FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF … · also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY ... court can balance the defendant’s interests in obtaining the information againstthe government’s

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFORTHE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))

v. ) Case No. 05-394 (REW))

I. LEWIS LIBBY )also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY” )

))

Government’sRequestfor Pre-trial ConferenceUnder Section2 of the ClassifiedInformation ProceduresAct

TheUnitedStatesofAmerica,by andthroughthe SpecialCounsel,respectfullymoves

this Court,pursuantto Section2 of theClassifiedInformationProceduresAct (CIPA), 18 U.S.C.

App. 3, to hold a pretrialconferenceto considermattersrelatingto classifiedinformationthat

mayarisein connectionwith theabove-captionedprosecution,and in supportthereofsubmitsthe

attachedmemorandumof law to apprisetheCourt oftheapplicability of CIPA to issues

involving classifiedinfonTiation whichmayarisebeforeandduring thetrial of this case.

Respectfullysubmitted,

4~FitzgeralfrSpecialCounsel

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 30 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))

v. ) CaseNo. 05-394(RBW))

I. LEWIS LIBBY )alsoknownas“SCOOTER LIBBY” )

))

Memorandum of Law -

L Introduction to CIPA

Two ofthe mostimportant dutiesofthe ExecutiveBranch are prosecutingviolationsof

federalcriminal laws andprotectingthe nation’ssecurity secrets. The SupremeCourt hasduly

noted that “[i]t is ‘obviousandunarguable’ thatno governmental interestismore compelling

than thesecurityofthe Nation.” Haigv. Agee,453 U.S. 280,307(1981).

CIPA wasenactedin 1980to addressthe problem of graymail,that is, threats by a

defendantto discloseclassifiedinformationin the courseofcriminal litigation. The statutewas

designedto reconcilea defendant’sright to obtain andintroduceexculpatory material, with the

govermnent’sduty to protect from disclosuresensitiveinformation thatcould compromise

national security. SeeUnitedStatesv. Rezaq,134 F.3d 1121, 1142(D.C. Cir. 1998). Priorto the

enactmentofCIPA, the governmentwasforcedto anticipatewhether thedefendant wouldseek

to discloseclassifiedinformationin connectionwith the litigation ofa caseandguesswhether

suchinformation would be admissible. SeeUnitedStatesv. Collins,720F.2d 1195, 1196-97

1


(1 Im Cir. 1983).

CIPA establishespretrial,trial andappellateproceduresfor federal criminal casesin

which thereis apossibilitythat classifiedinformationwill be publicly disclosed.Underthese

procedures,issuesconcerningthediscoverabilityof classifiedinformationby thedefendant

and/orhis counselareresolved,usuallyexparteand in camera,andthegovernmentis made

awareprior to trial, throughin camerahearings,whetherclassifiedinformationwill haveto be

disclosedin opencriminalproceedings.Thegovernmentcanthenmakean informeddecision

concerningthecostsofgoing forwardwith theprosecution.Seegenerally, id.

CIPA providesexparte,in cameraproceduresfor theprotectionof classifiedinformation

subjectto discoveryunderFed.R. Crim. P. 16,Bradyv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963)andRule

26.2 (formerlytheJencksAct, 18 U.S.C. §3500(1976)). It permitsthegovernmentto movefor,

andtheCourt to authorize,thedeletionof classifiedinformationfrom documentsto be made

availableto thedefendantor counselin discovery,or the substitutionofsummariesor statements

admittingrelevantfactsfor suchdocuments.SeeUnitedStatesv. Yunis,867 F.2d617, 621-622

(D.C. Cir. 1989).

A key to theCIPA processis therequirementthat the defendantprovidepretrial written

noticeof theclassifiedinformationhe reasonablyexpectsto disclose.The governmentmaythen

seeka ruling as to whethertheprofferedclassifiedinfornmtion is relevantand admissible. If any

of the informationis ruledadmissible,thegovernmentmaymovethat a summarybe substituted

for it or alternativelyit maysubstitutea statementadmittingfactsthat theclassifiedinformation

would tendto prove,therebyobviatingtheneedfor disclosureof thespecificsensitive

infoni~iation.If theCourt finds suchsubstitutioninadequateto preservethedefendant’sright to a

2


fair trial andthegovernmentcontinuesto objectto theuseof theinformation,theCourt must

orderthat thedefendantnot disclosetheclassifiedinformationbutmayimposesanctionsto

compensatefor thedefendant’sinability to presentspecificevidence.At thegovernment’s

request,partor all oftheseproceedingsareheld in camera. SeeUnitedStatesy. Pappas,94 F.3d

795 (2dCir. 1996).

