CI TI Z ENS FOR RESPONSI BI L I TY AND

ETHI CS I

N WASHI

NGTON , Plaintiff,
v. OFF I CE OF AD MI

NI STRATI ON, De fe nd ant. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 07-964 ( CKK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION (January 15, 2009) Plaintiff, Cit izens for Responsibilit y and Ethics in Washington (“ CREW ”) br oug ht the above- captioned F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) action see king doc uments that CREW
asser ts Defe ndant, the Of

fice of Administration (“OA ”), a unit within t he Executive Off ice of the President (“ EOP”), a ssembled and pr epar ed re lating to the White House’ s alleg ed loss of EOP email rec ords. On June 16, 2008, this C ourt issued a Memor andum Opinion and Or der granting OA ’s mot ion

to d ism iss thi s a c tio n f

or la c k o f s ub

je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n o n th e g ro un ds that, a s a matter of la

w, it was not an a g ency

subject to the F OIA. Citi ze ns for Re sp on sib ili ty

an d E thi cs in W ashington v. Off. of Admin. , 559 F. Supp. 2d 9, 11 (D.D .C. 2008) (CKK) ( here inafter “ CREW I ”). CRE W sub se qu e ntl y a pp e a le d th is C ourt ’s June 16 , 2 00 8 d e c isi on to t he D. C. C ir c uit , and fi le d a Mo tio n f or Stay Pe nd ingAp pe a l be fo re thi s Co ur t, r e qu e sti ngtha

t th e Court

“ sta y its Or de r o f Jun e 16 , 2 00 8, to r e qu ir e de fe nd ant t o r e ta in a ll d oc ume nts po te nti a lly re sp on siv e to CREW ’s two [FOIA] requests at issue pendingthe re solution of plaintiff’s appea l.” CREW ’s2

Motion for Stay , Docke t No. [56] at 1. On Jul y 8, 2008, this Court i ssued an Or der a nd
acc ompanying Me morandum Opinion g ranting -in-par t and deny

ing- in-part CREW’s request for a stay pendingappea l. Citi

zens for Responsibility and Ethics in W ashington v. Off. of Admin. , 565 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D .C. 2008) (CKK) ( here inafter “ Crew II ” ). Al tho ug h mu c h o f t

he pa rt ie s’ br ie fi ngon

the Mo tio n f

or Stay Pe nd ingAp pe a l f

oc us e d o n th e po te nti a l ha rm s th at ma

y be fa ll either pa rty at the conc lusion of the curr ent pre sidential administration, the Court concluded that it w a s p re matur e to c on sid e r t he c on se qu e nc e s th at may result from the tr ansition betwee n administrations that was, at that time, over six months away
. Id. at 27. The Court ther efor e limit ed its consideration of CREW ’s re quest for stay to the situation as it ex isted while President Geor g e W. Bush re mained in offic e. Id. As to t hat ti me pe ri od , th e Court c on c lud e d th at,
a lth ou g h it

c ou ld n ot a g re e wi th C REW that th e re is a su bs tanti a l li ke lih oo d th at CRE W wi ll preva il on the merits on appea l, “the instant ca se is one in which ‘ [a] n order maintaining the status qu o is a

pp ro pr iate [be c a

us e ] a s e ri ou s le g a l qu e sti on is p re se nt, [] littl e if

any ha rm wi ll be fa ll o the r i nte re ste d p e rs on s o r t he pu bli c and [] de nia l of

the or de r w ou ld i nf

lic t ir re pa ra ble harm on the mova

nt.’” Id. at 31 (interna l citations omit ted). Ac cording ly , the Court order ed OA to “pre serve all rec ords, no matter howdescr ibed, cur rently in its poss ession or under its custody
or c on tr ol, wh ic h a

re re sp on siv e to C REW’ s Apr il 1 6, 20 07 and Ap ri l 18 , 2 00 7 F OIA r e qu e sts , and [to] not transfe r any

potentially

responsive r ecor ds out of its custody or control without leave of this Court, pending the resolution of CREW ’s ex pedited appeal or J

anuary 5, 2009, whichev er
eve nt is earlier .” Id. at 31 (e mphasis added) . I f CREW’s ex pedited appe al had not bee n resolved by J anuar y 5, 2009, howeve r, the Court provided that CREW may , at that time, file a r enew ed motion for stay

pendingappea l. Id. at 31.3

As of January

5, 2009, the D.C. Circuit had not y et re solved CREW ’s expedited appea l (n or ha d it y e t do ne so a s o f t

he fi lin gof

thi s Me mor and

um O pin ion ), and , p ur su ant t o th is Court’s J uly

8, 2008 Orde r, CREW fil ed a Re newe d Motion for Stay Pending A

ppeal on January 6, 2009, (her einaf

ter “ CREW ’s Motion”), that spec ifically addre sses its request for

a stay in the context of the pendingtransition betwee n presidential a dminist rations. Pursuant to the expedited briefingschedule enter ed by the Court, OA filed a

