IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



_____________________________________

CARA ALEXANDER, et al.
   Plaintiffs,

   vs.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, et al.,

   Defendants.
_____________________________________
JOHN MICHAEL GRIMLEY, et al.
   Plaintiffs,

   vs.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, et al.,

   Defendants.
_____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)   Civil Action Nos. 96-2123/97-1288 (RCL)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD



Plaintiffs, by counsel, respectfully request leave to supplement the record with the attached Second Declaration of Sheryl Hall, which is relevant to various matters currently pending before the Court, including several motions to compel, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Depose Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mrs. Clinton's Cross-Motion for a Protective Order and the parties' various memoranda concerning the issues of substitution and class certification. As grounds therefor, Plaintiffs state as follows:

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

In recent discussions with one of its clients, former White House employee Sheryl Hall, Plaintiffs' counsel learned of a "strategy" on the part of the Clinton White House to delay this case until after the President leaves office on January 20, 2001. Specifically, as set forth in the attached declaration, Ms. Hall testifies:

My job responsibilities during my tenure at the White House required me to assist Michelle Peterson of the White House Counsel's Office and other lawyers for the Clinton Administration to respond to interrogatories, document requests, and other information in response to requests from Plaintiffs in the Filegate case. For instance, I had several meetings about White House phone records with lawyers for the Defendants, including Ms. Peterson.



During one of these meetings, which took place sometime in late May-early June, 1999, Ms. Peterson told me in her office that "our strategy" for the Filegate lawsuit was to "stall" because "we had just a couple of more years to go." Given the context of Mrs. Peterson's remarks, I took this to mean that the Clinton White House's strategy was to stall the Filegate case until Bill and Hillary Clinton's term of office was completed. Ms. Peterson's comment was similar to others I heard from other individuals in the Clinton White House, including Laura Crabtree, who I understand was deposed in the Filegate case.



See Exhibit 1 at paras. 6 and 7.



Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the admissions contained in Ms. Hall's declaration are particularly relevant to various matters before the Court, including a motion to compel the Clinton White House to produce certain telephone records, which are exactly the type of documents about which Ms. Hall makes reference in her declaration. See, e.g., Plaintiffs' Reply to Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents Regarding Second Request to EOP, filed on July 29, 1999, at 24-25. Of course, these startling admissions to Ms. Hall obviously are relevant to all of Plaintiffs' outstanding motions to compel (and, frankly, past motions to compel), including Plaintiffs' efforts to compel the Clinton White House to produce requested e-mail, which is likely to contain very important and revealing evidence. It also likely explains Mrs. Clinton's own failure to make any meaningful production of documents to date in this litigation. See, e.g., Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton to Provide Appropriate Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents, filed on June 14, 1999.

In addition, the admissions to Ms. Hall about a Clinton White House "stall" strategy are also directly relevant to other, important matters pending before the Court, including Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose Mrs. Clinton. Although Plaintiffs were able to present substantial, compelling evidence in their moving papers and reply demonstrating that Mrs. Clinton was indeed the "mastermind" of Filegate, given the Clinton White House's "delay" strategy, it is likely that there is even more, substantial, compelling evidence of Mrs. Clinton's role in Filegate that has not been turned over to Plaintiff. The same is also true with regard to the Clinton Justice Department's attempt to substitute the United States for Bernard Nussbaum, David Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca.

It is thus apparent that, by pursuing this "delay" strategy, the Clinton White House is again trifling with the Court and misusing the Court's time and resources for its own political ends. This is very much akin to the instructions by former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta (who is now Chief of Staff himself) to former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown that he should "slow pedal" the Commerce Department's response to Plaintiffs' counsel's Freedom of Information Act Requests concerning the sale of seats on departmental trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions until after the 1996 presidential elections. See December 22, 1999 Memorandum Opinion in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Commerce, Civil Action No. 95-133 (RCL) (D. District of Columbia) at 26. Under the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, and other applicable provisions, Plaintiffs' counsel felt obligated to bring Ms. Hall's testimony to the Court's attention immediately, as the Clinton White House's conduct constitutes obstruction and raises many questions about the truthfulness, veracity, ingenuousness and completeness of prior discovery responses. Plaintiffs' counsel leave it to the Court's discretion as to how to deal with this serious matter.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to supplement the record in this matter with the attached Second Declaration of Sheryl Hall.

Respectfully submitted,



JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.





__________________________

Larry Klayman, Esq.

D.C. Bar No. 334581





__________________________

Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.

D.C. Bar No 429716





__________________________

Deborah E. Berliner, Esq.

D.C. Bar No 422238





__________________________

Brett M. Wood, Esq.

D.C. Bar No 142299

Suite 725

501 School Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20024

(202) 646-5172



Attorneys for Plaintiffs

LCvR 16(3) CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL



On December 9, 1999, I contacted James J. Gilligan, Esq., counsel for Defendant Executive Office of the President and Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Marcie R. Ziegler, Esq., counsel for Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton, by telephone, to discuss the relief requested herein. Both Mr. Gilligan and Ms. Ziegler advised me that their client opposes Plaintiffs' motion.







__________________________

Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



I hereby certify that on December 9, 1999 a true and correct copy of the foregoing

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD was served by first class U.S. mail on the following:



Attorneys for Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and Executive

Office of the President:

James J. Gilligan, Esq.

Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Esq.

Julia Fayngold Covey, Esq.

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







__________________________

Paul J. Orfanedes