Case 1:96-cv-01285-JR Document 3317 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 1 of 3 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al.,  : :  
Plaintiffs,  : :  
v.  : :  Civil Action No. 96-1285 (JR)  
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary ofthe Interior, et al.,  : : :  
Defendants.  : 

ORDER 

The government’s motion for reconsideration [3316] of 
that portion of my order of 4/20/07 [3312] which directs the 
payment of attorneys fees to plaintiffs’ counsel is well taken 
and is granted. The statement in that order that defendants have 
not seriously contested plaintiffs’ fees was obviously erroneous, 
in light of the government’s oppositions [2619] and [2783]. The 
order to pay attorneys fees is vacated and will be replaced by 
another as soon as a proper review of the record can be 
accomplished. Plaintiffs never replied to the government’s 
oppositions and are encouraged to do so now. While the 
government’s generalized objections to plaintiffs’ fee petitions 
(too much time, out of proportion to task, etc.) need not be 
answered, a number of more specific objections need to be 
confronted and resolved, including without limitation: that, in 
their petition for fees relating to their opposition to the 
government’s Third Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiffs 

Case 1:96-cv-01285-JR Document 3317 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 2 of 3 
included work unrelated to that task, [2619-2] at 6; that the 
fees claimed for the work of Geoffrey Rempel are improper, id. at 
9-10; that plaintiffs submitted claims for fees that had already 
been submitted and rejected by Judge Lamberth, id. at 10-11; 
that, in the petition for fees relating to the motion to compel 
and the re-deposition of Dana Erwin, plaintiffs again claimed 
improper fees for Geoffrey Rempel [2783] at 6; that they 
improperly included fees for scheduling and taking Erwin’s 
deposition in 2002, id. at 11; that they improperly included fees 
related to Michelle Singer’s deposition, id. at 12; and that fees 
related to plaintiffs’ “Report on Status of Evidence” should not 
be reimbursed, id. at 15. Counsel should be prepared to discuss 
the two fee petitions in detail at the May 9 status conference. 

The argument I expect to hear on May 9 on the 
government’s motion [3299] to vacate the IT consent order [1063] 
will deal with the consent order’s continuing viability after the 
resignation of the Special Master and after successive rulings of 
the Court of Appeals limiting this Court’s oversight of the 
government’s IT systems -- with, in other words, whether and to 
what extent “ascertain[ing] the security posture of Information 
Technology (“IT”) systems for Interior’s offline bureaus and 
offices; the investigation and testing of those IT systems; 
security vulnerabilities; steps taken to mitigate and correct 
such vulnerabilities; specific incidents of improper access to, 

- 2 ­
Case 1:96-cv-01285-JR Document 3317 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 3 of 3 
and theft and abuse of, Individual Indian Trust Data (“IITD”); 
and steps taken by offline bureaus and offices to reconnect to 
the Internet” [3314] at 1-2, remain the proper province of this 
Court after Cobell XII, Cobell XIII and Cobell XVIII. 
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to compel [3314] is denied 
without prejudice.

 JAMES ROBERTSON 
United States District Judge 

- 3 ­