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
                                   |
               v.                  |
                                   |
     The United States, et. al.    |
           Defendants.             |

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 several reasons.

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

1

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. [1] 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.]

2

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted.

_____________________________________
Eric H. HOLDER, JR., D.C. BAR #303115
United States Attorney

_____________________________________
SALLY M. RIDER, D.C. BAR #436588
Assistant United States Attorney

OF COUNSEL:

RANDOLPH MYERS, Bsq.
Office of the Soilicitor

3