2

Am. Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 8. The Presidential invocation of executive pr ivilege described in the Judicial Watch complaint was a response to a subpoena issued on October 11, 2011 to the Attorney General in connection with a congressional investigation into a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) operation known as Operation Fast and Furious. That same subpoena is the subject of the

House Committee

suit. In that action, the House Committee seeks to enforce the October 11 subpoena and challenge the President’s assertion of executive privilege. Plaintiffs here thus seek under FOIA the very records that were withheld from the House Committee pursuant to the President’s assertion of executive privilege and that are now at issue in the ea rlier-filed

House Committee

litigation. Against this unique backdrop, this FOIA litigation should not proceed for at least two reasons. First, there is currently a live dispute between t he political Branches over these same documents, as well as an ongoing effort to resolve that dispute. Litigating this F OIA case, particularly while such a live inter-Branch dispute persists, is inconsistent with, and risks interference with, the negotiation and accommodation process contemplated by the Constitution when such disagreements exist between the Executive and Legislative B ranches. Second, principles of comity and respect for orderly judicial process counsel str ongly against addressing the privilege claims in this FOIA suit while Judge Jackson actively considers the

House Committee

litigation. Not only is that the earlier-filed litigati on, but both principal stakeholders—the Executive Branch and the House of Representatives—are present in that litigation. Judge Jackson’s decisions on a ny number of issues in t hat case could have significant implications for the issues presented here. The Department thus proposes that the requested stay be entered to allow th e

House Committee

suit to proceed and to allow the ongoing discussions in that case to unfold. The