Case
1 :05-cr-00394-RBW Document 272 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 3
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UMTED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. )
Cr. No. 05-3 94 (RBW)
)
I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as “Scooter Libby,” )
Defendant. )
I. LEWIS LIBBY’S RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM
IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
RELATING TO GOVERNMENT WITNESS TIM RUSSERT
To ensure that it has all materials necessary to prepare an effective
cross- examination of the government’s final witness, NBC correspondent Tim Russert, the defense requested a limited amount of
discovery regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the litigation of
Mr. Russert’s motion to quash the grand jury subpoena
and his subsequent deposition. See Govt’s
Memo. in Opp’n to
Defendant’s Request for Disclosure of Information Relating to Accommodations
Provided to Media Witness Tim Russert (Dkt. 269) (filed Feb. 5, 2007). The government has
produced certain materials in response to those requests,
such that the defense now has all materials docketed in connection with the
grand jury litigation—save for the ex parte filings the government submitted in
response to Mr. Russert’s motion. The government has
also withheld certain information regarding the government’s communications
with Mr. Russert and his counsel regarding the
accommodations Mr. Russert received from the
government in connection with his deposition. The government contends that it
is not required to
Case
1 :05-cr-00394-RBW Document 272 Filed 02/07/2007 Page
2 of 3
produce this remaining material and has now
submitted yet another ex parte filing in support of that position.
Mr. Libby is plainly entitled to obtain discovery of the facts and circumstances
surrounding Mr. Russert’s grand jury litigation and
his subsequent deposition, as such information may well provide effective means
of cross-examining Mr. Russert regarding both his
credibility and ability to recall. The government itself has (at least tacitly)
acknowledged as much through the documents and information it has already
voluntarily provided. Mr. Libby cannot, of course, say specifically how the
information described in the government’s ex parte submission could be of use.
We merely reiterate our request that the Court order the production of all such
material consistent with its obligations under Rule 16 and Gig/b.
Regarding the ex parte filings submitted in opposition to Mr. Russert’s motion to quash, it is unclear why, at this stage
of the litigation, those materials remain under seal At a minimum, the Court
should review these materials for the information that may assist in
cross-examining Mr. Russert.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Libby respectfully requests that the Court deny
the government’s Motion.
Case 1 :05-cr-00394-RBW Document 272 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 3 of 3
Dated February
6, 2007
Theodore V. Wells, Jr.
(DC. Bar No. 468934)
James L. Brochin
(D.C. Bar No. 455456)
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
‘Wharton
& Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Tel. (212) 373-3089
D. Cline /
(b.C.
Bar No. 403824)
Jones Day
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel. (415) 626-3939
Respectfully Submitted,
£HJesr./
(D.C. Bar No. 41152)
Alex J, Bourelly
(D.C. Bar No. 441422)
Baker Botts LLP
Tel. (202) 639-7551