Judges Order 7/3/95

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


     William Thomas, et. al.       |          C.A. No. 94-2747
           Plaintiffs pro se,      |          Judge Charles R. Richey
                                   |
               v.                  |
                                   |
     The United States, et. al.    |
           Defendants.             |

ORDER

The Court has before it the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Exclude Extra-Judicial Materials Obtained By Agents Working to Afford Defendants Unfair Legal Advantage in the Instant Case." In said Motion, the plaintiffs Appear to be seeking anOrder enjoining the Defendants from interviewing witnesses outside formal discovery. The Defendants have filed an Opposition, representing in pertinent part that, to counsel's knowledge, no witness interviews have been conducted for purposes of this case. In their Reply, the plaintiffs appear to take the position that "there is no problem" as long as the Defendants' representations in their Opposition are accurate and correct. See Plaintiffs' Reply at 2. Accordingly, the Court shall declare this Motion moot.

Also before the Court are the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Strike Randy Myers' Letter of January 20, 1995 from the Record" and the Plaintiffs' "Third Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions."

As a preliminary matter, the Court observes that, as the Court

2

is in receipt of the Plaintiffs' Replies to both Motions, it shall declare mootthe Plaintiffs' "Motion to Extend Time to Address Defendants' Issues Raised by Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and for Sanctions."

Next, as with the Plaintiffs' first and second Motions for sanctions, the Court shall deny the Plaintiffs' "Third Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions," without prejudice to the right to renew the same at the end of the proceedings in this case. See Order entered January 27, 1995; Order entered February 8, 1995.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Strike Randy Myers' Letter of January 20, 1995 from the Record," the Court observes that it did not consider the letter at issue in ruling on the "Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial of Plaintiffs' Application for a TRO." Moreover, the Court shall not consider the letter at any stage in the proceedings unless and until it is submitted in a form which has evidentiary value. At this juncture, however, the Court shall deny the Plaintiffs' Motion, without prejudice to the right to renew the same in the event the Defendants resubmit the letter ina form which does not have evidentiary value upon which the Court can rely.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 3rd day of July, 1995,

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Exclude Extra-Judicial Materials Obtained by Agents Working to Afford Defendants Unfair Legal Advantage in the Instant Case" [63-1] shall be, and hereby is, declared MOOT; and it is

3

FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Extend time to Address Defendants' Issues Raised by Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and for Sanctions" [58-1] shall be and hereby is, declared MOOT; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' "Third Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions [49-1] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED, without prejudice to the right to renew the same at the end of the proceedings in this case; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintidffs' "Motion to Strike Randy Myers' Letter of January 20, 1995 from the Record" [46-1] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to renew the same at a later stage in the proceedings.



_______________________
CHARLES R. RICHEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE