Story Index | Area 51 Photos | Area 51 Maps

Government tries to stop Groom attorney

The U.S. government is trying to halt attempts by an attorney representing former workers at the Air Force's Groom Lake installation from questioning potential witnesses in two lawsuits.

Citing national security issues and an argument that the litigation is moot, government attorneys are asking U.S. District Judge Philip Pro for a protective order that would prevent witness depositions.

The motion is aimed at Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who recently sent notices that he would depose two Environmental Protection Agency officials and the "commander of the Groom Lake facility."

The workers' lawsuits allege they were exposed to toxic fumes from open-pit burning of hazardous waste at the facility, 35 miles west of Alamo in Lincoln County.

Since the case's inception, Turley has been in protracted battles with the government, which recently tried to seize documents from his possession on a claim that national security was threatened.

In court papers filed Wednesday, U.S. Justice Department attorney Russell Young said Turley's attempts to interview witnesses should be stayed.

He argued that the government has pending before Pro motions to dismiss the cases and additional discovery will lead to additional disagreements, which would "distract the court."

Young contended that if Turley is allowed to proceed, there could be a "serious risk that national security information might be inadvertently disclosed."

The procedure would be "burdensome and cumbersome," because the government would have to decide whether the information given during questioning posed security risks, Young said.

He argued that if Pro denied the motions to dismiss, the workers would not be prejudiced because they would be given time extensions to conduct interviews.

The government is arguing that one of the worker suits is moot because an EPA inspection has been done at the facility. Young contended this satisfied the goal of that particular lawsuit. Results of the inspection are not being made public.

Young said the other case also will fail because Pro has previously ruled that much of the information is classified, thus the workers will not be getting any new information that will assist their case.