entitled to the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing plaintiffs' motion, including attorneys' fees. In this regard, it is FURTHER ORDERED that non-party Davis shall, within ten days, submit the appropriate request for fees and costs to be awarded by the Court. Within ten days thereafter, plaintiffs may submit for the Court's consideration an opposition to Davis's request.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on March 31, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [363] to Compel Further Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Kenneth Bacon and for Sanctions. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion, Bacon's and the U.S. Department of Defense's oppositions, and plaintiffs' replies thereto, the court will GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART plaintiffs' motion, as discussed and ordered below.

V. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion [363] to Compel Further Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Kenneth Bacon and for Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. In this regard, it is FURTHER ORDERED that:

(a) Plaintiffs' motion to compel Bacon to re-search for documents responsive to plaintiffs' subpoena duces tecum is DENIED.
(b) Plaintiffs' motion to compel further testimony on questions 4, 8, 14, 15, 16, 20, and 22 is DENIED.
(c) Plaintiffs' motion to compel further testimony on questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, and 21 is GRANTED. Bacon shall submit to further deposition testimony on these questions and reasonable follow-up questions in this regard. Plaintiffs may not, however, inquire into matters beyond this scope without obtaining leave of court for a re-deposition of Bacon.
(d) Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on March 31, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [411] to Compel Further Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Lanny J. Davis and for Sanctions; Defendant Executive Office of the President's Cross-Motion [469] for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Sanctions; and Non-Party Lanny J. Davis's Cross-Motion [N/D] for Sanctions Against Judicial Watch, Inc., and Larry Klayman Individually. Upon consideration of these motions and all oppositions and replies thereto, the court will DENY Plaintiffs' Motion [411] to Compel Further Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Lanny J. Davis and for Sanctions; DENY Defendant Executive Office of the President's Cross-Motion [469] for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Sanctions; and DENY Non-Party Davis's Cross-Motion [N/D] for Sanctions Against Judicial Watch, Inc., and Larry Klayman Individually, as discussed and ordered below.

IV. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion [411] to Compel Further Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Lanny J. Davis and for Sanctions is DENIED.
  2. Defendant Executive Office of the President's Cross-Motion [469] for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Sanctions is DENIED.
  3. Non-Party Davis's Cross-Motion [N/D] for Sanctions Against Judicial Watch, Inc., and Larry Klayman Individually is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on March 31, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [362] to Compel Further Production of Documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and for Sanctions and Department of Defense's Motion [N/D] to File Supplemental Declaration of Eleanor Hill Ex Parte and Under Seal. Upon consideration of these motions, oppositions, and replies thereto, and after an in camera review of all documents for which the Department of Defense claims a privilege, the court will GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART plaintiffs' motion [362] to compel and GRANT Department of Defense's Motion [N/D] to File Supplemental Declaration of Eleanor Hill Ex Parte and Under Seal, as discussed and ordered below.

III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion [362] to Compel Further Production of Documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and for Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. In this regard, it is FURTHER ORDERED that:

  1. Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Department of Defense to re-search and reexamine its documents is DENIED as moot. Counsel for the Department of Defense shall file forthwith a declaration confirming that the Department of Defense has reexamined its documents in light of the court's orders of June 15, 1998 (pertaining to plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Clarification Regarding the May 15, 1998 Deposition of Kenneth Bacon) and July 10, 1998 (pertaining to plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Testimony and Document Production from Clifford Bernath), as represented in the Department of Defense's opposition to plaintiffs' current motion.
  2. Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Department of Defense to submit in camera all documents withheld under claims of privilege is DENIED as moot.
  3. Plaintiffs' request to compel documents from the Department of Defense is GRANTED in that the Department shall produce:
    4. (a) the entry in James Graybeal's date book, contained in the Department of Defense's Notice of Additional Document, previously withheld under claim of attorney-client privilege;
    (b) documents within pages 1-85 of the material withheld under the deliberative process privilege that are responsive to Question 1 of Congressman Mica's inquiry as to the release of Tripp's background security information; and
    (c) documents within pages 86-192 of the material withheld under the deliberative process privilege that contain the statement "[N]o request for access to Ms. Tripp's official files was made by the Executive Office of the President or Department personnel other than a senior career employee of the department who, on a need to know basis, requested and reviewed Ms. Tripp's security file on March 13, 1998." In this regard, the Department of Defense shall also produce documents that use this same statement, except that the word "requests" is substituted for "request."
  4. The court will hold an ex parte, in camera hearing regarding the concerns raised in this opinion as to the Department of Defense's claim of law enforcement privilege. The date and time of this hearing shall be set by further order, but the court will allow the Department 30 days from this date to make its further written submission and tender of a set of the documents for further in camera, ex parte inspection.
  5. Plaintiffs' request to compel further documents from the Department of Defense is DENIED in all other respects.
  6. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is DENIED.
  7. Department of Defense's Motion [N/D] to File Supplemental Declaration of Eleanor Hill Ex Parte and Under Seal is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on April 16, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [441] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony from Mari L. Anderson and for Sanctions; D. Craig Livingstone's Cross-Motion [N/D] for Costs and Fees; and Defendant Executive Office of the President's Motion [480] for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Upon consideration of these motions, oppositions, and replies thereto, the court will DENY Plaintiffs' Motion [441] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony from Mari L. Anderson and for Sanctions; DENY D. Craig Livingstone's Cross-Motion [N/D] for Costs and Fees; and DENY Defendant Executive Office of the President's Motion [480] for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, as discussed and ordered below.

III. Conclusion: For the reasons given above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion [441] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony from Mari L. Anderson and for Sanctions is DENIED.
  2. D. Craig Livingstone's Cross-Motion [N/D] for Costs and Fees is DENIED.
  3. Defendant Executive Office of the President's Motion [480] for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on April 16, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

For the reasons given above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion [665] for Extension of Time to File Reply to Government Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Show Cause Order is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc.
  2. Plaintiffs' Motion [668] to Extend Time to Two Days to Reply to Government Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Show Cause Order is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc.
  3. Plaintiffs' Motion [625] for Show Cause Order Concerning Threatened Retaliation Against Counsel is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on April 16, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [631] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony and Documents from Linda Tripp and Plaintiffs' Motion [667] to Extend Time by One Day to Reply on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motions; the oppositions of the government defendants, non-party Tripp, and the United States of America by the Office of the Independent Counsel; plaintiffs' reply; and an in camera review of the documents submitted under claim of privilege by non-party Tripp, the court will GRANT nunc pro tunc Plaintiffs' Motion [667] to Extend Time by One Day to Reply on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; and DENY Plaintiffs' Motion [631] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony and Documents from Linda Tripp, as discussed and ordered below.

III. Conclusion: For the reasons given above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion [631] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony and Documents from Linda Tripp is DENIED.
  2. Non-party Tripp shall file with the court an in camera affidavit stating the substance of the pertinent conversation with Cheryl Mills, as discussed in this memorandum opinion.
  3. Plaintiffs' Motion [667] to Extend Time by One Day to Reply on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on April 16, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [658] to Vacate, in Part, Court Order Concerning J. Lowe Davis. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion, government defendants' opposition, and plaintiffs' reply, the court will deny plaintiffs' motion.

For these reasons, the court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion [658] to Vacate, in Part, Court Order Concerning J. Lowe Davis is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on April 21, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [391] for Leave to Depose Larry Flynt. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion, government defendants' opposition, and plaintiffs' reply, the court will DENY plaintiffs' motion.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion [391] for Leave to Depose Larry Flynt is HEREBY DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on April 21, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [594] to Stay Upcoming Deposition of Betsy Pond Until Requested Status Conference; Plaintiffs' Motion [643] for Leave to File Supplement to Motion Re: Betsy Pond Deposition; and Plaintiffs' Motion [696] for Leave to Supplement Pending Motion Regarding Deposition of Betsy Pond and Supplement Thereto. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motions; the oppositions of government defendants, non-party Pond, and defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton; and plaintiffs' replies, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion [594] to Stay Upcoming Deposition of Betsy Pond Until Requested Status Conference; GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion [643] for Leave to File Supplement to Motion Re: Betsy Pond Deposition; and GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion [696] for Leave to Supplement Pending Motion Regarding Deposition of Betsy Pond and Supplement Thereto.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion [594] to Stay Upcoming Deposition of Betsy Pond Until Requested Status Conference is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In this regard, it is FURTHER ORDERED that:
    2. (a) Plaintiffs shall be allowed to begin the questioning of Betsy Pond.
    (b) Plaintiffs' motion is denied in all other respects.
  2. Plaintiffs' Motion [643] for Leave to File Supplement to Motion Re: Betsy Pond Deposition; and Supplement is GRANTED.
  3. Plaintiffs' Motion [696] for Leave to Supplement Pending Motion Regarding Deposition of Betsy Pond and Supplement Thereto is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on April 21, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion [488] for Authorization to Take Additional Depositions. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion, government defendants' opposition, defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton's opposition, and plaintiffs' omnibus reply, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART plaintiffs' motion, as discussed and ordered below.

III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion [488] for Authorization to Take Additional Depositions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In this regard, it is ORDERED that:

  1. The court grants plaintiffs leave to take a total of five additional depositions on the issues of class certification and substitution of the United States under the Westfall Act for defendants Nussbaum, Livingstone, and Marceca. This number excludes those depositions for which the court has already granted plaintiffs leave.
  2. Plaintiffs must conclude all discovery, including all depositions, on the issues of class certification and substitution of the United States under the Westfall Act for defendants Nussbaum, Livingstone, and Marceca, on or before June 12, 1999.
  3. All discovery motions, including but not limited to motions to compel, pertaining to the issues of class certification and substitution of the United States under the Westfall Act for defendants Nussbaum, Livingstone, and Marceca must also be filed by June 12, 1999.
  4. Plaintiffs' motion is denied in all other respects.

The court FURTHER ORDERS that the provision of its Order of August 12, 1997 setting a six-month deadline on the initial phase of discovery is HEREBY VACATED. The initial phase of discovery shall end on June 12, 1999, as provided above.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines for the filing of supplemental memoranda on the issues of class certification and substitution of the United States under the Westfall Act for defendants Nussbaum, Livingstone, and Marceca shall remain the same as provided in the court's scheduling order of August 12, 1997.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on April 21, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [596] for Leave to Depose Deborah Gorham; Non-Party Deborah Gorham's Motion [N/D] for Protective Order; and Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion [624] for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Non-Party Deponent Deborah Gorham's Motion for Protective Order. Upon consideration of these motions, all applicable oppositions, and corresponding replies thereto, the court will GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion [596] for Leave to Depose Deborah Gorham; DENY Non-Party Deborah Gorham's Motion [N/D] for Protective Order; and GRANT nunc pro tunc Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion [624] for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Non-Party Deponent Deborah Gorham's Motion for Protective Order.

III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion [596] for Leave to Depose Deborah Gorham is GRANTED.
  2. Non-Party Deborah Gorham's Motion [N/D] for Protective Order is DENIED.
  3. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion [624] for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Non-Party Deponent Deborah Gorham's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum Opinion filed on April 21, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 12, 1999, plaintiffs filed their Motion [620] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Thomas F. McLarty, III and for Sanctions. On April 16, 1999, plaintiffs withdrew this motion because "[c]ounsel for McLarty has since indicated that they are willing to meet with [p]laintiffs' counsel to try to resolve the issues set forth in [p]laintiffs' motion." Plaintiffs' Notice of Withdrawal at 1. Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion [620] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony and Further Production of Documents from Thomas F. McLarty, III and for Sanctions shall be considered withdrawn.

The court does not intend to entertain a sanctions motion for the conduct described in this memorandum opinion or in previous similar opinions issued before this date. A sanctions motion may be proper, however, for future violations of Local Rule 108(m).

