This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ., -, - C'i 7- 
FOR THE DISTRTCT OF COLUMBIA , j - i , , g 3: c 5 
E 0 MSE PEPIC COBELL, gt &, i 
Plaintiffs, ) 
V. 
)
1 Case No. 1:96CV01285 
) (Judge Lamberth) 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, a &, )
1 
Defendants. ) 
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 
Notice is hereby given that all defendants in the above-named case hereby appeal to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit From the Order entered in the 
above-named case on February 5,2003, under Docket Number I 771. I A copy of the Order is 
attached. 
Dated: April 7,2003 Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Assistant Attomey General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOWN 
Deputy Director 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWTCZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
1 On April 4,2003, defendant's filed a notice of appeal that attached the order from 
which this appeal is taken, but gave an incorrect docket number. The correct docket number is 
1771. This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875, Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 5 14-7194 
2 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
. 
INTXIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F\LED 
FOR THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA 
FEB 5 - 2003 
ELOUlSE PEPION COBELL, et al., )
1 
Plaintiffs, 1 
1 
V. ) Civil Action No.96-1285 @CL) 
GALE NORTON,Secretary of the 1 
Interior, et al., 1 
) 
Defendants. 
For the rcasons slated in the memorandum opinion issucd diis date, it is hereby 
ORDERED that defendants shall have seveti (7) days fiom the b t c of this Order in which 
to submit to the Special Master-Monitor (“thc Monitor”) mi affidavit that confomis with the 
requirements for proper invocation of the deliberative process privilege with respect to 
Attachment C of the August 8,2002 Special Report ofthc Monitor (“Attachment C”)- It is 
further 
ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have seven (7) days fiom the date on which dcfcndants 
submit the above-mentioned affidavit to the Monitor in which plaintif& rriay subnut a statement 
to the Monitor settirig forth the reasons for-their need of the information contained in Attachment 
C in the instant litigation. It is hrther 
ORDERED that defendants shall have fivc (5) days fi-on1 the date on which plaintiffs 
subinit the above-mentioned statement to thc Monitor irr which dcfcndants may stibrnit to the 
Monitor a reply to plaintiffs’ statement. It is fcrrthcr 
I This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
reasons why plaintiffs need answers to these questions. Within seven (7) days from thc date that 
these documents were filed with the Court, defendants shall (1) file an affidavit with the 
approp~ateqecM master from the head of the bureau or departnientpossessing control over the 
requested information that contains (a) an assertion of the privilege based on actual personal 
considerationby that official, @) a detailed specificationo f ~ eijJformalion for which the 
priviles is claimed, along with an expiaxation why it properly falls within. the scope ofthe 
privilege, and (c) a detailed statement of the hann that would rcsult from disclosure of the 
hf~rmationthat falls within the scope ofthe priVi1e.e; and (2) file under seal with the 
appropriate special master a detailed summary of the responses that the witness would have 
provided if defendants had not asserted the deliberativeprocess privilege. Any failure by 
defendants to comply with these two requirements within seven (7)days will be deemed to 
constitute a waiver of the objection- Tt i s further 
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion fur an ordler pursuant to Rule 53(e)(2) adopting Special 
Master Balaran’s May 1 1,1999 opinion [1691-1J be, and hereby is, GRANTED inpart and 
DENIED in part. It is firrther 
ORDERED that section Ilof Special Master Bafaran’s May I 1,1999 opinion, which is 
- - c 
entitIed “Work-Product Doctrine,”be adopted, pursuant to Rulc 53[e)(Z) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. It is fiuther 
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A) [1691-3] 
be, and hereby is, DEWD. 
SO ORDERED. 
3 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
United States District Judge 
4 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I declare under penalty of perjury that, on April 7,2003 I served the foregoing Amended 
Notice of Appeal by facsimile in accordance with their written request of October 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 U.S. Mail upon: 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
171 7 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
13th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
By Hand upon: 
Joseph S. Kieffer, III 
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) 3 18-2372