IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUpT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et a]., Plaintiffs, 
V. 

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., 
Defendants. 
) 1 1 
)
1 
) 
) 
)1 ) 
Case No. 1:96CV01285 (Judge Lamberth) 
INTERIOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION AND 
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FOR 
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S 
MARCH 11,2003 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INSOFAR 
AS IT GRANTED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

Interior Defendants respectfully move for reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and Order, entered March 1I, 2003 ("Memorandum and Order"), granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions and a contempt finding pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g), insofar as the Court imposed sanctions on Defendants.' The Court imposed sanctions on Defendants after finding that a declaration executed by the former Director of the Indian Trust Accounting Division of the General Services Administration, and submitted to the Court by Defendants, contained material misrepresentations of fact and was, therefore, submitted in bad faith. The Court's decision, which disregards testimony subscribed under penalty of perjury by a government official with 27 years of experience in the area of Indian trust accounting, and instead relies upon an unswom and unsupported 
I In accordance with Local Civil Rule 7. I(m), counsel for Interior Defendants attempted to confer with counsel for Plaintiffs regarding this motion. Plaintiffs' counsel has not responded. 



letter from an official of the General Accounting Ofice ("GAO") who admitted that his office had "no direct knowledge" concerning the facts at issue, constitutes manifest legal enor and should be vacated. 
RELEVANTBACKGROUND A. Procedural Posture 
The declaration at issue was executed by Frank Sapienza on September 18,2000, ("Sapienza Declaration") and submitted by Defendants in support of their Third Phase I1 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Third Motion"). On February 1,2002, Defendants moved to withdraw the Third Motion. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, sought sanctions and a contempt finding under Federal Rule 56(g), and subsequently sought leave to amend their motion to include additional respondents. On March 11,2002, the Court granted Defendants' motion to withdraw the Third Motion. On March 1I, 2003, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions but denied their request for a contempt order and for leave to amend. See Memorandum and Order (filed March 11,2003). B. The Sapieuza Declaration 
The Sapienza Declaration was submitted to provide evidence relating to the manner in which Indian disbursing agents' accounts were settled prior to 1951. At the time of its execution, Mr. Sapienza was the Director of the Indian Trust Accounting Division of the General Services Administration. Sapienza Declaration at 7 1. In that capacity, he was responsible for coordinating the efforts of his staff in the preparation of accounting reports used in the adjudication of cases pending before the United States Court of Federal Claims. a. He has been involved in the preparation of over fifty accounting cases involving claims filed by Indian Tribes before the United States Court of Federal Claims and the Indian Claims Commission, which dealt almost exclusively with pre-1951 accountings. 
2 



-
Id. Mr. Sapienza had 27 years of experience in the area of Indian trust accounting issues at the time he executed his Declaration. Id. 
The testimony provided by Mr. Sapienza in his Declaration was supported by extensive citation to and reliance upon authoritative official governmental sources, including regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior's Indian Office and, subsequently, its Indian Service relating to bookkeeping and accounting; official documents issued by the Committee on Auditing of the U.S. Treasury Department; publications discussing the functions of the GAO; Circulars issued by the Treasury Department; Executive Orders; and publications generally relating to accounting procedures employed by the federal government. 
In addition, Mr. Sapienza reviewed government documents evidencing settled accounts, and attached excerpts from sample accounts to his Declaration. Sapienza Declaration at 157, Attachments A, B. The documents attached to the Declaration were voluminous and illustrative. They included copies of an Indian Service "Account Current" form showing an Agent's reconciliation of funds in his possession during a reporting period; an Auditor's Statement of Account and Certificate of Settlement issued by the Comptroller General of the GAO; a Summary of Disbursement Vouchers and, for the post-1921 period, an Abstract of Disbursements detailing funds disbursed under full titles of appropriations or funds; Exceptions noted by the Department of the Interior with respect to accounts of disbursing agents; cancelled checks evidencing disbursements; a Certificate for Annuity Payments relating to the Department of the Interior's regulations regarding the receipt by adults of annuity payments on behalf of minors; a Monthly Abstract of Official Receipts; Report of Individual Indian Moneys showing receipts and disbursements for a reporting period; Journal Vouchers showing 
3 



