TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES American Fin. Servs. Ass'n v. FTC, 767 F.2d 957 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1011 (1986) Baker, 369 U.S. at 217 Bliley v. Kelly, No. 92-7112 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 1994) .... Cable News Network v. Anderson, 723 F. Supp. 835 (D.D.C. 1989) Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1992) Central Bank v. First Interstate Bank. N.A.. U.S. 114 S. Ct. 1439 (1994) Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain. ____ U.S. 112 S. Ct. 1146 (1992) 1 Deal v. United States. U.S. 113 S. Ct. 1993 (1993) 7 14 Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1981) . . . . . . . . 27 Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 943 (1979) 21 FTC v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 626 F.2d 966 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 20 Franklin Sav. Ass'n v. Director. OTS, 934 F.2d 1127 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. U.S. Ct. 1475 (1992) 29 Gersman v. Group Health Ass'n, 975 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied. ___ U.S. , 114 (1994) Gregg v. Barrett. 771 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Gregory v. FDIC, 631 F.2d 896 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Halkin v. Helms, 598 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1978) Humphrey v. Baker, 848 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 966 (1988) Kisser v. Cisneros, 14 F.3d 615, 619 (D.C. Cir. 1994).. Lee v. Kelley, 99 F.R.D. 340 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd sub nom. Southern Christian Lindahl v. OPM, 470 U.S. 768 (1984) Lowry v. Reagan, 676 F. Supp. 333 (D.D.C. 1987) . . . . . Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) . . . . 21, 22, 23 Melcher v. Federal Open Market Comm., 836 F.2d 561 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1042 (1988) Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs.. U.S. 113 S. Ct. 2063 (1993) ... 10, 11, 12 14 Michel v. Anderson, 817 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1993), aff'd, 14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 199412 Miller v. Casey, 730 F.2d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 23 Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) .. 27 Murphy v. Department of Army, 613 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1979) passim Nationalist Movement v. City of Cumming, 913 F.2d 885 (11th Cir. 1990) 6,8 Public Citizen, Inc. v. RTC, No. 92-0010 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 1993) Riegle v. Federal Open Market Comm., 656 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1002 (1981) 25 10 Salisbury v. United States, 690 F.2d 966 (D.C. Cir. 1982) 25 Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 747 F.2d at 781 19 Stone v. FBI, 727 F. Supp. 662, 1990 WL 134431 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 14, 1990) . . . 25, 26 Swenson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 890 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1989 United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) 21 14 DC01:35556.1 -iii On June 20, 1994, Representative James A. Leach ("Rep. Leach") filed a memorandum in further support of his motion for summary judgment, and in opposition to Defendants' crossmotion for summary judgment ("Opposition"). Pursuant to the order entered by this Court on May 16, 1994, Defendants Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS") and Resolution Trust Corporation ("RTC") file this Reply in support of their motion to dismiss, or for summary judgment.1 INTRODUCTION In his Opposition, Rep. Leach repeatedly mischaracterizes Defendants' arguments, attributing positions to the OTS and RTC that they have not asserted. As a result, much of Rep. Leach's Opposition has little to do with the issues before the Court, and many of Defendants' points remain unaddressed. Further, many of Rep. Leach's arguments are contradicted by other statements in his briefs. Finally, several pages of Rep. Leach's Opposition are devoted to an attempt to refute alleged "misinterpretations by Defendants of the undisputed facts." Opposition at 2. Notwithstanding that euphemistic description, what Rep. Leach has really done is raise disputes regarding facts that he deems material to his own motion, thereby precluding this Court from granting his request for summary judgment. - which are not at issue First, Rep. Leach asserts that "Defendants confuse 'hearings' with 'documents' -- which are the focus of this case." Opposition at 3. However, Rep. Leach's argument now, that there is no nexus between his demand for documents and in this case 1 On June 20, 1994, the same day Rep. Leach filed his brief, the Republican Leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, along with the Ranking Minority Members of four House Committees and all of the Republican Members of the House Banking Committee ("Republican Leadership") filed a motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of Rep. Leach's motion for summary judgment. On June 22, this Court granted leave to file the amicus brief. Defendants will file a response to the amicus brief on or before July 5, 1994, as provided by Local Rule 108(b). -1 |