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’ MOTION TO STRIKE SCANDALOUS MATERIAL FROM PLAINTIFFS’ 
RESPONSE TO THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED BY THE QUAPAW TRIBE OF 
OKLAHOMA AND TO ADMONISH PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH 
D.C. BAR’s VOLUNTARY STANDARDS FOR CIVILITY IN PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 
Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants respectfully 
move this Court for an Order (a) striking the first sentence of the final paragraph beginning on 
page 2 and continuing to page 3 of Plaintiffs' Response to Amicus Curiae Brief of the Quapaw 
Tribe of Oklahoma (Dkt. No. 2658) ("Plaintiffs' Response")1 and (b) admonishing Plaintiffs’ 
counsel to comply with the D.C. Bar’s voluntary standards for civility in professional conduct. 
Defendants seek such relief upon the grounds that the first sentence of the final paragraph 
beginning on page 2 and continuing to page 3 of Plaintiffs' Response constitutes yet the latest 
instance of a never-ending series of scandalous attacks upon government officials, and such 
statements are wholly inappropriate in pleadings before this Court. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 
7(m), counsel for the Defendants conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel on September 3, 2004, 
1 In seeking such relief, Defendants further request that the Court order Plaintiffs to 
remove this statement from their website (www.indiantrust.com) and to take all steps necessary to 
prevent the further publication of said passage in any other forum. 
- 1 -
regarding this motion and plaintiffs’ counsel stated that this motion would be opposed. In 
support of this motion, Defendants state as follows. 
I. This Court Should Strike the First Sentence of the Final 
Paragraph Beginning on Page 2 and Continuing to Page 3 
of Plaintiffs' Response 
On August 24, 2004, the Quapaw Tribe filed, with leave of Court, a brief with this Court 
as amicus curiae. Brief for Amicus Curiae The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah) (the 
“Amicus Brief”) (filed Aug. 24, 2004) (Dkt. No. 2648). The Quapaw Tribe submitted their brief 
“to explain and support the pending settlement of its trust-related accounting claims with [the 
Department of the Interior] and also to support the Defendants’ motion requesting confirmation 
that certain tasks to be performed under the settlement agreement [conformed] with this Court’s 
order of December 23, 2002.” Amicus Brief at 1. 
In opposing the Amicus Brief, Plaintiffs predictably returned to their well-worn practice 
of using this Court’s process as a shield for what would otherwise be libelous and defamatory 
conduct. Plaintiffs dismissed the arguments of the Quapaw Tribe with the statement that the 
Amicus Brief 
offers nothing but regurgitation of the government’s same frivolous 
arguments, sprinkled with misrepresentations and a dab of word 
games that would make [Defendants’ lead counsel] proud. 
Plaintiffs’ Response at 2-3. 
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that 
“[u]pon motion made by a party . . . the court may order stricken from any pleading any . . . 
scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see 5A C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and 
Procedure (Civil) 2d § 1382, at 712 (1990) (“‘Scandalous’ matter is that which improperly casts 
- 2 -
a derogatory light on someone, most typically a party to the action.”) (footnote omitted); 2 
Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.37[3] at 12-97 (“‘Scandalous’ generally refers to any allegation 
that unnecessarily reflects on the moral character of an individual or states anything in repulsive 
language that detracts from the dignity of the court.”) (footnote omitted). 
While motions to strike are generally disfavored, “the disfavored character of Rule 12(f) 
is relaxed somewhat in the context of scandalous allegations and matter of this type often will be 
stricken from the pleadings in order to purge the court’s files and protect the subject of the 
allegations.” 5A C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (Civil) 2d § 1382, at 
714 (1990);2 see Metrokane, Inc. v. The Wine Enthusiast, 160 F. Supp. 2d 633, 641-42 (S.D.N.Y. 
2001) (“Generally, motions to strike are disfavored and usually granted only for scandalous 
material.”)(citation omitted). 
The striking of offensive material is particularly appropriate when the offensive material 
is not responsive to an argument but, rather, constitutes an inappropriate attempt to abuse the 
Court’s process to attack an individual personally. See, e.g., Magill v. Appalachia Intermediate 
Unit 08, 646 F. Supp. 339, 343 (W.D. Pa. 1986) (striking allegations that “reflect adversely on 
the moral character of an individual who is not a party to this suit” which were “unnecessary to a 
decision on the matters in question”); see also Pigford v. Veneman, 215 F.R.D. 2, 4-5 (D.D.C. 
2003)(striking unfounded accusations that opposing counsel was racist); Murray v. Sevier, 156 
F.R.D. 235, 258 (D. Kan. 1994) (striking allegation that defendant and his counsel “bought off” 
2 Indeed, the relief provided for in Rule 12(f) need not be granted only upon motion 
of a party; consistent with the Court’s inherent powers to protect the decorum of proceedings 
before it, the Court may strike such material sua sponte. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see Chambers v. 
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 227 (U.S. 
1821)). 
- 3 -
and paid “hush money” to prospective witnesses); Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 24 F. Supp. 2d 
1013, 1037 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (striking allegation that “defendants are ‘[l]ike vultures feeding on 
the dead’”); Nault's Automobile Sales, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 148 F.R.D. 25, 29-34 
(D.N.H. 1993) (noting that “[w]ith each passing week the pleadings assumed a more hostile and 
accusatory tone” and striking scandalous assertions). 
