IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________ 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
__________________________________________ ) 
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER MODIFYING 
JANUARY 21, 2004 ORDER REGARDING SPECIAL MASTER’S FILING 
OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM REPORTS PREPARED BY 
SPECIAL MASTER’S EXPERTS AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION 
Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 7, 
defendants respectfully move this Court for an order modifying this Court’s Order filed January 
21, 2004, directing the Special Master “to submit to the Court for filing in the public record in 
this case all the reports on the information technology systems of the defendants that were 
submitted to the Special Master by any contractor he retained in response to the December 17, 
2001, Consent Order Regarding Information Technology Security.” Order (filed Jan. 21, 2004) 
(Dkt. # 2444). In addition, because the Court’s January 21, 2004 Order directs the Special 
Master to file reports in the record which could jeopardize the security of defendants’ 
Information Technology (“IT”) systems, defendants request expedited consideration of this 
motion and that the Special Master’s filing of the reports be deferred until the Court rules upon 
this motion. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for the defendants conferred with 
plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Dennis Gingold, on January 22, 2004, regarding this motion, and 
- 1 -
plaintiffs' counsel stated that plaintiffs would oppose this motion.1 
In support of this motion, defendants state as follows: 
The Court’s January 21, 2004 Order Should Be Modified To Protect Against the 
Inadvertent Disclosure of Highly Sensitive Information Technology Security 
Material 
There can be no serious dispute that the reports to be filed by the Special Master pursuant 
to the Court’s January 21, 2004 Order contain highly sensitive material regarding defendants’ IT 
security. The Special Master recognized the sensitivity of the materials reviewed by his experts 
when he entered his Revised Order dated May 2, 2002, protecting various forms of confidential 
security information.” Revised Order of Special Master (May 2, 2002); see Order (Feb. 6, 2003) 
(Dkt. # 1786) (ordering the filing of the Revised Order of the Special Master with Court). In his 
Revised Order, the Special Master listed the following twenty separate forms of “Confidential 
Information” requiring protection: 
•
••••
••••
•
•••• 
1 During the conversation, Mr. Gingold stated, among other things, that plaintiffs 
did not understand what led to the Court’s issuance of the January 21, 2004 Order and that while 
plaintiffs object to this motion, Mr. Gingold was agreeable to attempting to reach resolution of 
the matters described in this motion following further discussion with defendants’ counsel. 
Network diagrams 
Nessus outputs 
Whisker outputs 
Wardialing outputs 
Incident response plans 
Security policies 
Firewall configurations and rules 
Router configurations and rules 
Server configurations 
Dial-in configurations 
System hardening guides 
Penetration test results 
Virus innoculation procedures 
Forensic procedures 
- 2 -
•
•
••• 
Device IP addresses 
Router Access Control Lists (ACLS) 
OS versions/Patch Levels 
Application Versions/Patch Levels 
Dcouments containing user names and IDs 
Topology diagrams • 
Revised Order of Special Master at 1-2 (May 2, 2002). 
The Court’s January 21, 2004 Order contains the following directive: 
It is further ORDERED that each such report be redacted by the 
Special Master or his contractor to remove any information that 
might jeopardize the security of individual Indian Trust Data, 
including, but not limited to, identification of specific hosts or 
subnets scanned. 
Order (Jan. 21, 2004) (emphasis added). While defendants recognize that this provision is 
intended to provide some level of protection against the disclosure of sensitive information, its 
terms are far less descriptive than those set forth in the Special Master’s Revised Order. 
Defendants respectfully submit that the Special Master’s more expansive listing should serve as 
the minimal standard for redaction. 
Aside from the expansiveness of the listing discussed above, strict compliance with the 
Court’s January 21, 2004 Order would seriously jeopardize the security of defendants’ IT 
systems because, by its terms, the Court’s Order only requires redaction “to remove any 
information that might jeopardize the security of individual Indian Trust Data.” Order (Jan. 21, 
2004). Because the vast majority of defendants’ systems do not house or access individual 
Indian Trust Data, by its terms, the Court’s Order requires no redaction of reports related to those 
systems. The Court’s January 21, 2004 Order plainly requires correction of this language. 
Finally, given the volume of the reports, defendants respectfully suggest that it is 
- 3 -
conceivable sensitive IT security material could be disclosed in the event the Special Master or 
his contractor inadvertently failed to redact the material. The Court’s January 21, 2004 Order 
should be modified to allow defendants the opportunity to protect the United States’ interests in 
any material that protects the security of its IT systems. 
Accordingly, defendants respectfully request that the Court issue, on an expedited basis, 
an order directing the Special Master to defer filing any of his expert’s reports until it has ruled 
upon the merits of this motion.2 Defendants further respectully request that the Court’s January 
21, 2004 Order be modified (1) to incorporate the description of confidential security information 
set forth in the Special Master’s Revised Order and (2) to expand its scope to require redaction of 
all sensitive IT security material, without reference to individual Indian Trust Data. Finally, 
defendants respectfully request that the Court’s January 21, 2004 Order be modified to allow 
defendants the opportunity to review the reports to be filed by the Special Master, following 
redaction by the Special Master or his contractor, for the purpose of permitting the defendants the 
opportunity to identify to the Special Master any additional senstitive IT security material 
requiring redaction before filing in the record. Defendants propose to undertake such a review 
promptly, in no more than five (5) business days after receipt of the reports from the Special 
Master, and to transmit the reports back to the Special Master promptly to allow his filing of the 
2 The Special Master’s filing of a report that discloses sensitive IT security material 
will cause defendants irreparable harm to the extent such disclosure compromises the security of 
its systems. 
- 4 -
reports following defendants’ review.3 
January 21, 2004 
3 In the event the Special Master and defendants disagree as to whether material 
requires redaction to protect the security of defendants’ IT systems, defendants reserve the right 
to seek protection from this Court. 
Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ John Warshawsky 
_________________________________________ 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
Deputy Director 
GLENN GILLETT 
JOHN WARSHAWSKY (D.C. Bar No. 417170) 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Telephone: (202) 514-7194 
- 5 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on January 22, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Motion for Order 
Modifying January 21, 2004 Order Regarding Special Master’s Filing of Information 
Technology System Reports Prepared by Special Master’s Experts and Request for Expedited 
Consideration 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 
- 6 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________ 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
__________________________________________ ) 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Order Modifying January 
21, 2004 Order Regarding Special Master’s Filing of Information Technology System Reports 
Prepared by Special Master’s Experts and Request for Expedited Consideration (Dkt. # ______). 
After considering that motion, any responses thereto, and the record of the case, the Court finds 
that defendants’ request for expedited consideration should be, and hereby is, GRANTED. It is 
further 
ORDERED that the Special Master shall not file the reports of his experts in the record 
until this Court has ruled upon the merits of Defendants' Motion for Order Modifying January 21, 
2004 Order Regarding Special Master’s Filing of Information Technology System Reports 
Prepared by Special Master’s Experts (Dkt. # 2444). 
SO ORDERED this ___ day of ______________, 2004. 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge 
Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth)
cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner, Esq 
John T. Stemplewicz, Esq 
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 K. Brown, Esq. 
607 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Fax (202) 318-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, 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 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530 
- 2 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________ 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
__________________________________________ ) 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Order Modifying January 
21, 2004 Order Regarding Special Master’s Filing of Information Technology System Reports 
Prepared by Special Master’s Experts and Request for Expedited Consideration (Dkt. #_____). 
After considering that motion, any responses thereto, and the record of the case, the Court finds 
that defendants’ motion should be, and hereby is, GRANTED. It is further 
ORDERED that the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Court’s January 21, 
2004 Order (Dkt. # 2444) be stricken and replaced with the following: “It is further ORDERED 
that each such report be redacted by the Special Master or his contractor to remove any 
information that might jeopardize the security of individual Indian trust data or the security of 
any of defendants’ Information Technology systems, including, but not limited to, the types of 
information described in the Special Master’s Revised Order dated May 2, 2002, and filed with 
this Court’s February 6, 2003 Order (Dkt. # 1786).” and it is 
FURTHER ORDERED that the third sentence of the first paragraph of the Court’s 
January 21, 2004 Order be stricken and replaced with the following: “It is further ORDERED
that following the redaction by the Special Master or his contractor, the reports shall be 
transmitted to defendants for prompt review, not to exceed 5 business days, to allow defendants 
to advise the Special Master if they identify any additional material requiring redaction prior to 
the filing of the reports in the record. The reports shall be submitted within 5 days following 
defendants’ completion of their review of the reports.” 
SO ORDERED this ___ day of ______________, 2004. 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge 
- 2 -
cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner, Esq 
John T. Stemplewicz, Esq 
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 K. Brown, Esq. 
607 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Fax (202) 318-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, 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 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530 
- 3 -