n Opposition to C REW’s Mot ion on J anuar y 12, 2009 (her einaf

ter “ OA’s Opposition”), a nd CREW filed a Reply

later that same day (her einaf ter “ CREW ’s Reply”). U pon a sea rchingrevie w of the pa

rties’ brie fs, the re levant leg al authority , and the e ntire re cord he rein, the Court shall GRANT CREW’s [62] Renewe d Motion for Stay Pending A

ppeal. LEGAL STANDARDS Th e fa c tor s th e Court

c on sid e rs in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r a sta y pe nd inga

pp e a l is
war rante d are : (1) th e li k e li h o o d th at th e p arty s e e k in g th e s ta y w il l p r e v a il o n th e me r it s of the a pp e a l; ( 2) the lik e lih oo d that the mov ing pa rt y wi ll be ir

re pa ra bly ha rm e d a bs e nt a stay ; (3) the prospec t that othe rs will be harme d if the Court grants the stay ; and (4) the public intere st in gra

nti ngthe stay . To justify the g rantingof a stay , a movant need not a lway s establish a hig h probability of success on the merits. Probability of succe ss is inversely proportional to the deg ree of irre para ble injury evidenc ed. A stay may be g rante d with either a hig h probability of succ ess and some injury , or vice v e rsa . Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Re gulatory Comm’n , 772 F.2d 972, 974 ( D.C. Cir. 1985) (interna l
c itatio ns omi tte d) (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) ; W ashington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v . Holiday Tours, Inc. , 5 59 F .2 d 8 41 , 8 43 (D .C. Cir . 1 97 7) ; Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v . FPC , 259 F .2 d 9 21 , 9 25 (D .C. Cir . 1 95 8) ; see also D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practiceand Internal“The test for a stay or injunction pendingappea l is essentially the same” as the test for

a 1 preliminary

injunction, “althoug h courts ofte n rec ast the likelihood of succ ess fa ctor a s requiring on ly that th e mov ant d e mon str ate a se ri ou s le g a l qu e sti on

on a pp e a l w he re the ba lanc e of ha rm s favor s a stay [.] ” Al-A na

zi v . B us h , 3 7 0 F. S u

p p . 2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 & n
. 5 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Holiday Tou rs , 559 F.2d at 844 and Cuomo , 772 F.2d at 978). 4 Procedure

s Part VI I I (a) (2003). I t is “the movant’s oblig ation to justi fy the cour t’s exercise of 1 such an e x traordina

ry reme dy .” Cuomo , 7 72 F .2 d at 97 8. Ge ne ra lly , a sta y pe nd inga

pp e a l “ is preve ntative, or prote ctive; it seeks to maintain the status quo pendinga fina l determination of the merits of the suit.” Ho lid ay Tou rs , 559 F.2d at 844. DI SCU SSIO N As previously

noted, the Court’s conc lusion that OA is not an “ag ency” pursua nt to the FOIA obviated OA ’s obligation to comply with CREW ’s FO I A re quest. Crew II , 565 F. Supp. 2d at 26. In addition, beca use “the cover ag e of the [Feder al Recor ds Act (“ FRA” )] is coex tensive with the definition of ‘a g ency ’ in the F OIA,” the Court’ s conclusion af firmed the position OA had take n since August 2007 that its records we re subjec t to the Presidential Records A ct (“PRA”) , rathe r than the F RA. See A rmstrong v. EOP , 90 F.3d 553, 556 ( D.C. Cir. 1996) (“no
rec ord is subject to both the FRA a nd the PRA”). Unde r the PRA, at the conc lusion of President Bush’ s second ter

m of offic e, “the Arc hivist of the United States shall assume re sponsibili ty for the c us tod

y , c on tr ol, and

pr e se rv atio n o f, and

a c c e ss t o, [his ] Pre sid e nti a l r e c or ds ,” and sh a ll “deposit all such Pre sidential rec ords in a Presidential a rchiva l depository

or anothe r ar chival fac ility operated by

the United States.” 44 U .S.C. § 2203(f)(1)- (2). It is thi s transition of rec ords to the National Ar chives a nd Records A dminist ration (“NARA”) at the end of President B ush’s second te rm of off

ice with which the parties a re c oncer ned. Under the terms of the Court’s J uly 8, 2008 Orde r, OA w as re quired (until the Or derAs CREW points out i n its Reply , the exhibit s attache d to OA’s Opposition ref er to “ 38 2 box es” of documents, while the te x t of the Opposition itself refe rs to “39 boxes” of docume nts. See CREW ’s Reply

at 3, n.1. I t is therefor e uncle ar whether there are 38 or 39 boxes at issue. The Court nee d not resolve this question, howeve r, as it is not material to the matter now bef ore the Court. 5 l a p s e d o nJ anu ar

y 5 , 2 0 0 9 ) t o r e t a i na l l d o c u m e n t s p o t e n t i a l l y r e s p o n s i v e t o C R E W ’ s F O IA reque sts pending the resolution of CREW’s ex pedited appe al and to ensur e that any such potentially

responsive doc uments were not transfe rre d out of its custody or control without leave of this Court. Crew II, 56 5 F . Su pp . 2 d at 31 -3 2. Signif

ic antl y , O A h a s n ot b e e n, no r i s it
c ur r e n t l y , o p p o s e d

t o p r e s e r v i n gth o s e d o c u m e n t s p o t e n t i a l l y r e s p o n s i v e t o C R E W ’ s F O IA reque sts. OA’s Opp’n at 2, 5-6. To the contr ary , OA re prese nts to the Court that ithas alre ady identified and c ollected a pproxi mately

38 or 39 boxes of documents that it believes to be the
un ive rs e of

re c or ds po te nti a lly

re sp on siv e to C REW’ s F OIA r e qu e sts . Id. at 5-6. OAfurther 2 states that it “has prope rly labeled a nd seg reg ated those 39 boxes for tra nsfer to NARA, and NA RAha s a g re e d to ke e p th os e bo xes s e g re g ate d o nc e the y are tr ans fe rr e d to NA RA . N AR A ha s f ur the r c omm itt e d to sto re the OAbo xes i n th e Was hin g ton , D .C. are a un de r a pp ro pr iate
se c ur ity , in

a mann e r t hat w ill e na

ble NA RAand

OAto r e a dil y

re tr ie ve the m if

ne c e ssa ry un til this case is re solved. Moreve r, NARA ha s also ag ree d to ‘promptly return the se, and a ll other OA re cords to OA should it be de termined that OAis an ag ency subject to the F OIA and/or the Fe dera l Records Ac t.’” Id. at 6-7 (inter nal citations omitted). The pa rties sharply

disag ree , ho we ve r, a s to the po te nti a l ha rm s th at mi g ht a

ri se a bs e nt a n e xten sio n o f t

he sta y (a c c or din gto CREW ), or a s a re sult of such an e x tension (ac cordingto OA), upon tra nsfer of President B ush’s
rec ords to NARA. OA ma intains that the assuranc es of its attorney s that NARA will preser ve
and re tur n th e po te nti a lly

re sp on siv e do c ume nts , if re qu e ste d, sh ou ld b e su ff ic ie nt t o s atis fy

bo th6

CREW and the Court. See OA’s Opp’ n at 2. OA ther efor e asse rts that CREW would not be harme d by

transfe r of the doc uments to NARA and that extension of the stay is thus unnecessar

y . See id. CREW is not satisfied with such assuranc es, and the Court now turns to the question of whether an extension of the stay

issued in its previous J uly 8, 2008 Orde r is appropr iate. A. CREW ’s Appeal Pre sents a Serious Legal Question Or din ari ly , “ [t]he fi rs t, a

nd mos t im po rt ant, hurd le wh ic h th e pe tit ion e rs mus t ov e rc ome is the re qu ir e me nt t

hat th e y pr e se nt a str on glik e lih oo d o f p re va ili ngon the me ri ts o f t

he ir appea l.” Am. Cetace an Soc. v. B aldridge , 604 F. Supp. 1411, 1414 (D.D .C. 1985). “Without such a substantial indication of probable suc cess, ther e would be no justification for the Court’s intrusion into t he ordina

ry proce sses of administration and judicial r eview.” Virginia Petroleum J ob be rs , 259 F.2d at 925. Under D .C. Circuit prece dent, howeve r, a “ court is not require d to find that ultimate succe ss by

the movant is a mathematical proba bility , and indee d, [] may g rant a stay even though its own approac h may be contr ary

to the movant’s view of

the merits.” Holiday Tou rs , 559 F.2d at 843. I n particula r, “[a]n order ma intaining the status quo is appropriate when
a ser ious leg al question is presente d, when little if any harm will befa ll other intereste d persons or the public, a

nd when de nial of the orde r would inflict irre para ble injury on the movant.” Id. at 844. In such a situation, “[t] here is substantial equity , and nee d for judicial pr otection, whethe r or not movant has shown a mathematica l probability of succ ess.” Id. The Court nee d not dwell on this question, as it has previously found that CREW’s appea l presents a

“ser ious leg al question.” Crew II , 565 F. Supp. 2d at 27-28. A s the Court explained in its J uly

8, 2008 Orde r, which discussion is fully incorporated her ein, althoug h the Court cannot agree with CREW that there is a substantial likelihood that itwill prevail on the7

merits of its appea l, the Court rec og nizes that the question of whether OA is an “ ag ency” under the F OIA “ is a

c los e on e , a

nd is n ot e a sil y

re so lve d b y

re fe re nc e to t

he lim ite d b od

y of D. C. Circuit case law addr essingthe ag ency status of units with the EOP.” Id. at 28 (interna l quotation marks omitted). Neither party has direc ted the Court to any interveningchang es in law that may aff ect this conc lusion. Theref ore, the Court shall procee d direc tly to consider whe ther the balanc e of the other fa ctors re levant to CREW ’s re quest for a stay pendingappea l favors the
re lie f C REW s e e ks
. Be fore doing so, how ever , the Court pauses to addr ess OA’ s contention that CREW ’s Mo tio n in fa c t se e ks to u

ps e t—a s o pp os e d to ma int a in— the status qu o a

nd is i n a c tua lity reque sting, not a stay , but the “‘e x traordina ry and dra stic’” r emedy

of an injunction. See OA’s Opp’n at 2-3. OA’s c hara cter ization of CR EW’s request is incorr ect. As the Court has previously

explained, see Crew II

, 565 F. Supp. 2d at 28-29, on January 25, 2008, this Court enter ed a Pre servation Order r equiringOA to “pr eser ve all re cords, no matter

how desc ribed,
c ur re ntl y in i ts p os se ssi on

or un de r i ts c us tod

y or c on tr ol, wh ic h a

re po te nti a lly

re sp on siv e to CRE W’s Ap ri l 16 , 2 00 7 a nd Ap ri l 18 , 2 00 7 F OIA r e qu e sts ,” and fu rt he r o rd e ri ngOAno t to

“ tr ans fe r a

ny po te nti a lly

re sp on siv e re c or ds out of its c us tod

y or c on tr ol w ith out le ave of

thi s Court,” Docke t No. [32] . OA wa s operating unde r that Orde r until the Court’s J une 16, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and O rder rele ased it fr om doing so, a nd has bee n ag ain oper atingunder that Orde r since it wa s eff ectively reinstated by

the Court’s J uly

8, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Or der. A s OA fully

conce des, it has, pursuant to the Court’s Or ders, a lrea dy identified and
se g re g ate d a ll d oc ume nts it b e lie ve s are po te nti a lly re sp on siv e to C REW’ s F OIA r e qu e sts and is maintaining those documents in a segreg ated manne r within OA’s c ustody and contr ol. As such,8

CREW ’s re newe d reque st for a stay pendingappea l actually

seeks to ensur e the c ontinued prese rvation of suc h rec ords within the car e and c ustody of OA so a s to ensure that CREW can obtain relief

if it is successful on appe al. See CREW II , 565 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30 ( reje cting sim ila r a rgume nt t hat CRE W’s re qu e st s ho uld be su bje c t to the “ highe r s tand ard ” a pp lic a ble when a movant seeks a

mandatory

injunction). B. There is a Significant Possi bility of Irreparable Harm Absent a Stay

“ U n d e r th i s C i r c u i t ’ s p r e c e d e n t , th e h ar m s t o e a c hp arty ar e t e s t e d f o r ‘ s u b s t an t i a l i ty, likelihood of occur

renc e, and a dequac y

of proof .’” Judicial W

atch v. Nat’l Energy

Policy De v. Group , 2 3 0 F. S u

p p . 2 d at1 5 (qu o t i n g Cuomo , 772 F.2d at 976-77). “T he Court must consider the sig nificanc e of the chang e fr om the status quo which would ar ise in the absenc e of a stay , as well as likelihood of occ urre nce of the claimed injury , when de termining whether [parties] have truly met their burde n of demonstrating irr epar able ha rm justifying imposition of a stay .” Id. “A party moving f or a stay is require d to demonstrate that the injury claimed is ‘both ce rtain and g reat.’” Cuomo , 7 7 2 F. 2 d at9 7 6 (qu o t i n g W

isconsin Gas Co. v. FERC , 7 58 F .2 d 6 69 , 6 74 (D .C. Cir. 1985)). CRE W co nv inc ing ly

argue s th at it

wi ll s uf fe r i rr e pa ra ble ha rm if the re c or ds po te nti a lly responsive to its FOIA re quests are not preser ved within the ca

re a nd custody

of OA pe nding
re so lut ion of CRE W’s a

pp e a l. T he Court

a g re e s w ithCRE W that “ it i s f ar f ro m c le ar what, i f any , relief the Court could issue” if the D.C. Circuit resolves CREW’s appeal in CREW’s favor, “g iven that neither

NARA nor the Archivist is a party to this l itigation” a

nd there fore “ca

nnot proper ly be the subjec t of a c ourt order . . . .” CREW’s Mot. at 5-6, 9. Two conseque nces f low dir e c tly fr om N AR

A’ s and the Ar c hiv ist ’s status a s n on -p art ie s to thi s la ws uit . F ir st, the Court

is9

wi tho ut a uth or ity to o rd e r N AR

A o r t he Ar c hiv ist

to m a int a in a

nd pr e se rv e a ll r e c or ds po te nti a lly responsive to CREW’s FOIA re quest. Althoug h OA has a ssured the Court a nd CREW that NARA has a g ree d to maintain and pre serve all documents identified a nd proper ly

labeled a s potentially

responsive to CREW’s FOIA re quests, the Court is not persuade d that such
assura nces a re suf ficient. The Court notes that OA has not off ere d the written a ssuranc e of a n OA or N ARA offic ial (as oppose d to corre spondence betwee n counsel for OA to counse l for NA RA ) t hat th e re c or ds po te nti a lly re sp on siv e to C REW’ s F OIA r e qu e sts wi ll b e fu lly maintained and pr eser

ved. Howe ver, e ven if OAhad done so, a s the Court previously observe d, “‘a decla ration does not have the forc e of a n order . Unlike a c ourt order , a dec laration is not punishable by

contempt.’” CREW

II , 5 6 5 F. S u

p p . 2 d at3 0 -3 1 (c i t i n g CREW

v. EOP , Ci vil Action No. 07-1707, Repor t and Recommendation (D.D.C. Oct. 19, 2007) at 2). Althoug h OA’s counsel a re inde ed off

icer s of the cour

t, id. , a nd the Court

pr e sume s th at e xec uti ve of fi c ia ls w ill act in g ood faith, Armstrong v. EOP , 1 F .3 d 1 27 4, 12 93 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 3) , th e Court ne ve rt he le ss ag ree s with CR EW that, absent a cour t order punisha

ble by contempt re quiring the maintenanc e
and pr e se rv atio n o f t

he re c or ds he re at is su e , in the e ve nt C REW i s su c c e ssf ul o n it s a pp e a l, i t would have no r ecour se if the doc uments were not so maintained and pre serve d. Moreove r, it is not clear that—absent a c ourt order or binding stipulation—NARA or the Arc hivist m ay

proper ly decline to pr ocess the r ecor ds at issue for public a cce ss once the documents ar e in NARA’s c ustody and contr ol. As noted above , upon conclusion of a President’s ter

m of offic e, “the Arc hivist of the United States shall assume re sponsibili ty for the custody , control, and pr eser vation of, and a cce ss to, the Presidential rec ords of that Preside nt.” 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f)(1) . As furthe r set out by the statute and implementingregulations, the10

Arc hivist has “an af

firmative duty

to make such r ecor ds available to the public.” Id. Transf er of the do c ume nts to N AR

A the re fo re tr ig g e rs c e rt a in o bli g atio ns on the pa rt of the Ar c hiv ist

to beg in proce ssing a

nd org anizing such doc uments in order to fa cilitate public ac cess. F or example, the Arc hivist i s authorized, upon notice in the F eder al Reg ister, to “dispose of Presidential re cords whic h he has a ppraised a

nd deter mined to have insuff

icient administrative, historical, information, or e videntiary value to wa

rra nt further prese rvation.” 36 C.F .R. § 1270.32. Given NARA’ s non-par ty status, the Court is withoutthe authority to order N ARA not to b e g in t hat pr oc e ss a s to the do c ume nts at is su e in t his c a se , a

pr oc e ss whic h N AR

A i s statutorily obligated to undertake. Ag ain, the Court “pr esume[s] that executive offic ials will act in good f aith,” Armstrong

1 F. 3 d at1 2 9 3 , an d

i ti s ce rt ai n l y

n o tth e C o urt ’s i n t en tt o i mp u gn OA’s r epre sentations that NARA has a g ree d to seg reg ate a nd prese rve the rec ords at issue. B ut in t akin gc on tr ol a

nd c us tod y of a Pr e sid e nt’ s r e c or ds , it

is N AR A’ s e xpre ss duty to p ro c e ss t ho se
rec ords for public a cce ss “as ra pidly and as c ompletely

as possible consistent with the provisions of [the PRA].” 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f)(1) . OA has not dire cted the Court to any authority that NARA may

decline to pr ocee d with its st atutory obligations as to any

documents in its control and custody , including the rec ords at issue her e. Second, eve n assuming N ARA maintains and pre serve s the rec ords at issue, as CREW
e mph a size s, the Court

is w ith out a

uth or ity to o rd e r N AR

A o r t he Ar c hiv ist

to r e tur n th os e
rec ords to OA if the D .C. Circuit determines the doc uments are , in fac t, subject to the FO I A or the FRA. See CREW ’s Mot. at 6. Ag ain, the Court notes that OA ha s not offer ed the wr itten
a ssu ra nc e of an O A o r N AR

A o ff ic ia l ( a s o pp os e d to c or

re sp on de nc e be tw e e n c ouns e l f or OAto counsel for

NARA) that the r ecor ds potentially responsive to CREW’s FOIA re quests will be11

returne d to OA in the eve nt CREW succe eds on its appea l. As above, a lthough OA ’s counse l are indeed of fice rs of the c ourt, and the Court pre sumes that executive offic ials will act in g ood faith, the Court never

theless agree s with CR EW that, absent a cour t order punisha

ble by contempt
re qu ir ingthe re tur

n o f t he re c or ds at is su e to O A, in t he e ve nt C REW i s su c c e ssf ul o n it s a pp e a l, it w ou ld h ave no re c ours e if the do c ume nts we re no t r e tur ne d. As su c h, the Court

fi nd s th at a court orde r re quiring OA—the only party over which this Court has jurisdiction—to m aintain the
re c or ds at is su e is a

pp ro pr iate to gua

rd a g a ins t th e g ra

ve ha rm CRE W wo uld

fa c e if it u lti mate ly preva iled on appea l but could not acce ss all rec ords re sponsive to its FOIA re quests. C. Other Parties (

Including OA) W

ill N ot Be Harme d By the G ranting of a St ay Th e Court

is n ot c onvin c e d th at an e xten sio n o f i ts Jul y 8, 20 08 sta

y in t his c a se wi ll signif ic antl y ha rm the Exe c uti ve , a s O A a lle g e s. F ir st, OAa sse rt s th at e xten din gthe sta y in t his
matte r “ c ou ld f

or c e the Pr e sid e nt t o le ave OA ’s re c or ds to t he c us tod y and c on tr ol o f h is
succe ssor,” ther eby

stripping Pre sident Bush of his right to decide what, if any , of his rec ords he provides to his succe ssor. OA’s O pp’n at 13. How ever , as CREW poi nted out in its Mot ion, the Court may

cra ft an orde r that limits access to the doc uments at issue, pendingresolution of C R E W ’s ap p ea l , C R E W ’s M o t . at9 n . 5

— a s u gges t i o nth atOA d o es n o tad dre s s i ni t s b ri ef i n g,
see OA ’s Op p’ n. Th e Court the re fo re a ssume s th at O A d oe s n ot d isp ute tha t th e Court

may so modify the stay in this case to ade quately addre ss its concerns. Second, OA a

rgues that g rantingCREW ’s re quest “would seve rely impair [] President [Bush]’s continued interest in his recor ds after he leaves off

ice.” OA’s Opp’ n at 13. Specifica lly , OA conte nds, without support, that requiringthe documents at issue to be maintained within OA’s, r ather than NARA’s, c are and custody would eff

ectively deny President12

Bush c erta in rig hts provided under the PRA and its impl ementingregulations, such as: (a) the rig ht to specify

durations, not to exceed 12 y ear s, for whic h acc ess shall be re stricted with re spect to information in a Presidential re cord that falls within one of the PRA’s spec ified categ ories, 44 U.S.C. § 2204(a); (b) the rig ht to be notified befor e any Presidential re cords a

re disclose d, 36 C.F.R. § 1270.46; and (c ) the right to init iate a c ourt ac tion assertingthat the Arc hivist’s deter mination as to certa in rec ords violates his rig hts or privileg es, 44 U.S.C. § 2204(e). O A’s Opp’n at 13-14. As an initial matter, OAdoes not provide a ny authority for its claim that OA’ s rete ntion of the rec ords pendingresolution of CREW’s appeal will somehow pre clude Pre sident B us h f ro m e xer c isi ngany

of the ri g hts and

pr ivi le g e s und e r t

he PRA , if

the D. C. C ir c uit ultimately

aff irms that these re cords a

re subjec t to the PRA. More spe cifica lly , the Court is not persua ded that the pa

rticular r ights de lineated by OA in its briefingwill be forf eited by extension of a stay in this case. F or example, as for President B ush’s rig ht to specify durations for which
a c c e ss t o c e rt a in r e c or ds is r e stric te d, the statut e e xpre ssl y pr ov ide s th at a

Pr e sid e nt m

us t do so “[p] rior to the conc lusion of his term of offic e.” 44 U .S.C. § 2204(a). It is therefor e uncle ar how OA ’s re te nti on

of the do c ume nts afte r the c on c lus ion of a Pr e sid e nt’ s te rm

of of fi c e wo uld impair this right. Similarly , the Court cannot disce rn how Preside nt Bush’s r ight, pur suant to 36 C.F.R. § 1270.46, to rec eive notice prior to disclosure w ould be har med, g iven that extension of a sta y in t his c a se wo uld

pr e ve nt d isc los ur e of

the do c ume nts at is su e un til CRE W’s a pp e a l is resolved. F inally , OA’s c laim that retention of the doc uments in OA’s custody somehow pr e c lud e s Pr e sid e nt B us h f ro m in iti atin ga

laws uit to c ha lle ng e a

de c isi on ma de by the Ar c hiv ist , a s p r o v i d e d

un d e r 4 4 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 0 4 ( e ) , i s l i k e w i s e i l l o g i c a l an d w i th o u ts u

p p o rt . A c c o r d i n g l y, de sp ite OA ’s br oa d a

nd c on c lus or

y a lle g atio ns that e xten sio n o f t he Court ’s sta

y wo uld “ ra iseNor ha s OA re prese nted to the Court that the President or his desig nee ha s alrea dy 3 revie wed the doc uments to ascer tain whether

they are , in fac t, properly

classified a s “Presidential rec ords,” a s that term is defined in 44 U.S.C. § 2201(2). Nor is the Court alone in r equiringEx ecutive of ficials to collec t, maintain and pre serve 4 rec ords (includingrec ords that may potentially

be subjec t to the PRA) fr om the outgoing administration and to store those re cords in their pr esent location, despite the pendingtransition. See, e .g. , CREW

v. EOP, e t al., Civil Action No. 07-1707, O rder (D.D.C. Jan. 14, 2009) (HHK) (re quiring EOP to collect and pr eser ve ce rtain ema ils that are the subje ct of pe nding la wsuit); Orde r (D.D .C. J an. 15, 2009) ( J MF) ( clar ifying that the emails, bac k-up tape s, and re cords at issue “shall re main in their prese nt location” under the supervisory

control of the Archivist). Although the Arc hivist was give n supervisory custody of the doc uments in that case, the Court no te s th at N AR

A i s a name d d e fe nd ant i n th at li tig atio n, su c h th at—u nli ke he re—th e c ourt

in CRE W v . E OP , e t al

. , Civil Action No. 07-1707, ha s jurisdiction over NARA to issue and enfor ce or ders c oncer

ning the prese rvation and ma intenance of the re cords in that ca se. 13 serious constitutional issues,” OA ha s not directed the Court to any specific , concr ete ha

rm (constitutional or otherwise ) that would re sult from a fur ther stay in this m atter. I mportantly , the status of the doc uments at issue here

— i.e. , those rec ords identified by OA as pote ntially

responsive to CREW’s FOIA re quests—has y et to be conc lusively deter mined, pendingresolution of CREW’s appeal. I f the D.C. Circuit af firms that these r ecor ds are subject 3 to the PRA, the documents shall be automatica lly transfe rre d from OA’ s possession to the control and c ustody

of NARA, a

nd all rig hts and privileg es provided unde r the PRA shall inhere to those documents. I f, howe ver, the D.C. Circuit rever ses this Court’s J une 16, 2008 Or der fi nd ingOAis n ot a

n “ a g e nc y ” fo r p ur

po se s o f F OIA ( su c h th at th e do c ume nts are no t PRA
rec ords), then O A must process the doc uments pursuant to CREW ’s FO I A re quests. Under either sc enar io, President Bush’ s interest in his Presidential rec ords is not harmed by an orde r
c on tin uin gto r e qu ir e su c h d oc ume nts be phy sic a lly sto re d a nd ma int a ine d at O A. B y

c on tr a st, 4 CRE W’s int e re st i n a c c e ssi nga ll d oc ume nts re sp on siv e to i ts F OIA r e qu e sts is i rr e pa ra bly harme d absent a

stay , as discussed a

bove, supra 8-11.14

D. The Public Intere st Strongly Favors the Granting of a Stay The four th and final fa ctor to be c onsidered by the Court is where the public intere st lies.

“ Th e pu bli c int e re st i s a

un iqu e ly imp or tant c on sid e ratio n in

e va luatin ga

re qu e st f or [int e ri m relief ].” Am. Cetace an Soc. , 6 0 4 F. S u p p . at1 4 1 6 (qu o t i n g Nat’l Ass’n of Farmworkers Orgs. v. Ma rsh all , 6 28 F .2 d 6 04 , 6 16 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 0) ). He re , a s th e Court pr e vio us ly

fo un d, pu

bli c interest strong ly

favor s the g rantingof a stay
. See CREW II , 565 F. Supp. 2d at 31. As CREW
corr ectly stresses, the “ basic purpose of F OIA is to ensure a n informed c itiz enry , vital to the function of a

democr atic socie ty , neede d to chec k ag ainst corr uption and to hold the gove rnors
acc ountable to the g overne d.” NLRB v. Robbins Ti re &Rubber Co. , 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978). I f, on appe al, the D.C. Circuit conc ludes that OA is, in fac t, an ag ency pursuant to the F OIA, the result will be that OA’ s “information is subj ect to disclosure , [and] belong s to all.” NARA v. Fa v ish , 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004). As such, the public interest ce rtainly favor s ensuringthat OA’s r ecor ds are prese rved while the D.C. Circuit considers CREW’s ex pedited appe al. OAargue s n on e the le ss t

hat e xten sio n o f a

sta y wo uld in f a c t ha rm the pu bli c int e re st, a s it
may de lay NA RA ’s pr oc e ssi ngof

the do c ume nts at is su e and thu s th e pu

bli c ’s a c c e ss t o th e m, i f the D. C. C ir c uit

fi nd s in OA ’s fa vo r o n a pp e a l. O A’ s O pp ’n

at 14 . T his argume nt i s la rg e ly based on O A’s unsupported c laim that, if the rec ords ar e kept in the c ustody and contr ol of OA, the documents would be commingle d with the rec ords of the ne x t administration and that they would not be transf

err ed to NARA until the conc lusion of the next P resident’ s term of off ice. See id. OA does not dire ct the Court to any authority proscr ibing the a

utomatic transfe r of the discrete set of re cords at issue here to NARA upon resolution of CREW’s appeal. More over, g iven that the PRA provides that the Ar chivist may take up to five y ear s to process Pre sidential15

rec ords for public a cce ss, the public has no expectation of immediate a cce ss to these rec ords and
any de lay that ma y re su lt f ro m th e e xten sio n o f a

sta y in t his pa rt ic ula r i ns tanc e is unli ke ly

to
c a us e signif ic ant h arm . F ina lly , th e Cou rt e mph a size s th at it

wi ll r e ta in j ur isd ic tio n o ve r O A t o
e nf or c e the te rm s o f t

he Court ’s Or de r e xten din gthe sta y in t his c a se and

re qu ir ingOAto proper ly maintain and segreg ate the r ecor ds at issue from those of the incomingadministration. CO NC LU SION In sum, the Court finds that the instant case is one in whic h “[a]n order maintainingthe status qu o is a

pp ro pr iate [be c a

us e ] a s e ri ou s le g a l qu e sti on is p re se nt, [] littl e if

any ha rm wi ll be fa ll o the r i nte re ste d p e rs on s o r t he pu bli c and [] de nia l of

the or de r w ou ld i nf

lic t ir re pa ra ble injury on the movant.” Ho lid

ay Tou rs , 559 F.2d at 844. As such, the Court shall issue an Or der reinstatingthe stay

previously

issued in its J uly

8, 2008 Orde r and which lapsed on January 5, 2009. Such Orde r shall re quire OAto preser ve all re cords in its possession or under its custody or control that a

re pote ntially

responsive to CREW’s FOIA re quests, and shall fur ther orde r OA not to transfer

any such re cords out of its custody or control without leave of this Court, pending the re so lut ion

of CRE W’s e xpe dit e d a

pp e a l. I n a dd iti on , th e Or de r s ha ll p ro vid e that O A i s require d to phy sically

segreg ate suc h documents fr om the rec ords of the inc oming a dminist ration
and sh a ll a uth or ize on ly

the Chi e f A dmi nis tr ativ e Of fi c e r o f O A, or

his or he r d e signe e , to a c c e ss the re c or ds fo r t

he so le purp os e of

e ns ur ingthe re c or ds are pr op e rl y pr e se rv e d a

nd sto re d unti l the D.C. Circuit issues a rulingand mandate re solving CREW’s appeal. At that time, by court order , the Chief Administrative Of fice r, or his or he r desig nee, sha ll process the r ecor ds as
re qu ir e d. Th at is , unle ss o the rw ise re qu ir e d b y c ourt or de r, if the D. C. C ir c uit

a ff ir ms t hat O A i s not an “a g ency” under

the FO I A, such that the r ecor ds are subject to the PRA, “the Ar chivist of16

the United States shall assume r esponsibility for the c ustody , control, and pr eser vation of, and
a c c e ss t o, the Pr e sid e nti a l r e c or ds of that Pr e sid e nt, ” a s p ro vid e d in the PRA , a

nd OAsh a ll transfe r all such doc uments to the Archivist’s custody . I f, howe ver, the D.C. Circuit finds that OAis s ub je c t to the F OIA o r t

he F RA , O A s ha ll r e ta in t he re c or ds at is su e in o rd e r t o p ro c e ss CREW ’s FO I A re quests. Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the Court shall theref ore G RANT CREW ’s [62] Re ne we d M oti on

fo r S tay Pe nd ingAp pe a l, a s se t f

or th i n th e Or de r a c c omp anyingthi s Memorandum Opinion. Date: J anuar

y 15, 2009

/s/ C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge