' CONFIDENTIAL DEPARTMENT OF STATE Memorandum al Conversation DATE SUBJECT January 15 1976 Safire Request Under Freedom of Information Act PARTICIPANTS Mr Philip Buchen counsel to the President Mr James A Wilderotter Associate Counsel to the President Mr Dudley H Chapman Associate Counsel White House Mr Robert c McFarlane Military Assistant to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Mr Monroe Leigh Legal Adviser Department of State Mr Carlyle E Maw Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance Under Secretary Maw and I attended a meeting at the White House in Mr Buchen's office this morning to discuss the Safire request under the Freedom of Information Act In addition to Mr Buchen Messrs Wilderotter Chapman and McFarlane were also present throughout the meeting The first topic addressed was whether the transfer of telephone conversation memoranda from the White House to the State Department could be considered as a violation of Judge Richey's order in the case of Nixon v Sampson I stated that in my judgment there was no violation of that order since that order by its terms applied only to documents in the custody of one of the named defendants in the law suit or their superiors agents or assigns In our view the telephone conversation memoranda in the State Department were not in the custody of such a defendant at the time the order was issued I passed out the attached memorandum dated January 14 which spells out this conclusion in more detail After considerable discussion the conclusion of this memorandum was accepted as correct L MLeigh dc Draf1ing Office and Off rer FORM 0S-1254 2 6 i CONFIDENTIAL GOS • CONFIDENTIAL - 2 - Mr Buchen then asked whether in my judgment the telephone conversation memoranda were within the scope of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Act of 1974 I responded that the scope of that act was limited to Presidential historical materials of Richard M Nixon and that I did not consider that this test was met in the case of the telephone conversation memoranda There was discussion as to whether the scope of Presidential historical material was further defined by 44 u s c Section 2101 or by the attached White House office papers directive which was effective up until August 9 1974 This discussion was inconclusive There was agreement however that it might be necessary to secure a Department of Justice opinion on this point However no decision was taken to seek such an opinion until all possibilities had been examined Mr Buchen pointed out that if these telephone conversation memoranda were deemed within the scope of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Act of 1974 the effect would be to render them unavailable under the Freedom of Information Act He explained that the interpretation had been made that since the Presidential Recordings and Materials Act post-dated the Freedom of Information Act the earlier act was considered modified by the later act I asked whether a Justice Department opinion had been obtained on this point and it was stated that so far there had beenonly a White House legal opinion It was also pointed out that if the telephone conversation memoranda were treated as within the Presidential Recordings and Materials Act it would not be necessary to make the detailed examination of those documents at this time which would otherwise be required under the Freedom of Infonnation Act The next issue considered was whether the telephone conversation memoranda might be considered as personal papers of Secretary Kissinger Initially Dudley Chapman thought this was the most plausible position However later after having noted that the papers had been prepared as stated in the Secretary's response to Halperin interrogatories in order to facilitate implementation and follow up of business transacted he changed his view Nevertheless it was agreed that this possibility should be thoroughly considered It is not necessarily true that the CONFIDENTIAL • CONFIDENTIAL - 3 - characterization in the response to the interrogatories is legally binding on anyone Thereafter considerable discussion was devoted to the Freedom of Information Act All agreed that some of the documents would undoubtedly be covered under the exemption in b 1 classified material and others would be covered under the internal memoranda exemption b 5 Mr Chapman believed it was possible to consider that all of the documents were internal even though they might represent calls from the Secretary to persons outside the government since they were to be used entirely for the internal management of a government office The trouble with this argument is that exemption b 5 speaks in terms of inter or intra-agency memoranda It was also pointed out that some of the material might be withholdable on the ground that withholding was authorized by law within the meaning of exemption b 3 In fact it might be determined that the b 3 exemption was the means of reconciling the Freedom of Information Act with the Presidential Records and Materials Act of 1974 Another possibility considered was that all of the telephone conversation memoranda were in the categories of drafts since there is no evidence that the Secretary ever reviewed and corrected the typescript despite the contrary indications in the New York Times It was agreed that this issue should also be studied Finally Mr Buchen requested that Larry Eagleburger prepare a memorandum for him giving a general description of the papers in question specifying the categories of such material and the quantity of papers involved The meeting concluded with the State Department representatives agreeing to come back to the White House within two days for a further assessment CONFIDENTIAL • DEPARTMENT OF STATE Washington O C 20520 CONFIDENTIAL January 14 1976 MEMORANDUM Court Orders Affecting Documents Transferred from White House to State Department In connection with the Nixon papers litigation Judge Richey on October 21 1974 issued a protective order which is apparently still in effect today That order enjoined the defendants in that litigation including Philip Buchen and their superiors agents and assigns from disclosing transfe·rring disposing or otherwise making known to any person •• the materials known as the 'presidential materials of the Nixon Administration' • The order as amended on October 22 1974 specifically excluded from these prohibitions the production of said materials pursuant to a validly-issued subpoena discovery demand or court order in any civil or criminal case and also the use of said materials with prior notification to counsel for Plaintiff Richard M Nison and with the consent of Defendant Philip W Buchen for purposes of current government business • A copy of this order and its subsequent modifications are attached Two aspects of this Order are of particular significance to Secretary Kissinger's telephone conversation memoranda First the order applies only to materials in the custody or control of the defendants or their agents superiors or assigi1s 11 on October 21 1974 The government defendants were Arthur Sampson of GSA H Stuart Knight the Director of the Secret Service and Philip Buchen Henry Kissinger was not a defendant Nor wa he un agent superior or assign of the CONFIDENTIAL ✓CONFIDENTIAL • -2government defendants The critical question then is where were the telephone conversation memoranda on Octob r 21 1974 If they were already at the State Department there would -seem to be no problem If however they were at the NSC one might have an easier time arguing that they were within the custody or control of Mr Buchen or his superior President Ford Th fact is that the telephone conversation memoranda came to the State DepartmGnt at approximately the same time as Henry Kissinger became Secretary of State in September 1973 Thus it seems clear that Judge Richey's order by its own terms did not apply to the telephone conversation memoranda which Dr Kissinger brought to the Department Second the protective order applies only to presidential materials of the Nixon administration This term is not defined in the order However an argument can be made that telephone conversation memoranda of the National Security Adviser are not strictly speaking presidential materials They may instead be records of the NSC Or they may be personal papers of the National Security Adviser Under this restrictive view the only memoranda constituting presidential materials might be those referring to conversations directly with the ·President On the other hand it may be argued that since the National Security Adviser is a direct assistant to the President his papers constitute presidential materials insofar as they relate to his advisory duties If so the order precludes them from being transferred unless the prescribed exceptions are satisfied One exception would permit transfer of the papers for use in current government business provided Nixon's counsel has been notified and Philip Buchen has consented to the transfer A second exception would permit transfer pursuant to a court order in any civil or criminal case 4 • 160 u siTED STATES pisT UCT COURT Fon Tm DISTl ICT OF C0LUl BT Civil Action No 74-1618 -RJCIIARJ u v l 1 1 1 i Civil Action Xo H-1533 THE n PonTERS Co innTTEE Fon ARTfltiR I I FnEED1J 1 OF nIE· l'nEss ET AL PLAINTIFFS v F SAlIPS0N ET AL ' NIXON l'LAJ - TIFF DEFENDANTS ORDER Upon consitle ration oC the lotion for a · Temporary Restrai nin° Order bv Plnintiff ixou an l l'l 1inriffs rtcp1Jrters Committee for Freedom of the l'res et nl the Points am ut Jorities in supvort thereof anu th' oral ar 11n e11t l Jy all pnrtics as well t ' u · llll ' 3-pl·• ·i tl Prv ••cu ur tll ll il appeari n tll tt 1lle u·itcri L for grantiJJ a 'l'empor 1ry n e straini i Orllcr have been met and it further app earin to tlie Court tl l 1r tliere exists a g eat ntere st on ueha E of the li tl g·ants and the public in rc iching l jn t resolution up1Jn a sound legal basis ind due to the unique Hntur or ti le vr1 ent matter it is uy th e Court this 21s t d iy of October 10 1 Ordered That the forioi s f or n T enq orary Re t rnininr Order bl' and the same r re J1cr1 y gi- intl'cl ia pa rr wd 1lcnied in part and it i s -- F1 rt11er Ordered Tha t the Defendants their superiors a ents and n ili wl arc 1 uhjPC t to the conditi o i lJ creu•a tt •r 11c ri ccl in thr liai rnee oi hi 1 l' lcr h ereby cnj incu from di nc 1 t l 1 rr 1 cliH 0 ill or otl rwi r e m ikin k nown to nny pe rs on oc heh l c r r Yate cit zr u or Jlllblie llliit i' ll tlle mnt rials in cluc1iu 6 documen ts t 1pcs nntl othC'r apers knowa as t he p -e i lenti1l 1arerinls f tlie ixon _ ' j 1i 11··u ion ti ilJi • · ' • n •t 1 Tho r- i f I ' nn 1 coutroi ti e Dc feral 11 lld·i j - · '' -· - - • • • Further Orden 1 'i'h t the DefentlQnts arc h e reby en joined from effectuating the terms an d con litions or t h e •· ri ement entered into by Richard 1 Xuon and r hur F Samp on on or abot t September G 1074 nno it is F u rth er Ordered ' l 'h t tile inj uncl ion shall not scrYe us a bar to the production of said materials pnrs n int to a Yalidly i sut'd subpoena in any ci il or criminal cosc eith r llUtstar di or w hile t his iujuur t ion is e xta nt or to the proclu1 ion of said materia ls in r ' 1rd to th nn' ' oin ' atcri nte criminal trial b fo e Unit ed States District Juc1 _ e Jobu Si rici or to the producrion ot said material pursuant to a vnliclly is u ' s ubpoena by a ranc jury and it is Further Ordr1red Thnt Pla intiff Ilicb ud L 1 ixon sha ll be nG'orded access to snid mntcrials for the sole purpose or JJrepari11 r to tes ti_fy in th·e ' Yatc r ' lt e criminal tria and if he shall he 1m 1ule to physic lli · do so he shall be nllowed to make c 1 iies of r iill ru i re ri 'l s for uc 1 u se but hall uot disclo c or di ·ul e the contents tt ercof e xe1•pt in re 'l rd c t is t st mon · 1 n 1 aid copies shall be rrt' lrncd re th e e cn niS u pon the com 1le icin of hi s obli tions as a wiu1c- s and it ls ·· Furth er Ordcrr d ' rbat the Plaintiffs shnll not be rcquirc j to post a ny bo ld nnd it is 1''111 t hf r Ordered 'l'h nt this in iuP c tion 1 ball be efl'ectiYC fo r ten 10 day a nd shall be renewetl u11on prOJJer application of t he pa tics of i J j I CIIA RLES O C' ·o BER n Il1cnr- Y U S District Jud 21 1 74 t pon 1 11 a ' dater O1 t u r cqth st - · con ent t · '• jus tice n ld Orde r nrc 1 · · it i h · I • Unlcrc i hercl y ·1 T • · _ Ur i t i · - nue nre h1 · _ 1 r i - Ub r-t •r · h 'rrt- · E 'J· _ t• · • - 11 d_ 4 lrnuwi1 ria b vf It - of he D 10 · P 1 rlht'1· ·- the tern s a - - a11 l An 1 - · I-' rrtl cr · ti or nt ii J r cour · 0 -- • i11 iur cr i C1n ning ' · 1 · - i rica o - o l l' J l CU t - sai l mate r ·- I mll w tl _ O f' n tl · · · r-· •irt h r · l fflll'dt·tt • hy Dr fr r -i- · ll i h 11 l•U i lt' · ·· il' PflC'll · 11 111 h - r opic s ni COrif l' lt · l ul l£•n such puq·c i ---·-- - --·-- _ •-· ______ _ __ ··-·---- •-- --·•-· - '- I -··· ''• -- DECLASSIFIED Authority N ff19 S 5i - 1 1 f u · · • · - I etr •• na 6 rs c a n • r 1ar Ur 1·rEo SuTES DrsTRICT J CooRT FOR TIIE DrsnrcT OF Cor u m1u Civil Action No 74-1518 RICHARD 1 1 N'I OS PLAINTIFF _o RTHtrn F SAllPSO ET AL DEFENDA TS CMI Action No 74-1 i38 THE RF PORTERS CoiOUT'IEE FOR FnEEDOll OF THE PRESS PLAIXTIFFS ET AL PLAINTIFFS 11 ARTHUR F SAlIPSO ET AL DEFESD n·s SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 1ing Order by l of the Pl't'SS Ll arguruent by hnt the criterin l it furthe1· apr f the liti mnts sis nncl due to iis 21st dny of i I er be and the ts and assigns of thi Order rv ·lse making the materials sldential mntea custody and m effectuating bard ll i s on tbe production il or criminal the prod ucticn 11 trinl before snld materinl tfforded n ccess tbe W3tergate nu be nllowcd lose or di' ul e copies sbnll be us a witnc 's - 1 ost any bond 10 days and RICHP Y strict J11 d e t 'Gpon consideration of the Teniporar t Restraining Order issued yesterday di 1t ed October 21 1074 nt 4 0 p ru · and upon conslc lcrntion of the r arties' request - for certain mocli lcations thereof nnd it appearing that the parties consent to snicl modiflcntions and tllat the snme ore consistent with the ends of justice nncl it nppca1'ing that the aforesaid 01·der as well as this Supplemental Order a re necessary to preserve the stutus quo in the above-entitled litigation it is hr the Court this 22nd 1 1 y of u ro i r in -l Ordered 'l'hat the Court's Order of October 21 107-J be ·and the same is her b_y nmencled und supplemented as follows · ·· Ordered 'hut the· lotions for a Terupornry ncstraining Order be and the snn te are herfby granted in pnrt nnd denied in p 1rt nnd it'is J 'urillcr Orqcrecl That the D fonciants their superior n ents nnd -assigns arc subject to the conditions hereinafter described in the bnlan e of thi Order · hereb · enjoiue d from disclo iu trnn ft rriug rlispnr in or otller • i e nmkiu known to auy person be l1e slle private citizen or public ofllcinl the runt ri in 'IUding document tap s awl otiH r pap_crs known ns the Prc_ identinl mate• rials of tile i xou Administration tbut are presently in the cm tody and coptrol of the Dcfendnnts and Jt is -----Purther Ordered Thnt the Defeudnnts are hereby enjoined from cficctuoting the terms and conditions of the Agreement entered into by Richard J Nixon and Arthur 1 Sarup nu ou fJr nLunt Sl'ptemllt•r f lfl7- rntl it is J 'tlrtltcr Or lcred- That the injunction s rnll not sen·e as ·u bnr to the produc-1 tion of said mnterialg r urs11 mt to a n1licl y-i snerI uhr o 'nn hsco' e _r •i• mnn l or court orcier in nuy ciYil or crimin 11 cn e cithc •r outstanding or while this injunction is extent or to the production of s1 1id materials in re nrd to the ongoing Yntergate criminal trial before united Stutes District Jud e Tobn Siricn or to the production of said material pur unnt to reque ts u - the Specinl -P 'csccutor or to n validly l ned subpoeua by n Grand Jury or to the use of said_ nu1terinls with prior notific ntiou to conn cl for Plnintiff Hicllaru 'II Xixon ind witµ the con ent or Defendant Phi1ip W lluchcn for purposes of current ·government hn ine -1 mid it is · FJtrther Or t r · 1I That Pl rJ11tifr Il chnr 1 Xixon ·or liis attorney shall be nffonled accf' S f snid materials under current ncre i- procC'cltlr s tahfo 1u•d by Defcndnnts for th • ole vurr 11 C's r f r-i·t•Imrin to tP - t if - i11 the i at' t· u e trinl t' H d· t- r111i rin · - ·hel11•r i1 r li- _ a • u ·iYih- • s or tt'r - 1 --e·lm ht'lit•n· w might htn-e in 011position to prorln tfou of nw tc ·iul for enrrent o rnmPut busine or pursuant to re Jue - ts by the Specinl Prosecutor nr to ° nlhlly-i 1l 'cl snbpoenns cli f'overy dr-man 1 or a cr urt o ·t rr rn l if PJ 1i 1tiff Riehnril I Xixon hall be 111111M to •hy icnlly do o the gm-ernmPnt Dei 'ntlnnts frnll provide copic of nir1 m tf rinl for s lch i hut hn hnll n - r db clo n nr din1l e the contC'nts thc-rPof c•x ·t •pt in rc 'ar l tn Lis tC'stimony or in re -pon ti v 11idly-issned suhpoc nni - anrl nid copij _ S - hall ht rc turrwd promptly to the Defend rnts whc-n such purposes bn vc been served and it is snicl ✓ ✓ ___ __ __ ·-- _j 162 ·1 F1 rthcr Orrlc ·erl ·Tlin t ny per on either now or previously n mPruber of the bite House staff f- hn 11 he afforded access under current nrcess procedures establii hed hv DC'fcnclants witb or without his her nrtorne · pre ent to snicl 1 materials wi itll cu llpri - · en· c•impriscli lai i11 r tiles · • Lile n t ll' Bl r l f t 11• vhite House staff and be allow u to take notes re artliug the ame but not to ual c cr pit•S rhc w•L all t 1- • o• e olely fcir iny 11m·1u_1 b relatiu to riminai investigations or prosecutions und it is Furtiu t· ordered ti lat an · l-ic trcll conclneteu for pu ·po -- 1• of prn lucin nr n in f ·· said ma lcrinls as pro ·icl_ed in this Order hall he cont t11 _t• cl i lintl h · I 1 • t l tlant Philip v Ducll n -0r u1 agellt mu coun e l foi ' Pl u m iehanl I xon or his agent and said per _ons sh il take su7ll step s are n es -ary to nr- su_re t lat the search for and copymg of smd mnterinls will in no way destroy or ailect tlle original churncter of auy of the materials including tapes documents or otht r papers ref rre l to hPrPi n nml it i Further Ordered thnt the Plaintiffs shall not be re11uired to post any bond and it is Furmer ordered that this injunction shall he effl'cth·e for ten 10 clnys und shall l e renewed u1lon proper npplicntion of the parties J l j 1 · I CHAnL OCTODEB j I I n n1cm i 22 -197'4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cot BT For THE DISTRICT OF CoLU DU Ch·il Action X o 7-1-1518 j1 RICHARD -t I Nxxox l'L• I TIFF This C' • ' l I xi c 1' J ARTH R - S A-lc sox ET ii Oct - t r AL DEI- END XTS Plaint · _- Civil ction Xo 74-lG33 of th• A ·tJ ur F · rr'HE -REPORTERS Cm DCITTEF FOR fRl- F DOl OF TllZ PRESS ET AL PL TXTIFFS f I 4 1 I ARTHtra F clalN1 74-1 1 '· tU IJ ·· · for c Sil l'SO ET AL DEFENDANTS Jllll St · • Rcque · Ci-ril Action· Xo 74-1551 ancl th LILLIAN IIELL AN ET - L PJ AINTIFFS - Ordr · 1'• ARTHUR F ·• f ✓ U S l istric t Jud le - ' Da c -· SUIPSON ET AL DEFE SDANTS OBDEB 'l'h 1 ·1 there ar- • R C' J-· • ' adm 1 -r Upon considerntion of the Motion of the Specinl Pror ecutor to· Jntern•ne n n Illatter of right 1mrsun11t to Rule 42 a of the F Il C l' in the case of Richard M Ni ron A 1·tli ur· P Sam1wm et al C • Xo 7-1-151 Rirharcl 'IL Xixon· l Iotion to Int 'n t'ne a tl 111 1tt r of ri ht 11nr - unnt to Hule 4 a nf the l RC P in the 1 a e ot' The Rc • f rfrrR Commiilf'r- fnr tl c Frl 't tlom of the J•r - 1 et al v Arthur F Sampson et al C A Xo i-1-1533 nnd fack Anrler on's lfotion to Inter' enc ns n matter of ri ht pur- mmt to Rule 42 a oi' tl 1 - 1' R ' P n the C t$C of Riclrnrtl J Xi rein v 4 rtlrnr P Snmp on ct til C A -1 1 th• points and authorities in snpport of n nd iu oppo ition thci•pfo nnd the oral nrgument of the pnrtirs it i bJ· tae Court this 3h t day of October 1074 Or forc-cl that the lotion of the $i ccial Pro - ecutor l £' and the same i ht-rcby granted aJl l 1t is l•'urth r or1l1'n•1l that the lotion of Richard I Xixon be nnd tlle same is hereby rnnte l rn l it Further ord 'recl that the l otion of Jack Anderson be and the snme is berd y grnnted nnd it is Further ordered tllat the ahn c Iotions nre g-rnnted without prf'jmlice to tlle clnitns of the oppo - -ing parties with respect to uch h•sues n tarttiill CHARI ES H HICHF ·· · U S Di iri 'i futl 7e _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ r - _ _ ___ _ cons -· the h t · _ _ _- --- -· - • - - - ro--• - - - - ·- - - bilit · 1 - objec i n f rinl b i reli · ·· With 1 the •111c · i 1n· ··- · th c - · further · of th T- to n · · pnrtlr• •·· for - -· thnr it i _ nn - l' - -- J i ·h•' • ·• Rc r r · · ct al ' -- -- · ----- --· - ---- t L6 of the ss J rocedi1re 'l'$Cnt to sairl It 163 Date October 81 1911 li in·t D STATES DI TUICT 1t•11 i11-r oi th•• mnie but not 1 to crimiunl 1ci i or u· inc br Defondnnt ll Xixon or o assure that · or nTcct the euts ur otUt r IltC'H RD l lI Xn os • l' IX'fIE J•' ·i I AB'IBUR TllE REt OUTEUS F $ lCPSOX ET AL DEltEXD A XTS CO ClUTT FOR FHEEDOl£ OF THE PUESS ET • L PLAI TIFFS -v• st nny bond· 1 10 1 and Coe T f'OI ' m J 1 - Tr Ic 1· OF CoLt lnI l Ch·il Actio n Xo 'i'-1-1 1S i I -··--·--·-•-··•····-- ARTHUR F $ A l PSOS ET AL DEl 'ESD T$ Ch·il Action No 7-1-1551 tICllF Y rrirt J 11 19' LILLl S lIELLlL X ET r 1 1 A ISTIFFS ·-v • r nn n F SA PSOS i T L D1 Ic·r x1 STS ORDER pr AT TIFF rntC'rl f 'nr H n of n irliard - L Xix-0n's 1a cf the l l• r f the l'rr - r - 0 1' fntinn u 1'' H C' I' in o i-l-1 i18 tile nr •l th ornl -r ltt'i·l ml' i- h 'rchy J the same is 1•j11 l ·t to the a I II fCi · trirt fud Je - -· --- ----- 'l'his cau se cam l cfoi-e the Court on OctohE r 30 197- on Plnintiff Hkhnrd l I Xi s on·s Iotiou for odificntion of the Tcmpornr · Restraining Order of _October 21 Di- ns Supplementc-d by Orcler f the Court of Octoher 1974 Plaintiffs ' Lillinn Hellu1nn et al liotion for Consolidntiou under Rule 42 a of the Fec ernl Hules of CiYil Procedure of tht c i - c of Lillian llcllman et al vs · Artlrnr Jl ·Samp 'lfJ1 et 111 Chi I Aet n n So 'i-1-rn51 with tllc prc -iou ls-con solidnted C'USl's of Nicli 1a-d J i 'on J rthur 1-'• 'irmivson ct al • Ci il • ction No · 74 -151S nud The llcporrcr 'i Committee for J'rc lom of the l'i•es 'j v A 1·tlmr F Samp-Sf il et al CiYil Actioa Xo ' '-t-15 s and Plaintiff Hkhnrcl I Xixon·s Iotion for Cc111solidntion of the Trial with a Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction pursunnt to Rule O D 2 of the F R C P Icssrs Erlichmnn nut I Hnlclemun·s Request for Relie f from cc-rtnin pro·rfaions of the temporary rl'strninin order anc1 the Ilcportt rs Committee's lotion to Extend the Tem11ornrr Restraining Order nnd upon consideration th reof nnd it apprnrim to tbe C-0mt u11on considernrion o the point nnd nuth• ritic in support of and in 011position to · the aoo' e motions nnd the ornl argument of c-ounsel for the parties That· 1 Plaintiff Richard I Xixon's lotion hns been withdr Hm nnd 2 there are common questions of law nnd fnct as required by Rule - 21 n of the F R C P uctm ·en the c ises nnd tll 1t the interests of fair and ctticicnt judicial administratic n nud fairness to the parties ns well ns the at oicl rnce of the pos i bility of ccmflictin rnE 1 s n cessltnte consolid 'ltion and 3 thc re i no objection from the pnrtie to the lifi in of t lc b 1r to tlle copyin ot' rhe material in i nc hy the clefornlants in thC' Wntt 'r 1te crimtnnl tri 1 rnd that such relief ' OUld nbo pre' ent the Temporary Ilcstraiuin Order from interferim with the concln 't of thnt tri l nnd it f rthP ' 1ppc 1 in - M he C 1T1rt t-l th 1t the 1111cstions pre -ented in the -eYeral ' 1r1 of u1lklN1t '11mplexity and irnpo1·t 1nce SO Jl of whir-h are of rtrst imprc - ion nncl that the matters before the Court a re of n tmi' ue nature o n to require thnt thP partir-s hP i' en further time to bri f the i 11 - nn I pt·ep uc the e' itiC'n ' th 1t an 'Xten i u of the T lllpornry Re trninin Ord 'r i n ee ary to ncrompti h its pnrpose to mnintain tlw tn t11 111111 rnd th 1t nn i11jnr - will he n rnfnc•tl by nu · of che pnrtie l y Hi f Xt1•nsi m thn t neither th initial npplicatinn nor the- applir Hion for nn extc-nsion of thr Tr npor 1ry Rr - trninin Onli r wns lle tr l f' r parle and thnt the OrclPr was nncl ii sufiicient to prfltf'Ct the int£'rests of nil the p trtie it i h th ' f'o11t t thi l - In M 0' nh 0 r l Yi-1 Ord 'rcd Thnt thf ' C l i' r f T i1li1111 Trllmnn -t 1 Arfh11r F 811111u r n •t 111 • C X 1 i-1-1 i il l P nn I thf n nf hnt '11y con nlicl 1tt d 'ith tlu' ' 'l i o nf Richart JI Si rnn v A rtl111r P - 1111•-•um ct n1 • C • Xo 'i-l-1 i1 incl The Re lm·trr Cr mmiflf' ' fnr 1- rrr 1 m rd f 11• f rr rt nl • lr 11111· P S rmpson et al C - o 'i'-I-Ui33 for all purpo ei nncl it I '°· -- --- ---4P-• _ H •4'- _ _ n' W_ _ ----- 'i · _ ECLASS ·1 - 1 i ' i ority- - r - ' d ··• _ - _ s •· -e I • • · r«n· c 1-1· • • M' t£ ' Y '0ilitt2 il· C e l iiiill a-ew'e _ z a ia- - ·· cum·idl·illl' 1tr ·11 a usA 1 1w '- h r rma•· _ · M11 i 1 at • •• -• •t • - -__ •· -164 · Furt1ter Ordered Thnt the lotion to Consolld te the Trial with the Hearing Oen - on the I relimi rnry Injunction he u d the same is hcr 'uy dt nietl rnd it is Further Ordered ·That uotwithstauding the wichdrn wal of the lotion for · Modification of the 'l'emporary n 'strnining Or it r the Defendants lui ing • offored in -ood faith to cui y the rua cri 115 with tt 11 ueiil tmlte • J a 1d under preseut security procctlurc -s slt 1ll pro •1iL•u tu d_o o _upon the ecc p_ t o 1 lr• Nixon· counsel 1Jf a 1·t •1 Ut ' t H r d1 --1 _ - l Hetl matt rmls ancl 1n acil m tance notic e shall uc furnisheu to the Court n 1d it is Furtl cr Ordered That all r 1rtic - hall submit briefs on the fotions ior a Pi·eliiuinar r Injunction by ovcrnlJe r 11 lUH ancl th lt the hearing on the lCotion -lrnll IJc held on on•rubcr lG l JH ancl it is J '1 trtl cr Orclcrnl Thnt the 1'empor 1ry Restraining Order be and the same is ·hereby extended until the hearing on the lotion for Preliminary lnjunction set for O emuer 15 1074 n t 9 30 a m nnd for a 1·easonable time thereafter until the Court ren iers its lf'ci ion on th tlon nml it i Further Ordered That the first full paragraph of page 3 of the Court's Supplemental Order of Octol er 22 1074 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows · l 'urtlicr Ordcrcc1 '£hat any person either now or previously a member of the Wl1ite IIou e stuff or nny defendant in the Watergate criruin tl trial now pending before the Honornl lc John J Sirica shall be nfi'ordcd access under current access 1 rocedurcs er- tabUshed by Dcfendnnts with or without his her ' attorney pre sent to said mntcrinls which comprise or comprised his or her files wl1ile a mE mbcr of tllc hite House stnff and be nllowetl to rake nc tes regarding the same and to make copies therPof all of the abo e solely for uny pu rposes r 'lating to criminal invcsti ition or 11rosecution ancl aid eopies shnll be returned promptly to the defend mts when such purposes ha ' e been ser ' ed ancl it is'' nnc it is Furmcr Ordered Thnt nny copies provided to any person under the terms of the aboYe pnrn raph shall also be provided to the oHlce of the Special • I rosecutor nnd it is Further ·ordered 'J'hnt nil such copies shall not be disclosed di ul ecl to any persou except in regard to the crimin 11 iuvestigntion or 1n·o - ecutions 1 or· and it is• Fr rt11cr Ordered Thnt the Order of this Court cnterecl Octoher 22 197- -· · ·shall remnin in rill other r 'spccts in full force and effect until inrtller orcler of this Court c cept a s herein modified C ARLES R RICIIEY For HtI R i • r s District Judue V li For tL- Pi i Ric -· For ' j -L w - l For rr l l __ lni a 4 ' • •T - ··· r - For r R ·' l ' r - - r• - I ·•• 1 T I · p - c ••• • ·-- • - - ·- - - o • _ i i • r a a a ' - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •