Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pursuant to the Court’s Order of September 16, 2008, directing plaintiffs to file a reply
“addressing whether a basis exists for issuing a preliminary injunction at this time” or,
alternatively, “indicate to the Court that no such basis exists,” plaintiffs respond as follows.
not only does not obviate the need for a preliminary injunction, but it highlights all the more why
the requested preservation order is critical to prevent irreparable harm. Far from supplying the
requisite assurances that defendants are complying fully with the Presidential Records Act
(“PRA”), the defendants’ declarations offer carefully parsed language establishing only that
defendants are preserving two subsets of vice presidential records. The declarations do not even
address, much less allay, the central concern behind plaintiffs’ lawsuit -- that the vice president
considers himself in a wide variety of contexts to function outside of the executive branch and,
accordingly, will not preserve under the PRA the records that document those functions. Given
the enormity of what is at stake -- quite literally our nation’s history -- the vice president’s past
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 2 of 12
comments and actions regarding his right to control his records and the records of his office as
he sees fit, notwithstanding court orders or congressional subpoenas, highlight in graphic relief
the need for a preservation order. Absent the requested preliminary relief, the vice president will
be left with a loophole in the PRA large enough to drive truckloads of documents through.
As set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint and their motion for a preliminary injunction, this
lawsuit is based on the position of the vice president, expressed repeatedly in a variety of
contexts from his office’s handling of classified information to OVP travel funded by outside
sources, that he is not part of the executive branch. Indeed, the Plum Book describes the vice
presidency as “a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the
Accordingly, the issue here is not, as defendants argue, whether the vice president and
the Office of the Vice President (“OVP”) are properly preserving records regarding the
“executive-related and legislative-related duties” of the vice president. See Ds’ Oppos. at 1, 2, 3,
7, 8, 11, 15, 16. It is all well and good for defendants to offer the declaration of Claire M.
O’Donnell (“O’Donnell Decl.”) attesting to the OVP’s preservation of such records. See
O’Donnell Decl. at ¶ 5.2 But, as a careful reading of defendants’ brief and supporting declaration
1
A copy of this portion of the Plum Book is Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Ps’
Mem.”).
2
Of note, Ms. O’Donnell is completely silent as to what, if anything, the vice president is
preserving, does not represent that she or the OVP have exclusive responsibility for all of the
vice president’s records, and is careful to limit her representations to those records that are
within the OVP’s “possession, custody or control . . .” O’Donnell Decl. at ¶¶ 1, 7. The vice
president, however, is a separately sued defendant in this lawsuit and, like the OVP, is also
subject to the PRA.
2
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 3 of 12
reveals, those assurances cover only those executive-related functions “specially assigned to the
Vice President by the President in the discharge of his executive duties and responsibilities,”3
and the legislative-related functions consist only of “the Vice President’s functions as President
of the Senate.” Ds’ Oppos. at 8; O’Donnell Decl. at ¶¶ 3, 5. Any and all other responsibilities
and functions that the vice president performs are not included in the very specific assurances
Yet it is those other responsibilities and functions that are at the core of this dispute.
Vice President Cheney’s tenure has been remarkable in large part because of the extraordinary
power and independence he has yielded. Just last week, for example, The Washington Post
reported on his efforts and the efforts of his office, with no apparent knowledge, involvement or
direction of the president, to undermine the Department of Justice’s refusal to certify the legality
Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink, The Washington Post (September 14, 2008),
3
This definition appears to flow from 3 U.S.C. § 106, which defendants imply offers a
definitive definition of the vice president’s functions. Ds’ Oppos. at 7. See also O’Donnell
Decl. at ¶ 3. Far from being a definitive cataloging of the vice president’s executive functions,
that statutory provision authorizes the vice president to procure staff as well as experts and
consultants and authorizes funds to be appropriated to the OVP to cover “official expenses,” the
“official entertainment expenses of the Vice President,” and travel expenses of government
personnel traveling on official business with the vice president. 3 U.S.C. §§ 106 (b)(1)-(3).
Indeed, when faced with the vice president’s extreme position that he is not part of the executive
branch, Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) offered an amendment to the General Government
Appropriations Act of 2008 that would have barred executive branch appropriations from being
used to fund the Office of the Vice President. See http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/D?d110:27:./temp/~bdZhve:: In any event, defendants surely are not arguing that
through legislation Congress has the ability to define and dictate to the president the vice
president’s precise duties and parameters.
3
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 4 of 12
point, this lawsuit is premised on the vice president’s view that in performing a variety of
functions he is not a part of the executive branch and accordingly is not discharging “executive
duties and responsibilities.” As a result, records of how he performs these duties and
responsibilities would fall outside the categories of records the OVP claims to be preserving.
Perhaps recognizing the limitations of their declarations, defendants fall back on the
argument that they are entitled to a presumption of regularity and good faith. Ds’ Oppos. at 12.
The White House’s fulfillment of its record keeping requirements, however, has been anything
but regular and in good faith. Having failed to put in place an effective and appropriate
electronic record keeping system, the White House is now faced with the disappearance of
millions of emails from White House servers that span a critical two and one-half year period.
Internal White House emails produced in response to congressional and other subpoenas have
revealed that top White House officials purposefully used outside email accounts to conduct
official White House business so that their emails would not be captured by and preserved on
White House servers. The lines of communication between the White House and the National
Archives and Records Administration (“ NARA”) as to its record keeping practices have been
anything but open. For example, NARA did not learn that the Office of Administration no
longer considers itself an agency until it read about the new position in the newspaper, even
though this changed status has profound implications for record keeping and NARA’s role. The
White House’s past history and the limitations of the declarations it offers here are at odds with
Defendants also fault the plaintiffs for wasting court resources and attempting to engage
the Court in a “superfluous task.” Ds’ Oppos. at 3. Ironically, it is the defendants with their
4
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 5 of 12
careful wordsmithing and failure to even acknowledge, much less come to terms with, the body
of records actually at issue, that are guilty of such conduct. Defendants’ bold assertion that they
are complying with 44 U.S.C. § 2207 is not backed up by the evidence they have placed in the
record. Nor are defendants in a position to challenge the need for this lawsuit, given their refusal
to respond to plaintiff CREW’s pre-litigation requests for assurances that all of the vice
presidential records are being preserved and will continue to be preserved. See Letter from
Melanie Sloan to Vice President Cheney, July 8, 2008 (attached as Exhibit 5 to Ps’ Mem.) and
Letter from Anne Weismann to Gary M. Stern, July 21, 2008 (attached as Exhibit 6 to Ps’
Mem.).
The Court’s September 16 Order also notes defendants’ denial that they have issued
guidelines excluding any vice presidential records from the requirements of Section 2207,
backed up by sworn declarations. Order at p. 2. Again, however, those denials are tied to
functions “specially assigned to the Vice President by the President in the discharge of executive
duties and responsibilities,” O’Donnell Decl. at ¶ 5, and the vice president’s functions “as
President of the Senate, id. at ¶ 3.4 Thus, the sworn declaration of Claire O’Donnell is of limited
value in addressing the core of plaintiffs’ concerns underlying their request for a preliminary
injunction. And the declaration of NARA’s Nancy Kegan Smith (“Smith Decl.”) confirms -- not
disputes -- NARA’s policy of leaving it to the discretion of each individual vice president as to
whether their legislative papers will be treated as personal papers or as subject to the PRA. See
4
In fact, the O’Donnell declaration confirms that the OVP at least has a policy of treating
only those papers related to the executive-related and legislative-related functions of the vice
president, as she defines those terms, as subject to the PRA.
5
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 6 of 12
The Court’s Order also notes that many of plaintiffs’ allegations are made “upon
information and belief.” In fact, factual assertions in only three paragraphs of plaintiffs’ 72-
paragraph complaint are made on information and belief (¶¶ 35-57), and two of those paragraphs
deal with the maintenance of the vice president’s records at the White House (facts that
defendants do not dispute). Moreover, given the extraordinary and unprecedented secrecy with
which this White House has operated, plaintiffs and the public at large have had no access to any
specific facts regarding which records the vice president has preserved or the guidelines he and
his office use to determine whether records fall within the scope of the PRA. Defendants’
carefully worded declarations not only do not dispute plaintiffs’ factual assertions, but actually
confirm that, at a minimum, the OVP has a policy of treating as subject to the PRA only those
vice presidential records related to Vice President Cheney’s “specially assigned” functions from
5
Ms. Smith describes NARA’s policy as treating the legislative records of vice
presidents as “covered under the PRA, absent an express indication from the former Vice
President or his representative that such records are considered to be ‘personal’ in nature.” Id.
Gary Stern, NARA’s general counsel, offered a slightly different formulation -- that NARA
treats the legislative records of a vice president as their personal records to be included in a
presidential library at the discretion of each vice president. See Exhibit 6 to Ps’ Mem. No
matter the phrasing, each leaves it to the discretion of the vice president to treat his legislative
records as personal or to have them included in presidential libraries as if they were subject to
the PRA.
6
Defendants also eschew any reliance on Executive Order 13,233 “ to exclude any vice
presidential records of the vice presidency of Richard B. Cheney from the requirements of
section 2207 of title 44 . . .” O’Donnell Decl. at ¶ 7. But this denial, like the defendants’
assurances of preservation, rests on the same definitional tautology -- that “vice presidential
records” consist only of those that deal the vice president’s “specially assigned” functions from
the president as well as his functions as president of the Senate. Just as unavailing is defendants’
contorted effort to explain away the effect of the executive order as not limiting the scope of the
6
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 7 of 12
Defendants’ arguments on the absence of any irreparable and certain harm rest entirely
on their so-called assurances that they are complying fully with the PRA thereby obviating any
need for a preservation order. They therefore urge this Court to adopt the same approach as that
adopted by the court in CREW v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 06-1912 (D.D.C. March
14, 2007). Ds’ Oppos. at 12. In that case, Judge Penn concluded that CREW’s request for a
temporary restraining order requiring preservation of all records at issue was moot after a
hearing and the submission by the defendants of declarations that offered “sufficient assurances
that the universe of records at issue is being properly preserved pending the outcome of this
litigation.” Order at p. 2 (Exhibit 3 to Ds’ Oppos.). But, as Judge Penn noted in his order,
CREW accepted those assurances and agreed the case was moot precisely because the
Here, by contrast, defendants have not offered sufficient assurances that the entire
universe of records at issue is being properly preserved pending the outcome of this lawsuit. As
discussed supra, defendants have demonstrated at most that they are preserving two subsets of
vice presidential records. But they have not demonstrated -- indeed, they have not even
addressed -- that they are preserving the records that are at the core of this controversy.
Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient assurances here, Judge Penn’s order does not provide a
PRA. See Ds’ Oppos. at 7 n.2. By its plain language, section 11of E.O. 13,233 provides
unequivocally and without limitation that the PRA “applies to the executive records of the Vice
President.” That this is a limitation on which of the vice president’s records are subject to the
PRA could not be clearer and defendants’ post-hoc attempt to change its meaning is
transparently inadequate.
7
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 8 of 12
Defendants also suggest that plaintiffs delayed filing suit and that such delay belies their
claims of immediate and irreparable harm. Ds’ Oppos. at 11 n.3. This is not accurate. When
President Bush issued E.O. 13,233 in November 2001, plaintiffs had no way of knowing the vice
president would take the extraordinary and unprecedented position that he is not part of the
executive branch. At the point that the vice president’s actions and their meaning became clear,
plaintiff CREW wrote letters to both NARA and the vice president seeking assurances of their
full compliance with the PRA. It was only after defendants failed to respond in any way to those
Finally on this point, should there be any remaining doubt about the irreparable and
imminent harm plaintiffs face, plaintiffs offer the declarations of plaintiff Stanley Kutler and
standing to sue and the harm they will suffer absent judicial relief.7 Professor Kutler has made
extensive use of the records of former presidents and vice presidents in his historical research; it
was his lawsuit that resulted in the disclosure of President Nixon’s tapes. Declaration of Stanley
I. Kutler (“Kutler Decl.”), ¶¶ 2, 3. Professor Kutler plans to research Vice President Cheney’s
advocacy of a “unitary theory” of government which will, of necessity, depend on his full access
to the vice president’s papers. Id. at ¶ 6. If Professor Kutler’s well-founded concern that Vice
President Cheney will leave office with many of his records is realized, Professor Kutler will be
7
Professor Kutler is traveling and sent a facsimile copy of his declaration to plaintiffs’
counsel for filing in this action. He inadvertently failed to sign his declaration, however, and
counsel has been unable to reach him to secure a signed copy for filing by the 5:30 p.m.
deadline, set by this Court last evening. Thus, plaintiffs file herewith as Exhibit 1 Professor
Kutler’s unsigned declaration, and will submit a signed copy as soon as their counsel secures it.
8
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 9 of 12
attests to the critical need to preserve all of the vice president’s records subject to the PRA.
Declaration of Anna Kasten Nelson (“Nelson Decl.”) at ¶¶ 1, 4-5. As Professor Nelson explains,
Vice President Cheney “has been at the center of policy making in the Bush White House.” Id.
at ¶ 4. As a result, “[w]ithout all of his memoranda, letters and notes history will tell only half
the story.” Id. Like Professor Kutler, Professor Nelson’s legitimate fear that Vice President
Cheney “will defy the PRA and either destroy his records or secrete them from the American
3. The Requested Injunctive Relief Best Serves The Public Interest And Imposes
No Undue Burden On The Defendants.
The stakes in this litigation are enormous; riding on the balance is the public’s right to
access a full history of this administration. Given the harm plaintiffs and the public face, there is
no question that the public is best served by the issuance of the requested preservation order.
Defendants argue nevertheless that the public would be ill-served by the requested relief
because it would “greatly expand the possibility of Rule 65 abuse.” Ds’ Oppos. at 14. This is
nonsensical. Courts are fully equipped to prevent such abuse on a case-by-case basis. But
where, as here, defendants fail to respond to the central allegations of the complaint and offer
declarations that ignore, not refute, those allegations it is not the plaintiffs who can legitimately
Defendants make the same kind of sweeping generic argument as to why the requested
relief would unduly burden them, namely that it would create a precedent that “would subject
9
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 10 of 12
Ds’ Oppos. at 14. But the relief plaintiffs request here is based on the actions of the defendants
and corresponds directly to the significance of the harm plaintiffs will suffer absent a
preservation order.
Defendants also argue that the requested relief is over-broad because it would impose
preservation obligations on the vice president for records related to his executive-related
functions, which are not at issue. Ds’ Oppos. at 15-16. Defendants misconstrue the nature of
plaintiffs’ claims and ignore defendants’ own severely truncated definition of “executive-related
functions” that provides proof positive as to why a broader preservation order is warranted here.
This dispute arose from defendants’ efforts to define too narrowly the scope of vice presidential
records subject to the PRA. The only appropriate relief that addresses this concern is a
preservation order requiring defendants to preserve all vice presidential records that are not
purely personal as defined in the PRA; anything less is under-inclusive and threatens the
Defendants devote little attention to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, suggesting there is no
case or controversy because the OVP has been carrying out its obligations under the PRA. Ds’
Oppos. at 17. As discussed supra, this remains very much in dispute. Moreover, defendants
have offered nothing to demonstrate that four of the five named defendants -- the vice president,
the Executive Office of the President, the archivist, and the National Archives and Records
Defendants also argue that plaintiffs have not demonstrated sufficient harm for standing
to sue. While plaintiffs will address this argument more fully in their motion for summary
10
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 11 of 12
judgment, scheduled to be filed on September 22, 2008, it is worth noting now that this case
differs significantly from the cases on which defendants rely. See Ds’ Oppos. at 17. There is
nothing “conjectural” or “hypothetical” about the fact that if the vice president does not transfer
all of his vice presidential records to NARA at the end of this administration, nobody -- not these
plaintiffs and not any other potential plaintiff -- will be able to access those records, particularly
Defendants’ additional merits arguments are actually nothing more than argument
headings, lacking in any analysis or explanation, and will be addressed fully in plaintiffs’
forthcoming merits brief. The Court’s power to review this case stems from the Administrative
Procedure Act (“APA”), which authorizes judicial review over NARA’s and the archivist’s
actions,8 the Declaratory Judgment Act, the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the PRA
under the direct authority of Armstrong v. Nat’l Sec. Archive, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons as well as those set forth in plaintiffs’ opening brief, plaintiffs
respectfully submit that there remains a clear basis for the preliminary injunctive relief plaintiffs
seek. Defendants’ opposition and supporting declarations at most demonstrate that defendants
are preserving a subset of vice presidential records. Unaddressed, however, are the records at the
core of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court should enter the requested relief.
Respectfully submitted,
8
Defendants disingenuously argue there is no APA review here because the vice
president is not an agency. Ds’ Oppos. at 18. But plaintiffs have not relied on the APA as
authority for the court to review the actions of the vice president, as a careful reading of the
complaint makes clear.
11
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 12 of 12
/s/
Anne L. Weismann
(D.C. Bar No. 298190)
Melanie Sloan
(D.C. Bar No. 434584)
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
in Washington
1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 408-5565
Fax: (202) 588-5020
12
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11-2 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11-2 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11-2 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11-2 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11-2 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11-2 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 11-2 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 7 of 7