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’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' 
MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL ENLARGEMENT OF TIME 
TO SUBMIT EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE APPLICATION 
Plaintiffs have filed their Motion For Additional Enlargement Of Time To Submit Equal 
Access To Justice Act Application ("Second Motion For Enlargement"), in which they attempt to 
bootstrap more delay onto their First Motion For Enlargement, apparently assuming that motion 
will be granted. Yet, the Court has not ruled on their First Motion For Enlargement1 and the date 
has long since passed on which the Court ordered them to submit their interim EAJA 
application.2 As with their First Motion For Enlargement, Plaintiffs offer no valid reason for 
their continued delay and their motion should be denied.3 
In their Second Motion For Enlargement, Plaintiffs repeat all the reasons for delay listed 
1 Plaintiffs submitted their Motion For Enlargement Of Time To Submit Equal Access 
To Justice Application ("First Motion For Enlargement") on June 14, 2004. Defendants filed 
their Opposition to that Motion on June 22, 2004, and Plaintiffs filed their Reply on June 29, 
2004. 
2 On May 27, 2004, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to submit an application for interim fees 
under EAJA within thirty days. Cobell v. Norton, 319 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2004) ("May 27, 
2004 Order"). 
3 Plaintiffs failed to attach a proposed order to their motion, in violation of LCvR 7(c).
in their previous motion - the time required to properly evaluate time records, competing case 
demands, their fee application in connection with Defendants' Third Motion For Summary 
Judgment,4 and time spent on mediation. Second Motion For Enlargement at 1-3. Yet they still 
fail to explain why they did not perform the required due diligence in evaluating time records 
prior to submitting their First EAJA Application in October 2003, or why they have failed to do 
so in the nine months since that time. The Court was undoubtedly aware of competing case 
demands when it issued its May 27, 2004 Order requiring Plaintiffs to submit an interim EAJA 
application within thirty days. Most important, Plaintiffs were aware of competing case demands 
when they chose to set this interim fee application process in motion nine months ago, without 
the required documentation. 
The only "new" reason Plaintiffs cite for their continued delay is their claim that it has 
taken "longer than anticipated" to obtain information relating to market rates for the time-period 
covering Trial 1.5 Second Motion For Enlargement at 3. Plaintiffs provide no factual support 
for their purported difficulty in obtaining this information and do not explain what technical 
assistance they seek from an expert; instead, they claim that their "preferred expert" is 
unavailable and that they have been "unavoidably delayed." Second Motion For Enlargement at 
4 Plaintiffs continue to rely on preparation of this fee application as a reason for delay, 
Second Motion For Enlargement at 2, even though they filed that fee application on June 22, 
2004. 
5 Plaintiffs have not yet met their burden of establishing that they are entitled to 
compensation at market rates, in excess of EAJA's statutory cap. See May 27, 2004 Order at 7 
(requiring Plaintiffs to substantiate allegations of bad faith with "detailed factual support" and not 
rely on "an offhand reference" to language in the Court's prior opinions). Accordingly, the Court 
ordered Plaintiffs to submit alternative fee schedules based on EAJA capped rates, market rates, 
and rates under the Laffey matrix. Id. at 7. 
2
3. It is hard to fathom how Plaintiffs would be unable to obtain information on market rates in 
the nine months between the time they filed their first petition in October 2003, and the present. 
They submitted a defective application for interim EAJA fees nine months ago and offer no 
legitimate justification for their failure to comply with the Court's subsequent order to submit a 
new application within thirty days of May 27, 2004. 
Conclusion 
For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs' Second 
Motion For Enlargement. 
Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ Timothy E. Curley 
______________________________ 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
Deputy Director 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Attorney 
TIMOTHY E. CURLEY 
D.C. Bar No. 470450 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on July 21, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' 
Motion for Additional Enlargement of Time to Submit Equal Access to Justice Application 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. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
)
)
)
) 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion For Additional Enlargement Of 
Time To Submit Equal Access to Justice Application, Dkt # 2613, and any responses thereto. The 
Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is DENIED. 
SO ORDERED this _____ day of __________, 2004. 
__________________________________ 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge
cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner 
John T. Stemplewicz 
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. 
607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Fax (202) 318-2372 
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 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530