II. Because Plaintiffs’ Response Continues Their Well-Established 
Practice Of Filing Pleadings Containing Scandalous Material, 
Contrary to the D.C. Bar’s Voluntary Standards for Civility in 
Professional Conduct, This Court Should Admonish Plaintiffs’ 
Counsel to Comply With The D.C. Bar Civility Standards for 
Future Pleadings 
The D.C. Bar’s Voluntary Standards for Civility in Professional Conduct prescribe 
principles that Plaintiffs’ counsel routinely disregard. See, e.g., D.C. Bar’s Voluntary Standards 
for Civility in Professional Conduct, General Principle 1 (civil, professional, and courteous 
treatment of all participants in the legal process), 2 (client’s ill feelings generally not to be 
reflected in counsel’s conduct, attitude, and demeanor toward participants in legal process), 3 
(abstention from “disparaging personal remarks or acrimony” toward participants in legal 
process), 24 (lawyers will “speak and write civilly”), 25 (lawyers “will not engage in conduct that 
offends the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings”), 27 (lawyers “will not knowingly 
misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote, or miscite facts or authorities”), 28 (lawyers “will not 
degrade the intelligence, ethics, morals, integrity or personal behavior of others, unless such 
matters are legitimately at issue in the proceeding”)(emphasis added), quoted in Alexander v. 
FBI, 1999 WL 314170, at *3 n.1 (D.D.C. May 17, 1999). And while it would be impossible, 
within the page limitations set forth in the Local Court’s Rules, to recite an exhaustive list of 
- 4 -
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s uncivil efforts, a review of the record reveals numerous examples for the 
Court’s consideration, only some of which have provided the basis for prior motions to strike. 
See Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ “Comments,” Filed August 27, 2003 (filed Sept. 16, 
2003)(Dkt. No. 2287)(denied by Order filed March 15, 2004 (Dkt. No. 2528)); Interior 
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Request for Personal Sanctions in Plaintiffs’ Comments 
to the January 27, 203 Corrected Report and Recommendation of the Special Master (filed Mar. 
4, 2003)(Dkt. No. 1860)(denied by Order filed June 4, 2003 (Dkt. No. 2094)); Interior 
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Scandalous Materials from Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s 
Historical Accounting Plan for Individual Indian Money Accounts (filed Feb. 10, 2003)(Dkt. No. 
1795)(denied by Order filed Mar. 3, 2003 (Dkt. No. 1847)); see also Order at 2 n.1 (Apr. 8, 
2003)(Dkt. No. 1961)(“Plaintiffs would be well-advised to avoid their customary statements of 
grievances and purple prose in these briefs, and instead concentrate on furnishing legal 
arguments.”). 
While the D.C. Bar standards are “voluntary” by their terms, the Supreme Court has 
recognized that “‘Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very 
creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission 
to their lawful mandates.’” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting 
Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 227 (U.S. 1821)); see generally Jaen v. Coca-Cola Co., 157 
F.R.D. 146, 152-53 (D.P.R. 1994)(discussing role of civility in litigation). Indeed, this Court’s 
Order in Alexander directed counsel intending to attend a deposition “to file in advance thereof a 
certificate with the Clerk of Court that they have carefully read the [D.C. Bar standards of 
civility].” Alexander v. FBI, 1999 WL 314170, at *2 (D.D.C. May 17, 1999). 
- 5 -
Moreover, while this Court denied Defendants’ prior above-cited motions to strike, we 
respectfully suggest that the time has come for the Court to take some action to restore civility in 
this matter. In the absence of such an order, Plaintiffs’ repetitive and unceasing disregard for 
decorum and civility will continue to degrade this Court and the judicial process. 
Conclusion 
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully ask this Court for an Order (a) striking 
the first sentence of the final paragraph beginning on page 2 and continuing to page 3 of 
Plaintiffs' Response to Amicus Curiae Brief of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (Dkt. No. 2658), 
(b) directing Plaintiffs to remove this statement from their website (www.indiantrust.com) and to 
take all steps necessary to prevent the further publication of said passage in any other forum, and (c) 
admonishing Plaintiffs’ counsel to comply with the D.C. Bar’s voluntary standards for civility in 
professional conduct. 
Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
- 6 -
/s/ John Warshawsky 
_________________________________________ 
SANDRA P. SPOONER (D.C. Bar No. 261495) 
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) 514-7194 
September 3, 2004 
- 7 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on September 3, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Motion to Strike 
Scandalous Material from Plaintiffs' Response to the Amicus Curiae Brief Filed by the Quapaw 
Tribe of Oklahoma and to Admonish Plaintiffs' Counsel to Comply with D.C. Bar's Voluntary 
Standards for Civility in Professional Conduct 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 The Defendants’ Motion to Strike Scandalous Material from 
Plaintiffs’ Response to the Amicus Curiae Brief Filed by the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma and to Admonish 
Plaintiffs’ Counsel to Comply with D.C. Bar’s Voluntary Standards for Civility in Professional Conduct 
(Dkt. # ____). Upon consideration of the Motion, the Opposition, any Reply thereto, and the entire record 
of this case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and; 
It is FURTHER ORDERED that The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the first sentence of the 
final paragraph beginning on page 2 and continuing to page 3 of Plaintiffs' Response to Amicus Curiae 
Brief of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (Dkt. No. 2658) and 
(www.indiantrust.com) and 
publication of said passage in any other forum and 
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs will remove the same passage from their website 
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs will take all steps necessary to prevent the further 
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs will certify per Local Civil Rule 5(h) and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure they have carefully read and will abide by the D.C. Bar Standards of 
Civility. 
SO ORDERED 
Date_______________ 
___________________________________ 
Hon. 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. 
Paul A. Guest, 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