Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CREW v. DHS (Secret Service): Re: WH Visitor Logs – Health Care Execs: 8/3/09 - Memorandum of Law in Opposition to CREW Motion for Prelim Injunction (Document 8)

CREW v. DHS (Secret Service): Re: WH Visitor Logs – Health Care Execs: 8/3/09 - Memorandum of Law in Opposition to CREW Motion for Prelim Injunction (Document 8)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14 |Likes:
Published by CREW
On July 22, 2009, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is filing a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security based on the refusal of the Secret Service to provide CREW with White House visitor records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). CREW is seeking records of visits by top health care executives in an effort to learn the extent to which these industry players may have influenced the administration’s health care policy.
On July 22, 2009, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is filing a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security based on the refusal of the Secret Service to provide CREW with White House visitor records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). CREW is seeking records of visits by top health care executives in an effort to learn the extent to which these industry players may have influenced the administration’s health care policy.

More info:

Published by: CREW on Jan 28, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA__________________________________________ )CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, ))Plaintiff,  ))v. ) Case No. 1:09-cv-01356-EGS)U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )SECURITY, ))Defendant. )__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A STAY
Tony WestAssistant Attorney GeneralJohn R. Tyler Assistant Branch Director Federal Programs BranchBrad P. RosenbergTrial AttorneyFederal Programs BranchUnited States Department of JusticeCounsel for DefendantU.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case 1:09-cv-01356-EGS     Document 8      Filed 08/03/2009     Page 1 of 19
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5I. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS INAPPROPRIATE IN THECONTEXT OF THIS CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A. This Court Should Not Issue a Preliminary Injunction Because Any SuchInjunction Would Need to be Immediately Stayed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5B. The “Preliminary” Injunction Sought by Plaintiff Would Constitute aFinal Judgment From Which Defendant Would Have No EffectiveAppeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7II. EVEN UNDER THE FOUR-PART PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TEST, THISCOURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10B. Irreparable Injury to Plaintiff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11C. Harm to Other Interested Parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12D. The Public Interest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12III. THIS COURT SHOULD STAY THIS ENTIRE ACTION PENDINGTHE D.C. CIRCUIT’S RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL INCREW 2 AND CREW 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Case 1:09-cv-01356-EGS     Document 8      Filed 08/03/2009     Page 2 of 19
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases:
*Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . 11*Ctr. for Natl’ Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 217 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2002).. . . . . . . 6*Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,532 F.3d 860 (D.C. Cir. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4*Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,527 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 10, 14*Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,592 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.D.C. 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4*Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,592 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.D.C. 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 10, 14CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1995).. . . . . . . . . . 5, 9*Computer Prof’ls for Soc. Responsibility v. Secret Service, 72 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996). . . . 13CSX Transp., Inc. v. Williams, 406 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989). . . . . . . . . 13*Dorfmann v. Boozer, 414 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 12*Hechinger v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Auth., 845 F. Supp. 902 (D.D.C. 1994).. . . . 13Int’l Painters and Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. Painting Co.,569 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14*John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 488 U.S. 1306 (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Population Inst. v. McPherson, 797 F.2d 1062 (D.C. Cir. 1986).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10* indicates authorities upon which counsel chiefly relies, copies of which will be provided to theCourt per the Court’s Minute Order.
Case 1:09-cv-01356-EGS     Document 8      Filed 08/03/2009     Page 3 of 19

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download