Memorandum & Order filed on April 21, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion [613] for Leave to Depose Bruce Lindsey; Defendant Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Motion [621] for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Depose Bruce Lindsey; Defendant EOP's Motion [626] for a Protective Order; and Defendant EOP's Unopposed Motion [663] for an Extension of Time. Upon consideration of these motions and the applicable oppositions and replies thereto, the court will DENY Plaintiffs' Motion [613] for Leave to Depose Bruce Lindsey; GRANT nunc pro tunc Defendant EOP's Motion [621] for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Depose Bruce Lindsey; GRANT Defendant EOP's Motion [626] for a Protective Order; and GRANT nunc pro tunc Defendant EOP's Unopposed Motion [663] for an Extension of Time.

For these reasons, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion [613] for Leave to Depose Bruce Lindsey is DENIED.
  2. Defendant Executive Office of the President's Motion [621] for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Depose Bruce Lindsey is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
  3. Defendant Executive Office of the President's Motion [626] for a Protective Order is GRANTED.
  4. Defendant Executive Office of the President's Unopposed Motion [663] for an Extension of Time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on May 17, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion [629] for Order to Show Cause Why George Stephanopoulos Should Not be Held in Contempt; Stephanopoulos's Motion [633] for Protective Order and Attorney's Fees; Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion [665] for Extension of Time to File Reply to George Stephanopoulos's Opposition; and Plaintiffs' Motion [708] to Compel Non-Party George Stephanopoulos to Provide More Complete Interrogatory Answers in the Form of Further Deposition Testimony, and to Produce Documents and Things. Upon consideration of these motions and the applicable oppositions and replies thereto, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion [629] for Order to Show Cause Why George Stephanopoulos Should Not be Held in Contempt; DENY Stephanopoulos's Motion [633] for Protective Order and Attorney's Fees; GRANT nunc pro tunc Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion [665] for Extension of Time to File Reply to George Stephanopoulos's Opposition; and GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion [708] to Compel Non-Party George Stephanopoulos to Provide More Complete Interrogatory Answers in the Form of Further Deposition Testimony, and to Produce Documents and Things.

III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion [629] for Order to Show Cause Why George Stephanopoulos Should Not be Held in Contempt is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it is FURTHER ORDERED that:
    2. a. Stephanopoulos's deposition shall be continued, and shall include (along with paragraph 4 of this order) examination on the subject matter described in the court's order of May 28, 1998. This scope shall include issues pertaining to notes contemporaneously made by Stephanopoulos during the relevant period of time.
    b. Plaintiffs' other requests are DENIED.
  2. Stephanopoulos's Motion [633] for Protective Order and Attorney's Fees is DENIED.
  3. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion [665] for Extension of Time to File Reply to George Stephanopoulos's Opposition is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
  4. Plaintiffs' Motion [708] to Compel Non-Party George Stephanopoulos to Provide More Complete Interrogatory Answers in the Form of Further Deposition Testimony, and to Produce Documents and Things is GRANTED. In addition to the subjected matter described in the court's May 28, 1998 Order, Stephanopoulos shall have his continued deposition taken on conversations with the White House Counsel's Office pertaining to the FBI files matter.
  5. Plaintiffs may not exceed the scope of subject matter provided for in the court's May 28, 1998 Order and paragraph 4 of the court's order today.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on May 17, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion [553] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony from William H. Kennedy, III and for Sanctions. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion, defendant Executive Office of the President's (EOP) opposition, plaintiffs' reply, and defendant EOP's surreply, the court will sustain in part and overrule in part defendant EOP's objections that pertain to plaintiffs' motion. Therefore, plaintiffs' motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion [553] to Compel Further Deposition Testimony from William H. Kennedy, III and for Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In this regard, it is FURTHER ORDERED that:

  1. Plaintiffs' request for the court to rule upon objections made at Kennedy's deposition by attendees other than defendant EOP is DENIED.
  2. Defendant EOP's attorney-client privilege objection to Question 1 is SUSTAINED.
  3. Defendant EOP's relevance objection to Question 2, as to the identities of the subjects of the FBI summaries discussed between Kennedy and Foster, to the extent these persons were then-current Clinton Administration employees, is SUSTAINED.
  4. Defendant EOP's relevance objection to Question 2, as to the identities of the subjects of the FBI summaries discussed between Kennedy and Foster, to the extent these persons were not then-current Clinton Administration employees, is OVERRULED.
  5. Defendant EOP's privilege objections to Question 2, to the extent applicable after the court's ruling in paragraph 3 of this order, are OVERRULED.
  6. Further testimony by oral deposition on the subject matter of Question 2, as limited by paragraph 3 of this order, would be appropriate.
  7. Defendant EOP's objection to Question 3 is SUSTAINED.
  8. Sanctions are not warranted by the positions taken by either side in this matter because these positions were substantially justified and turned on reasonable discovery disagreements under the applicable law.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum & Order filed on May 17, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Defendant EOP's Motion [575] for Judicial Supervision of the Re-Deposition of Terry W. Good and defendant EOP's Motion for Expedited Consideration. Upon consideration of these motions, plaintiffs' opposition to defendant EOP's motion for judicial supervision, and defendant EOP's reply thereto, the court will GRANT defendant EOP's Motion for Expedited Consideration and DENY Defendant EOP's Motion [575] for Judicial Supervision of the Re-Deposition of Terry W. Good.

For the foregoing reasons, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Defendant EOP's Motion for Expedited Consideration is GRANTED.
  2. Defendant EOP's Motion [575] for Judicial Supervision of the Re-Deposition of Terry W. Good is DENIED.
  3. All counsel who expect to attend Good's re-deposition shall file in advance thereof a certificate with the Clerk of Court that they have carefully read the "D.C. Bar Voluntary Standards for Civility in Professional Conduct," a copy of which is appended hereto.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum Opinion & Order filed on June 22, 1999 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Subpoena for the Deposition of Government Counsel and for Expedited Consideration. Upon consideration of defendants’ motion, plaintiffs’ opposition, and defendants’ reply, the court will DENY defendants’ motion, as discussed and ordered below.

III. Conclusion: The court’s ruling today is five-fold. First, defendants’ motion to quash must be denied because they have not shown that, after reasonable preparation, government counsel handling this case would be the only appropriate designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Second, plaintiffs seek discoverable information insofar as they seek facts reasonably related to whether the individual defendants acted within the scope of their employment, regardless of defendants’ Westfall Act certification involving these facts or the standard of review this court must apply in reviewing that certification. Third, plaintiffs may not discover the substance of communications between government counsel and the government employees interviewed by government counsel, based on the applicability of the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. Fourth, plaintiffs may not discover documents generated by or for government counsel as a result of government counsels’ interviews of employees pertaining to the Westfall Act certification, based on the applicability of the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. Fifth, and consequently, plaintiffs may discover from government counsel only the identities of those people with knowledge of relevant facts learned of by the government in connection with the Westfall Act certification, and contemporaneous documents received that may provide facts relied upon in connection with the certification. For these reasons, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

  1. Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Subpoena for the Deposition of Government Counsel and for Expedited Consideration is DENIED.
  2. In accordance with Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants shall produce documents responsive to and designate an appropriate person to testify about the matters described by plaintiffs in their subpoena duces tecum and notice of deposition, to the extent these matters have been deemed relevant and non-privileged by the court.
  3. Plaintiffs are entitled to the identities of those people with knowledge of relevant facts learned of by the government in connection with the Westfall Act certification. Plaintiffs are also entitled to contemporaneous documents that may provide facts relied upon in connection with the certification.
  4. Plaintiffs may not seek to discover by deposition of government counsel the substance of communications between opposing counsel and the employees they interviewed in connection with the Westfall Act certification.
  5. Plaintiffs may not discover documents generated by or for government counsel as a result of government counsels’ interviews of employees pertaining to the Westfall Act certification.

SO ORDERED.