|
_____________________________________ CARA LESLIE ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants. _____________________________________ |
) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 96-2123/97-1288 (RCL) ) ) ) ) ) |
|
_____________________________________ JOHN MICHAEL GRIMLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants. _____________________________________ |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY; SURREPLY TO
UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION
AND TO STAY SUBPOENA ISSUED
TO LINDA R. TRIPP
Larry Klayman, Esq.
DC Bar No. 334581
Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.
DC Bar No. 429716
Allan J. Favish, Esq.
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
501 School Street, S.W., Ste. 725
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 646-5172
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs, by counsel, respectfully request leave to file this brief surreply to the Motion of the United States for Limited Intervention and to Stay Subpoena Issued to Linda R. Tripp. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this surreply is necessary because the independent counsel staff's reply brief contains at least three (3) incorrect statements that cannot go unrebutted.
The independent counsel staff's reply brief contains at least three (3) incorrect statements that cannot go unrebutted.
First, the independent counsel staff represents that Plaintiffs do not oppose its motion to intervene. This is not the case. Plaintiffs' opposition demonstrated that the independent counsel staff's motion was fatally flawed both substantively and procedurally. Plaintiffs then asked that the motion be "summarily and immediately denied." See Opposition at 14. Surely, there can be no ambiguity that Plaintiffs oppose the independent counsel staff's motion. It has no standing to intervene and it is not entitled to a stay of Ms. Tripp's deposition even if it had standing.
Second, the independent counsel staff represents that First Merchants Enter., Inc. v. Shannon, Case No. 1989 WL 25214 (S.D. N.Y. 1989) supports its request for a stay. In First Merchants Enter., Inc., a civil case in which the defendant was also a defendant in a related criminal proceeding, sought to depose a non-party witness who had testified against him in grand jury proceedings. The Court refused to allow the defendant to depose the non-party witness, citing the improper use of civil discovery process to obtain evidence for use in criminal proceedings. This bears no resemblance to Plaintiffs' deposition of Ms. Tripp. Neither Plaintiffs nor Ms. Tripp are criminal defendants, and it thus simply cannot be said that Plaintiffs are improperly attempting to abuse civil discovery process to obtain evidence for use in a criminal case. First Merchants Enter., Inc. does not, as Plaintiffs demonstrated in their opposition, support the independent counsel staff's motion.
Plaintiffs' counsel also did not provide a copy of the Stephanopoulos deposition to Harpers magazine, nor would he open himself up for the type of scurrilous insinuation that the title of the article at issue suggests. See "George Stephanopoulos: Talking to a Fly," Harpers, September, 1998, attached as Exhibit 1.
Finally, the independent counsel staff's reply is devoid of substantive argument and itself concedes -- through its silence -- that its "Filegate" investigation has no end in sight. It is Plaintiffs, who have been harmed, and their rights should not be compromised because of a reflexive overreaction to a civil suit which has uncovered important evidence and which, due to its other commitments in the Whitewater and Clinton-Lewinsky controversies, has outpaced the independent counsel staff.
Again, with all due respect to his staff, the independent counsel's procedurally and substantively defective motion should be summarily denied.
Respectfully submitted,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
__________________________
Larry Klayman, Esq.
DC Bar No. 334581
__________________________
Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.
DC Bar No. 429716
__________________________
Allan J. Favish, Esq.
501 School Street, S.W.
Suite 725
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 646-5172
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
On September 2, 1998, I contacted counsel for Defendants by telephone to discuss whether Defendants would consent to or oppose the relief requested herein, or if the issues raised herein could be narrowed. Counsel for both the Government Defendants and Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton advised me that their clients would not take a position on the motion.
__________________________
Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.
I hereby certify that on September 8, 1998 a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' SURREPLY TO UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION AND TO STAY SUBPOENA ISSUED TO LINDA R. TRIPP was served by hand on the following:
Attorneys for Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and Executive
Office of the President:
James J. Gilligan, Esq.
Elizabeth Shapiro, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorneys
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 883
Washington, DC 20044
Attorneys for Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton:
David E. Kendall, Esq.
Paul B. Gaffney, Esq.
Marcie R. Ziegler, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
725 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Attorneys for Intervenor United States:
Kenneth W. Starr, Esq.
Robert J. Bittman, Esq.
Stephen J. Binhak, Esq.
Terrence J. Galligan, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
490 North
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
_________________________
Paul J. Orfanedes