In this February 2, 1998 brief before U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright, lawyers for President Clinton argue that leaks in the case and repeated television appearances by members of Paula Jones' legal team require that the trial date be moved up in order to avoid getting bogged down in continued pre-trial wrangling between the two sides.

The filing points out that because of the gag order on the case, few people have had access to case documents. Clinton's lawyers use that fact to suggest that Jones and her team are responsible for the leaks in the case, which have helped fuel the potential scandal involving former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

On February 10, Judge Wright denied the motion, but said she would consider moving up the start date for jury selection in order to insure the trial begins on May 27 as scheduled. She cited several motions still before her as reasons why she would not move up the beginning of the trial. Among them were a sealed request for her to reconsider her removal from the case evidence about Lewinsky and motions by Jones' lawyers asking for additional time to conduct discovery.

President Clinton, through undersigned counsel, hereby submits this brief in further support of this motion to expedite the trial date in this matter. Substantial leaks of sealed discovery in this case continue unabated and further support this request to expedite the trial and the briefing of dispositive motions. Most recently, these leaks include detailed references purportedly to the sealed deposition testimony of the President, and references to the deposition of a purported witness in the case, the transcript of which Newsweek claims to have seen. See Exhibit 1 hereto, Newsweek, at 37, 44. Of course, only the Court, the parties and their counsel have had copies of depositions taken in the case.

The fact that these leaks are occurring is undisputed and, as the Court knows, the overwhelming weight of the leaks seem to favor plaintiff - for example, there have been no leaks of plaintiff's deposition testimony. Simultaneously, plaintiff's counsel and Susan Carpenter McMillan continue to appear on television, as does John Whitehead from the Rutherford Institute who held a press conference after delivering documents to the Office of the Independent Counsel's grand jury in Washington D.C. Now, even plaintiff's investigator, Richard Lambert, is telling the media about his investigation and what he has learned in connection with discovery in this case. See Exhibit 2 hereto, New York Times, January 31, 1998, at 1-2; New York Times, January 23, 1998, at 3.

While we believe sanctions against plaintiff would be appropriate in these circumstances, we would prefer to move forward and finally resolve the case expeditiously rather than become bogged down in litigation over sanctions. In addition, the imposition of sanctions would detract attention from the fact that plaintiff has failed to gather any evidence to support her claim that she suffered any cognizable injury in this case. Moreover, the Court's Order eliminating the issue of Monica Lewinsky from this litigation does not obviate the need to expedite the trial of this matter as the recent leaks have demonstrated. Therefore, we believe that an expedited resolution of this matter is the only way to stop the case from threatening to engulf the President and the presidency, and to ensure a fair trial for a fair trial for all parties. See Exhibit 3 hereto, Washington Post, January 29, 1998, High Court Opened Way to Crisis.

The granting of our request for an expedited trial is fair to the President and is not prejudicial in any way to plaintiff, who has claimed from the outset that she desires a speedy trial. Moreover, plaintiff has no fewer than six lawyers who are counsel of record, two lawyers who are listed as "of counsel" on all papers filed on her behalf and countless lawyers from across the country who are affiliated with the Rutherford Institute and who have assisted in this litigation.

We therefore request the Court to set this matter for trial commencing on March 23, 1998, or the earliest date thereafter that is convenient for the Court. We intend to file a motion for summary judgement by mid-February 1998 and, pursuant to the Court's August 26, 1997 Scheduling Order, plaintiff's response will be due fourteen days thereafter. Thus, briefing on our motion for summary judgement should be completed sufficiently in advance of the requested March 23, 1998 trial date.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/
Robert S. Bennett, Esq.
Carl S. Rauh, Esq.
Mitchell S. Ettinger, Esq.
Amy Sabrin, Esq.
Katharine S. Sexton, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 371-7000

Kathlyn Graves, Esq.
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
200 West Capitol Avenue

Suite 2200
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 371-0808

Stephen Engstrom, Esq.
WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM, DUDLEY & COULTER
809 West Third Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
(501) 375-6453

Counsel to
President William J. Clinton

Dated: February 2, 1998