Plaintiffs, by counsel, respectfully submit this Motion for Emergency Order Compelling the Deposition of George Stephanopoulos. As reasons and grounds for this Motion, Plaintiffs state:

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Executive Office of the President's ("the White House"), and its allies', obvious threat to use the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy of blackmailing individuals by disseminating information from government files was first revealed in a February 8, 1998 nationally televised interview of George Stephanopoulos ("Stephanopoulos"), a former advisor of the White House. In the interview, Stephanopoulos stated that "White House allies are already starting to whisper about what I'll call the Ellen Roemech (sic) strategy." Because the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy historically involved the use of FBI files, the Plaintiffs asked Stephanopoulos, at his March 9, 1998 deposition, to identify the "White House allies." However, Stephanopoulos refused, claiming a journalist's privilege. Afterwards, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Stephanopoulos to name the "White House allies." The Court, on May 28, 1998, denied Plaintiffs' motion stating:

"...it is not sufficient that the identity of the source would be merely helpful to plaintiffs or even highly material. The identity of the sources must be central to the litigation. For this reason, it is the conclusion of the court that notwithstanding any difficulty that plaintiffs may encounter in attempting to obtain this information elsewhere, the information sought by plaintiffs does not go to the very heart of plaintiffs' claims in this suit." (May 28, 1998 Memorandum Opinion at page 62)

In a later June 25, 1998 Memorandum and Order, the Court clarified that, in this case, the scope of discovery involves the disclosure of information from government files.⁽¹⁾ Thus, the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy falls within the scope of this case.

Since the Court's May 28, 1998 Order, the February 8, 1998 "whisper" of the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy has become a reality, and presents an immediate threat to the class of Plaintiffs in this case. The August 5, 1998 issue of the Internet magazine Salon, speaking of a "scorched earth" Clinton Administration survival plan, states:

"The threat to out the president's critics is not new. It first surfaced on Feb. 8, when former White House advisor George Stephanopoulos, analyzing the then-2-week-old Lewinsky scandal for ABC's This Week said White House allies were "starting to whisper about what I'll call the 'Ellen Romach (sic)' strategy."

As stated in the Salon article, the "scorched earth" plan is simply a recast of the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy:

"With the reemergence of the 'Romach (sic) Strategy,' along with Lewinsky's long-forgotten stained dress, the political stakes have increased significantly in these days before the crucial grand jury testimony by Lewinsky and Clinton himself."

Salon also states:

"Clinton allies say the president's strategy is based on the certainty that once Starr has submitted his report to Congress, probably sometime this fall, Clinton's ordeal will move from the precise legal realm of subpoenas and sworn testimony to the unpredictable arena of politics."⁽²⁾

In addition, events show that the White House is actually conducting the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy, such as the leaking of government file information concerning Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, and possibly Monica Lewinsky. See Exhibits 2-4. This is crucial to the Plaintiffs because "White House allies," such as James Carville, clearly receive information from the White House, and presumably act in concert with, or on behalf of, the White House. See Exhibits 5-7.

Plaintiffs' claims are based upon the obtaining and misuse of information from government files. The "Ellen Rometsch" strategy, so brazenly disclosed by Stephanopoulos and pursued by the White House and its allies, historically involves the use information from FBI files for improper purposes. Facts show that the White House is actually conducting the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy. In addition, agents of the President are using Terry Lenzner's company, Investigative Group International ("IGI"), to dig up dirt on the president's accusers. Salon states:

"Clinton critics now believe IGI, which employs lawyers, former FBI, CIA and DEA agents, ex-cops and former reporters, was also hired to dig up dirt on the president's accusers in the Lewinsky scandal as well. Lenzner could not be reached for comment."

As a result, the class of plaintiffs will definitely be affected. The harm caused by the White House's "Ellen Rometsch" strategy is unimaginable, since information could be distributed in the press, and made the subject of television and radio talk shows. However, the situation of Linda Tripp, whose FBI file was not coincidentally also obtained one (1) year after she began working for Bernard Nussbaum in the White House Counsel's office, is one example of the type of damage to which the class of Plaintiffs is exposed. The White House's reaction to Kathleen Willey's television interview, which resulted in the release of letters from her government file, is another example. See Exhibit 3.

Under relevant circumstances, even without exigent circumstances, discovery of a journalist's source may be permitted where the information sought is central or crucial to a claim, and alternative sources did not or could not provide such information. National Labor Relations Board v. Martinson, et. al., 701 F.Supp. 244(D.D.C. 1988); Liberty Lobby, Inc., et. al. v. Anderson, 96 F.R.D. 10 (D.D.C. 1982); Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1980);see also, Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Rees, 111 F.R.D. 19 (D.D.C. 1986), and Zerelli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705(D.C. Cir. 1981). Since it is, now, clear that the identity of the "White House allies" is at the core of the Plaintiffs' claims, and the class of Plaintiffs is exposed to the prospect of serious and irreparable damage due to the White House's pursuance of the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy, disclosure of the "White House allies" should now be ordered. Indeed, pundits in recent days no longer question that Salon was putting out the word on this strategy for the White House. B. Plaintiffs have a compelling need to know the identity of the "White House allies in order to avoid immediate and irreparable harm.

The "Ellen Rometsch" strategy pursued by the White House threatens to harm the Plaintiffs. Before other Plaintiffs are seriously harmed, the Court should allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to protect themselves from additional damage by the White House's "Ellen Rometsch" strategy. This will be possible, but not certain, only if the "White House allies" are revealed to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs allowed the opportunity to learn the facts known by these "White House allies," and the conduct of these "White House allies."

The journalist's privilege not to name sources is a qualified one. Zerelli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Where sources have relevant information that the interests of justice require be disclosed, and the need is compelling, an obligation may be placed on the newsman to reveal sources in spite of an implied or action pledge of confidentiality. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 695, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2664 (1972); Anderson v. Nixon, 444 F.Supp. 1195, 1199 (D.C.D.C. 1978)(requiring disclosure of sources where essential to defendant's defense); Carey v. Hume, 160 U.S. App. D.C. 365, 492 F.2d 631, cert. dismissed, 417 U.S. 938, 94 S.Ct. 2654, 41 L.Ed. 2d 661 (1974).

Because of the compelling need of the Plaintiffs to prevent immediate and irreparable harm from the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy of the White House, Stephanopoulos should be required to name the "White House allies."

Plaintiffs have deposed Lanny Davis, James Carville, Harold Ickes, Mandy Grunwald, Thomas "Mack" McClarty, and Terry Lenzner, all named, during discovery, as White House allies, in an effort to, among other things, identify the "White House allies" to which Stephanopoulos referred.⁽³⁾ However, because of a convenient failure of memory or inability to recall, none of these individuals could identify "the White House allies" to which Stephanopoulos referred. Davis Depo at 306-07, 386-88; Carville Depo at 297, 314; Ickes Depo at 233-37; Grunwald Depo at 104, 114, 122, 166, 171; McClarty Depo at 267-70; Lenzner Depo at 306-11. Because of these "blank memories," Plaintiffs have not been able to discover any other person who knows or might know the identity of the "White House allies." No reasonable alternative exists to requiring Stephanopoulos' disclosure of the "White House allies," and the Court should order their disclosure by him.

The "Ellen Rometsch" strategy involves the illegal use of information from government files. Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI has stated that "Filegate" constitutes an "egregious violation of privacy rights without justification," is prima facie evidence of a criminal violation of the Privacy Act, and likely involves violations of at least the mail and wire fraud statutes.

5 U.S.C. Section 552a(i)(1) provides that any officer or employee who willfully discloses subject material in any manner to a person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000. 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(i)(2) states that any officer or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system or records without meeting the notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) also shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000. The qualified journalist's privilege to conceal information does not apply to criminal proceedings where that information is not obtainable by other means. U.S. v. Hubbard, 493 F.Supp. 202 (D.C.D.C. 1979).

The White House's "Ellen Rometsch" strategy likely involves criminal activity, and the "White House allies" are participants. Since the class of Plaintiffs are the intended victims of the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy and Plaintiffs have been unable to learn identity of the "White House allies," Stephanopoulos should be required to name the "White House allies." See National Labor Relations Board v. Mortensen, 701 F.Supp. 244 (D.C.D.C. 1988); Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Anderson, 96 F.R.D. 10 (D.C.D.C. 1982); Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 722 (5th Cir. 1980); Miller v. Mecklenburg County, 602 F.Supp. 675 (D.C.D.C. 1985); Anderson v. Nixon, 444 F.Supp. 1195 (D.C.D.C. 1978).

The "Ellen Rometsch" strategy pursued by the White House and its allies is at the heart of Plaintiffs' claims because both involve the use of information from government files. The White House and its allies cannot now deny pursuing the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy. As the jeopardy of the President's situation increases, so will the desperation of the White House and the "White House allies." As a result, the class of Plaintiffs will be exposed to an increasing threat of destruction to their lives with each passing day. Every day is critical to Plaintiffs and prospective plaintiffs. This is especially true since the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy is being and will continue to be pursued over the airways, by newspaper, radio and television news and talk shows, and all manners of communication, with information released to harm material witnesses and perceived adversaries of the Clinton Administration. Plaintiffs must know who the "White House allies" are in order to avoid immediate and irreparable damage, and Stephanopoulos should be ordered to name the "White House allies" at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Order Compelling the Emergency Deposition of George Stephanopoulos, and order him to disclose the "White House allies" involved in the Ellen Rometsch strategy.

Respectfully submitted,

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

Larry Klayman

DC Bar No. 334581

501 School Street, S.W. Suite 725

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 646-5172

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

On August 17, 1998, I contacted Stanley M. Brand, Esquire, by telephone, to inquire whether Respondent George Stephanopoulos would oppose the relief requested herein or, if so, to narrow the areas of disagreement. Mr. Brand advised me that Respondent George Stephanopoulos would oppose the relief sought by Plaintiffs.

Michael M. Lee, Esq.

On August 17, 1998, I contacted James J. Gilligan, Esquire, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Esquire, and Allison C. Giles, Esquire, by telephone, to inquire whether Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and Executive Office of the President would oppose the relief requested by Plaintiffs' Motion to Shorten the Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Order to Compel the Deposition of George Stephanopoulos or, if so, to narrow the areas of disagreement. I was informed that Mr. Gilligan would be out of the office until August 31, 1998, and that Ms. Giles was out on maternity leave. I spoke with Ms. Shapiro, who stated that Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and Executive Office of the President would oppose the relief sought by Plaintiffs. I also conferred with Stanley M. Brand, Esq., counsel for for Mr. Stephanopoulos, and Paul Gaffney, Esq., counsel for Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton Brand, both of whom stated they would oppose the relief sought by Plaintiffs.

Sworn to under penalty of perjury.

Michael M. Lee, Esq.

On August 17, 1998, I contacted David E. Kendall, Esquire, Paul Gaffney, Esquire, and Marcie R. Ziegler, Esquire, by telephone, to inquire whether Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton would oppose the relief requested herein or, if so, to narrow the areas of disagreement. I was informed that Mr. Kendall was not available at the time of my call; that Mr. Gaffney was on another telephone call; and, that Ms. Ziegler was away from her desk. I left messages for Mr. Gaffney and Ms. Ziegler regarding the nature of my call, and I asked that each of them return my call to discuss Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Order Compelling the Deposition of George Stephanopoulos. Mr. Gaffney returned my call, and stated that Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton would oppose the relief sought by Plaintiffs

Michael M. Lee, Esq.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 18, 1998, before 10:00 a.m., a true copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EMERGENCY ORDER COMPELLING THE DEPOSITION OF GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER and [PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED] ORDER were served, via hand-deliver, upon:

Attorney for George Stephanopoulos

Stanley M. Brand, Esq.

BRAND, LOWELL & RYAN

923 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Attorneys for Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and Executive

Office of the President:

James J. Gilligan, Esq.

Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Esq.

Allison C. Giles, Esq.

Assistant United States Attorneys

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

901 E Street, N.W., 9th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20044

Attorneys for Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton

David E. Kendall, Esq.

Paul Gaffney, Esq.

Marcie R. Ziegler, Esq.

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

725 12th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

1. The Court's June 25, 1998 Memorandum and Order also notes that the Court, on April 13, 1998, issued a memorandum and order permitting Plaintiffs to pursue discovery into matters bearing on the obtaining and misuse of governmental files in order for Plaintiffs to attempt to create the inference that it is reasonable to conclude that FBI files were obtained and misused in this case. (June 25, 1998 Memorandum and Order at page 11)

2. The August 5, 1998 issue of Salon is attached, in its entirety, as Exhibit 1 for the convenience of the Court.

3. The Court's May 28, 1998 Order precludes the Plaintiffs from deposing Jane Mayer regarding the identity of the "White House allies." The deposition of Mickey Kantor was scheduled, but postponed. However, Plaintiffs expect Mr Kantor to assert either executive and/or attorney-client privilege in this respect.