IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUlSE PEPION CORELL, gal., 
P 1 ai n t i ffs , 
V. 
Defendants. 
I 
) 
1 
1 
) 
1 Case No. 1 :96CVOI 285 
1 (Judge Laniberth) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, al., a ) 
1 
1 
TNTEFUOK DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM TN OPPOSITION TO 
PLAINTIFFS MOTlON FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME '1'0 SUBMIT BILL OF COSTS 
Interior Defendants respectfully oppose plaintiffs' motion for enlargement of time, dated 
October 15, 2003, in Lvhich plaintiffs request up to and including December 15,2003, for the 
purpose of "fil[ing] their bill of costs." Plaintiffs' Motion ("Pl. Mot.") at 1. As is explained 
below, this Court should deny plaintiffs' motion for two reasons. 
First, although plaintiffs assert in their hvo-sentence motion that they need the enlargment 
of time to "file their bill of costs." P1. Mot. at 1, plaintiffs do not cxplain the basis for their claim 
of entitlement to submit a bill of costs. Given the timing of plaintiffs' motion, plaintiffs 
presumably are seeking an enlargement of time to submit a bill of costs with regard to the Court's 
Order Issuing Structural Injunction following the Phase 1.5 tria1.I Cobell v. Norton, No. 
1 :96CV01285 (Order Issuing Structural Injunction) (filed Sept. 25, 2003). Assuming that to be 
the case, the simple fact is that the Court's Order Issuing Structural Injunction was silent with 
Local Civil Rule 54.1 (a) provides, in part, "A bill of costs must be filed within 20 
days after entry ofjudgment terminating the case as to the party seeking costs, unless the time is 
extended by the court.'' For purposes of this rule, only the Court's September 25, 2003 Order 
Issuing Structural Injuction would constitute such a judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a) 
("'Judgment' as used in these rules includes a decree 2nd any order from which an appeal lies."). regard to the awarding of costs. Moreover, to thc extent plaintiffs rely upon either the Equal 
Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. 8 2412(a), or Local Civil Rulc 54.1, such a recovery 
is only available to a prevailing party. Given the Court's rejection of plaintiffs' plans submitted to 
the Court in January 2003, plaintiffs cannot he a "prevailing" party for purposes of EAJA or 
Local Civil Rulc 54.1 awards. 
Second, regardless of whether plaintiffs could argue that they are entitled to an award 
under EAJA or Local Civil Rule 54.1, plaintiffs' motion simply provides no explanation for their 
request of an enlargement under December 15,2003 to submit their bill of costs. Plaintiffs' 
motion simply states the conclusion that they request the enlargeinent "[gliven the complexity of 
compiling, sorting and finalizing the inforniation necessary for a complete and accurate statement 
of costs in this matter." PI. Mot. at I . On its face, this is insufficient justification for plaintiffs' 
request for a two-month enlargement.2 
Conclusion 
Plaintiffs have neither explained any basis for their claim of entitlement to submit a bill 
of costs nor the reason that they purportedly need another two months to prepare their 
submission. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Court deny plaintiffs' 
motion for enlargement of time to submit a bill of costs. 
Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
2 Inasmuch as the Phase 1.5 trial concluded with closing arguments on July 8, 2003, 
plaintiffs already have had well over three months to compile, sort, and finalize the bulk of any 
cost claims related to the trial. 
- 2 - PETER D. KEISLER 
Ass i s t ant A t t ome y G en era 1 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney Geiieral 
J . CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Attorney 
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) 5 14-7 194 
October 22, 2003 
- 3 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLlJMBIA 
ELOUlSE PEPION COBELI,, 9 &, 
P 1 aint i ffs, 
\J 
al., 
. 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, 
Defendants. 
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time, filed 
October 15,2003. After considering that motion, hterior Defendants' opposing memorandum, 
plaintiffs' reply, if any, and the record of the case, the Court finds that the motion for enlargement 
should be, and hereby is, DENIED. 
SO ORDERED this __ day of 
) 
) 
) 
) 
1 
ORDER 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge 
Case No. 1:96CVO1285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
, 2003. cc : 
Sandra P. Spooner 
John T. Stciiiplewicz 
Cynthia L. Alexander 
Comm erc i al 1, i ti ga ti on Braiich 
C i vi 1 Di vi si oil 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Fax (202) 5 14-91 63 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Brown, Esq. 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Ninth Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
Fax (202) 3 18-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, Esq. 
Native American RiShts 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 CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE 
1 dcclarc under penalty of peljury that, on October 22, 2003 1 served the foregoing 
Iizterioi- Dcjenclmts ' Me?norcincIuin iii 01ppositioii to Plahtzffs ' hfotioiz for E i z h p m w t of Tirile 
to Szrhriiit bill qf Costs by facsimile in accordance with their written request of October 3 1 , 2001 
upon: 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, 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 by U.S. Mail upon: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 594 17 
(406) 338-7530 
Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 3 18-2372 
By U.S. Mail upon: 
Elliott Levitas, Esq 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530