Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 10 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 1 of 3

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.

ORDER
(September 16, 2008)

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ [9] Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction, which is premised upon an assertion that:

The Vice President and the Office of Vice President (“OVP”) have been carrying
out since January 20, 2001–and intend to continue to carry out–their obligations
under the Presidential Records Act with respect to documentary materials that
relate to or have an effect upon the Vice President’s constitutional, statutory or
other official and ceremonial duties, both executive-related and legislative-related
duties.

Defs.’ Opp’n at 1. Defendants’ assertion is supported by two Declarations, declared under

penalty of perjury, filed by Claire M. O’Donnell, Assistant to the Vice President and Deputy

Chief of Staff, and Nancy Kegan Smith, Director of the Presidential Materials Staff in the Office

of Presidential Libraries at the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). See

id., Exs. 1 and 2. Further, insofar as the gravamen of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

Injunction is their allegation that Defendants will not comply with 44 U.S.C. § 2207, and their

allegation that Defendants have limited their compliance with that Section based on Executive

Order 13,233, Defendants’ Opposition and Declarations specifically assert that Defendants
 Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 10 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 2 of 3

are complying with 44 U.S.C. § 2207 and deny that either the Vice President or the OVP have

relied upon Executive Order 13,233 or any guidelines issued by the other Defendants to exclude

any vice presidential records from the requirements of Section 2207. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 8;

O’Donnell Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. In light of their sworn Declarations, Defendants’ Opposition argues that

Plaintiff cannot demonstrate any likelihood of irreparable injury and therefore lacks grounds for

seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

The Court notes that many of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendants’ compliance

with the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”) are made upon information and belief. See, e.g., Am.

Compl. ¶¶ 35-37. As such, the Court requires Plaintiff to respond to the issue of whether, in light

of Defendants’ sworn Declarations, a basis exists for the Court to issue the preliminary

injunction Plaintiff requests in connection with Defendants’ compliance with the PRA. For the

time being, the Court shall leave in place the briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as set on September 10, 2008. See

Docket No. [4]. Upon determining whether a preliminary injunction is warranted in this case, the

Court shall consider how best to proceed in litigating this matter.

Accordingly, it is this 16th day of September, 2008, hereby

ORDERED that, no later than 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, Plaintiff

shall file a Reply in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction addressing whether a basis

exists for issuing a preliminary injunction at this time. Alternatively, Plaintiff may indicate to the

2
 Case 1:08-cv-01548-CKK Document 10 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 3 of 3

Court that no such basis exists, in which case this litigation will proceed on the merits of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

SO ORDERED.

/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge