<< COB0000001 >>
IN TUE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
	ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, ~I	)
		)
	Plaintiffs,	)
	v.	)	Case No. l:96CV01285 (RCL)
		)	(Special Master Alan Balaran)
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, ~
		)
	Defendants.	)
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
The Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs ("Interior
Defendants" or "Interior"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule" or "Rules") 37(a)(2)(B), hereby
move that this Court enter an order requiring Plaintiffs to produce the documents called for in
Interior Defendants' Request for the Production of Documents, Dated June 5, 2002 ("Requcst for
Production"). In support of this motion, Interior Defendants state:
	On June 5, 2002, Interior Defendants served Plaintiffs with the Request for Production (a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Plaintiffs' response was due July 8, 2002.
Plaintiffs have not responded to the Production Request, except for filing a motion for protective
order on July 5, 2002.'
	Rule 37(a)(2)(B) provides, in pertinent part:
(B).. . if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted
1 See Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Seeking (1) Stay of Plaintiffs' Obligation to
Respond to Interior Defendants' Request for the Production of Documents, Dated June 5, 2002;
(2) Stay of Threatened Depositions of the Five Named Plaintiffs; and (3) Stay of Rule 11 Motion
With Respect to Court-Ordered Attorney's Fees, filed July 5, 2002 ("Plaintiffs' Motion for
Protective Order").
<< COB0000002 >>
under Rule 34, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as
requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, the discovering
party may move for ... an order compelling inspection in
accordance with the request.
	An order compelling inspection is appropriate here. Interior Defendants submitted a
request for inspection (the Production Request) under Rule 34, and Plaintiffs failed to respond
that inspection would be permitted. Therefore, under Rule 37(a)(2)(B), an order compelling
inspection is appropriate.
	Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, filed July 5, 2002, offers no proper basis upon
which to excuse Plaintiffs from complying with the Production Request. Plaintiffs' motion asks
that they be excused from complying with any discovery requests because they believe that
Interior Defendants have not complied with Plaintiffs' discovery, or because of other alleged bad
acts by Defendants, and because Plaintiffs seek a "respite.' As shown in Interior Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, filed contemporaneously herewith, and
which is incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order is
insupportable, for it shows no legal or factual basis for the extraordinary relief they seek (i.e., a
blanket exemption from discovery obligations).
(continued on next page)
-2-
<< COB0000003 >>
	Counsel for Interior Defendants called Plaintiffs' counsel to discuss the relief requested in
this Motion, and Plaintiffs' counsel said that Plaintiffs do not agree to such relief.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT D. McCALLUM
Assistant Attorney General
STUART E. SCHIFFER
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
3.	CHRISTOPHER KO
Deputy Director
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ
Senior Trial Attorney
DAVID J. GOTTESMAN
Trial Attorney
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
United States Department of Justice
P.O. Box 875
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875
(202) 307-0183
Dated:	July 16, 2002
-3-
<< COB0000004 >>
IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et aL,	)
		)
	Plaintiffs,	)
		)
	V.	)	Case No. 1:96CV01285
	)	(Judge Lamberth)
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior et ~L.	)
	)
Defendants.	)
ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS
TO COMPLY WITH INTERIOR DEFENDANTS'
REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
	This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery. After
considering that motion, any responses thereto, and the record of the case, the Court finds that the
motion should be GRANTED.
	IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within ten (10) days from the date hereof, Plaintiffs
shall comply with Interior Defendants' Request for the Production of Documents, Dated June 5,
2002, by producing to Interior Defendants all of the documents requested therein.
SO ORDERED this _____ day of	, 2002.
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH
United States District Judge
—1—
<< COB0000005 >>
cc:
Sandra P. Spooner
John T. Stemplewicz
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
P.O. Box 875
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875
(202) 514-7194
Dennis M Gingold, Esq.
Mark Brown, Esq.
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
202-318-2372
Keith Harper, Esq.
Native American Rights Fund
1712 N Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976
202-822-0068
Elliott Levitas, Esq.
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
-2-