Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to to Exclude Extra Judicial Materials...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
William Thomas, et. al. | C.A. No. 94-2742
Plaintiffs pro se, | Judge Charles R. Richey
The United States, et. al. |
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO "PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO EXCLUDE EXTRA JUDICIAL MATERIALS OBTAINED
BY AGENTS Working TO AFFORD DEFENDANTS
UNFAIR LEGAL ADVANTAGE IN THE INSTANT CASE"
Plaintiffs have moved this Court for an Order to "enjoin
defendants, or other agents acting on their behalf. from
interrogating" any potential witnesses "about any incidents
relating to the merits of this complaint, and particularly the
incidents involving Officer O'Neill and Marcelino Corniel in
Lafayette Park" unless the plaintiffs are present and the
interview is "recorded in a manner consistent with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants oppose this request for
First, the defendants, or those acting on their behalf, have
every right to seek to interview witnesses with relevant
information about The pending case. Plaintiffs have no right to
be present. and there is no requirement that any such interviews
be recorded in any manner whatsoever. The fact the discovery has
been stayed in this case is irrelevant.
In the second place. counsel is not aware of any "defendants,
or other agents acting on their behalf" conducting
interviews of witnesses for purposes of this litigation. Indeed.
Mr. Thomas's own affidavit establishes that the police officers
Or others interviewing witnesses "don't want to talk  about the
civil case". See Declaration of William Thomas. dated March 3,
1995, at para. 11.  Metropolitan Police
officers are plainly not agents of any of the defendants.
To the extent that individuals from the criminal division of the
United States Attorney's office are conducting interviews as part
of an investigation, this litigation should neither impede nor
influence their investigation. Indeed, it is axiomatic that
absent extraordinary circumstances not present here, the Court
will not involve itself in the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion. See. e.g.;. United States v. Jordan, 759 F.Supp. 902.
905 (D.D.C. 1991). aff'd. 43 F.2d 712 (D.C. Car 1994),
cert. denied. 115 S. Ct. 1162 (1995).
Finally, the incident involving the shooting of Mr. Corniel is not
before this Court. The plaintiffs have raised claim. here that
certain Park Police officers have improperly enforced applicable
regulations against the plaintiffs; they have no standing to
raise any claim on Mr. Corniel's behalf. The plaintiffs
repeated efforts to cloud this Case and their allegations with
the an incident unrelated to them should be rejected.
[1 Although both Mr. Thomas's Declaration and his certificate of
Service are dated March 3. 1995. Counsel far the defendants did
not receive a copy of the plaintiffs' papers until March 13.
1995, when she received a copy in the mail.]
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' motion should be
Eric H. HOLDER, JR., D.C. BAR #303115
United States Attorney
SALLY M. RIDER, D.C. BAR #436588
Assistant United States Attorney
RANDOLPH MYERS, Bsq.
Office of the Soilicitor