CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 2/26/08 - Committee Report on WH Email
CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
Transcript of CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
1/56
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, ))
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 1:07cv1707 (HHK) (JMF)
)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE )
PRESIDENT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
PLAINTIFFS MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
AND TO COMPEL RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Rules 26(d) and 34(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington hereby moves the Court to enter an order
granting plaintiff leave to conduct expedited discovery. Plaintiff also moves the Court to compel
the defendants to meet and confer as Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires.
As grounds for this motion, the Court is respectfully referred to the attached memorandum of
points and authorities.
Pursuant to LCvR 7(m), counsel for plaintiff contacted counsel for defendants and left a
voice-mail message requesting defendants position on this motion. Plaintiff has not heard back
from defendants counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
____/s/_____________________
Anne L. Weismann
(D.C. Bar No. 298190)
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
2/56
2
Melanie Sloan
(D.C. Bar No. 434584)
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
in Washington
1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20530Phone: (202) 408-5565
Fax: (202) 588-5020
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: October 26, 2007
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
3/56
1 On this same date the National Security Archive will also be filing a motion for leave to
serve expedited discovery requests in a lawsuit virtually identical to this one, The National
Security Archive v. Executive Office of the President, Civil No. 07-1577 (HHK). The discovery
that the National Security Archive will seek is identical to the discovery CREW is seeking here.
Given the pending unopposed motion to consolidate the two cases, CREW requests that the
Court consider the two motions together and grant both CREW and the National Security
Archive leave to conduct expedited discovery of the defendants.
2 CREW is the acronym for plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, ))
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 1:07cv1707 (HHK) (JMF)
)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE )
PRESIDENT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
CONDUCT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY1 AND MOTION TO COMPEL
RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE
STATEMENT
Through this lawsuit CREW2 seeks to preserve for history the records of the Bush
presidency. The historical importance of a presidents records cannot be gainsaid; they offer
invaluable insight into the decisions of a president and his administration and remain relevant
long after a president leaves office. Books about our earliest presidents continue to be best-
sellers and often are based on treasure troves of information mined from their letters and papers.
With a year left in the Bush presidency and great uncertainty about the status of his
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
4/56
2
records, CREW hereby requests leave to conduct expedited targeted discovery while there is still
time to take action to prevent further record destruction and ensure that the greatest number of
records are preserved. Specifically, CREW seeks to ascertain with more precision the universe
of email records deleted from White House servers, the universe of still-existing back-up copies
that could be used to restore the deleted records and to obtain documents created by defendant
Office of Administration when it discovered the missing emails, which would assist the Court in
determining what needs to be preserved on an interim basis. All this discovery has one goal:
preserving the records of this presidency for their rightful owner, the American people.
Plaintiff had hoped, through the vehicle of a Rule 26(f) conference, to work with the
defendants to, among other requirements of the rule, develop a proposed discovery schedule an
discuss further issues related to preserving discoverable information. While this would not have
eliminated the need for the expedited discovery requested here, it may have helped narrow the
issues for discovery and any discovery disputes. Defendants, however, have refused to meet as
Rule 26(f) requires.
BACKGROUND
On September 25, 2007, CREW filed its eight-claim complaint in this action against the
Executive Office of the President (EOP), the Office of Administration (OA) and its director,
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the archivist. The complaint
challenges as contrary to law the knowing failure of the defendants to recover, restore and
preserve millions of email records created and/or received within the White House and the
failure of the archivist and head of OA to take enforcement action to ensure adequate
preservation of all federal records. Complaint, 1. Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling the
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
5/56
3
defendants to implement an adequate electronic records management system in compliance with
federal law. Id. at 2. This complaint is nearly identical to a complaint filed on September 5,
2007, by the National Security Archive against the same defendants, The National Security
Archive v. Executive Office of the President, Civil No. 07-1577 (HKK) (D.D.C.).
The factual background to the complaint includes the OAs discovery in October 2005
that millions of email records covering a two and one-half year period were missing from White
House servers where they had been dumped for archival storage, id. at 32-34, a discovery the
White House has not denied. After analyzing the problem and determining the extent of the
missing emails, the periods of time covered by the missing emails and the Executive Office of
the President (EOP) components from which the missing emails originated, the OA developed
a recovery plan that called for restoring the deleted emails from then-existing back-up tapes. Id.
at 36. The White House, however, never implemented this plan or any other; to date, the
White House has failed to restore any of the deleted emails. Id. at 36, 39. As a result, the
back-up copies created by the White House are the only repository for the deleted emails. Id. at
41. Those tapes contain both presidential and federal records in a commingled form. Id.
The deleted emails had been stored on White House servers as a substitute for the
previous electronic record-keeping system in place, ARMS (Automated Records Management
System). Complaint, 32. There were and continue to be no controls in place to protect
against anyone with access to the servers altering or destroying the electronic records stored on
these servers. Id. Despite the expenditure of significant sums of money and the development of
several electronic record-keeping management systems to replace ARMS, the White House has
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
6/56
3 Among other things, the White House defendants refused to explain what they meant by
disaster recovery tapes, to what extent they included back-up copies stored on other mediums
such as CD ROMs and disks, the time-frame covered by the disaster recovery tapes they were
agreeing to preserve, and whether or not they had already transferred custody, possession or
control of any back-up copies to other non-EOP entities.
4
to date failed to implement an appropriate and effective electronic records management system.
Id. at 36-40.
Contemporaneously with filing this lawsuit CREW sent a letter to the OA seeking
assurances that all back-up copies of the deleted records would be preserved pending the
resolution of this litigation. When the OAs counsel refused to provide those assurances,3
CREW sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to compel the defendants to preserve all
back-up copies.
On October 17, 2007, the matter was heard by United States Magistrate Judge John
Facciola, who issued a report and recommendation on October 19, 2007, recommending that this
Court enter the requested TRO. Judge Facciola concluded that absent this relief, CREW will
suffer irreparable harm; as he noted, the threat that back-up media would be destroyed is a text
book example of irreparable harm. Report and Recommendation, October 19, 2007, p. 2. He
further found that the public interest favored preservation since the e-mails at issue may have
historical and public importance. Id. Finally, Judge Facciola weighed the irreparable harm to
CREW, the absence of harm to the defendants and the substantiality of the legal questions
presented to conclude that the TRO should be issued. Id. at 4-5. In particular on the merits of
the defendants claim that the OA is not an agency and therefore not subject to the requirements
of the Federal Records Act, Judge Facciola found that after reviewing the briefs presented in
another case on this issue, I certainly cannot say that CREW has no likelihood of prevailing on
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
7/56
5
that issue. Id. at 4. On October 23, 2007, the defendants filed objections to this report and
recommendation.
On October 18, 2007, CREW sent a letter to defendants counsel requesting that,
pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel provide CREW with
dates and times on which she is available to confer. Letter to Helen H. Hong from Anne L.
Weismann, October 18, 2007 (attached as Exhibit 1). The letter noted that Rule 26(f) directs the
parties to confer as soon as practicable and suggested any time during the entire week of
October 22 through 26 for holding such a conference. Id.
On the evening of October 22, 2007, defendants counsel sent an email response to this
letter which stated in pertinent part: we are currently considering your request[] and we will be
in touch soon. Email from Helen Hong to Anne Weismann, October 22, 2007 (attached as
Exhibit 2). The following day CREW sent an email to defendants counsel requesting, pursuant
to Rule 26(f), that counsel advise CREW by close of business October 25 whether you will be
able to meet either this week or next . . Email from Anne Weismann to Helen Hong, October
23, 2007 (attached as Exhibit 3). Defendantss counsel never responded to this email or
otherwise advised CREW of her availability to meet.
ARGUMENT
I. EXPEDITED DISCOVERY IS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO
ENSURE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE PRESERVATION OF THE
RECORDS OF THE BUSH PRESIDENCY.
As with any civil litigation, this Court has broad discretion on whether and particularly
what discovery CREW should be granted. See, e.g., SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991). That discretion includes the
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
8/56
4 Some courts apply the same standard as that required to obtain a preliminary injunction,
see, e.g., Notaro v. Koch, 95 F.R.D. 403, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), while other courts apply a
reasonableness or good cause standard. See Special Situations Cayman Fund v. Dot Com
Entertainment Group, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25083 *5 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).
6
ability to expedite discovery. Ellsworth Associates, Inc. v. U.S., 917 F.Supp. 841, 844 (D.D.C.
1996). Expedited discovery is particularly appropriate when a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
because of the expedited nature of injunctive proceedings. Id. Moreover, where, as here, one
party has an effective monopoly on the relevant information the need for discovery is especially
acute. Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 833 (D.C.
Cir. 1979).
While the courts are split as to the standard that a party seeking expedited discovery must
satisfy,4 the courts in this district generally apply a good cause standard. See, e.g., Ellsworth
Associates, Inc., 917 F.Supp. at 844. Under that standard, a litigant is entitled to expedited
discovery unless the opposing party can show good cause for why discovery should be denied.
Id. Moreover, a partys need for timely information constitutes good cause to grant a request for
expedited discovery. Whitkop v. Baldwin, 1 F.R.D. 169 (D. Mass. 1939); Optic-Electronic
Corp. v. U.S., 683 F.Supp. 269, 271 (D.D.C. 1987).
Here, expedited discovery is warranted under either standard based on the compelling
and urgent need to ensure the greatest possible preservation of the records of President Bush. As
even the White House admits, at least five million email records generated over at least a two
and one-half year period from multiple components of the EOP are missing. The missing
electronic records span critical years of the Bush presidency, from the United States invasion of
Iraq to Hurricane Katrina and the administrations formulation of a position on global warming.
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
9/56
5 Defendants Local Rule 72.3(b) Objections to Report and Recommendations on
Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Ds Objections), p. 2 n.1.
7
Plaintiffs request for a TRO was premised on the urgent need to ensure preservation of all back-
up copies of the deleted emails pending resolution of this lawsuit because without this assurance,
plaintiff and the public risk losing access to this important body of historical documents. As
Judge Facciola recognized, if the only remaining copies of these records are not preserved this
lawsuit becomes essentially an academic exercise. Transcript of Motions Hearing Before the
Honorable John M. Facciola, October 17, 2007, p. 6 (attached as Exhibit 4).
While the preservation order recommended by Judge Facciola protects against the loss of
valuable historical records, it leaves unanswered critical questions that cannot be answered
without additional factual inquiry. Most fundamentally, the White House defendants have
refused to identify anything about the still-existing body of back-up copies, including what time
period they cover, the extent to which they contain any of the missing emails and whether there
are other copies beyond what the defendants have referred to as [d]isaster recovery tapes
relating to the official, unclassified Executive Office of the President email system.5 Nor have
the White House defendants identified the precise number of deleted emails and the extent to
which back-up copies of the deleted emails were destroyed prior to September 2007. This
missing information is crucial in determining the extent to which the missing email records can
be reconstructed and therefore the extent to which the plaintiff can be afforded full and effective
relief.
This information is also very time-sensitive. In just 14 months there will be a new
administration and there is no assurance that in the ensuing transition copies of deleted emails
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
10/56
6 If defendants have their way, any preservation order will require them to preserve only
disaster recovery tapes for the official, unclassified [EOP] email system currently in the OAs
possession, custody or control, Ds Objections at pp. 2 n.1, 8, leaving them free to destroy other
copies that may exist, including what may be the only remaining copies of deleted emails.
7 The likelihood that such destruction has already occurred may be inferred from the
defendants opposition to plaintiffs motion for a TRO (Ds Oppos.), in which they attach a
single exhibit: a November 5, 1995 schedule authorizing the destruction of backup tapes which
contain records that are duplicated elsewhere for preservation and disposition. Ds Oppos.,
Exhibit 1, p. 4, 8. From this the White House defendants argue that the OA was permitted
under the FRA [Federal Records Act] to recycle, or delete, backup tapes when 90 days old.
8
and other documents necessary or useful to restoration will be preserved.6 These same concerns
led the court in Bush v. Armstrong to enter a TRO at the end of the Reagan administration as
well as a TRO at the close of the Bush administration in 1992. See 807 F.Supp. 816, 820
(D.D.C. 1992) ([I]f records are erased at the end of the Bush Administration, the publics right
to access the subject records will be irreparably lost and harmed.). See also Express One Intl,
Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 814 F.Supp. 87, 92 (D.D.C. 1992) (recognizing need for quick
discovery in light of upcoming transition to new contractor).
Accordingly, it is critical to ascertain what time period is covered by the presently
existing back-up copies and, in particular, the disaster recovery tapes relating to the official,
unclassified [EOP] email system. To the extent this particular set of tapes does not encompass
all of the missing emails, it is essential that other copies are preserved, whether or not they were
created specifically for disaster recovery efforts and whether or not they are currently in the
OAs possession, custody or control.
This information may also reveal the extent to which any of the defendants has already
destroyed any back-up copies of the deleted email records or transferred them out of the OAs
possession, custody or control.7 Separate and apart from the illegality of any such action, it is
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
11/56
Ds Oppos. at 11.
9
critical to ascertain what back-up copies may have been destroyed to determine what additional
steps can and should be taken to replicate those copies before the end of President Bushs term in
office. These other copies, however, whether in hard drives or other repositories, are only
accessible for the duration of President Bushs term, after which they will be cleaned out for the
incoming president. Accordingly, it is critical to pinpoint what back-up copies are presently
available and what back-up copies have been destroyed to explore, in the short time that remains,
alternative methods of restoring the millions of deleted email records.
It is also essential to secure the documentation assembled by the OA when it first
discovered the missing email problem in October 2005. This documentation will shed light on
the scope of the missing email problem and how it can be redressed. In particular, the recovery
plan that the OA developed after it discovered the deleted emails, which called for restoring the
deleted emails from then-existing back-up tapes, will confirm what back-up copies must
presently be preserved for a successful restoration effort. Given the current dispute between the
parties as to precisely what should be preserved to prevent irreparable injury, this document
would streamline the courts processes, would limit or eliminate altogether lengthy satellite
litigation over threshold preservation issues, and would present no hardship for the White House
defendants to produce.
CREW has sought this information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and
its FOIA request is the subject of a separate lawsuit, CREW v. OA, Civil No. 07-0964 (CKK)
(D.D.C.), in which the White House has argued that the OA is not an agency and therefore is not
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
12/56
8 In arguing that it is not an agency subject to the FOIA, the OA reversed the course it has
followed since its inception of holding itself out as an agency and complying with all of the
FOIAs requirements, including the promulgation of FOIA regulations (found at 5 C.F.R. Part
2502).
10
subject to the FOIA.8 The status of these documents as agency or non-agency records for
purposes of the FOIA, however, does not place them beyond CREWs reach in this litigation,
where they are clearly fair game for discovery. As highly relevant evidence of the scope of the
email problem and what needs to be preserved to ensure the Courts ability to award plaintiff full
and effective relief, these documents should be disclosed at the outset of this litigation.
Finally, documents about the architecture of the email storage system that the EOP used
between March 2003 and October 2005, the period during which the millions of emails were
deleted, and the email storage system currently in use by the EOP (to the extent, if any that it
differs) would be enormously useful in sharpening the focus of this litigation, especially as the
Court grapples with what preservation obligations it should impose on the defendants. The
White House defendants have made it clear that absent discovery, they will not provide answers
to even the most basic questions. See, e.g., Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order, p. 17. Yet basic information about how the email storage system
works will go a long way towards assessing what must currently be preserved and why. And, as
with the recovery plan developed by the OA, production of these documents will not be a
hardship for the defendants.
In sum, the backdrop of this case presents compelling reasons why expedited discovery is
warranted. Under this administrations watch, millions of email have gone missing and the
White House has done nothing to reconstruct those historically important federal records or take
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
13/56
11
steps to prevent further document destruction. When confronted with requests for information
about the missing email problem, the White House has unilaterally removed itself from the
public arena altogether by declaring that the OA is no longer an agency subject to government
sunshine laws. In the short life of this lawsuit the White House defendants have refused to give
adequate assurances of document preservation, refused to provide basic information and refused
to meet with plaintiffs counsel to plan for discovery. Most recently, in their objections to Judge
Facciolas report and recommendation, the defendants have objected to preserving back-up
copies under conditions that will permit their eventual use. Defendants Objections, p. 7.
Clearly the defendants do not share the plaintiffs goal of preserving these documents for future
public access. The defendants conduct coupled with the risk that critical evidence will not be
preserved provide ample support for the limited discovery plaintiff seeks to conduct at this
juncture.
II. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL THE DEFENDANTS IMMEDIATELY
TO MEET AND CONFER AS RULE 26(f) REQUIRES.
Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in clear, unambiguous terms that
the parties to a civil lawsuit must, as soon as practicable confer on a number of issues,
including the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, to arrange for the initial disclosures
that Rule 26(a)(1) requires of the parties, to discuss any issues relating to preserving
discoverable information, and to develop a proposed discovery plan . . . The Rule further
provides that [t]he attorneys of record . . . are jointly responsible for arranging the conference,
for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the
court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f)(6).
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
14/56
12
Courts interpreting this rule have emphasized that [t] responsibility for arranging this
conference and initiating discovery is placed squarely on the shoulders of the attorneys of record
and not on the district court. Scott v. Graphic Communications Internatl Union, 2004 U.S.
App. LEXIS 4979 *3 (3d Cir. 2004). Moreover, [w]hile Rule 26(f) does not state with
precision when such a conference between the parties must occur, it does provide that it should
take place as soon as practicable . . . OMG Fidelity, Inc. v. Sirius Technologies, Inc., 239
F.R.D. 300, 303 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).
Pursuant to this mandatory obligation, CREW has attempted more than once to arrange
for a conference, proposing complete availability within a two-week window of time. To date,
however, defendants counsel has refused to respond substantively to this request, refused to
identify her availability to meet and refused to provide alternative dates. This conduct is a
complete abrogation of the responsibilities that defendants counsel shares with plaintiffs
counsel under Rule 26(f).
It may be that defendants are attempting to avoid discovery, given the prohibition in Rule
26(d) on conducting discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, absent agreement of the parties
or court order. This, of course, would be highly improper, particularly given that one of the
purposes that the Rule 26(f) conference is intended to serve is to identify the parties positions
on discovery.
Under these circumstances and particularly in view of the pressing need for discovery
and the time-sensitive nature of this lawsuit, as discussed herein, defendants should be ordered to
meet and confer immediately with plaintiff pursuant to Rule 26(f), whether or not the Court also
grants plaintiff leave to conduct expedited discovery.
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
15/56
13
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests that its motion for expedited
discovery be granted. Plaintiff further requests that defendants be ordered to immediately meet
with plaintiff pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
____/s/_____________________
Anne L. Weismann
(D.C. Bar No. 298190)
Melanie Sloan
(D.C. Bar No. 434584)
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
in Washington1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone: (202) 408-5565
Fax: (202) 588-5020
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: October 26, 2007
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-2 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
16/56
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
17/56
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
18/56
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
19/56
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
20/56
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
21/56
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
22/56
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
23/56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
- - - - xIn the Matte r of:CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.P l a i n t i f f ,
vs .THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT, e t a l . ,Defendants .
Civ i l Action No. 07-1707
Washington, D.C.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x October 17, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARINGBEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN M. FACCIOLA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
APPEARANCES:For th e P l a i n t i f f :
For the Defendants :
ANNE L. WEISMANN, ESQ.MELANIE SLOAN, ESQ.HELEN HONG, ESQ.JOHN TYLER, ESQ.CARL NICOLS, ESQ.
P roce ed ings r eco rded by the Court , t r an sc r i p t produced byPro-Typi s t s , Inc . , 1012-14 th St r ee t , N.W., Sui t e 307,Washington, D.C. 20005, 202-347-5395, www.pro-typists .comM2085V/bf
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
24/56
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S2 THE CLERK: Civ i l Case 07-1707, Cit izens fo r3 Respons ib i l i ty and Ethics in Wash ingt on , D .C ., versus the4 Execut ive Off ice of the Pres ident , e t a l . Anne Weismann5 fo r the Pla in t i f f , Helen Hong fo r the Defendants. This i s6 a motions hearing on a temporary re s t ra in ing order fo r7 Ms. Weismann ( inaudib le) .8 MS. WEISMANN: Good morning, Your Honor, and I 'm9 here also with Melanie Sloan, our execut ive d i r ec to r .
10 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Good morning. Good11 af te rnoon, I 'm sorry .12 MS. HONG: Good af te rnoon, Your Honor. Helen Hong13 on beha l f of the United Sta tes Defendants, and along w ith me14 are John Tyler and Carl Nicols .15 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Good af te rnoon.16 A ll r i gh t . I ' ve reviewed the p ap ers here and I17 was wondering if it i s poss ib le a t t h i s po in t to forge a18 s t i pu l a t i on t ha t would be s imi la r to the s t i pu l a t i on t ha t19 the l a t e Judge Penn brought about in 2006.20 As I understand it - - and t h i s i s what confuses me21 i s th e problem a t th is po in t and the d i f fe rence between22 you, th e d i f fe rence between backup t apes and d i sas t e r23 recovery backup tapes? And if so, what i s the d i f fe rence24 between those two th ings , if there i s a d i f fe rence .25 MS. WEISMANN: May I address t h a t , Your Honor?
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
25/56
3
I am answering your ques t ion , butMS. WEISMANN:
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Please .MS. WEISMANN: Thank you. Your Honor, t h a t ' s one
i s sue , but l e t me t e l l you - -THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Well, it's the i s sue I want
to t a l k about r i gh t now.MS. WEISMANN: Right , okay, yes . Becau s e - -THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: I f you - - l e t me ask you
As your understanding i s , we know t ha t e f fec t ive ont h i s .September 27 when th i s l awsui t got s t a r t ed , the government - I'll use th e word as broadly as I can, because the re areso many Defendants here - - s topped recycl ing t apes becauseof the exis tence of th i s lawsui t . Do you understand t ha tany o ther backup tapes ex i s t t ha t came in to exis tence beforeSeptember 27th, 2007, and have not been recyc led? And i ft h a t ' s so , why can ' t we j u s t put them to one s ide fo r thet ime being? Would t ha t resolve your concern?
with a little l a t i tude because he re ' s the problem. What wedon ' t know and what we have been t ry ing to get from theWhite House Defendants i s an explana t ion of what theexis t ing body of backup t apes and copies are . And I say"copies" because it's our unders tand t ha t they may ex i s t ino ther mediums bes ides tapes , but a l l t ha t we have been to ldi s th e word "d i s a s t e r recovery t ape , " and we don ' t know i ft ha t encompasses these o ther mediums.
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
26/56
4
t h i s was t h e o rd in ar y c i v i l c a s e , Suzie Smith a g a i n s t JoeBlow o r something. All r i g h t . We know, under t h e amendedFedera l Rules , p a r t i e s would be o b l i g e d t o g e t t o g e t h e r andt a l k about p r e s e r v a t i o n . The i s s u e would q u i c k l y a r i s e , Isuppose, what kind of backup t a p e s a r e i n e x i s t e n c e . And
And of course t h e r e i s a disagreement , j u s t so youa p p r e c i a t e , Your Honor, between them saying t h e i r onlyo b l i g a t i o n i s under the Federa l Rules o f C i v i l Procedure andour p o s i t i o n , which i s by law you a r e r e q u i r e d t o preserve amuch l a r g e r universe of t a p e s than j u s t what was i n yourp o s s e s s i o n as o f September 25th.
So t h e only r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t we have today,and t h i s i s a l l I can t e l l you because t h i s i s a l l t h a t t h egovernment has t o l d us, i s t h a t whatever they had i n t h e i rhands as f a r as d i s a s t e r recovery t a p e s on September 25ththey w i l l keep, I have no idea what t h a t encompasses. I f itdoes not encompass a l l of the backup copies t h a t they have,we say t h a t it i s p a t e n t l y d e f i c i e n t .
So because -- and I t h i n k t h a t i s - - we had hoped,Your Honor, and t h a t ' s why we went back t o them again andagain , t o be a b l e t o forge some kind of a s t i p u l a t i o n , but
j u s t c o u l d n ' t g e t th e n ec essa ry i n f o r m a t i o n . So Ic e r t a i n l y welcome t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y if t h i s Court i s mores u c c e s s f u l than we a r e .
1
23456789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: L e t ' s s e e . L e t ' s assume
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
27/56
5
1 t ha t ' s my quest ion to you. And it's the same quest ion I2 j u s t asked her .3 Independently of the backup t apes t ha t were In4 exis tence on September 27, 2007, are th ere o ther backup5 t apes t ha t are p resen t in e xis ten ce and, if they are , would6 you be wi l l ing to p re se rv e th ose un t i l Judge Kennedy can7 ru le more subs tan t ive ly on the i s sues presented .8 MS. HONG: Sure. Your Honor, I th ink --9 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: "Sure , " you wil l?
10 MS. HONG: Well, l e t me address t ha t in two par t s .11 The f i r s t i s , we have represented what we mean by d i s a s t e r12 recovery t apes . In Exhib i t 5 to P l a i n t i f f ' s motion, w e've13 ind ica ted to Pla in t i f f t ha t the d i sas t e r recovery tapes are14 the backup tapes to which CREW r e f e r r ed in t h e i r f i r s t and15 second l e t t e r s . Second, the re are add i t iona l backup t apes16 in a dd it io n to the ones t ha t were in the O ffice of17 Admin is t r a t ion ' s possess ion on September 25th .18 We have represented t ha t to the ex ten t t ha t there19 are backup tapes fo r e -m a ils g en era te d by EOP components20 a f t e r September 25th, t ha t those backup tapes are not being21 recyc led and wi l l be mainta ined by the Office of22 Adminis t ra t ion cons i s t en t with i t s prese rva t ion ob l iga t ions .23 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Well, l e t me -- you can24 help me here . Let me t e l l you what happens in t h i s25 courthouse . A ll r igh t?
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
28/56
6
1 On Tuesday evening, the backup tapes fo r our2 opera t ion on Monday and T uesday are d eliv ere d to IMM and3 taken from the premises . On Thursday, the same people come4 back and br ing the tapes they have and exchange them fo r the5 ones t ha t have been created fo r Wednesday and Thursday.6 That c on sta nt r ec y cli ng process i s always going on. Which7 leads me to be lieve t ha t on Thursday, the backup tape t ha t8 was used on Tuesday has been ob l i t e r a t ed and recycled.9 Is t ha t what you mean?
10 MS. HONG: The backup tapes t ha t have been crea ted11 a f t e r September 25th, 2007, have not been recyc led .12 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: So they are s i t t i ng13 somewhere, and t he re ' s no doubt in anyone 's mind t ha t you14 wi l l p rese rv e th ose and you wi l l not recyc le them.15 MS. HONG: As we have ind ica ted to P l a i n t i f f on16 numerous occasions.17 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: All r i gh t , but you see18 P l a i n t i f f ' s problem. She wants to know about a l l these19 o ther backup t apes t ha t are in exis tence t ha t are somewhere20 in th at o ff ic e t ha t came in to exis tence before21 September 25th, 2007. And what I thought she was t ry ing to22 get with her l e t t e r s was an assurance from you t ha t whether23 or not they are sub jec t to the FRA, they wi l l be preserved24 so t ha t her lawsui t doesn ' t become an academic exerc i se .25 Because they wi l l be the only d ep os ito ry o f t ha t which i s
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
29/56
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
it may be gone. And t h e r e f o r e , you w i l l keep them.In a sense, t h e same o b l i g a t i o n I would a t l e a s t
cons ider imposing on o r d i n a r y c i v i l l i t i g a n t s before me.All r i g h t , d o n ' t d e s t r o y t h a t s t u f f j u s t y e t . I d o n ' t knowif t h e y ' r e e n t i t l e d t o it, I d o n ' t know if t h e y ' l l ever getnear the backup t a p e s , but t h e r e ' s no reason t o worry aboutt h a t . All we got t o do i s put them i n a s e p a r a t e drawer sothey c a n ' t be r e c y c l e d . Are you w i l l i n g t o do t h a t ?
MS. HONG: We have r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e P l a i n t i f ft h a t a l l o f t h e backup t a p e s , or t h e d i s a s t e r recoveryt a p e s , i n t h e O f f i c e of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s p o s s e s s i o n beforeSeptember 25th , 2007, a r e being and w i l l cont inue t o bemainta ined during t h e course of t h i s l i t i g a t i o n .
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: And they w i l l not ber e c y c l e d .
MS. HONG: They w i l l not be r e c y c l e d and have notbeen r e c y c l i n g - - r e c y c l e d .
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Does t h a t s a t i s f y you,ma'am?
MS. WEISMANN: No, Your Honor, it d o e s n ' t . Istill t h i n k - - excuse me -- what w e ' r e g e t t i n g i s -
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Why d o n ' t you s i t down,counsel .
MS. WEISMANN: We're g e t t i n g a very - - I t h i n k ifyou l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y , we're g e t t i n g a - -
7
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
30/56
Because f i r s t of a l l , l e t me poin t out t h a t the Defendantsin t h i s case inc lude the others beyond the Office ofAdminis t ra t ion . And if I heard co r rec t l y , I heard anadmission from White House counsel - - from t h e i r counselt ha t th e re a re documents or backup copies in othe r en t i t i e s 'possess ion . So we bel ieve t ha t what they must bea cc ounta ble h ere fo r i s the -- whatever backup copies werecrea ted from 2003 forward. And if they have beent r ans fe r red to con t rac to r s , if they 've been t rans fe r red toother en t i t i e s with the Executive Office of the P residen t,which i s i t s e l f a named Defendant here , they must beaccountable fo r them.
And I guess my concern, Your Honor, i s t ha t whatI 'm hear ing i s th i s very -- what to me sounds l ike a verynarrow rep resen ta t ion . Which, aga in , comes down to ,whatever they phys ica l ly had in t h e i r possess ion they wil lcont inue to preserve , but what they h av en 't sa id i s , beyondt ha t what 's th e un iverse .
And I go back to , in our minds the re i s still nota common und ers ta nd in g o f what d i sas t e r recovery tapesmeans. And when we asked very spec i f i ca l l y , what aboutdisks , what about DVDs, what about CDs, we d idn ' t get a
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE:123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
care fu l ly .MS. WEISMANN:
8
I 'm t ry ing to l i s t en
-- ve ry n arrowly t a i l o r ed response.
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
31/56
9
s t r a i g h t answer, and t h a t ' s not a compl ica ted q u e s t i o n .THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Well , I t h i n k we'd a l l
agree we would put DVDs and CDs i n a very d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r y
not s e m a n t i c . T h a t ' s very d i f f e r e n t . The p r o c e s s I ' mt a l k i n g a b o u t , t h e I r o n Mountain p r o c e s s , t h a t happensi n d ep e n d e n t ly o f my w i l l as a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e network.But as r e c e n t l y as y e s t e r d a y , t o keep t h e c l u t t e r o f mye - m a i l from d r i v i n g me c r a z y , I t r a n s f e r r e d q u i t e a few o ft h e e - m a i l s t o a DVD. Now, I p u t t h a t away.
I t a l k about when I r o n Mountain comes h e r e . The l a r g emagnet ic t a p e s on which d a t a i s r e c o r d e d . CDs and DVDs, Iagree - - I t h i n k we a l l a g r e e , do not f a l l w it h i n t h ed e f i n i t i o n o f d i s a s t e r r e c o v e r y t a p e s . But you want themp r e s e r v e d as w e l l .
MS. WEISMANN: Well , it's my u n d e r s t a n d i n g - - andI have no way t o t e s t t h i s u n l e s s t h e government i s w i l l i n gt o give me t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n - - t h a t some o f what we wouldc a l l d i s a s t e r recovery t a p e s may be s t o r e d i n mediums l i k eDVD t h a t i n f a c t -- I know i n t h e c o r p o r a te world t h e y a r eg oin g tow ard t h e s e o p t i c a l t h i n g s . So I ' m still t a l k i n gabout what we would c a l l t h e backup c o p i e s t h a t werei n t e n d e d , you know, t o be a backup copy i n t h e wake o f ad i s a s t e r where t h e m a t e r i a l i s d e l e t e d .
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: But, you know, b u t t h a t ' s
D i s a s t e r r e c o v e r t a p e s a r e whato f d i s a s t e r recovery t a p e s .
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
32/56
t ha t any so r t of a backup t ape in the same sense t ha t i f ,God forbid , the re was a t ra ge dy here and the cour t systemcol lapsed, we could still open tomorrow morning becauseth ese tapes are in e xis te nc e. That DVD doesn ' t have thesame func t ion . And I would not ca l l it pa r t of a d i s a s t e rbackup t ape . It's a d i f f e r en t th ing . I th ink it's f a i r tosay it i s other media designed, in ten ded or capable ofpreserving informat ion, and you want t ha t preserved, aswel l .
MS. WEISMANN: What we want preserved i s whateverbackup media the i n s t i t u t ion of the Execut ive Office of thePres ident , through the Office of Adminis t ra t ion , i s ourunders tanding, uses to preserve da ta t ha t can be usedfo rens ica l ly fo r discovery recovery.
I f ind iv idua l s w ithin th e White House createsepara te ly t h e i r own DVDs, we had not intended t ha t to beencompassed, but I j u s t want to be c l ea r , because I f ee ll ike t he re ' s been such a re lu cta nc e to engage in a dialogueor have informat ion f low, t ha t when we say " tapes , " i f infac t , as an i n s t i t u t i ona l mat te r , they automat ical ly back upth ings in a DVD and it happens beyond the wi l l of anyind iv idua l , t ha t t ha t would be encompasses, as well .
We j u s t want those assu rances, o r e l se to be to ld ,
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
MS. WEISMANN: Right .THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: But I would not cons ider
10
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
33/56
11
sure I brought the copy with me.THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: All r i gh t . Let me read it
I 'm j u s t
I f we couldTHE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: All r i gh t .
MS. HONG: No, I know we submi t t ed it.
"Well, as it tu rns out , the only medium we use i s tapes ,"and t ha t ' s what we've been a f t e r . I 'm not asking tha t everyind iv idua l w ith in the White House must preserve every copy.And we h av en 't g otte n tha t kind of assurance .
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Is th a t c le a r now?MS. HONG: You know, I don ' t know how the White
House Defendants could have made more c l ea rTHE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Okay. Maybe - - I ' ve looked
a t the exchange of correspondence between you. Is ithe lp fu l to look a t the I assume t he re ' s a - - there mustbe, I know I saw t h i s , so I assume it's co r rec t - - the re i san order in here t ha t Defendants proposed?
MS. HONG: There was a proposed order , Your Honor.
have it.
f ind t ha t , maybe you could show me where i t s def ic iency i sand we could get down to prac t i c a l cases and t a lkspec i f i ca l l y about what we' re going to say and resolve i t .Give me a moment. I'll have to f ind it.
MS. HONG: You know, I 'm th inking t ha t I may notI 'm sorry .THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: No, he re ' s the proposed
ord er h ere .
1
23456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
34/56
12
1 so we both have it. Did you want me t o - - why d o n ' t we t a k e2 two minutes and g e t copies f o r everybody.3 MS. HONG: I apologize .4 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Get copies o f t h i s for5 everyone. W e ' l l g e t a copy f o r you, counsel . J u s t a6 moment. Thank you.7 A l l r i g h t , l e t ' s look a t t h e proposed o r d e r .8 Okay. What I was t h i n k i n g of doing, s i n c e t h e s u r e s t way t o9 d e s t r o y a document i s have it d r a f t e d by a committee, I was
10 t h i n k i n g o f t a k i n g a ten-minute r e c e s s t o see if you can11 maybe work t h i s o u t . I f you can, I'll come back. So why12 d o n ' t we say 2:30, okay? I 'm sure sweet reason w i l l13 p r e v a i l .14 W e ' l l be i n r e c e s s till 2:30. Talk t o each o t h e r ,15 okay?16 (Whereupon, a b r i e f r e c e s s was t a k e n . )17 THE CLERK: We're back on t h e record , Judge.18 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: How a r e we doing?19 MS. WEISMANN: Well, Your Honor, speaking for the20 P l a i n t i f f , we made two p r o p o s a l s , n e i t h e r o f which was21 accepted .22 F i r s t , we were advised about midway through, t h a t23 i n f a c t t h e White House Defendants a r e both completely24 l l i n g t o - -25 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Why d o n ' t you s i t down,
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
35/56
13
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Why don ' t you t e l l me whyso I can t e l l Judge Kennedy.
MS. WEISMANN: Okay. Real ly , t he re ' s a couple of
we be l ieve we' re t a lk ing about the - - we are t a lk ing aboutthe body of backup copies t ha t ex i s t s throughout the EOP,and it's d i f f i c u l t to imagine what dec la ran t they could gett ha t would have the au thor i ty to t a lk to a l l t ha t .
But I th ink more s i gn i f i can t , Your Honor, we
counse l , so she can --MS. WEISMANN: Completely unwil l ing to agree to a
Court -ordered - - to a Court orde r .THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Okay.MS. WEISMANN: And t ha t we also then proposed what
about a s t ipu la t ion between the par t i e s t ha t ' s submit ted tothe Court fo r and were to ld th a t th a t also wasnot acceptable .
Before tha t we had proposed some modifyinglanguage to our own order to address what we unders toodt h e i r concerns were. And in a dd it io n, the of f e r they havemade and I 'm ce r ta in ly happy to l e t them expla in i t , i st hey ' r e wi l l ing to do a dec la ra t ion t ha t theywould provide to us. And t ha t ' s unacceptable and I can t e l lthe Court why, but we ' re happy to But as I sa id
1
2345
6789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
reasons . F i r s t of a l l , as we've t r i ed to expla in to them,
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
36/56
14
1 r e a l l y need some th in g t h a t , if it's not complied with , we2 have some mechanism t o seek r e l i e f . And we a l s o t h i n k , Your3 Honor, j u s t the course of the d e a l i n g s between the p a r t i e s4 on t h i s i s s u e so f a r r e a l l y , you know, b r i n g s very5 heightened concerns , you know, t h a t t h e r e ' s so much6 wordsmithing and p a r s i n g going on, we t h i n k w h a t ' s c r i t i c a l7 t h i s p o i n t , we j u s t need a c r y s t a l - c l e a r o r d e r t h a t both8 p a r t i e s unders tood e x a c t l y what it means.9 And, you know, what I d o n ' t want t o happen and I 'm
10 sure nobody does, i s t h a t we have a l o t of s a t e l l i t e11 l i t i g a t i o n over t h i s i s s u e . So we t h i n k t h e b e s t way i s12 through a Court o r d e r o r , as I s a i d , we're w i l l i n g t o agree13 t o a s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t ' s e n t e r e d as a Court o r d e r . E i t h e r14 way.15 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: But t h a t ' s not acceptable16 t o t h e United S t a t e s , i s t h a t t r u e ?17 MS. HONG: Yes, Your Honor. Our p o s i t i o n i s t h a t18 t h e P l a i n t i f f has not p r e s e n t e d t h e p r e d i c a t e case f o r an19 o r d e r on a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r t o - -20 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Okay, w e l l , l e t ' s -- I21 unders tand your p o s i t i o n . Let me then t u r n t o t h a t i s s u e .22 We're a l l agreed t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d s a r e wel l23 a r t i c u l a t e d In t h e case law of t h i s j u r i s d ic t i o n . So we24 have, f i r s t of a l l , l i k e l i h o o d of success on t h e m e r i t s , we25 have a t h r e a t of i r r e p a r a b l e harm, we have t o a s c e r t a i n
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
37/56
15
A d m i n is tr a t io n m a in ta in s p o s s e s s io n and c o n t r o lTHE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Counse l , can I ask you
something? What 's so t e r r i b l y s i g n i f i c a n t aboutSeptember 27? Admit tedly , t h e F e d e r a l Rules o f C i v i lProcedure as amended d i r e c t our a t t e n t i o n t o t h ecommencement o f t h e l a w s u i t .
But a t common law, as t h e many c a s e s on s p o l i a t i o ni n d i c a te t o us , p a r t i e s have a common law r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t op r e s e r v e what may be evidence. So it would fo llow , then ,t h a t e l e c t r o n i c evidence t h a t came i n t o e x i s t e n c e p r i o r t ot h e i n c e p t i o n o f t h i s l a w s u i t may n e v e r t h e l e s s have t o bep r e s e r v e d a t t h e r i s k o f t h e r e being s p o l i a t i o n .
where t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t l i e s .Now, i n terms o f i r r e p a r a b l e harm and t h e p u bl i c
i n t e r e s t , would you concede t h a t o b v i o u s l y if i n f o r m a t i o n i sd e s t r o y e d t h a t i s a t t h e very h e a r t o f a l a w s u i t , t h a t t h eharm t h r e a t e n e d , a t l e a s t , t o t h e P l a i n t i f f s i s i r r e p a r a b l eand t h a t t h e r e i s a p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n i t s p r e s e r v a t i o n a tl e a s t u n t i l Judge Kennedy can a c t ?
MS. HONG: And t h e r e i s no harm t h r e a t e n e d here ,Your Honor. The Defendants have made t h e r e p r e s e n ta ti o nt h a t it would p r e s e r v e and m a i n t a i n t h e backup t a p e s or t h ed i s a s t e r r e c o v e r y t a p e s t h a t were i n e x i s t e n c e as o fSeptember 25th , 2007. In our d i s c u s s i o n s , we o f f e r e d t o
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
p r o v i d e a d e c l a r a t i o n t o t h a t e f f e c t . The O ff i c e o f
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
38/56
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
39/56
17
MS. HONG: Yeah, and based on th e rep re sen ta t ionst h a t Defendants have made, the re i s no need to again enmeshthe Cour t in t h a t type of determina t ion .
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: And f i na l ly , on success onthe mer i t s . This may t ake a b i t of t ime. I apologize if Ikeep you up t he re too long .
But as I unders tand your pos i t i on , and I hope I 'mge t t i ng it r i gh t , we'd a l l agree in l i gh t of the Ci r cu i t ' sdec is ion in Armstrong versus th e Execut ive Office of thePres iden t , t ha t t he re are two s ta tu te s a t i s sue , thePre s i den t i a l Records Act and th e Federa l Records Act a remutual ly exc lus ive . It's imposs ib le fo r a document to bein both p laces . It's e i the r one o r the othe r .
P l a i n t i f f s contend, neve r the le s s , t h a t t he re i san independent s ta t ut o ry r e s p o n s ib i li ty under the Federa lR ecords A ct t ha t would per t a in to th e maintenance of recordsby t h i s pa r t , sec t ion or d iv i s ion with in the White House,it's Defendant ca l led th e Execut ive Off ice of the Pres ident ,Execut ive Off ice of the Presen t O ff ice of Admin i s t ra t ion .
But as I unders tand your pos i t i on from yourpapers , you drop a foo tno te and you con tes t whether thoseen t i t i e s a re agencies fo r the purposes of the app l ica t ion ofthe Federal Records Act. I s t h i s a t rue s ta tem ent of yourpos i t ion?
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25 MS. HONG: For th e Off ice o f Adm in is tr at io n
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
40/56
18
FRA. "
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Well, and t h a t ' s what
s p e c i f i c a l l y . The O ffic e o f A dm in is tra tio n does not f a l lw it h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of agency as used i n t h e FRA. Yes,Your Honor.
When I read t h a t along with t h e Court o f Appeals 'd ec i s i o n i n Armstrong versus the Executive O f f i c e of theP r e s i d e n t , i s n ' t it f a i r t o say t h a t a t l e a s t P l a i n t i f f shave some l i k e l i h o o d of success upon p r e v a i l i n g upon t h e i r
Because I found Judge Richey 's d e c i s i o n i nconcerns me.1995, i n which he s t a t e d , quotes , "In a r e l a t e d case,Armstro ng v . Executive Off ice o f t h e P r e s i d e n t __ I I f o rpurposes of the reco rd it should note t h a t I 'm read in g from876 Fed. Sup. , 1300, w h a t ' s s a i d t o be page 3 here i n theLexis copy of t h i s .
I read again , "In a r e l a t e d case, Armstrong versusExecutive O ffice of t h e P re s i d en t --" d e l e t e c i t a t i o n s - " t h i s Court held t h a t e l e c t r o n i c records c r e a t e d by theagency components of the Executive O ffice of t h e P re s i d en ta r e s u b j e c t t o t h e Federa l Records A ct and e n j o i n thea r c h i v i s t t o take a l l necessary s t e p s t o p r e s e r v e thee l e c t r o n i c f e d e r a l re co rd s g en er ate d by the e x e c u t i v eagencies i n t h i s system." Then he goes on t o say, "Thisi n j u n c t i o n did not apply t o p r e s i d e n t i a l r e c o r d s t h a t ares u b j e c t t o t h e P r e s i d e n t i a l Records Act r a t h e r than the
12
3
45
6
7
8
9
1011121314151617181920
2122232425
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
41/56
19
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i s t h a t t h e case b e f o r e Judge Penn?MS. HONG: No, Your Honor.THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The c a s e b e f o r e Judge Penn
i n v o l v e s what agency o r component o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s Office?
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e two Defendants h e r e , t h e Execut iveO ff i c e o f t h e P r e s i d e n t , t h e Execut ive O ff i c e o f t h eP r e s i d e n t ' s O f f i c e o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a r e i n f a c t agenciess u b j e c t t o FRA?
MS. HONG: No, I t h i n k if you look a t t h e s p e c i f i ccla ims t h a t a r e a t i s s u e f o r t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e rh e r e , Counts 1 through 4, t h e y claim t h e r e t h a t t h e head o ft h e a g e n c i e s as w e l l as t h e a r c h i v i s t has f a i l e d i n t h e i rwhat t h e y c a l l a mandatory duty t o i n i t i a t e a c t i o n t o
by t h e i r t e rms , apply t o t h e head o f t h e a g e n c i e s o r t o t h ea r c h i v i s t s , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t o t h e a g e n c i e s i n t o t o .
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e a r e o b l i g a t i o n s f o ragency components o f t h e Execut ive O f f i c e o f t h e P r e s i d e n tt o m a i n t a i n r e c o r d s under t h e Federa l Records Act, c e r t a i n l ywe would a g r e e t h a t t h e Federa l Records Act does apply t oc e r t a i n a g e n c i e s w it h i n t h e Execut ive O f f i c e o f t h eP r e s i d e n t . There i s c u r r e n t l y ongoing l i t i g a t i o n , however,about whether t h e O f f i c e of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f a l l s w i t h i n t h ed e f i n i t i o n o f an agency w it h i n t h e meaning o f t h e FRA.
C u r r e n t ongoing
Those s t a t u t e s ,
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
r e c o v e r perhaps m i s s i n g o r d e l e te d r ec o r ds .
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
42/56
20
Court of Appeals and Judge Richey 's d ec is io ns , th ere wasspec i f ic re fe ren ce to the s t a t u t e s t h a t crea ted NSC in terms
MS. HONG: The case before Judge Penn involved theDepartment of Homeland Secur i ty .
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Oh, t h a t ' s r i gh t . Ithought t ha t in vo lv ed th e Secre t Service , i s t ha t - -
MS. HONG: And the Secre t Serv ice , you 're cor rec t .THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: And Armstrong versus the
EO, Execut ive Office of the Pres ident , in vo lv ed th e Nat ionalSecur i ty Counci l .
MS. HONG: As one of the agency components of theExecut ive Office of the Pres ident , a l though
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: But again, i s Judge Richeywrong in h is i n t e rp r e t a t i on of FRA? This Court held tha te lec t ronic records created by th e agency components of theExecut ive Office of the P re sid en t a re sub jec t to the FederalRecords Act. Are not the Execut ive Office of th e P resid en tOffice of Adminis t ra t ion , i s t ha t not an agency component towhich Judge Richey was re fe r r ing?
MS. HONG: The agencies w ith in th e ExecutiveOffice of the P res iden t inc lude, fo r example, OMB or CEQUA.The Office of Adminis t ra t ion, however, i s not one of thoseagenc ies t ha t f a l l s within the de f in i t i on of an agencywithin the meaning of the FRA.
1
23456789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: In th e cases b efo re the
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
43/56
21
of a t t empt ing to understand what th e Court of Appeals ca l l edwhether they had independent s t a t u t o ry r e spons ib i l i t y .Where would I f ind the s ta tu to r y d e f in i t io n of th er e s pons i b i l i t i e s of the Execut ive Off ice of the Pres iden t ,th e O ffice o f Adminis t ra t ion?
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Well , I d idn ' t mean to pu tyou on th e spo t , bu t i s it c o ng re s si on a lly c re a te d o r was itc rea ted by th e pres iden t pursuan t to a CFR. From where doesit draw its au thor i ty?
MS. HONG: I haven ' t had an o pp or tu nity to reviewa l l o f t ho se mate r i a l s
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: A ll r i gh t .MS. HONG: -- and I can confer with my counse l
here , if you would l i k e . You know - -THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: But th e po in t I 'm t ry ing to
make i s Judge Richey ' s dec i s i on , as th e man who, a f t e r a l l ,decided Armstrong versus EOP, i s t h a t th e agency componentsof th e EO, th e Execut ive Off i ce , a re su bje c t to th e FRA.
MS. HONG: Righ t , and th e agency components , tothe ex t en t t h ey are agenc ies w ith in the meaning o f th eFedera l Reco rds A ct. We wouldn ' t con t e s t - -
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: But he sa id agency - - buthe s a id agency components . Did he mean something d i f f e r en t ?
1
2345
6789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
I f I may?MS. HONG: I f you hold on one moment, Your Honor.
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
44/56
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
45/56
23
1 t apes in i t s possess ion as of September 25th, 2007, are2 bei ng ma in ta in ed .3 I th ink t ha t Judge Richey 's order in the f i r s t4 Armstrong case , the 807 F. Sup., 816 case decided in 1992,5 i s i n s t ruc t ive fo r ou r p urpo se s here . There, the Cour t ' s6 order , unders tanding the ce r ta in narrow and eme rgency r e l i e f7 t h a t was reques ted in the temporary re s t ra in ing order8 motion, the re Judge Richey ordered, "De fend an ts h er eby are9 d i rec ted and ordered from t h i s day forward to preserve a l l
10 the cur ren t and ex i s t ing compu te r backup t apes in t h e i r11 custody as of the date of th i s order or herea f te r crea ted12 from the e lec t ronic communication systems. I t i s fu r the r13 ordered t ha t the Defendants are not to wri te over , erase or14 des t roy any of the informat ion on the aforementioned t apes . "15 Defendants here , the O ffice of Adminis t ra t ion , has16 provided to P l a i n t i f f prec i se ly t ha t rep resen ta t ion . Has17 of fe red to provide t ha t informat ion in a dec la ra t ion . And18 P la in t i f f has found t ha t inadequate. To th e ex ten t t ha t19 they seek the Court to exerc ise i t s emergency powers here ,20 they have provided not a shred of evidence in dic at in g t ha t21 i r r epa rable harm would accrue , par t i cu l a r l y in l i gh t of the22 rep resen ta t ions t h a t the Defendants have made.23 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: But I th ink you'd have to -24 - as I understand what t hey ' r e saying i s , t he re i s still a25 s s i b i l i t y t ha t without a Court order t h a t may happen. And
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
46/56
24
s i n c e t h e burden on you i s not t h a t g r e a t ; indeed, it i s nog r e a t e r than t h e burden you are w i l l i n g t o undertake, thenhow can you say t h a t t h e p u bl i c i n t e r e s t i s not advanced bydoing t h a t .
I mean, if t h e TRO s t a n d a r d s a r e , as we know,an e v e r - s l i d i n g c a l c u l u s , the burden t o you i s e i t h e rn o n e x i s t e n t , because you say y o u ' r e w i l l i n g t o undertake it,or i n f i n i t e s i m a l . There i s a t l e a s t a compl icated l e g a li s s u e with r e f e r e n c e t o whether or not t h e Office ofAdminis t ra t ion i s an agency s u b j e c t t o FRA. There i s nodownside r i s k t o the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n .Haven ' t they made out t h e i r case f o r a TRO?
MS. HONG: No, the l e g a l s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e s t h a tP l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t a convincing p r e s e n t a t i o n or persuasivedemonst ra t ion t h a t i r r e p a r a b l e i s l i k e l y , and it's not onlyl i k e l y but it w i l l and imminently occur . Based onDefendants ' r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o the P l a i n t i f f and i t s f u r t h e rassurances t o provide what i s more than - - what i s r e q u i r e dmore than under t h e law, by providing a d e c l a r a t i o n ,P l a i n t i f f has sim ply not made out a case a t a l l f o r thei ssuance o f a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , be ca use th ey haveprovided no evidence and they c a n ' t provide evidence basedon Defendants ' r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t h a t i r r e p a r a b l e harm wouldaccrue t o them.
1
23456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Thank you. Counsel?
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
47/56
25
I want to , without so r t of being too piecemealabout t h i s , I want to address the i s sue t ha t was in the
the f a c t t ha t the tapes fo r the cour thouse are s to red of f s i t e . I t i s j u s t not simply - - it's no t t rue , Your Honor,it's simply not t rue t ha t they have p rovi de d a de qu ateassurances . And t ha t alone, we th ink , i s enough fo r ourr e l i e f .
about what we still don ' t know, because I th ink t ha t ' simpor tan t on the r e l i e f i s sue and on the m eri ts of ourrequ es t fo r r e l i e f . With a l l of the words t ha t have beenexchanged with the Court today, we still do not know whatthe body of ex i s t ing backup recovery tapes , whether we ca l lthem d i sas t e r recovery t apes or backup tape I mean,assuming we mean the same th ing , we don ' t know what theyare . All we have are r ep resen ta t ions about what i s in theOArs custody and con t ro l . And as we have expla ined to them,in t ry ing to c r a f t a s t i pu l a t ed order , t h a t the r e l i e f weare seeking i s broader than t ha t .
Unless they can t e l l us t ha t any and a l l copies ,if they ex i s t , would only be the re , and they haven ' t beenwi l l ing to say t ha t . This i s not a su i t bro ught onlyaga ins t the Office of Adminis t ra t ion . They have not beenw illing to t e l l us, fo r example, if t apes were t rans fe r red
I 'd l ike to s t a r t o ff by t a lk ing
You made re fe ren ce to
MS. WEISMANN:
o f f - s i t e to con t rac to rs , e t ce te ra .
12345
6789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
48/56
26
in your po in t of view?MS. WEISMANN: I t h ink , aga in , it can ' t - - it has
- - wel l . Looking from our language, I mean, it j u s t has tosay everyth ing t h a t ' s in t he i r possess ion , custody and
Armstrong Court t ha t counsel has asked t h i s Court to use asa model. The fac tua l se t t ing was very d i f fe ren t , and Ith ink t h a t 's c r i t ic a l. Armstrong came about because the rewas about to be a pres ident ia l t r ans i t i on . And the concernwas not what had happ en ed in the pas t , but the fac t , thel ike l ihood t ha t in the course of t ha t t r ans i t i on recordswould get l o s t . And t ha t i s why the emergency r e l i e f t h a twas sought and awarded was prospec t ive going forward.
We have a very d i f f e r en t case , Your Honor. As youknow, our l awsu i t i s premised on what has happened, in pa r t ,over the l a s t th ree years . The fac t t ha t mil l ions of e-m ailhave been de le ted from White House se rvers , the fac t t h a tthe White House has refused to take s teps to recover thoset apes , to preserve , res to re those t apes . The fac t th a t toth i s date the White House still does not have an appropr ia teand e f f ec t ive e lec t ronic record-keeping system. That ' s whatthe core of our l awsu i t i s about . It's a very, veryd i f f e r en t fac tua l s i t ua t ion than Armstrong, which i s why wedon ' t th ink the same order i s appropr ia te here .
I also want to t a lk a little - -
1
23456789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: How would it be improved,
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
49/56
27
And I j u s t want to make a - - Your Honor had
r e l a t i ve ly minor tweaks. And then I th ink we have an ordert ha t I th ink appropr ia te ly provides us the kind of r e l i e fwe're se ek in g h ere , so we can l i t i g a t e and get to themer i t s .
con t ro l as of a d a te -c er ta in w i ll be preserved . And j u s tto be, you know - - so l e t me t e l l you what exact ly it i s ,looking a t our order , the tweaks t ha t we had proposed.
One was t ha t in the fourth l i ne , it says "Archivalcondi t ion backup copies in exis tence as of __ " and the datet ha t we would propose i s September 5th , 2007, the reasonbeing t ha t the Nat iona l Secur i ty Archive has also f i led alawsui t a lso before Judge Kennedy. Thei r l awsui t was f i l edon September 5th. So t ha t seems the appropr ia te date tobegin with .
We would inc lude language t ha t says t ha t t h i sobl iga t ion app l ie s to any and a l l copies in th e p oss es sio n,custody or con tro l of any and a l l of the White HouseDefendants .
And f ina l ly , Your Honor, we would want languagea t the end t ha t makes it c l ea r t h a t by agree ing to t ha t datethe P l a i n t i f f reserves the r igh t to seek r e l i e f fo r anydes t ruc t ion of backup tape or documents t ha t occurred pr io rto t ha t da te .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
But those are the minor what I th ink are
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
50/56
28
1 s t a r t e d out with Judge Penn 's o r d e r . I 'm counsel of record2 i n t h a t c a s e . I 'm a l s o counsel o f record i n the O ffice of3 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n case, which i s before Judge K o l l a r - K o t e l l y .4 T h a t ' s t h e case t h a t r a i s e s the i s s u e of the OA s t a t u s as an5 agency. So I 'm p r e t t y wel l versed i n those arguments and6 would be happy t o answer your q u e s t i o n s .7 But Judge Penn 's case , again , was a very d i f f e r e n t8 c a s e . We were s o r t of i n the midst , you know, ongoing9 l i t i g a t i o n when a document t h a t t h e government f i l e d r a i s e d
10 a concern t o us t h a t they were not p r e s e r v i n g documents.11 We brought a motion. And what happened t h e r e , we had12 argument, t h e Judge - - I mean, t h e r e ' s a w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t ,13 so what I 'm saying i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t . The14 Court was very concerned t h a t t h e government had not15 provided any proof , they wanted t o r e s t simply on t h e16 s ta te m e nt s o f counsel . Once the government o f f e r e d sworn17 d e c l a r a t i o n s -- and t h e r e was an o r d e r t h a t accompanied them18 - - we d i d agree v o l u n t a r i l y t h a t t h e case was moot.19 I mean, the concern we have here , as I s a i d20 e a r l i e r , however, i s t h a t we j u s t f e e l l i k e t h e r e ' s been so21 much wordsmithship and narrowness , and j u s t on a r e a l b a s i c22 l e v e l a r e f u s a l t o provide s o r t o f b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n , t h a t23 we j u s t - - we f e e l t h a t a Court o r d e r i s c r i t i c a l .24 And I would say t h a t i n t h e case b e f o r e Judge25 Penn, t h e o t h e r t h i n g t h a t was so d i f f e r e n t than here i s we
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
51/56
29
1 knew exac t ly what they were t a lk ing about . They came in2 with dec l a r a t i on s t h a t sa id , "These a re a l l th e records we3 have , and t h i s i s where t h ey ' r e being p rese rved and how4 t h ey ' r e be ing p rese rved . " And in f ac t , every t ime in t h a t5 case t h a t th e Sec re t Serv ice o r one o f its components has6 discovered new records , they have come in to Court w ith a new7 dec l a r a t i on , making it c l e a r t h i s i s what ' s in ex i s t ence .8 Here we c an ' t even get th e most bas ic exp lana t ion ,9 even if we have an order , o f what t h a t ' s going to cover , and
10 we t h ink t h a t would be c r i t i c a l . We t h ink everybody needs11 to know what a re t h e i r obl iga t ions and, you know, a re they12 complying with them.13 On th e mer i t s , I th ink - - to answer some o f your14 ques t ions about th e Off i ce of Admin i s t r a t i on . It was15 c rea ted by Pres iden t Car t e r by an e xe cu tiv e o rd er . It's a16 c r ea t i on o f e xe cu tiv e o rde r . And s ince its i n cep t i on , it17 has alw ays ac ted as an agency. Unt i l our l i t i g a t i on it has18 had a whole FOIA scheme, it publ i shed r egu l a t i on s . I f you19 went to th e White House web s i t e , un t i l q u ite r ec en tly , it20 in f a c t sa id very exp ress l y t h a t th e O ff ice o f21 Admin i s t r a t i on i s an agency. I t l i s t ed it a long with the22 EQIOIB.23 But, Your Honor, I don ' t even t h ink you need to24 de lve too deep ly in to t h a t i s sue , because whether o r no t the25 O ffic e o f A dm in is tra tio n i s an agency, we' re t a l k ing about
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
52/56
30
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Anything e l se?MS. HONG: I j u s t want to address one of the f i r s t
points t h a t Ms. Weismann r a i s ed , which was her concern tha tthe re a re d i s a s t e r recovery tapes or o the r tap es o uts id e ofthe Office of Adminis t ra t ion 's custody, possess ion or
records t h a t inc lude federa l records, and the governmentcan ' t deny t ha t . The problem i s , t hey ' r e commingled.Unlike th e C lin ton adminis t ra t ion , which had an ef fec t ivee lec t ron ic record-keeping system ca l l ed ARMS, which dumpedth ings in buckets , e i t he r it was a f edera l record or apre s iden t i a l record , t h i s adminis t ra t ion has dumped them inse rver s , t hey ' r e a l l commingled. So whether or not theOff ice o f Admin is tr at io n i s an agency, it can ' t be deniedtha t the miss ing e-mai l s inc lude f edera l records and t ha tthe backup tap e inc lu de federa l records . So I th ink in somerespects it's s o r t of a red herr ing to go down t ha t road.
I 'd be happy to answer any ques t ions you have onthe mer i t s .
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: I mean, I th ink you'veanswered a l l of them. What I would l ike you to do, i f youwould, i s , if you 'd be so kind, i s , in l i gh t of today 'sd iscuss ion , if you wanted to send me a r ev i sed proposedorder bye -ma i l , I 'd l ike to take a look a t it.
MS. WEISMANN:
12345678
910
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
Your Honor. Thank you.Yes, I wi l l do t ha t t h i s af te rnoon,
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
53/56
31
obviously would have no way of knowing whether the model weused here i s the same one used there . I don ' t know if theyof f - s i t e .
t rue , t ha t the Off ice of Adminis t rat ion wi l l maintain andwi l l cont inue to maintain fo r the pendency of t h i sl i t i ga t i on the d i sa s t e r recovery tapes t h a t were inex is tence as of September 25th or September 5th , 2007.
Adminis t rat ion has made the representa t ion t ha t it wil lmaintain and preserve a l l backup t apes in i t s possess ion,custody or cont ro l , which include a l l the r e levan t d i s a s t e rrecovery tapes .
( inaudible) Your Honor.THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: No, I don ' t . I j u s t would
be, f rankly , very surpr i sed i f they d idn ' t go o f f - s i t e .That ' s why you send them of f - s i t e , so in the event of ad i sa s t e r you can ( inaudible) Okay. Thank you very much.I apprec ia te your answer.
I t ake it t ha t in the next couple of days, as Iformulate what I 'm going to do fo r Judge Kennedy, thee wi l lbe no des t ruc t i on . I have your assurance t ha t nothing wi l lchange, i s t ha t t rue?
The Office of
Yes, I don ' t know, and
Unless you have any fu r ther quest ions ,
The represen ta t ions we have made remain
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
MS. HONG:
MS. HONG:
con t ro l t ha t are re lev an t to t h i s l awsu i t .12345
6789
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
54/56
32
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Thank you.MS. WEISMANN: Your Honor, I don ' t mean to be
d i f f i cu l t here , but can we take t ha t to mean a ny th ing w i th inthe custody, possess ion or contro l of the White HouseDefendants?
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: That ' s the way I 'm
t h i s case , yes.MS. WEISMANN: Thank you.THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Unt i l I ru le . That ' s my
unders tanding. I f I 'm mistaken in t ha t unders tanding, Iexpect somebody to t e l l me very soon. Thank you.
The Court wi l l be in recess .(Whereupon, proceedings were concluded)
to ordinary pr inc ip les in the i n t e rp r e t a t i on of the FederalRules of Civ i l Procedure. And they have, s ince 1938, beenin te rpre ted to extend to informat ion or documents which area pa r t y ' s possess ion , custody or con t ro l .
MS. WEISMANN: But I j u s t wanted to - -THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: So I give not ice tha t I
i n t e rp re t those words in the same exac t way.MS. WEISMANN: Okay. And fo r a l l the White House
Defendants and not ( inaudib le) .THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: For a l l th e Defendants in
I mean, a l l I can do here i s reso r tin te rpre t ing it, yes .
12345
67
89
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Pag
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
55/56
33
UNITED STATES OF AMERICACiv i l Action No. 07-1707
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
I , PAUL R. CUTLER, do hereby ce r t i f y t ha t arecording o f the foregoing proceed ings in th e above matterwas dup l ica ted from an or ig ina l recording by the Office ofthe C lerk , United Sta tes Dis t r i c t Court fo r the Dis t r i c t ofColumbia, and t ha t sa id dupl ic at e r ec or din g o f theproceedings was t r anscr ibed under my d i r ec t ion totypewri t ten form.
PAUL R. CUTLERI do hereby ce r t i fy t ha t the foregoing t ransc r ip t
was typed by me and t ha t sa id t r an sc r i p t i s a t rue record ofth e re co rd ed p ro ceed in gs to the bes t
i(
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-3 Filed 10/26/2007 Page
-
8/7/2019 CREW v. EOP: Regarding Missing WH Emails: 10/26/07 - CREWs Motion for Discovery
56/56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, ))
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 1:07cv1707 (HHK) (JMF)
)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE )
PRESIDENT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Court having considered plaintiffs motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery
and to compel a Rule 26(f) conference, defendants opposition thereto and the entire record
herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs motion is GRANTED, and that plaintiff is hereby
given leave to conduct expedited discovery and it is further
ORDERED that the parties meet and confer within three business days of this order
pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: _________________ ______________________________
HENRY H. KENNEDY, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 1:07-cv-01707-HHK Document 14-4 Filed 10/26/2007 Pa