Jones v. Clinton Special Report
Navigation Bar
Navigation Bar


JONES v. CLINTON
 Overview
 Key Stories
 Legal
 Documents
 Time Line
 Links &
 Resources
 Talk
 Special
 Reports


  blue line
Motion to Strike Materials

_

Related Links
_ Clinton Lawyer Decries 'Smear' (Washington Post, March 21)

_ Full Text of Other Legal Documents

_ Full Coverage: Clinton Accused

_

Released on Friday, March 20, 1998

Following is the full text of a motion filed on March 20 by President Clinton's lawyers, asking that all testimony about Clinton's alleged sexual escapades with other women be thrown out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S MOTION TO STRIKE MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF IN CONNECTION WITH HER OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Rules 12(f) and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we hereby move to strike the following materials from plaintiff's appendix to her opposition to summary judgment: Exhibits 1, 4-18, 23-25 and 29. These materials are irrelevant and immaterial to summary judgment, reflect improperly prejudicial misinformation and are largely the inadmissible by-product of plaintiff's smear campaign.

A recent book provided the genesis of this material. In that book, plaintiff's husband announced a plan to abuse the compulsory processes of the Court to put a veneer of credibility on all manner of gossip, rumor and innuendo concerning President Clinton:

    In a belligerent mood, Steve [Jones] warned that he was going to use subpoena power to reconstruct the secret life of Bill Clinton. Every state trooper used by the governor to solicit women was going to be deposed under oath. 'We're going to get names; we're going to get dates; we're going to do the job that the press wouldn't do,' he said. 'We're going to go after Clinton's medical records, the raw documents, not just opinions from doctors, . . . we're going to find out everything.'

See The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (1997) at 363.

Plaintiff's recent filing is the culmination of that plan, which was executed with the help of The Rutherford Institute and plaintiff's other financial and political backers. Thus, it should come as no surprise that just four days after this Court affirmed the Confidentiality Order, plaintiff filed on the public record much of the irrelevant, unfounded, and inadmissible misinformation that plaintiff collected in this case.

Plaintiff's irresponsible filing also illustrates plaintiff's continuing attempt to litigate this case in the media and to taint the jury pool. For example, we know that plaintiff and her backers repeatedly have leaked under-seal information to the media. We know that plaintiff improperly sought to taint the jury pool by directly corresponding with and soliciting funds from members of the jury pool. We also understand that one of plaintiff's representatives has stated to others that her explicit role in this case is to taint the jury pool.

The Opposition furthermore unnecessarily attacks and invades the privacy rights of third parties, and violates Court Orders such as the January 29 and March 9, 1998 Orders excluding material concerning Monica Lewinsky. What it does not do, however, is present evidence to withstand summary judgment. President Clinton's motion for summary judgment raises issues relating solely to claims personal to plaintiff, and relies solely on plaintiff's official employment records and the testimony of plaintiff, four present and former Arkansas State employees, and co-defendant Trooper Danny Ferguson. Although the President disputes all of plaintiff's allegations, the motion assumes for the limited purpose of the motion only, that her allegations with respect to her alleged contacts with President Clinton were true. Accordingly, the only proper scope of opposition to the motion would have been evidence addressing plaintiff's employment claims and her alleged emotional distress.

The President's summary judgment papers specifically did not raise any claims or make any contentions concerning Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Gennifer Flowers, or any other third persons. Yet plaintiff included hundreds of pages of exhibits to her opposition relating to all of these individuals and others. This was an act of obvious bad faith.

On summary judgment, it is plaintiff's burden to identify evidence to substantiate her claims. Yet, plaintiff offers not a scintilla of evidence to counter the witnesses and records on which we relied. Instead, plaintiff merely attacks the credibility of evidence related to immaterial and collateral matters. It is patently obvious, therefore, that plaintiff's opposition was created solely as a vehicle to which plaintiff could attach improper exhibits.

Although we believe that the Opposition materials are irrelevant and immaterial to our motion for summary judgment, the potential for tainting the jury pool is obvious. We do not believe it is possible to cure fully all of the potential improper prejudice caused by plaintiff's conduct. Therefore, we ask this Court to strike Exhibits 1, 4-18, 23-25 and 29 to plaintiff's Opposition because these materials have no arguable relevance to the issues on summary judgment and are improperly prejudicial. In addition, in an effort to offset some of the unfairness to the President, we are submitting a few selected materials:

  • excerpt from deposition of Kathleen Willey
  • deposition of George Cook
  • affidavit of Sam Jones
  • excerpt from deposition of Raymond "Buddy" Young
  • excerpt from deposition of Dolly Kyle Browning
  • excerpt from deposition of Gennifer Flowers
  • excerpt from deposition of Larry Patterson
  • excerpt from deposition of Roger Perry
  • excerpt from deposition of L.D. Brown

For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that Exhibits 1, 4-18, 23-25 and 29 be stricken and the Court order whatever other relief it deems appropriate.

© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

Back to the top

Navigation Bar
Navigation Bar
 
yellow pages