This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. t!.S FiST IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA T-? h”.? ,I 25 p;.t 9: 37 * J P . -,*I. ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, gt al., 1 t r , t f 1 Plaintiffs, 1 1 v. ) Case No. 1:96CVO1285 (RCL) 1 (Judge Lamberth) GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, gt &) ) Defendants. ) INTERIOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS Interior Defendants respectfully move for expedited consideration of the following pretrial motions:’ 1. Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment That Interior’s Historical Accounting Plan Comports With Their Obligation To Perform An Accounting (Jan. 31,2003). &. Defcndants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment That Interior’s Trust 3 Management Plan Comports With Their Obligation To Perform An Accounting (Jan. 31 2003). 3. Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Statute of Limitations And Laches (Jan. 31,2003). 4. Interior Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Plaintiffs’ Plan For Determining Accurate Balances In The Individual Indian Trust And All Evidence Offered In Support (Apr. 18,2003). In accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.l(m), counsel for Interior Defendants conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding this motion. Counsel for Plaintiffs stated that Plaintiffs oppose this motion. This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. 5. Interior Defendants’ Motion In Limine With Regard to Expert Testimony and Report in Support of Plaintiffs’ Plan for Determining Accurate Balances in the Individual Indian Trust (Apr. 18,2003). 6. Interior Defendants’ Motion In Limine as to Plaintiffs’ Proffered Expert Testimony and Report Regarding the Reliability and Relevance of Methodologies Employed in Plaintiffs’ Plan (Apr. 21,2003). 7. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Order Requiring Defendants To Bear The Cost Responding To Interior Defendants’ Request For Production Of Documents, Dated February 2 1 2003 And To Interior Defendants’ Set Of Interrogatories, Dated February 21 2003 And To Grant Plaintiffs An Enlargement Of Time Within Which To Respond Thereto (Mar. 24, 2003).2 8. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Protective Order: (1) Directing Defendants To Withdraw Or Limit Their Improper Subpoena Of Joe Christie To Produce Documents At His Expert Witness Deposition Not Reasonably Related To His Expert Testimony; (2) Limit His Testimony At Deposition To Matters Reasonably Related To His Expert Testimony At Deposition To Matters Reasonably Related To His Expert Testimony At Trial 1.5 and (3) That Mr. Christie’s Deposition Be Held In Washington, D.C. (Apr. 1 2003). 9. Interior Defendants’ Motion To Compel Discovery From Joe Christie (Apr. 14, 2003).3 Expedited consideration of these motions is needed because each one affects the nature and scope of the Phase 1.5 trial scheduled to commence on May 1,2003. The first three motions listed above are motions for partial summary judgment, the resolution of which will necessarily affect the scope of the trial. Briefing on these motions will be complete when Defendants’ repIy. briefs are filed this date. Plaintiffs filed this motion before Special Master-Monitor Kieffer. In light of the D.C. Circuit’s April 24, 2003 Order staying Mr. Kieffer’s participation in this case, the motion should be decided in the first instance by the Court. This motion is consolidated with Interior Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs’ And Joe Christie’s Motion For A Protective Order, filed April 14,2003. - 2 - This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. The fourth, fifth, and sixth motions listed above are motions in limine, the resolution of which will affect the admissibility of certain evidence and testimony at trial, including Plaintiffs’ Plan For Determining Accurate Balances In The Individual Indian Trust and the opinions proffered by Plaintiffs’ experts. Briefing on these motions is not yet complete. The seventh and eighth motions listed above are motions by which Plaintiffs seek to preclude or limit Interior Defendants’ discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ plans and one of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses; the ninth motion is Interior Defendants’ motion to compel discovery from that e ~ p e r t . ~ If these motions are resolved in Interior Defendants’ favor, they will take discovery necessary for the Phase 1.5 trial. If Interior Defendants are precluded from taking such discovery, they may need to file additional pre-trial motions. Briefing is complete on the seventh and eighths motions; briefing is not yet complete on the ninth motion. Because the resolution of all of the motions listed above will necessarily affect the nature and scope ofthe Phase 1.5 trial, and because that trial is scheduled to begin on May 1,2003, This motion was consolidated with Interior Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs’ And Joe Christie’s Motion For A Protective Order in a single filing on April 14, 2003. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply to Interior Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery From Joe Christie; the time for filing such a reply expired on April 24,2003. This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. Interior Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter the attached order granting expedited consideration of these motions. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Assistant Attorney General STUART E. SCHIFFER Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Director Deput irector D.C. Bar No. 261495 JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ Senior TriaI Attorney CYNTHLA L. ALEXANDER 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: April 25,2003 - 4 - This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, gt al., 1 ) Plaintiffs, ) 1 V. 1 Case No. I :96CV01285 ) (Judge Lamberth) al., ) GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, gj 1 Defendants. ) ORDER Upon consideration of Interior Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of Certain Pre-Trial Motions, filed April 25,2003, and any responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED, that Interior Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Consideration is GRANTED as to the following pre-trial motions: 1. Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment That Interior’s Historical Accounting Plan Comports With Their Obligation To Perform An Accounting (Jan. 3 1,2003). 2. Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment That Interior’s Trust Management Plan Comports With Their Obligation To Perform An Accounting (Jan. 31,2003). 3. Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Statute of Limitations And Laches (Jan. 31,2003). 4. Interior Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Plaintiffs’ Plan For Determining Accurate Balances In The Individual Indian Trust And A11 Evidence Offered In Support (Apr. 18,2003). 5 . Interior Defendants’ Motion In Limine With Regard to Expert Testimony and Report in Support of Plaintiffs’ Plan for Determining Accurate Balances in the Individual Indian Trust (Apr. 18,2003). This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. 6. Interior Defendants’ Motion In Limine as to Plaintiffs’ Proffered Expert Testimony and Report Rcgarding the Reliability and Relevance of Methodologies Employed in Plaintiffs’ Plan (Apr. 2 1,2003). 7. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Order Requiring Defendants To Bear The Cost Responding To Interior Defendants’ Request For Production Of Documents, Dated February 2 1,2003 And To Interior Defendants’ Set Of Interrogatories, Dated February 21, 2003 And To Grant Plaintiffs An Enlargement Of Time Within Which To Respond Thereto (Mar. 24,2003). 8. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Protective Order: (1) Directing Defendants To Withdraw Or Limit Their Improper Subpoena Of Joe Christie To Produce Documents At His Expert Witness Deposition Not Reasonably Related To His Expert Testimony; (2) Limit His Testimony At Deposition To Matters Reasonably Related To His Expert Testimony At Deposition To Matters Reasonably Related To His Expert Testimony At Trial 1.5 and ( 3 ) That Mr. Christie’s Deposition Be Held In Washington, D.C. (Apr. 1, 2003). 9. Interior Defendants’ Motion To Compel Discovery From Joe Christie (Apr. 14, 2003). SO ORDERED this day of ,2003. ROYCE C. LAMBERTH United States District Judge - 2 - This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text. cc: J. Christopher Kohn Sandra P. Spooner 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 202-3 18-2372 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 - 3 - 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 25,2003 I served the foregoing Jnterior Defendants' Motionfor Expedited Consideration of Certain Pre-Trial Motions by facsimile in accordance with their written request of October 31,2001. Keith Harper, Esq. Native American Rights Fund 1712 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 (202) 822-0068 Per the Court's Order of April 17,2003 by facsimile and U.S.Mail upon: Earl Old Person (ProSe) Blackfeet Tribe P.O. Box 850 Browning, MT 59417 (406)338-7530 By US. Mail upon: Elliott Levitas, Esq. 1100 Pcachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 Dennis M Gingold, Esq. Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Ninth Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 318-2372 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