Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
Defendant.

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING RELATED CASE DESIGNATION
Plaintiff Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives
(Judiciary Committee) hereby responds to the Court’s order to show cause why this case should
be designated as related to In re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials, 1:19-gj00048-BAH (filed July 26, 2019) (In re Application).
These cases are properly related under Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3)(ii)-(iii) because both
seek key evidence for the Judiciary Committee’s investigation into whether to recommend
articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump for potentially criminal obstructive
conduct. The same underlying Committee investigation of the same Presidential misconduct is
at the heart of both matters before this Court. Therefore, “judicial economy would be served by
having the[ ] matters resolved by the same judge.” Singh v. McConville, 187 F. Supp. 3d 152,
156 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Autumn Journey Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 753 F. Supp. 2d 135, 140
(D.D.C. 2010)).

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 2 of 9

BACKGROUND
In March 2019, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III issued his Report On The
Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (Report), concluding
that the “Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion.” Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, For An Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials
(Committee Application) at 3, In re Application (July 26, 2019) (quoting Report, Vol. I at 1)
(ECF No. 1); Compl. ¶ 1, Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn,
1:19-cv-2379 (August 7, 2019) (ECF No. 1). The Report, which followed a lengthy
investigation by the Special Counsel and grand jury proceedings overseen by this Court, 1 further
details considerable evidence of multiple acts undertaken by President Trump to obstruct the
Special Counsel’s investigation. See Committee Application at 3-8; Compl. ¶¶ 2, 24, 26.
As explained in the pleadings filed thus far in the two cases, the Judiciary Committee is
investigating the events described in the Report to determine “whether to recommend articles of
impeachment against the President based on the obstructive conduct described by the Special
Counsel.” Compl. ¶ 1; see also id. ¶¶ 61-62; accord Committee Application at 1-2, 3, 22-23
(Judiciary Committee is “conducting an investigation to determine whether to recommend
articles of impeachment”). To gather evidence for this investigation, the Judiciary Committee
filed In re Application on July 26, 2019, seeking the release of portions of the Report redacted
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) as well as certain underlying grand jury

1

See Minute Order (Aug. 7, 2019) (explaining that the Committee filed In re Application with a
Notice of Related Case to In re Application for an Order Authorizing the Release of Grand Jury
Material Cited, Quoted, or Referenced in the Report of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III,
1:19-mc-00045-BAH (filed April 1, 2019)).
2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 3 of 9

materials that would enable it to assess, among other things, the President’s “knowledge and
state of mind” concerning the events of the Presidential campaign described in the Report in
order “to determine whether he acted with corrupt intent when he took actions to impede the
Special Counsel’s investigation.” Committee Application at 35. The Committee additionally
seeks underlying grand jury materials that “relate directly to … actions taken by” former White
House Counsel and counsel for the Trump Campaign Donald F. McGahn II “during the
campaign, the transition, or McGahn’s period of service as White House Counsel,” to question
McGahn effectively. Id. at 41-42.
On August 7, 2019, the Judiciary Committee filed its complaint in this case to compel
testimony from McGahn, who is “the most important witness, other than the President, to the key
events that are the focus of the Judiciary Committee’s investigation.” Compl. ¶ 5. As with the
evidence sought in In re Application, the testimony of McGahn is “critical to the Judiciary
Committee’s independent assessment of President Trump’s conduct as described in the Special
Counsel’s Report,” Compl. ¶ 64, including the Committee’s efforts to assess the President’s
“intent” and the “motivations for his actions” in interfering with the Special Counsel’s
investigation, among other potentially obstructive conduct, id. ¶ 66.
ARGUMENT
Ordinarily, “new cases filed in this courthouse are randomly assigned,” Singh, 187 F.
Supp. at 154 (citing Local Civ. R. 40.3(a)), but the “local rules contain an exception … for
related cases,” id. (citing Local Civ. R. 40.5 (additional citations omitted)). Pending civil cases
are “deemed related” when, as relevant here, they “involve common issues of fact” or “grow out
of the same event or transaction.” Local Civ. R. 40.5(a)(3)(ii)-(iii). This “related case rule
embodies the principle that in certain instances, the interests of judicial economy outweigh the

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 4 of 9

fundamental interests served by the random assignment rule.” Autumn Journey, 753 F. Supp. at
139 (citing Doe v. Von Eschenbach, 2007 WL 1655881, at *1 (D.D.C. June 7, 2007)).
For the related-case rule to apply, “the underlying facts themselves must be common.”
Dakota Rural Action v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 18-cv-2852-BAH, 2019 WL 1440134, at *2
(D.D.C. Apr. 1, 2019). However, the factual overlap between the two cases need not be
complete. Courts in this district have treated cases as related where, for example, plaintiffs
shared the same “ultimate goal,” Assiniboine & Sioux Tribe of Fort Peck Indian Reservation v.
Norton, 211 F. Supp. 2d 157, 158 (D.D.C. 2002), there was “substantial overlap in both the
factual underpinning and the legal matters in dispute,” Autumn Journey, 753 F. Supp. 2d at 140,
or the court would “be required to make similar factual determinations” concerning defendants’
conduct, Singh, 187 F. Supp. 3d at 156. Thus, “although differences may exist between” two
cases, a related-case designation is nonetheless proper where “there are clearly issues of fact that
are common to both.” Assiniboine, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 160.
This standard is readily satisfied here for three reasons.
First, the cases involve numerous “common issues of fact.” Local Civ. R. 40.5(a)(3)(ii).
In re Application and McGahn arise out of the same Judiciary Committee investigation being
conducted pursuant to the same legal authorities—and in each, the Committee seeks evidence to
assess whether to recommend articles of impeachment based on the same underlying obstructive
acts by President Trump. Committee Application at 1-2, 12-13, 22-23 (setting forth
authorization for and purpose of impeachment investigation); accord Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4, 19, 61-62
(same). The “underlying facts” of the two cases are thus identical: Russia’s interference in the
2016 election, welcomed by the Trump campaign, see Committee Application at 3-6, Compl. ¶¶
26, 31; the Special Counsel’s investigation of that interference, see Committee Application at 3-

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 5 of 9

8, Compl. ¶¶ 24-25; the President’s multiple actions to undermine the Special Counsel’s
investigation, see Committee Application at 6-12, Compl. ¶¶ 32-51; and the Committee’s
commencement of an investigation into the President’s conduct and months-long efforts to
procure evidence for that investigation; see Committee Application at 13-25, Compl. ¶¶ 57-63,
69-86. 2
This factual overlap extends to the specific types of evidence the Judiciary Committee is
amassing, as well as findings the Court must make regarding the Committee’s need for that
evidence. Principally, the Committee is seeking evidence in both cases that would bear on
whether President Trump acted with “corrupt intent” in the various episodes of potential
obstruction of justice set forth in the Report. See Committee Application at 35-36 (grand jury
materials would enable the Committee to assess “the President’s knowledge and state of mind”);
Compl. ¶ 66 (testimony from McGahn would be “of critical aid to the Judiciary Committee in
assessing the President’s intent”). Because of his senior roles on the campaign and in the White
House, the witness best situated to shed light on the President’s intent is McGahn. See Compl.
¶ 65 (“McGahn witnessed or participated in events relevant to nearly all of the most egregious
episodes of possible Presidential obstruction[.]”); id. ¶ 5 (“McGahn is uniquely positioned to …
provide evidence regarding the President’s intent”).

2

Nothing in Trump v. Comm. on Ways & Means, U.S. House of Representatives, No. 1:19-cv02173 (TNM), 2019 WL 3388537 (D.D.C. July 25, 2019), changes this relatedness analysis. In
concluding that the related-case rule did not apply, the Court in Ways & Means stressed that the
President’s suit against the State of New York and the Ways and Means Committee to strike
down a New York state tax law on First Amendment grounds had “nothing [to] do with” the
Ways and Means Committee’s earlier-filed case under a “federal statute that, the [Ways and
Means] Committee argues, allows it to acquire the President’s federal tax returns from a federal
agency.” 2019 WL 3388537, at *2 (emphasis in original). By contrast, both cases here arise out
of the same Judiciary Committee investigation under the same constitutional authority of the
same Presidential conduct.
5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 6 of 9

In In re Application, the Committee thus is seeking grand jury materials “that describe
actions taken by the central witness to the Committee’s investigation, Don McGahn” or that
could otherwise be used to question McGahn about the President’s conduct. See Committee
Application at 40; see also id. 41-42. For example, the Committee could use grand jury
materials regarding former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort’s dealings with President
Trump during the campaign, see Committee Application at 21, 35-36, to question McGahn about
his discussions with the President regarding the risks of Manafort’s potential cooperation and the
President’s state of mind when he attempted to discourage Manafort from cooperating, see
Compl. ¶ 50. Because the Court must find that the Committee has demonstrated a
“particularized need,” In re Sealed Case, 801 F.2d 1379, 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1986), for the materials
it seeks in In re Application, it will thus need to evaluate any materials pertaining to McGahn for
eventual use by the Committee when McGahn testifies. See Committee Application at 37-38
(discussing Judiciary Committee’s “particularized need” for materials to “question McGahn
about his precise understanding of all relevant facts at the time the President engaged in various
attempts to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation, including when he ordered McGahn
to fire Special Counsel Mueller”). McGahn is therefore a critical link connecting the two cases.
His unique role as the most important witness to possible obstruction, and so his place in both the
Committee Application and the Complaint, reinforces the relatedness of the two matters.
Second, and for similar reasons, both cases “grow out of the same event or transaction,”
Local Civ. R. 40.5(a)(3)(iii)—namely, the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment investigation
regarding the potentially obstructive conduct detailed in the Report. See Autumn Journey, 753 F.
Supp. at 140 (cases concerning promulgation and application of regulation “arise out of” the
same event or transaction). The Committee has explained in both cases that the authority for this

6

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 7 of 9

investigation, and the need for the requested materials and testimony, derive from, among other
sources, the House’s Article I impeachment powers and the Committee’s role in determining the
potential exercise of those powers. See Committee Application at 1-2, 12-13, 22-25; Compl.
¶¶ 11, 19, 57. Evaluating the claims in each case will thus require the Court’s review of the
constitutional basis for and the purpose behind the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment
investigation. See Committee Application at 27 (arguing impeachment investigation is
preliminary to a “judicial proceeding” for purposes of Rule 6(e)(3)(E)); Compl. ¶¶ 61-62
(outlining various legislative, investigative, and oversight purposes of Judiciary Committee’s
investigation, including whether to recommend articles of impeachment); see also Autumn
Journey, 753 F. Supp. 2d at 140 (finding relatedness, where there was “substantial overlap in
both the factual underpinning and the legal matters in dispute”). The clear factual overlap
concerning the Committee’s legal authority to conduct its investigation further supports
relatedness here.
Third, given the urgency of the Judiciary Committee’s investigative task, judicial
efficiency would be served by a finding of relatedness. See Singh, 187 F. Supp. 3d at 156-57.
The Judiciary Committee and counsel for the Department of Justice have already agreed to a
briefing schedule in In re Application, see Minute Order (July 31, 2019), and the Judiciary
Committee has advised counsel in McGahn (McGahn is represented by the same Department of
Justice attorneys who have appeared in In re Application) that the Committee will be pursuing
expedited relief in McGahn. See Compl. ¶ 10 (“The delay caused by McGahn’s refusal to testify
thus severely impedes the Judiciary Committee’s ability to do its time-sensitive work.”). Given
the anticipated expedition of both cases, considerations of judicial economy and efficiency

7

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 8 of 9

militate in favor of a single judge resolving the overlapping factual and legal questions presented
in both cases.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should deem this case related to In re
Application under Local Civ. Rule 40.5.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Douglas N. Letter
Douglas N. Letter (D.C. Bar No. 253492),
General Counsel
Todd B. Tatelman (VA Bar No. 66008),
Deputy General Counsel
Megan Barbero (MA Bar No. 668854),
Associate General Counsel
Josephine Morse (D.C. Bar No. 1531317),
Associate General Counsel
Sarah E. Clouse (MA Bar No. 688187),
Attorney
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone: (202) 225-9700
Douglas.Letter@mail.house.gov
Annie L. Owens (D.C. Bar No. 976604)
Joshua A. Geltzer (D.C. Bar No. 1018768)
INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-9042
ao700@georgetown.edu
Counsel for Plaintiff Committee on the Judiciary of
the U.S. House of Representatives
August 12, 2019

8

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 13 Filed 08/12/19 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 12, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to be filed via
this Court’s CM/ECF system, which I understand caused service on all registered parties.

/s/ Douglas N. Letter
Douglas N. Letter

9