as colorado district court judge wiley
b. daniel had much earlier indicated, steven howard
should be free to renew his motion to depose the
vice president — dick cheney — about what dick
claims happened that justified his 2006 arrest, after
disagreeing face-to-face with the vice president,
in beaver creek, colorado, at a smaller, “hand-
shaking, meet and greet” type of public appearance,
in front of some local shops — in short — in public.
judge daniels held, in preliminarily-denying
howard lawyers’ much earlier motion, that if plain-
tiff howard could not obtain the evidence he
was seeking elsewhere, he could always renew his
motion to depose the dick, when all other avenues
had been exhausted. mr. howard’s lawyers now
effectively swear, as of august 12, 2008, that
moment has arrived — it is upon us:
. . .A party seeking the deposition of a high-ranking government official must establish that the official has firsthand knowledge of the claim being litigated and the information cannot be obtained from any other source. Bogan v. City of Boston, 489 F.3d 417, 423 (1st Cir. 2007). Indeed, there is substantial case law in which courts have acknowledged that the deposition of a high-ranking government official is warranted where the government official has personal knowledge of the matter and the information cannot be contained elsewhere. Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D. D.C. 1998) (“high ranking government officials are generally not subject to depositions unless they have some personal knowledge about the matter and the party seeking the deposition makes a showing that the information cannot be obtained elsewhere”); Church of Scientology v. IRS, 138 F.R.D. 9, 11 (D.Mass 1990) (“[a]n exception to th[e] general rule exists concerning top officials who have direct personal factual information pertaining to material issues in an action”); Community Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., 96 F.R.D. 619 (D. D.C. 1983) (holding that the deposition of an agency official may be permitted when the official has relevant first-hand knowledge of matters material to the decision and not available from some other source); Warzon v. Drew, 155 F.R.D. 183, 185 (E.D. Wis. 1994) (“[a]n exception to th[e] general rule exists concerning top officials who have direct personal factual information pertaining to material issues in an action . . . [and] where the information to be gained . . is not available through any other source.”); see also, Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1211 (D.C.Cir.1979) (“Presidents are scarcely immune from judicial process”).
Clearly, as the victim of Plaintiff’s alleged “assault,” the Vice President has personal knowledge of the claims at issue in this litigation. Mr. Howards approached and spoke directly to the Vice President, and it was this act that led to Mr. Howards’ arrest. . .
indeed — we shall see.