IN THE ED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) ) ) ) Civ. No. 94-1033 (CRR) ) ) ) NT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS SUANT TO LOCAL RULE NO. 108(h) ocal Rule No. 108(h), Plaintiff James A. Leach submits this aterial Facts in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary James A. Leach is the duly elected Member of the United atives from the First Congressional District of lowa. At all been the Ranking Minority Member of the House ance and Urban Affairs ("the Committee"), and brings this claration of Joseph L. Seidel ("Seidel Decl.") ¶ 3.) ed reports indicate that the failure of Madison Guaranty ayers approximately $67 million. A number of questions MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Dated: May 16, 1994 Bobby R. Burchfield 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiff The above-entitled Complaint and Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule have been received and assigned to the undersigned Judge. In view of the above, it is, by the Court, this day of way, 1994, ORDERED that the Clerk is hereby directed to make a copy of all of the foregoing pleadings available to the United States Marshal forthwith for service upon the office of the United States Attorney for this District, with directions that he, or one of his assistants or designeas from the Defendant agencies, appear in this Court, Courtroom 11, at 11:00. a.m. on Monday, May 16, 1994, and then and thara be prepared to respond to the Plaintiff's proposed briefing schedule and whether the same should be adopted by this Court. May 16, 1994 Hon. Charles R. Richey for the District of Columbia 3rd Street & Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Re: Leach v. RTC, C.A. No. 94-1033 (CRR) (D.D.C. filed May 11, 1994) Your Honor: Enclosed with this letter please find a courtesy copy of the joint response of the Resolution Trust Corporation ("RTC") and the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS") to Representative Leach's "emergency motion for expedited briefing schedule to resolve summary judgment motion. " In order to reduce the burden on the Court, minimize paperwork, and promote the efficient resolution of this matter, RTC and OTS have met, consulted, identified counsel to represent them, and agreed that to the extent possible, they will file joint submissions in this matter. Insofar as factual questions arise that must be addressed separately by each agency, or the agencies' respective legal positions may diverge, RTC and OTS will submit separate filings. However, in all other cases we will attempt to submit our views jointly. Because the Court's Order to Show Cause, dated May 11, 1994, directed the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, or one of his assistants, or designees from OTS and RTC to appear before you on May 16th, we are by copy of this letter informing him, as well as opposing counsel, of the arrangements OTS and RTC have made. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION Defendants, the Resolution Trust Corporation ("RTC") and the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), have no objection to the establishment of a speedy schedule for the filing and briefing of summary judgment motions in the above-captioned action, filed May 11, 1994. However, the circumstances do not require that the parties and the Court proceed at the breakneck pace proposed by plaintiff. Instead, defendants propose that the Court adopt a reasonable, but still speedy schedule that would permit adequate briefing of the important legal issues raised and still allow for resolution of this matter promptly on summary judgment motions. Plaintiff's request ignores the Court's interest in ensuring that all the relevant legal arguments at issue are fully and clearly presented to it by the parties. The complaint raises a |