Thegovernmentmayrequestan in camerahearing,as well, to takeup issuesconcerning

theuseandrelevanceof any classifiedinformationwhich it seeksto introduceattrial, andmay

movethat it be permittedto offer substitutions,to includesummariesor statementsadmitting

relevantfacts,for specific itemsofclassifiedinformation.

CIPA permitsthegovernmentto takean interlocutoryappealfrom any orderby thecourt

authorizingthedisclosureof classifiedinformation.

II. Definitions, Pretrial Conference,Protective Orders and Discovery

A. Definition ofTerms

Subsection1(a) of CIPA definesclassifiedinformation,as follows:

[Amy informationormaterialthat hasbeendeterminedby theUnitedStatesGovernmentpursuantto an Executiveorder,statute,or regulation,to requireprotectionagainstunauthorizeddisclosurefor reasonsof nationalsecurity.

Subsection(b) defines“nationalsecurity” to meanthe“national defenseand foreignrelationsof

theUnitedStates.”

B. Pretrial Conference

Section2 providesthat “[a]t anytime afterthefiling of the indictmentor information,any

partymaymovefor apretrialconferenceto considermattersrelatingto classifiedinformation

that mayarisein connectionwith theprosecution.” Following suchamotion, thedistrict court,

3


“shall promptlyhold a pretrialconferenceto establishthe timing ofrequestsfor discovery,the

provisionofnotice requiredby section5 of this Act, andthe initiation of theprocedures

establishedby section6 [to determinetheuse,relevance,or admissibilityof classified

information] of this Act.” As theCourt is aware,defendantLibby filed an initial noticepursuant

to Section5 earlierthis week,and thepartiesindicatedin lastweek’sstatusreportcertainother

issuesthat neededto beaddressedpursuantto CIPA.

Section2 alsoprovidesthat,“the courtmayconsideranymatterswhichrelateto

classifiedinfonnationor which maypromotea fair andexpeditioustrial.” Consequently,the

courtmaytakeup mattersconcerningsecurityprocedures,clearancesand thelike. The

legislativehistoryof CIPA emphasizesthat while this provision givesthedistrict courtthesame

latitudeasunderRule 17.1,no substantiveissuesconcerningthediscoveryor useofclassified

informationareto be decidedin apretrialconferenceunderSection2. SeeS. Rep.No. 823,96

k”

Cong.,at 5-6, reprintedin 1980U.S. CodeCong. & Ad. Newsat 4298-4299. Instead,CIPA

requiressuchissuesto be decidedunderSections4 and6.

C. Protective Orders

Section3 requiresthecourt,upontherequestoftheGovernment,to issuean order“to

protectagainstthedisclosureofanyclassifiedinformationdisclosedby theUnitedStatesto any

defendantin anycriminal case “ Theprotectiveorderappliesto all materialsfurnishedto the

defenseunderthegovernment’sdiscoveryobligations,andmaybeusedto preventthedefendant

from disclosingclassifiedinformationalreadyin his possession.A protectiveorderhasbeen

enteredin this case.

4


HI. Discoveryof ClassifiedInformationby theDefendant

Section4 ofCIPA, while creatingno newrights of, or limits on,discovery,doesrequire

courtsto considersecrecyconcernswhenapplyinggeneraldiscoveryrules. SeeUnitedStatesy.

Yunis,924 F.2d 1086, 1089(D.C. Cir. 1991).

TheCourt ofAppealsfor theDistrict of ColumbiaCircuit hasestablishedathree-pronged

testfor thediscoveryof classifiedinformationwhich, exceptfor thefactthat it is classified,

normallywould beturnedover to thedefendantunderRule 16. To be entitled to discoveryunder

CIPA, adefendantmustmakeathresholdshowingthat the requestedmaterialis relevantto his

case. If sucha showingcanbemade,thecourtmustdeterminewhetheror not thegovernment

hasasserteda colorableclaim ofprivilege, that is, that thereis abasisfor the classificationof the

documentor informationat issue. If thegovernmenthasassertedsucha claim, thedefendant

mustshowthat the informationwould be helpful to his defense.Seeid.

TheNinth Circuit hasheldthat evenwhena defendantcanmaketheseshowings,the

courtcanbalancethedefendant’sinterestsin obtainingtheinformationagainstthegovernment’s

obligationto protectthenationalsecurity. SeeUnitedStatesv. Sarkissian,841 F.2d959, 965 (9

rh

Cir. 1988)) Indeed,the legislativehistoryof Section4 makesit clearthat thecourtmaytakethe

nationalsecurityinterestsinto accountwhenconsideringthegovernment’srequeststo preclude

discoveryofclassifiedinformation:

[W]henpertainingto discoverymaterials,[Section4] shouldbeviewedasclarifying thecourt’s powerunderFederalRuleof Criminal-Procedure16 (d)(l).This clarificationis necessarybecausesomejudgeshavebeenreluctantto usetheirauthority undertherule althoughtheadvisorycommentsof theAdvisory

TheDistrict of Columbiadeclinedto addressthis balancingtestin UnitedStatesy. Rezaq,134 F.2dat l142n 15.

5


Committeeon Rulesstatesthat “amongtheconsiderationstakeninto accountbythecourt” in decidingon whetherto permitdiscoveryto be “denied,restrictedordeferred”would be theprotectionof informationvital to thenationalsecurity.

S. Rep.No. 823,96

th Cong.,at6, reprintedin 1980U.S. CodeCong. & Ad. Newsat4299-4300.

Evenif classifiedinformationis determinedto be discoverable,Section4 providesthat:

[t]he court,upona sufficient showing,mayauthorizetheUnited Statesto deletespecifieditemsof classifiedinformationfrom documentsto be madeavailabletothedefendantthroughdiscoveryundertheFederalRulesof Criminal Procedure,to substitutea summaryofthe informationfor suchclassifieddocuments,or tosubstitutea statementadmittingtherelevantfactsthat classifiedinformationwould tendto prove.

Thus, upontherequestofthegovernment,alternativesto disclosureof classifiedinformation

maybe permitted. Section4 furtherprovidesthat thegovernmentmaydemonstratethat theuse

of suchalternativesis warrantedin an in camera,expartesubmissionto thecourtalone. See

Yunis,867 F.2dat 619

IV, Sections5 and 6: Pretrial Evidentiary Rulings

Therearethreecritical pretrial stepsin thehandlingof classifiedinformationunder

Sections5 and 6 of CIPA. First, thedefendantmustspecifyin detail thepreciseclassified

informationhe reasonablyexpectsto disclose. Second,theCourt,upon amotion ofthe

government,shallhold ahearingpursuantto Section6(a) to determinetheuse,relevanceand

admissibilityoftheproposedevidence. Third, following the6(a) hearingandformal findings of

admissibilitybytheCourt, thegovernmentmaymoveto substitutean admissionof relevantfacts

or summariesfor any classifiedinformationwhich theCourtrulesis admissible.

A. TheSection5(a~Notice Requirement

Section5(a)of CIPA requiresadefendantwho reasonablyexpectsto discloseor to cause

6


thedisclosureof classifiedinformation at anytrial or pretrialproceeding,to providetimely

pretrial written noticeto theattorneyfor thegovernmentandtheCourt. Section5 specifically

providesthat notification shall takeplace, “within thetime specifiedby the courtor, whereno

time is specified,within thirty daysprior to trial .

Particularizationis requiredin providingnoticeunderSection5(a): Thenoticemustbe

specificbecauseit is thecentraldocumentin theproceduresenvisionedundertheAct. As the

EleventhCircuit explainedin UnitedStatesv. Collins, 720 F.2d 1195, 1199-1200(11

th Cir.

1983):

Appelleearguesthat ameregeneralstatementoftheareasaboutwhich evidencemaybe introducedis all that is contemplatedby Section5(a)’s requirementthat“such notice shall includea briefdescriptionoftheclassifiedinformation.” It iscontendedthat “a brief description”doesnot demandspecificity,thuspermittingnoticeof nothingmorethanthegeneralareasof activity to berevealedin defense.However,this overlooksthat the“briefdescription”is to be of theclassifiedinformationto be disclosed. “A briefdescription” is not to betranslatedas “avaguedescription”;“of theclassifiedinformation” maynotbe interpretedas “oftheareasof activity concerningwhich classifiedinformationmaybe revealed.”

It is of no importancethat thegovernmentcanlocatespecificdataaboutdefendant’sknowledgeof sensitiveinformationin its ownrecords TheSection 5(a) noticerequiresthat thedefendantstate,with particularity,whichitemsof classifiedinformationentrustedto him he reasonablyexpectswill berevealedby his defensein this particularcase.

TheSection5(a) noticeis thecentraldocumentin CIPA. After theCIPAprocedureshavebeenfollowed, thegovernmentshouldnot be surprisedat anycriminal trial whenthedefensediscloses,or causesto be disclosed,any item ofclassifiedinformation. The court,thegovernmentandthedefendantshouldbeableto refer to theSection5(a) notice anddetermine,reliably, whethertheevidenceconsistingof classifiedinformationwascontainedin it. Thecourtmustnot countenancea Section5(a) noticewhich allows a defendantto cloakhisintentionsandleavethegovernmentsubjectto surpriseatwhatmaybe revealedinthedefense.To do so would merelyrequirethedefendantto reduce“graymail” towriting.

7


Havingfoundthedefendant’snoticeinsufficientunderSection5, thecourt in Collins vacatedthe

order issuedby thedistrict courtupon it andremandedthecase.

Theparticularizationrequirementappliesto both documentaryexhibitsandto oral

testimony,whetherit is anticipatedto be broughtout on direct or cross-examination.Seeid.;

UnitedStatesy. Wilson,750 F.2d7 (2d Cir. 1984). TheSectionsnotice,however,doesnot

requireadefendantto provideargumentin supportof therelevanceofparticularnoticed

documentsin thenoticeitself Section5(b) permits thecourt to precludethedisclosureof

classifiedinformationif thedefendantfails to provide a sufficiently detailednotice far enoughin

advanceof trial to pennit implementationof CIPA procedures.SeeUnitedStatesy. Badia, 827

F.2d 1458, 1465 (1 li” Cir. 1987). In Badia, thecourt rejectedthedefendant’sclaim that hewas

notobliged to file a Section5 noticebecausethegovernmentalreadyknew’ that he would asserta

defenseinvolving theCentralIntelligenceAgency. TheCourt observed:

Thegovernment’sbelief that a defendantmayasserta defenseinvolving classifiedmaterialcannotsubstitutefor theformal noticemandatedby §5(a). Thethirty-daytime frameis intendedto give thegovernmenttheopportunityto ascertainthepotentialharmto nationalsecurity,andto considervariousmeansof minimizingthecostof disclosure.Any form of noticeprovidedlessthanthirty daysprior totrial clearlydoesnotpermit thegovernmentto accomplishthis objective.

Badia, 827 F.2dat 1465.

TheEleventhCircuit thusaffirmed thelowercourt’s ruling precludingthedefendantfrom

raisingmattersattrial that shouldhavebeennoticedpursuantto SectionsofCIPA. Similarly, if

thedefendantattemptsto discloseattrial classifiedinformationwhich is not describedin his

Section5(a) notice,preclusionis theappropriateremedyprescribedby Section5(b) of the

statute. SeeUnitedStatesy. Smith,780 F.2d 1102, 1105 (4

th Cir. 1985).

8


B. TheSection6(a) Hearing

Once thedefendantfiles anoticeof intent to discloseclassifiedinformation underSection

5, thegovernmentmaythenpetitionthecourt for a hearingunderSection6(a). Thepurposeof

thehearingunderSection6(a) of CIPA is “to makeall determinationsconcerningtheuse,

relevance,oradmissibilityof classifiedinformationthat would otherwisebemadeduring the

trial orpretrialproceedings.”Section6(a) furtherprovidesfor thehearing-to beheld in camera

with bothpartiespresentif theAttorneyGeneralcertifiesthat apublic proceedingmayresultin

thedisclosureof classifiedinformation.

At theSection6(a) hearing,thecourt is to hearthedefense’sproffer andtheargumentsof

counsel,andthenrulewhethertheclassifiedinformationidentifiedby thedefenseis relevant

underthestandardsof Fed.R. Evid. 401. Thedefendanthastheburdenof establishingthatthe

evidenceis relevantandmaterial. SeeUnitedStatesv. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1276-77(9

fh Cir.

1989). As notedpreviouslywith respectto discovery,CIPA doesnot createnewrulesof

evidence;it is designedsimplyto protectthegovernment’sprivilegeregardingclassified

information. SeeYunis,924 F.2dat 1095;Seealso UnitedStatesy. Wilson,750 F.2d7, 9 (2d

Cir. 1984).

TheCourt’s inquirydoesnot endthere,for underFed. R. Evid. 402,not all relevant

evidenceis admissibleat trial. TheCourt thereforemustalsodeterminewhethertheevidenceis

excludableunderRule403. UnitedStatesy, Wilson,750 F.2d at 9. Seealso UnitedStatesv.

Cardoen,898 F.Supp.1563, 1571 (S.D. Fla. 1995).

TheFourth Circuit requiresthat thedistrict courttakecognizanceofthe government’s

interestin protectingnationalsecurityand thedefendant’sinterestin receivinga fair trial in

9


ruling regardingtheadmissibilityofclassifiedinformation,andallows theadmissionof such

evidenceonly whenit is helpful to thedefenseor essentialto a fair administrationofjustice. See

UnitedStatesy. Fernandez,913 F.2d 148, 154 (4

th Cir. 1990); UnitedStatesy. Smith,780 F.2d

1102, 1107 (4

th Cir. 1985). ButseeUnitedStatesv. Cardoen,898 F.Supp.At 1571; United

Statesy. Lopez-Lima,738 F.Supp.1404, 1411 (S.D. Fla. 1990)(decliningto adoptsucha rule).

At theconclusionofthe Section6(a)hearing,CIPA requiresthecourt to statein writing

thereasonsfor its determinationsasto eachitem of classifiedinformation.

C. Substitution Pursuant to Section6(c)

In theeventthat theCourt rulesthat oneor moreitemsof classifiedinformationare

admissible,thegovernmenthastheoptionofoffering substitutionspursuantto Section6(c) of

CIPA. UnderSection6(a) thegovernmentmaymoveto substituteeither(1) a statement

admittingrelevantfacts that theclassifiedinformationwould tendto prove,or (2) a summaryof

theclassifiedinformationinsteadof theclassifiedinformationitself SeeUnitedStatesy. Rezaq,

134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998). A motion for substitutionshallbe grantedif the“statementor

summarywill providethedefendantwith substantiallythesameability to makehis defenseas

would disclosureof thespecific classifiedinformation,”

TheCourt mayapprovethesubstitutionsprovidedby thegovernmentafterconductinga

detailedin cameracomparisonwith theoriginalsto determinewhetherthesubstitutionsprotect

thedefendant’sright to afair trial. SeeUnitedStatesy. Rezaq,134 F.3dat 1142-1143.

D. Sealingof recordsof in camerahearingsunderSection6(d)

If theCourt rules thatclassifiedinformationmaynot beused,Section6(d)requiresthe

courtto seal,andpreservefor usein theeventofan appeal,therecordsof any in camerahearing

10


heldundertheAct to decidesuchquestionsof admissibility. Thedefendantmayseek

reconsiderationof theCourt’s determinationprior to or during trial.

E. Section6(e):Prohibitionon disclosureof classifiedinformationby defendant;relief for defendantwhenUnitedStatesopposes

WhentheCourt determinesthat specific items of classifiedinfonriationarerelevantand

admissibleand thendeniesthe government’smotion for substitutionunderSection6(c), Section

6(e)(1)permitsthegovernment,by affidavit from theAttorneyGeneral,to objectto the

disclosureof theclassifiedinfonnationat issue. In suchcases,theCourt, “shall orderthat the

defendantnotdiscloseor causethedisclosureof suchinformation.” Section6(e)(1).

Section6(e) lists the slidingscaleof sanctionswhich thecourtmayimposeagainstthe

governmentasa meansof compensatingfor thedefendant’sinability to prcsentproofregarding

specificitemsof classifiedinformation.

V. Other Relevant CIPA Procedures

A. InterlocutoryAppeal

Section7(a) oftheAct providesfor an interlocutoryappealby thegovernmentfrom any

decisionor orderofthetrial judge“authorizingthedisclosureof classifiedinformation,or for

refusinga protectiveordersoughtby theUnitedStatesto preventthedisclosureof classified

information.” Theterm “disclosure”within themeaningof Section7 includesboth information

which thecourtordersthegovernmentto divulge as well asinformationalteadypossessedby the

defendantwhich he intendsto makepublic. SeeUnitedStatesy. Pappas,94 F.3dat 799-800.

Section7(b) instructsthecourtof appealsto giveexpeditedtreatmentto any interlocutoryappeal

filed undersubsection(a).

11


B. Introductionof ClassifiedInformation

Section8(a) providesthat “[w]ritings, recordings,andphotographscontainingclassified

informationmaybe admittedinto evidencewithout changein their classificationstatus.” This

provisionsimplyrecognizesthat classificationis an executive,not ajudicial function. Thus,

Section8(a) implicitly allows theclassifyingagency,upon completionof thetrial, to decide

whetherthe informationhasbeenso compromisedduring trial that it couldno longerbe regarded

asclassified.

In orderto preventunnecessarydisclosureof classifiedinformation,Section8(b) permits

thecourt to orderadmissioninto evidenceof only a partof awriting, recording,or photograph.

Alternately,thecourtmayorderinto evidencetheentirewriting, recording,or photographwith

redactionof all or partof theclassifiedinformationcontainedtherein. However,Section8(b)

doesnot provide groundsfor excludingor excisingpartof a writing or recordedstatementwhich

ought in fairnessbeconsideredcontemporaneouslywith it. Thus, thecourtmayadmit into

evidencepartof a writing, recording,or photographonly whenfairnessdoesnot requirethe

whole documentto be considered,

Section8(c) providesaprocedureto addresstheproblempresentedduring apretrial or

trial proceedingwhenthedefendant’scounselasksa questionor embarkson a line of inquiry that

would requirethewitnessto discloseclassifiedinformationnotpreviouslyfoundby thecourtto

be admissible.If thedefendantknewthat a questionor line of inquiry would resultin disclosure

of classifiedinformation,he presumablywould havegiven thegovernmentnotice underSection

5 and theprovisionsof Section6(a) would havebeenimplemented.Section8(c) serves,in

effect, asa supplementto thehearingprovisionsofSection6(a) to copewith situationswhich

12


cannotbe handledeffectivelyunderSection6, wherethedefendantdoesnot realizethat the

answerto agivenquestionwill revealclassifiedinformation. Uponthegovernment’sobjection

to suchaquestion,the Court is requiredto takesuitableactionto avoidthe improperdisclosure

of classifiedinformation.

VI, The Present Statusof this Case

TheGovernmentanticipatesfurther discussionwith counselfor defendantLibby

concerningtheadequacyof theinitial Section5 noticefiled by Libby in two regards:(1) the

precisecontentsofdefendantLibby’s handwrittennotes,which aredifficult to decipher,

particularlywith regardto themanytopicsreflectedin his noteswhichdo not concernthesubject

ofAmbassadorWilson or his wife’s employment;and(2) thespecific facts defendantLibby

would seekto elicit throughoral testimonyconcerningthetopicsoutlinedin his Section5 notice.

Thus,thoughwedescribeearlierhow aSection6 hearingproceeds,wearenot yet in a position

to proceedto suchahearingon the initial notice. However,aSection2 conferencewould appear

appropriateat this time to discussthe schedulefor anticipatedfilings andhearings.The

Governmentwould requestthat suchhearingtakeplacein camerawith acourtreporterwith a

securityclearanceas aprecautionarymeasureto protectagainstthedisclosureof classified

information. Thereafter,suchpartofthetranscriptoftheSection2 conferencewhich doesnot

containclassifiedinformationwould bemadepublic.

WHEREFORE,the UnitedStatesof Americarequeststhat theCourt schedulea pretrial

conferenceto considermattersrelatingto classifiedinformationthatmayarisein connection

with theabove-captionedcase. TheGovernmentsuggeststhat suchpre-trial conferencecould

13


eitherbe heldon February3, 2006, immediatelyfollowing thepre-trial conferenceor,

alternatively,that theconferencebe heldata time shortlythereafterwhendefensecounselwill

havereviewedtheadditionalclassifiedmaterialsbeingprovidedbetweennow andthenandthe

partiescanprojectwith reasonablecertaintythetime neededto makeany additional filings

pursuantto CIPA. I havespokenwith JohnCline, Esq,.counselfor Mr Libby, who advisedthat

defensecounselare amenableto proceedingeitheron February3 or at a later dateconvenientto

theCourt. -

Respectfullysubmitted,

PatrickJ Fitzgerald -

SpecialCounsel

14


Documents

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF … · also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY ... court can balance the defendant’s interests in obtaining the information againstthe government’s