transfers between accounts, adjustment entries, and other non-disbursement transactions; and an Abstract of Individual Indian Moneys and Special Deposits. See3.Mr. Sapienza included a description of each of the foregoing documents and an explanation of their significance in his declaration. 
C. The Court's Memorandum and Order 
The Court imposed sanctions against Defendants under Federal Rule 56(g) after finding that the Sapienza Declaration contained "false and misleading representations of fact." Memorandum and Order at 14. The Court reached this conclusion based upon a letter from Gene L. Dodaro, Principal Assistant Comptroller General of the GAO to John Beny, Assistant Secretary -Policy, Management and Budget at the Department of the Interior, responding to Mr. Berry's request for GAO assistance in evaluating GAO records located at the National Archives. See Letter from John Berry to Gene L. Dodaro of June 18, 1999 ("Berry Letter") (Exhibit 1); Letter from Gene L. Dodaro to John Berry of August 27, 1999 ("Dodaro Letter") (Exhibit 2). In particular, the Court relied upon Mr. Dodaro's statement that "our records do not establish that GAO conducted a 'final' GAO comprehensive audit of IIMaccounts, nor do they establish any regular practice of auditing IIM accounts." Dodaro Letter at 2; 
-
see Memorandum and Order at 6,8,9. Notwithstanding Mr. Sapienza's extensive experience and the voluminous evidence, consisting of official government records and regulations, relied upon and submitted by Mr. Sapienza in support of the conclusions he reached, the Court concluded that Mr. Dodaro's statement rendered false the assertion in Mr. Sapienza's Declaration that, between 1921 and 1950, the GAO audited Indian account transactions to confirm their accuracy and validity. See Memorandum and Order at 5-6. The Court did not explain how its finding of falsity in the Sapienza 
4 



Declaration could be reconciled with the extensive evidence, consisting of official government records 
and regulations, relied upon and submitted by Mr. Sapienza in support of the conclusions he reached. 
DISCUSSION 
As has been previously recognized in this litigation, "courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration." Cobell v. Norton, 226 F. Supp. 2d 175, 177 (D.D.C. 2002). Reconsideration is appropriate where there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or manifest injustice. H. 
The Court's imposition of sanctions should be reconsidered, as it reflects clear error and is a 
manifest injustice. In its Memorandum and Order, the Court effectively made a credibility determination, finding that an unsworn and unsupported letter by an official who professes to have no direct knowledge concerning the matter of Indian money accounting procedures before 1951,renders untrue a 34-page Declaration by an individual with 27 years of experience in the area that is the subject 
of the testimony therein, subscribed and supported by voluminous official government documents and regulations. The Court plainly erred in finding Mr. Sapienza's Declaration false on this basis, and 
should accordingly vacate its order of sanctions. 
I. Governing Legal Standard 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g) provides as follows: 
Should it appear to the satisfaction of the court at any time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to this rule are presented in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the party employing them to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavit caused the other party to incur, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any offending party or attorney may be adjudged guilty of contempt. 
5 



Courts have imposed sanctions pursuant to this rule only in rare circumstances in response to egregious 
conduct. Fort Hill Builders. Inc. v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 866 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1989) 
(citations omitted); Jaisan. Inc. v. Sullivan, 178 F.R.D. 412,415 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citations omitted). 
Thus, sanctions have been deemed appropriate under Rule 56(g) only "where affidavits contained 
perjurious or blatantly false allegations or omitted facts concerning issues central to the resolution of the 
case." Jaisan. 178 F.R.D. at 415-16 (citing Anslev v. Greenbus Lines, Inc., 1997 WL 4261 10 
(S.D.N.Y. 1997) (plaintiff who failed drug test falsely stated in affidavit that his doctor had stated he 
was on medication that would produce a false positive on the test)); Warshav v. Guiness PLC, 750 F. 
Supp. 628 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), afrd,935 F.2d 1278 (2d Cir. 1991) (defendant falsely swore that New 
York had no contacts with agreement at issue in the litigation); Barticheck v. Fidelity Union Bank/First 

Nat'l State, 680 F. Supp. 144, 150 (D.N.J. 1988) (plaintiffs attempt to create a material factual issue 
for trial by stating in affidavit that release of claim had been procured by fraud contradicted her prior 
testimony); Acrotube. Inc. v. J.K. Fin. Grouo. Inc., 653 F. Supp. 470, 478 (N.D. Ga. 1987) 
(defendant who had admitted in a state court action to defaulting on a loan falsely denied the default in 
opposing summaryjudgment motion). 

Even where a litigant's actions have been deemed wrongful or in bad faith, courts have held that Rule 56(g) sanctions are inappropriate if the subject affidavit does not affect the disposition ofthe summaryjudgment motion. Faberne Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc., 605 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1979) (no sanctions where denial of summaryjudgment was not caused by the inclusion of the subject affidavit in the record); Jaisan, 178 F.R.D. at 417 ("even if [plaintiffs submission of affidavit] were 'egregious' as defined under that case law, it did not affect the outcome of the case and Rule 56(g) sanctions would be 
6 



inappropriate for that reason."); comuare Rogers v. AC Humko Corp., 56 F. Supp.2d 972,979-81 (W.D. Tenn. 1999) (imposing Rule 56(g) sanctions where affidavit submitted by defendant contained a false statement of "an important fact" that affected a "crucial issue" that was "determinative" of plaintiffs claim); Warshay, 750 F. Supp. at 639 (imposing Rule 56(g) sanctions and finding that "[ilf Warshay had been forthcoming in this affidavit, it may not have been necessary to deny Guiness's first motion for summaryjudgment."); Barticheck, 680 F. Supp. at 147, 150 (imposing Rule 56(g) sanctions where plaintiff submitted affidavit asserting, contrary to prior testimony and in an effort to create a genuine issue to defeat summaryjudgment, that release was fraudulently induced). 
11. It Was Manifest Error To ImDose Sanctions Based On The Dodaro Letter 
The Court's imposition of Rule 56(g) sanctions in the circumstances presented here is without legal support. The testimony provided by Mr. Sapienza through his Declaration constituted competent evidence based on his 27 years of experience in the area of Indian money accounting. His testimony was subscribed by him under penalty of perjury, and supported by official government documents and federal regulations. No other competent evidence was before the Court when it assessed the credibility of Mr. Sapienza's testimony. Nevertheless, the Court deemed a portion of Mr. Sapienza's testimony false based on an unsworn letter from an individual who admittedly had no direct knowledge concerning the facts that were the subject of the Declaration. 
The Dodaro Letter is not competent evidence. Aside from being unswom hearsay, Mr. Dodaro's letter acknowledges that neither he nor GAO in general has direct knowledge about any aspect of the functions performed by GAO between 1920 and 1950: 
7 




Unfortunately, no one currently employed at GAO participated in audits of the TIM accounts, which took place at various times kom the 1920's [sic] through the 1950's [sic]. Given the number of years that have passed, we have no direct knowledge about the nature of any accounting regarding individual Indian accounts previouslv undertaken bv GAO. or the standards or procedures used? 
Dodaro Letter at 1 (emphasis added). Thus, Mr. Dodaro makes clear that GAO lacks sufficient 
institutional knowledge regarding Indian fund activities that it ceased performing some 50 years earlier. 
It is in this context of an admitted lack of knowledge concerning functions long ago abandoned by 
GAO that Mr. Dodaro states that "our records do not establish that GAO conducted a 'final' GAO 
comprehensive audit of TIM accounts, nor do they establish any regular practice of auditing IIM 
accounts." Id.at 2. The Court appears to have interpreted this statement to mean that the GAO 
records disprove that any audits occurred. But given the context in which Mr. Dodaro made the 
statement, and in particular GAOs admitted lack of direct knowledge concerning the subject matter, it 
is at least as likely to reflect the fact that GAOs records neither prove nor disprove the fact in question. 
Yet it is primarily this statement that the Court relies upon in taking issue with the assertions in 
the Sapienza Declaration. Memorandum and Order at 6,8,9. But the Dodaro Letter is not 
competent evidence. Indeed, the Dodaro Letter itself precludes any credibility determination adverse 
to Mr. Sapienza because Mr. Dodaro makes clear that he has no knowledge or experience that 
qualifies him to provide evidence on these issues. 
2 Mr. Dodaro added: "We have referred the staff of Interior and Treasury to books and reports that might be of assistance in generally explaining GAOs pre-1950 standards and auditing procedures and its evolution from an agency conducting strict voucher reviews and audits to one largely engaged in government program reviews." Dodaro Letter at 2 (emphasis added). It is precisely these "strict voucher reviews and audits" that were the subject of the Third Motion. 
8 



Under the foregoing circumstances, it was manifest error for the Court to accord evidentiary weight to the Dodaro Letter, and to use it as a basis for finding that the Sapienza Declaration was false and submitted in bad faith. In contrast to the Dodaro Letter, Mr. Sapienza's Declaration was provided under penalty of perjury, and based on over two decades of experience in the subject area of his testimony. There is no discussion at all by the Court concerning these factors or the documentary evidence submitted with the Sapienza Declaration that provides uncontroverted support for his statements. 
Had the information conveyed by Mr. Dodaro come from an individual with the requisite level of knowledge and in admissible form, sanctions still would be improper because any determination by the Court that such information was inconsistent with the Sapienza Declaration could create, at best, only a contested factual issue that should be subject to a full hearing before a fact finder. It would be improper, in any event, for the Court to impose sanctions based on a credibility assessment at that stage, without affording the parties a full opportunity to be heard on the issue. See LaSalle Nat'l Bank 
v. First Connecticut Holding Grouu, L.L.C., 287 F.3d 279,289-92 (3d Cir. 2002) (sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Q 1927 were an abuse of discretion where there was a disputed issue of fact concerning subject representation, and sanctioned party was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue.); Van Rhee v. Lake Odessa Livestock Auction. Inc., SO B.R. 844 (W.D. Mich. 1987) (affirming Bankruptcy Court's denial of Rule 11 sanctions where there was a lack of bad faith and there were factual disputes concerning key issues). There is no precedent for sanctioning a party based on a contested factual matter during the summaryjudgment stage. 
Even if the Sapienza Declaration were contradicted by a competent evidentiary showing, and 
9 



the resulting factual dispute ultimately resolved after a meaningful opportunity to be heard, the circumstances in this case do not rise to the level required to justify the drastic remedy of Rule 56(g) sanctions. In the rare instances in which sanctions have been imposed under this rule, the sworn statements at issue were blatantly and indisputably false. &Acrotube, 653 F. Supp. 470 (falsity of defendant's testimony shown by his contrary testimony in prior legal proceeding); Barticheck, 680 F. Supp. 144 (plaintiffs "eleventh hour" affidavit contradicted her own prior testimony); Warshay, 750 F. Supp. 628,639 (plaintiff's blanket denial of any New York contacts was at odds with his role as a "New York-based finder associated with Arthur Young's New York office."). 
Here, in contrast, the Court took Defendants and Mr. Sapienza to task based largely on what it perceived as a lack of clarity. &Memorandum and Order at 6 ("an examination of the Sapienza Affidavit demonstrates that it was not always made clear which 'accounts' Sapienza was referring to"); 7 ("when the Sapienza Affidavit discusses 'accounts,' sometimes Sapienza is referring to Indian disbursing agent accounts, and sometimes he is referring to individual Indian money accounts"); 7 ("far from providing clarity in the memorandum they filed in support of their Third Motion, defendants seem to have taken full advantage of the misleading similarity of the terms "Indian disbursing agent accounts" and "individual Indian trust accounts . . .and making no attempt to clarify to the reader which 'accounts' are being discussed"). Lack of clarity, however, is not on a par with "perjurious or blatantly false allegations," and does not rise to the level at which Rule 56(g) sanctions are warranted. Moreover, even if such a characterization could be made with respect to Mr. Sapienza's statements --which is not the case --sanctions would be inappropriate because the Sapienza Declaration did not impact the disposition of the summaryjudgment motion. See Faberee, 605 F.2d 426 (sanctions unwarranted 
10 



where denial of summary judgment was not caused by the affidavit in question); Jaisan. 178 F.R.D. at 417 (sanctions inappropriate where affidavit does not affect outcome of summaryjudgment motion). 
CONCLUSION 
For all of the foregoing reasons, Interior Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion for reconsideration, and vacate that portion of its Memorandum and Order imposing sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure S6(g) 
Dated: March 25,2003 
Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 

SANL@A P. SPOONER 
Deputy Director 
DC Bar No. 261495 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Attorney 
CYNTHIA L. ALEXANDER 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-087s 
(202) 514-7194 

11 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, 
V. 
GAZE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) ) 
Case No. 1:96CV01285 (Judge Lamberth) 
ORDER 

This matter coming before the Court on Interior Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration Of The Court's March 11,2003Memorandum And Order Insofar As It Granted Plaintiffs' Motion FOI Sanctions, and having considered the motion and any responses thereto, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the portion of the Court's March 11,2003 Memorandum and Order imposing sanctions on Interior Defendants is VACATED. 
SO ORDERED this day of ,2003. 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH United States District Judge 



cc: 
J. Christopher Kohn 
Sandra P. Spooner 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Fax (202) 514-9163 

Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Brown, Esq. 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Ninth Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
Fax (202) 3 18-2372 

Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
Fax (202) 822-0068 

Elliott Levitas, Esq. 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 

Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
13th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 

Joseph S. Kieffer, III 
Special Master-Monitor 
420 -71hStreet, N.W. 
Apartment 705 
Washington, D.C. 20004 




,-
principal hlstaut Comptroller General ofthe United Ststes 
Washington, D.C.20648 
August 27,1999 
Mr. John BerryAssistant'semtary Policy, Management & Budget 
Department of theInterior Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20240 
Re: -bell. et al.v. Babbitt et aL,CivilAction No. 1:96 CV OEB5 
DearMr. Beny: 
This correqondence summarizesthe actionswe have taken in response toyour June 18,1999 letter tome regarding the above-entitled case. In your letter, you stated that Department of Interiorstaff haslocated8,OOO boxes ofrecor&sfrom RecordGroup 411 (GAO Records) at the National Archives and Records Adminishation (NARA), which may contain Indian accounting records subject to disclosurein the litigation. Youasked for GAO's assistance in evaluatingthe records, which dateg&teralIy from the edy 1900's throughthe 195O's,spedieally seeking (1) historical information about the nature of any accounting regarding individualIndianaccounts that was undertaken by GAO in the past, induding the standardsand procedures that GAO employed;(2) an understanding of how the records located a! NARA might have been created and organized, and (3) an explanationofthe variom markings that appear on them. You also have requested any infodon GAOmay have about the location of additional accountmaterials for IndividualIndian Money 0 accounts or other such individual Indianaccounts. 
We have conferred with GAOs historianand with officialsand sta�fmembers in GAO's Accounting and Information Management Division, theunit thathas the most recent knowledge of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)accountingoperations. Unfortunatdy, no one currently employed at GAOparticipated in audita of the IIMaccounts, whichtook plaee at various timesfrom the 1920's through the 1960's. Given the number ofyeam thathave passed, we have no direct knowledge about the natureof any accounting regarding individual Indian accounb previousty undertaken by GAO, or the standards or procedures used. 
Our research has revealed a small amount of historical dataon GAO's involvement with Indianaccounts or claims.For example, GAO's annual report for 1931 listedindividual Indian monies aspart of a summary of it4 audit work with quasi-public funds. In atlast one instance,in 1928, Congress passed a speciiic authorization requestingGAO to audit the fLscal condition of Indian tribesasof June 30,1928.GAO's report to Congress, issuedin February 1929, contains a section on IIM accounts. In addition, we have locatedGAO audit reports on Indianmonies for the years of 1952 and 1956. We understand that the Department of the Interior has copies of the reports for 1929,1952, and 1965. 
EXHIBIT 1 Defs' Motion for Reconsideration ","r." .._.
I"", ,i q,>m*o~~~.. 



As to the 8,000 boxesof documents located atNARA,it is likely thatthey COW
of records inherited or created by the former GAO IndianTribal Claims Branch.The purpose of the IndianTribal Claims Branch was to ask8 the Justice Department in claims6led by Indians against the government The branch was transferredto NAFU (then a part of the General servicesAdminiseatl‘on) in 1966,and its recordq totalingsome 20,OOO boxes, were transferredshortlythereafter.We no longer employ anyone who phcipated in thework of GAOs IndianTribal Claims Branch. (While we cannot state with certainty,we believe it likely thatany audits of JIM accounts.wereconducted by GAOs former DepositoryAccounts Branchand its predecessor units,ratherthanthe IndianTribal ClaimsBranch The recondation and account dustment functionsof the Depository Accounts Branch were transferred to the Department of Treasury in 1959.) 
Over the past several weeks,GAO staff have had numerow telephone conversation8with membem ofyour staff and attorneys &omthe Justice Jkpartment, aswell asa meetingwith Trrasury offiaals,to answer questionsand shareinfoimation. In response to questions, we have explained thatour records donot establishthatGAO conducted a ‘linal”GAO comprehensiveaudit of IIM accountqnor do they establish any regular practice ofauditingIIM accounts. We have referred the staff of Interiorand Trrasury to book and reportsthat might be of assistance in generally explaining GAOs pre-lW standards and auditing procedures and its evolutionfrom anagency conducting strict voucher review8 and auditsto one largely engaged in government program reviews. With regard to uneqlained markingson the documents located at NARA,Matt Urie, the Justice Department attorney representingthe Department of Interiorin the document production phase of !&&I& has agreed to have your staff photocopy and provide to 115 a small sample of documents containingnwkings about which you have questions. We will endeavorto interpret the markingsto the extent passible. 
You have also asked for any information GAO may have about the loeation of additional account materialsfor the IIM accounts and other individual Indianaccounts. In GAO headquartem,we have 9 boxes of documents concerningIndianclaims. Although theIndian claimsfunction had transferredto NARA yeam earlier,these few boxeshad apparently been left behind. GAO informed officialsfrom boththe Department of Interiorand uleJustice Department over a year ago of the existence of the documents, but neither agency expressedinter& in then However, we recent& made them available to Matt Urie, who in tunprovided them torepresentativesfrom the Department ofhterior and the meritof Tmasury for their review. The boxeshave beenrebmed to GAO, and while it is our understandingthatno responsive documents were found, we will hold the documentsfor safekeeping should they prove ne&maryin the litigation. 
In addition, it is pkble thatGAO records stored atthe Washington NationalRecon.&Center may contain some responsive documents. We have provided MI.Urie and Treasury Departmentrepresentatives a completelist of GAO records stored atthe RecordsCenter. While the listhighlights those records relaringto Indian accounts,claimsor settlements which may contain materials on IIM accounts, we have urgedthatMr. Urie andTreasury officialsreview the entire listto determine whether any GAO records stored atthe Records Centermay be relevant to this case. If so,we willauthorize their release for review. 



-

I hope that thisinformationhasbeenofassistance toyou Rutherquestiors canbe directd toBarbara Siball, Mtant General Cod, Legal Services Division, at(202)6128173. 
Sicerelyyours, 
Comptroller General 



United States Department of the Interior 
Om03OFTHE SECRETARY Wnhhgton. D.C M240 
June 18, 1999 
Mr. Gene L. Dodam 
Principal Assistant to the ComptrollerGeneral 
Office of the Comptrolier General 
GeneralAccounting Office 
441 G Street, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20548 

Dear Mr. Dodaro: 
As you may already how, the Department of the Interior is required to produce mords pertaining to individual Indian Trust accounts pursuant to the November 27,1996, CourtOrder in the pending federal DistrictCourtcase CobeN vs. Bubbitr, et al. 
As part of our research,membersof our BIA team have been searchingthe RecordGroup (RG) 411 (GAO Records) in the Main Archives and have located approximately 8,000 boxes of records which may containIndianaccounting records subject to production under the Court Order. Most ofthese materials are very old, some are in deteriorating condition, and, in some cases,pages are stucktogether. I have requested that the NationalArchives provide qualiiied staff to assist usin handling the documents and assist in reproducing these documents for the production. Inaddition, I have requested that no Indian TNstRecords in series RG 411 & RG 217 (entries numbered 525,717& 717B, 717D, 718) orsimilar Department of Tremuy records (RG 2 17) be moved from their current physical locationswhile this litigation is ongoing. 
I amwriting you for threereasons. First,I want to notify you thatthese former GAO rcc~rds have been located and are extremely important to the government in meeting its obligations in the Cobell litigation. Second,I seek the assistance of GAO in evaluating the mords. Specifically. we am seeking historical information about the natureof any accountingregsrding individual Indian accounts that was undertaken by GAO in the past, including the standanis and procedures that were employed in accomplishing thistask. In addition,we seekyour assistance in understanding how the documents might have been created and organized, and the various markingsthatappear on them. Third. I seekany informationyou may have about the location of 
additional account materialsfor Individual Indian Money accounts or other such individual Indianaccounts. 
As we furtherevaluate the documents, we may need to request additional assistance fium GAO 



._ . 
in meetingthe obligations that the Court has imposed Bob Lamb of my staff alerted Linda Calbom about this matter today. I very much appreciate your assistance. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me at (202) 208-4203or Fay Iudicello, Project Coordinatorfor the Cobell Document Production, at (202) 208-2743. 
Sincerely, 
tant secretary 
cc: Linda Calbom, GAO Rita Howard, Department of Treasuy 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I declare under penalty of perjury that, on March 25,2003 I served the foregoing Interior Defendants 'Motion and Supporting Memorandum for Reconsideration of the Court's March 11, 2003 Memorandum and Order Insofar as it Granted, in Part, Flaintfls' Motionfor Sanctions by facsimile in accordance with their written request ofOctober 31,2001 upon: 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
(202) 822-0068 

By U.S. Mail upon: 
Elliott Levitas, Esq. 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
By facsimile and US. Mail upon: 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
13th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 

By Hand upon: 

Joseph S. Kieffer, Ki 
Special Master Monitor 
420 7" Street, N.W. 
Apartment 705 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
(202) 478-1958 

Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Ninth Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
(202) 318-2372