On January 30, 1998 U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that the Secret Service would not have to comply with subpoenas issued by lawyers for Paula Jones in her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton. Forcing agents to testify, Wright said in her order could potentially "provide those with hostile intent toward the President with important information to use in piercing the Secret Service's protection."

However, Wright avoided having to rule on the Secret Service's argument that its duties required its agents to be free from having to testify about their work. Wright used the same logic she applied in barring evidence about former White House intern Monica Lewinsky in Jones: that the testimony would not be essential to the case.

The order does not have any direct effect on independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of Clinton and Lewinsky. However, Wright noted that testimony by agents in the civil case could interfere with Starr's work.

While the judge's decision was made public, she kept the initial request for a protective order and discussions of the request under seal. She also expressed concern about leaks of documents in the Jones case -- such as the Clinton and Lewinsky statements that ignited the current controversy surrounding Clinton and subtly reminded both sides that she could take action against the leaks if she ever discovers who made them.

Before the Court is a motion of the United States Secret Service for a protective order relieving the Secret Service of any obligation to comply with four subpoenas served upon the agency on December 23, 1997, and prohibiting the plaintiff from serving any additional subpoenas in this action for documents, testimony, or other information generated or obtained by the Secret Service in the course of performing its protective service function. The President has responded in support of the Secret Service's motion and the plaintiff has responded in opposition to the motion. The Court held a telephone conference on this motion on the afternoon of January 29, 1998. Having considered this matter, the Court hereby grants the Secret Service's motion for a protective order.

The Secret Service asserts, among other things, that the production of documents responsive to the plaintiff's subpoenas would impair the law enforcement efforts of the Secret Service. The Secret Service asks this Court to recognize a privilege for the Secret Service's protective function and to issue a protective order on that basis. There is no need for this Court to determine the existence or applicability of any privilege, however, as the issues raised by the Secret Service's motion can be resolved on other grounds.

As was the case with evidence concerning Monica Lewinsky, the Court acknowledges that evidence concerning the Secret Service might be relevant to the issues in this case. Such evidence is not, however, essential to the core issues in this case. In that regard, the Court notes that the activities of the Secret Service are at issue in the Independent Counsel's criminal investigation that is currently underway and that the government's proceedings could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the activities of the Secret Service by the parties in this civil case. See, e.g., Arden Way Associates v. Ivan F. Boesky, 660 F.Supp. 1494 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Because this Court must generally yield to the interests of an ongoing grand jury investigation, the Court will defer to the integrity of the government's criminal investigation and will exclude evidence concerning activities of the Secret Service from the trial of this matter.

In addition, the Court is quite concerned about the numerous "leaks" of sealed information in this case since this Court's Confidentiality Order on Consent of all Parties was entered. These leaks have grown in intensity over the past few weeks and the Court has previously discussed its concerns about these leaks in telephone conferences with the parties in the case.¹ Although the Court is not acknowledging the accuracy of any of these leaks, the possibly unauthorized disclosure of the functioning of the Secret Service counsels against allowing discovery of such information to the parties in this civil case. As noted by the Supreme Court, "[t]he Nation undoubtedly has a valid, even an overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence." Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969). The Court agrees with the Secret Service that the discovery sought by plaintiff could possibly provide critical information at the core of how the Secret Service actually functions and provide those with hostile intent toward the President with important information to use in piercing the Secret Service's protection. The Court deems such a risk of unauthorized disclosure to be unacceptable, especially where the information sought by the plaintiff from the Secret Service is not essential to her case.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion of the Secret Service for a protective order. The parties agree that the public filing of today's Order will not impair the Court's ability to select a fair and impartial jury in the trial of this matter. However, because the identities of certain individuals are revealed in the Secret Service's motion and were discussed in the telephone conference, the motion for a protective order, the pleadings filed in response to the motion, and the transcript of this Court's telephone conference, shall remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of January 1998.

/s/
Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE