IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al.  )  
)  
Plaintiffs,  )  
) 
 v.  )  Case No. 1:96CV01285  
)  (Judge Robertson)  
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the  )  
Interior, et al.  )  
)  
Defendants.  )  

____________________________________) 
INTERIOR DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO INTERIOR DEFENDANTS’ 
MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CONNECTION TO THE 
INTERNET OF CERTAIN INTERIOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
SYSTEMS AND VACATING THE DECEMBER 17, 2001 CONSENT ORDER 
REGARDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY 

On February 11, 2008, Interior Defendants filed a Motion for an Order (1) Authorizing the Reconnection to the Internet of Information Technology Systems of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of Hearing and Appeals, and the Office the Special Trustee, (2) Confirming that the Office of Historical Trust Accounting May Connect Its Information Technology System to the Internet, and (3) Vacating the December 17, 2001 Consent Order Regarding Information Technology Security (February 11 motion) [Dkt. 3507].  Plaintiffs responded on February 15, 2008, with a motion for an enlargement of time to oppose that motion, seeking from the Court an open-ended enlargement until 11 days after the Court rules on Interior Defendants’ prior November 9, 2007, motion for an order reconnecting the Office of the Solicitor to the Internet [Dkt. 3509]. Plaintiffs’ motion fails to demonstrate that Plaintiffs need additional time to respond to the February 11 motion.  Accordingly, the motion should be denied.    
Rather than showing a need for more time to respond to Interior Defendants’ February 11 their motion is filled with numerous substantive attacks on the February 11 motion, arguments that have no place in a motion for enlargement.1  Rather than needing more time to respond to the February 11 motion, Plaintiffs acknowledge that what they really seek is an opportunity to respond to the Court’s eventual decision on Interior Defendants’ motion for an order reconnecting the Office of the Solicitor’s IT system.  Pls. Mot. at 2. That, however, is not a proper basis for an enlargement.  Because the court has yet to rule on the motion regarding the Office of the Solicitor and the February 11 motion is related to it, judicial economy favors not the delay of Plaintiffs’ opposition brief, but the submission of their response as early as possible, to give the court the opportunity to address both motions together, if it wants.  Should the Court issues its decision regarding the Office of the Solicitor’s IT system before ruling on the February 11 motion, both parties should be permitted to incorporate that decision into their arguments regarding the three disconnected Interior offices or bureau, as well as the Office of Historical Trust Accounting. But no basis exists for Plaintiffs to receive an open-ended enlargement of time. 
Finally, Plaintiffs’ contention that a decision on the merits of the February 11 motion would likely delay the resolution of this case “if such decision results in the commencement of collateral proceedings on IT security” is irrelevant. Pls. Mot. at 3. It has no bearing on whether 
1
   Interior Defendants dispute the substantive arguments contained in Plaintiffs’ motion for enlargement, and will respond to those arguments at the appropriate time in a reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to the February 11 motion.  See Cobell v. Kempthorne, 455 F.3d 301, 315 
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (“The inherently imperfect nature of IT security means that if we granted injunctive relief here, based only on Interior’s security vulnerabilities and not on a showing of some imminent threat or specific reason to be concerned that IITD is a target, we would essentially be justifying perpetual judicial oversight of Interior’s computer systems.”).   
-2­
straightforward February 11 motion.       
Plaintiffs having failed to show good cause for the enlargement requested, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), Interior Defendants respectfully request that the motion for an enlargement 
of time be denied. 
Dated: February 20, 2008 Respectfully submitted, 
JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General 
MICHAEL F. HERTZ Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Director
  /s/ Robert E. Kirschman, Jr.      ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Deputy Director 
(D.C.
 Bar No. 406635) JOHN WARSHAWSKY Senior Trial Counsel 

(D.C.
 Bar No. 417170) GLENN GILLETT Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division 


P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 Telephone: (202) 616-0328 Facsimile: (202) 514-9163 
-3­
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on February 20, 2008 the foregoing Interior Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Interior Defendants’ Motion for an Order Authorizing the Connection to the Internet of Certain Interior Information Technology Systems and Vacating the December 17, 2001 Consent Order Regarding Information Technology Security was served by Electronic Case Filing, and on the following who is not registered for Electronic Case Filing, by facsimile: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 Browning, MT 59417 Fax (406) 338-7530
 /s/ Kevin P. Kingston Kevin P. Kingston 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

)  
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al.,  )  
)  
Plaintiffs,  )  
)  
v.  )  Case No. 1:96cv01285JR  
)  
DIRK KEMPTHORNE,  )  
Secretary of the Interior, et al.,  )  
)  
Defendants.  )  

__________________________________________) 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enlargement to Respond to Interior Defendants’ Motion for an Order (1) Authorizing the Reconnection to the Internet of Information Technology Systems of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and the Office of the Special Trustee (2) Confirming That the Office of Historic Trust Accounting May Connect its Information Technology System to the Internet, and (3) Vacating the December 17, 2001 Consent Order Regarding Information Technology Security. (Dkt. No. 3509). Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants’ Opposition, any Reply thereto, and the entire record of this case, it is hereby; 
ORDERED that the Motion for Enlargement is DENIED. 
SO ORDERED. 
Hon. James Robertson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Date:______________