UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

STEVE JACKSON GAMES INCORPORATED
STEVE JACKSON, ELIZABETH
McCOY, WALTER MILLIKEN, and
STEFFAN O'SULLIVAN,

      Plaintiffs,                     Docket No. A 91 CA 346

 ­ 
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
WILLIAM J. COOK, TIMOTHY M. FOLEY,
BARBARA GOLDEN, and HENRY M.
KLUEPFEL,

     Defendants.

____________________________________________________________    
 ­ 
PLAINTIFFS' RULE 56(f) STATEMENT
AND OBJECTION TO ALLOWANCE OF UNITED
STATES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT DISCOVERY 

Pursuüant to F.R. civ. Proc. 56(f) as construed in
Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d 1281 (5th
Cir.1990), plaintiffs make the following statement:
 ­ 
 1. No discovery has been taken by any party in this case;
 ­ 
 2. No answer has been filed by any defendant in this
case;
 ­ 
 3. The plaintiffs have filed their Opposition to the
United States' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs submit that the Court may deny
the United States' motion without affording the parties any
opportunity for discovery. However, plaintiffs also submit
that the Court should not grant the United States' motion
without discovery proceedings, and objects to the allowance
of the motion, or any part thereof, without granting plaintiffs
leave to conduct discovery concerning the issues involved.

 4. Defendants' have a monopoly of first hand knowledge
concerning all of their activities prior to the execution of
the search warrant inasmuch as these activities constituted
the workings of law enforcements agencies conducting a
confidential investigation. If the Court determines that the
plaintiffs have failed to substantiate any facts necessary to
defeat the government's motion for summary judgment,
plaintiffs submit that this circumstance provides a reason
why plaintiffs have been unable to present such facts without
discovery.

 5. Plaintiffs have identified numerous genuine issues of
fact throughout their Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
United States' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for
Summary Judgment, and that memorandum is incorporated herein.
All of the material issues of fact identified by plaintiffs
would be developed more fully with the aid of discovery.

 6. Some of the issues which require discovery are the
following:

(l) Whether the government's agents knew
or recklessly failed to discover
that SJG was a  b publisher of
books, magazines, and adventure games.

(2) Whether the government's agents knew or
recklessly failed to discover
that the Electronic Bulletin
Board System ("BBS") Operated by
SJG was a forum for constitutionally
protected speech and association and
not an instrument of criminal activity.
 ­ 
(3) Whether the government's agents knew or
recklessly failed to discover
that the BBS operated by SJG
contained private electronic mail.
 ­ 
(4) Whether the government's agents knew or
recklessly failed to discover
that Loyd Blankenship was not
a computer programmer at SJG.
 ­ 
(5) Whether the government's agents knew or
recklessly failed to discover
that the information published in
Phrack was not a "program" or "source code."
 ­ 
(6) Whether the government's agents knew or
recklessly failed to discover that
the information published in Phrack
did not contain any proprietary warning.
 ­ 
(7) Whether the government's agents knew or
recklessly should have known that
the information published in ťd in Phrack
was not "highly proprietary" or "sensitive,"
but was readily accessible to the public
in published material, including
material published by BellSouth and Bellcore.
 ­ 
(8) Whether the government's agents knew or
recklessly failed to discover that
the information published in
Phrack was not worth $79,000.
 ­ 
(9) Whether the government's agents knew or
recklessly failed to discover that
Loyd Blankenship was not engaged in
any  interstate "password hacking"  scheme.
 ­ 
(10)  b Whether the government's agents reasonably
relied on a warrant that was so lacking in
indicia of probable cause as to render
official reliance on it unreasonable.
 ­ 
(11) Whether the government's agents reasonably
relied upon a general warrant that failed
to particularize the things to be seized.
 ­ 
(12) Whether it is impossible to describe
the things to be seized with
greater particularity.
 ­ 
(13) Whether the search and seizure at SJG
exceeded the scope of the warrant
and inflicted injuries to plaintiffs'
First Amendment rights.
 ­ 
(14) Whether the government's agents
intercepted plaintiffs' private
electronic communications.
 ­ 
Respectfully submitted
by their attorneys,
 ­ 
Sharon L. Beckman
Andrew Good 
Harvey Silverglate 
Silverglate & Good
89 Broad St., 14th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 542-6663

Eric Lieberman
Nicholas Poser
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky
& Lieberman, P.C.
740 Broadway, at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
(212) 254-1111

R. James George, Jr.
Peter D. Kennedy
Graves, Douqherty, Hearon & Moody
2300 NCNB Tower
515 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 480-5600


Dated:  September 25, 1991