CBS filed a motion yesterday seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit by Dan Rather, who says that the network violated his contract by giving him too little to do after it forced him off the evening news in 2005 and that its investigation of the news segment about President Bush’s National Guard service was politically biased.

“This lawsuit is a regrettable attempt by plaintiff Dan Rather to remain in the public eye, and to settle old scores and perceived slights, based on an array of far-fetched allegations,” the network said in a 30-page brief filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. The papers represented the network’s first response to the suit Mr. Rather filed on Sept. 19.

Referring specifically to Mr. Rather’s assertion that CBS and its senior executives had sought to do the White House’s bidding in commissioning an incomplete investigation of the National Guard segment, the network said: “CBS and its executives are not now, and never have been, out to get Dan Rather.”

Mr. Rather agreed to step down from the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005, a year earlier than he had planned, after the network said it could not authenticate documents that had been used as evidence in the segment about Mr. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard.

In response to arguments that CBS gave Mr. Rather insufficient airtime after he left the “CBS Evening News” — first on the weeknight edition of “60 Minutes” and later on the flagship Sunday edition — the network cited a “pay or play” clause in his contract. “As long as Rather was paid the specified compensation, CBS had no obligation to give him any on-air exposure,” the network said.

In an accompanying statement, the network called Mr. Rather “one of the most important figures in the history of journalism” and said it was “mystified and saddened” by the suit.

A spokesman for Mr. Rather’s lawyers released a statement last night that said: “It is unfortunate that CBS is trying to delay discovery of the facts and a trial of Dan’s claims. We are confident the court will reject these tactics and allow the case to go forward.”

The court also said the administration failed to include in the new rules heavier trucks driven as commuter vehicles, among several other deficiencies found.

Judge Betty Fletcher wrote that the administration "cannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards."

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the administration was in the process of reviewing the decision. "We will consider all of our options," he said.

California and 10 other states, two cities and four environmental groups sued the administration after it announced the new fuel economy standards last year.

"It's a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration and its failed energy policy," California Attorney General Jerry Brown said.

The court ordered the administration to draw up new rules as soon as possible, but automakers complained Thursday they're already deep into developing light trucks through 2011 based on the new standards.

"Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made toward increasing fleet-wide fuel economy," said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. McCurdy said the industry is dedicated to developing more fuel efficient automobiles, "but adequate lead time is necessary in order to fully integrate these technologies into the marketplace."

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced to much fanfare the new rules in March 2006, proclaiming they were the "most ambitious fuel economy goals" yet for SUVs and their ilk. Mineta called the plan "pragmatic," balancing fuel conservation against auto industry costs and jobs.

The standards required most passenger trucks to boost fuel economy from 22.5 mpg in 2008 to at least 23.5 mpg by 2010. Passenger cars are required to meet a 27.5 mpg average.

"The idea of raising vehicle efficiency 1 mile per gallon is pathetic and shocking," said Brown, who along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is suing the Bush administration over its refusal to act on California's fuel economy plan for cars in the state.

The court ordered the White House to examine why it continues to consider light trucks differently than cars. Regulators made a distinction between cars and light trucks decades ago when most trucks were used for commercial purposes.

NHTSA had argued that it considered the intent of the manufacturer in making light trucks, rather than their actual highway use, in developing the new fuel standards.

"But this overlooks the fact that many light trucks today are manufactured primarily for transporting passengers," Fletcher wrote for the three-judge panel.

Fletcher also wrote that the administration failed to consider the benefit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"It did, however, include an analysis of the employment and sales impacts of more stringent standards on manufacturers," Fletcher wrote.

The court also took the administration to task for refusing to include in the new standards trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds, a class that includes the Hummer H2, Ford F250 and other popular large vehicles.

The court ordered NHTSA to develop fuel standards for these large trucks or give a better reason than the agency's argument that it has never regulated those large trucks and that more testing needs to be done.

"This historic ruling vindicates our fight against fuel economy standards that are a complete sham and a gift to the auto industry," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who also joined the lawsuit.

Along with California and Connecticut, plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed last year include Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York City, the District of Columbia and several environmental groups.