Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 4 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 08-1548 (CKK)

v.

RICHARD B. CHENEY, et al.,

Defendants.

SCHEDULING ORDER
(September 10, 2008)

Plaintiff, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) filed the

above-captioned case on September 8, 2008, along with a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Vice President Richard B. Cheney, the Executive Office of the

President (“EOP”), and the Office of the Vice President (“OVP”) (collectively the “White House

Defendants”) have improperly excluded records from the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §

2201 et seq. (“PRA”), at least in part in reliance on Executive Order 13,233, and seeks a

declaratory judgment or alternatively a writ of mandamus based on those allegations. Plaintiffs’

Complaint also alleges that the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) and

the Archivist of the United States (collectively “NARA” and, with the White House Defendants,

“Defendants”) have improperly excluded records from the PRA and failed to comply with the

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and seeks a declaratory judgment or

alternatively a writ of mandamus based on those allegations. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

Injunction seeks the preservation of all records potentially at issue in this litigation during its
 Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 4 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 4

pendency, in order to ensure the eventual transition of records that Plaintiff alleges to be covered

by the PRA to NARA.

On September 10, 2008, the Court held a conference call on the record with counsel for

all parties participating. During that conference call, Defendants agreed that they will

preserve–and will not transfer out of their custody and control–any and all records potentially at

issue in this litigation during its pendency, as well as during any ensuing appeal. The parties

agreed to memorialize this agreement through a memorandum of understanding, stipulation, or

proposed consent order for the Court’s approval, and to file such a document no later than 5:00

p.m. on Friday, September 12, 2008.

The parties and the Court further agreed that the parties’ agreement regarding the

preservation of relevant documents would eliminate the primary basis for Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction. As a result, the Court and the parties agreed that Plaintiff’s Complaint

should be resolved on the merits through more thorough briefing than would otherwise be

permitted under the time limits for briefing on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Accordingly, it is this 10th day of September, 2008, hereby

ORDERED that no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 12, 2008, the parties shall

file a document memorializing their agreement discussed above regarding the retention of

documents during the pendency of this litigation and any ensuing appeal. That document may

consist of a memorandum of understanding, stipulation, or proposed consent order; it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall adhere to the following briefing schedule: (1) CREW

shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by a Statement of Material Facts Not

in Dispute as required by Local Civil Rule 7(h), no later than September 22, 2008; (2)

2
 Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 4 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 3 of 4

Defendants shall file their Opposition to CREW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as any

Motion to Dismiss CREW’s Complaint, no later than October 20, 2008; (3) CREW shall file its

Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as its Opposition to any Motion to

Dismiss filed by Defendants, no later than November 7, 2008; and (4) Defendants shall file their

Reply in support of any Motion to Dismiss no later than November 17, 2008; it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall comply fully with Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1) and 7(h)(2),

as recently revised (formerly 7(h) and 56.1). The Court strictly adheres to the dictates of Local

Civil Rule 7(h) and may strike pleadings not in conformity with the rule. See Burke v. Gould,

286 F.3d 513, 519 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A party responding to a statement of material facts must

respond to each paragraph with a correspondingly numbered paragraph, indicating whether that

paragraph is admitted or denied. The responding party should include any information relevant

to its response in that paragraph. If the responding party has additional facts that are not

addressed in the corresponding paragraphs, the responding party should include these at the end

of its responsive statement of facts. At all points, parties must furnish precise citations to the

portions of the record on which they rely. The parties are strongly encouraged to carefully

review Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, et. al., 101 F.3d 145

(D.C. Cir. 1996), on the subject of Local Civil Rule 7(h), formerly Rule 108(h). The Court

assumes facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted,

unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the

motion. LCvR 7(h); it is further

3
 Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 4 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 4 of 4

ORDERED that if either party’s filing (including brief and exhibits) totals 25 pages or

more, that party shall deliver a courtesy copy to Chambers, including tabbed exhibits.

SO ORDERED.

/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge