IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
____________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of 
the Interior, et al., 
) 
) 
)
)
)
)
) No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO SPECIAL MASTER BALARAN’S 
STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO INTERIOR 
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HIM 
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 
The Special Master’s Response leaves no doubt as to the uncontroverted facts requiring 
his recusal. NAID sought to intervene in this litigation, alleging government misconduct and 
seeking to protect its government contracts. Although the Court denied the intervention motion, 
it ordered the Special Master to determine whether NAID’s allegations might demonstrate a 
contemptuous failure by the government to provide a complete quarterly report. Without notice 
to the government, the Special Master then hired NAID’s vice president and witness to gather 
and analyze evidence of the asserted misconduct. The Special Master then released a report 
endorsing NAID’s allegations, which Plaintiffs immediately forwarded to the Court of Appeals 
as evidence of continuing government misconduct. 
If the Special Master’s Response leaves no doubt as to the relevant facts, it also exhibits 
no appreciation of their significance. The Special Master believes that judicial officers may
assess allegations of fraud and concealment by hiring the accusing party to gather and analyze the 
evidence of his own assertions. Indeed, he intimates that such conduct is routine. 
It is not. Judicial officers do not hire biased witnesses to analyze the merits of their own 
charges and then release their findings to the world with the laconic notation that the findings are 
based on material “obtained outside of normal channels and to which the parties may have no 
familiarity.” Interim Report of the Special Master at 1 n.1 (filed Apr. 21, 2003). The Special 
Master’s attempt to excuse this conduct only underscores the extent to which the most basic 
tenets of fairness and impartiality have been abandoned. 
ARGUMENT 
I. IT IS UNCONTROVERTED THAT THE SPECIAL MASTER HIRED 
MR. SMITH TO GATHER AND ANALYZE EVIDENCE REGARDING NAID'S 
ASSERTIONS OF MISCONDUCT. 
The Special Master’s Response, filed nearly nine months after the government sought his 
recusal, confirms that the essential facts on which the government based its motion are true. 
Although his Response is incomplete and inaccurate in many respects, there are no disputes over 
any material facts that need to be resolved in addressing his recusal. 
In August 2002, NAID sought to intervene in this litigation to pursue a contract dispute. 
In essence, NAID urged that it had provided unfavorable reports on the Trust Asset and 
Accounting Management System (“TAAMS”), and that Interior had retaliated against it by 
shifting some of its work to Electronic Data Systems Corporation. NAID asserted that Interior 
had purposefully disregarded its analysis in preparing its Eighth Quarterly Report to the district 
court. See Verified Motion of Intervenor NAID for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary 
and Permanent Injunctive Relief (filed Aug. 30, 2002). 
2
At this point, this Court had just concluded a contempt trial on, among other things, the 
government’s asserted failure to disclose all problems related to TAAMS in quarterly reports. 
On September 17, 2002, this Court issued its ruling holding the Secretary and an Assistant 
Secretary in contempt. A week later, it denied NAID’s intervention motion on procedural 
grounds, remitting it to its remedies under the Contract Disputes Act. See Sept. 24, 2002 Order; 
see also Nov. 5, 2002 Order, at 1. 
At some point shortly thereafter, the Court asked the Special Master in an ex parte 
communication to investigate NAID’s charges. See Oct. 7, 2002 Letter from Special Master 
Balaran to Peter Miller, at 1 (attached as Exhibit A to the Motion to Disqualify). The Court 
subsequently issued a public directive requiring the Special Master to submit “findings and 
conclusions” regarding NAID’s charges of concealment. Nov. 5, 2002 Order, at 1-2. 
From February 27, 2003 through April 16, 2003, the Special Master employed Mike S. 
Smith, who served as NAID’s Executive Vice President as of January 2003. See Invoice #35; 
Invoice #37, List of Charges by Mike Smith (attached as Exhibits D, E, and F to the Motion to 
Disqualify). The Special Master fully understood who Mr. Smith was and the nature of NAID’s 
interest in the investigation. Indeed, in a January 7, 2003 letter sent to the government with a 
copy to the Special Master, Mr. Smith made clear that NAID was continuing to press its contract 
claim and that NAID’s financial interests were directly linked to the charges being investigated 
by the Special Master. See Letter from Mike Smith, Executive Vice President of NAID, to Carl 
3
Hotubbee, Contracting Officer, Department of the Interior (Jan. 7, 2003) at 2 (attached as Exhibit 
G to the Motion to Disqualify).1 
The Special Master, however, did not consider the financial interests of NAID, 
Mr. Smith’s link to the corporation, and his role as a hostile witness to be impediments to his 
employment.2 To the contrary, the Special Master readily acknowledges that Mr. Smith gathered 
and analyzed evidence regarding his own allegations. See, e.g., Special Master’s Response, at 11 
(Mr. Smith “assisted” in the Special Master’s investigation “by analyzing the relevant 
documents, including material that Interior had filed with the Court”); id. at 22 (“Smith’s work 
was consumed with records analysis”); id. (Smith’s time entries “reflect Mr. Smith’s 
memorializing of his efforts to organize and record his analysis of the relevant documents”). 
On April 21, 2003, three days before the Court of Appeals was to hear oral argument on 
the contempt appeal, the Special Master publicly released his “interim” report concluding that the 
government had withheld material information in filing its Eighth Quarterly Report. Plaintiffs 
immediately filed the Special Master’s report with the Court of Appeals as evidence of the 
government’s “contumacious” conduct in the preparation of quarterly reports. See Letter From 
1/ An earlier letter from Mr. Smith, on behalf of NAID, to the contracting officer at Interior, 
which included a chronology of the contract dispute between NAID and Interior, was also copied 
by Mr. Smith to the Special Master. See Letter from Mike Smith, Executive Vice President of 
NAID, to Carl Hotubbee, Contracting Officer, Department of the Interior (Dec. 26, 2002) at 1 
(attached as Exhibit 1A). 
2/ According to the Special Master, he retained the services of Mr. Smith in early March 2003, 
“retroactive” to February 27, 2003. Response at 11. NAID was notified that the contracting 
officer had rejected their contract claim against Interior in a letter dated February 27, 2003. See 
Letter from Keith Kennedy, Contracting Officer, to NAID, Inc. (Feb. 27, 2003) (attached as 
Exhibit 1B). 
4
Elliott Levitas to Mark Langer, Clerk, Court of Appeals (Apr. 22, 2003) (Attached as Exhibit C 
to the Motion for Disqualification).3 
THE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS REQUIRE RECUSAL II. 
In this Circuit, it is clear that “‘the ethical restrictions of § 455 apply to a special master.’” 
Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Jenkins v. Sterlacci, 849 F.2d 
627, 630-32 & n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1988). That principle was codified in the recent amendments to 
Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 53(a)(2) (Dec. 2003) (“A master must 
not have a relationship to the parties, counsel, action, or court that would require disqualification 
of a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455 unless the parties consent with the court’s approval to 
appointment of a particular person after disclosure of any potential grounds for 
disqualification.”). As the amendments make clear, these ethical constraints apply with full force 
even though a master’s findings are generally to be reviewed de novo. See Rule 53(g)(3) (district 
court must review a master’s findings de novo absent the parties’ consent to a different standard). 
The Special Master does not suggest that a judge could have engaged in the type of 
conduct at issue here. Until this case it would have been inconceivable that a judicial officer 
charged with assessing a charge of fraudulent concealment would hire the very person asserting 
that charge to gather and analyze the evidence of its accuracy. Any reasonable person would 
3/ Although the report was dubbed an “interim” report, the Special Master never released a final 
report. Before the NAID investigation, the Special Master had never released an interim report. 
Other reports, which according to his time records are “final,” have not been released at all. (see 
Interior Defendants’ Motion and Supporting Memorandum for Release of the Report of the 
Special Master Regarding IT Security and Any Information Reported to the Court Regarding the 
Special Master’s Investigation or Report (filed Sept. 3, 2002); Interior Defendants’ Second 
Motion And Supporting Memorandum For Release of the Report of the Special Master 
Regarding IT Security And Any Information Reported to the Court Regarding the Special 
Master’s Investigation Or Report (filed Mar. 12, 2003) 
5
question the impartiality of findings prepared in this fashion. Moreover, any reasonable person 
would conclude that a judicial officer engaging in such conduct had surrendered all semblance of 
impartiality. A judge who collaborates with an accusing party to determine the accuracy of the 
accusations cannot under any objective standard be thought impartial. 
Such conduct would prompt an objective observer to conclude that the judge had 
determined a priori that one party to the controversy was to be trusted and relied upon in 
preference to the other. That conclusion would be confirmed by the Special Master's decision to 
publish his report before even allowing the government to see and respond to the evidence and 
analysis provided by its accuser. And it would draw additional support from the apparent 
possibility that any findings in NAID’s favor might be advantageous to NAID in pressing its 
contract claim against Interior in other fora. See Smith letter of Jan. 7, 2003 (noting link between 
NAID’s financial interests and charges investigated by the Special Master).4 
In sum, the Special Master’s conduct is, to our knowledge, without precedent and 
requires his recusal. 
III. THE RESPONSE OF THE SPECIAL MASTER CONFIRMS THAT RECUSAL IS 
REQUIRED. 
4/ The Special Master claims that Mr. Smith was a “former” NAID official. Response at 2, 20-21. 
In October 2003, NAID informed Interior that NAID was now Mike Smith’s “sole employer,” 
after he “terminated any and all relationships with Special Master Balaran and Court [sic] in the 
Cobel [sic] litigation.” Letter from John Meyers, President and CEO, NAID, to Steven 
Rawlings, Contracting Officer (Oct. 30, 2003) (attached as Exhibit 1C). Indeed, in the same 
letter, NAID informed Interior that Mike Smith, as Vice President of NAID, was authorized to 
negotiate the settlement of the contract dispute with Interior. Id. (“In the future you may deal 
with him or with me, as both of us are fully empowered to represent the interests of NAID in this 
matter.”) According to its website Mr. Smith is still NAID’s Vice President. See 
http://www.naid.com/msmith.htm (listing Mr. Smith as Vice President of Special Projects); 
http://www.naid.com/contact.htm. In any event, whether Mr. Smith was an officer of NAID at 
the time he was employed by the Special Master does not alter the analysis. 
6
The Special Master acknowledges that he hired Mr. Smith to analyze the evidence of 
alleged wrongdoing presented in the Special Master’s report. He does not suggest that he 
informed the government that he was hiring Mr. Smith, that he gave the government an 
opportunity to object to this proposed course of conduct, or that the government consented to the 
hiring of Mr. Smith. 
To an extraordinary extent, the Special Master’s analysis largely ignores the full extent of 
his improper conduct. The problem is not merely that the Special Master engaged in significant 
unconsented ex parte contacts, although that alone would be sufficient to require recusal. The 
Master not only obtained ex parte evidence from Mr. Smith; he made him part of the 
decisionmaking apparatus. Mr. Smith not only supplied ex parte evidence, he supplied the 
analysis of that evidence. That is why Mr. Smith was not only a witness but a paid assistant. 
Moreover, the decision to employ Mr. Smith would lead any objective observer to conclude that 
the Special Master had allied himself with one side of the NAID controversy even before 
reviewing the evidence. And NAID’s potential financial interest in the outcome of his 
investigation underscores the extent to which far more than the taking of ex parte evidence is at 
issue.5 
A. The Special Master’s Attempt To Infer Consent To The Hiring Of Mr. Smith 
Is Baseless. 
5/ On June 11, 2003, Neil Ruther – the same attorney who filed NAID’s Motion to Intervene in 
this litigation – filed a complaint on behalf of NAID in the Department of the Interior Board of 
Contract Appeals, in which he repeated the same allegations that were made in the Intervention 
Motion – and the same allegations that were “analyzed” by Mr. Smith and the Special Master in 
the Interim Report. See Complaint at ¶¶ 17-20 (attached as Exhibit 1D). This contract dispute 
was settled in December 2003, with NAID receiving $55,000.00 in termination for convenience 
costs. See Settlement Agreement (attached as Exhibit 1E). 
7
Despite the absence of either notice or consent, the Special Master implies that some type 
of consent to his conduct should be inferred. In large part, the Special Master relies upon the fact 
that he had, in 2001, hired a former Interior employee, Joe Christie, as a technical consultant, 
notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Christie had testified on Plaintiffs’ behalf at trial. As the 
Special Master acknowledges, Mr. Christie was hired over the government’s objection. Special 
Master’s Response at 19; see also Mem. and Order, at 5-6 (Mar. 29, 2002). If the hiring of 
Mr. Christie has any relevance at all, it thus underscores that the Special Master could not 
conceivably have anticipated that the government would consent to the even more egregious 
hiring of Mr. Smith.6 
Indeed, following its objections to the hiring of Mr. Christie, the government again made 
clear it opposed the Special Master’s intent to hire persons with interests adverse to the 
government. In October 2002, Special Master Balaran informed the government of his intent to 
hire an attorney, Anne H.S. Fraser to assist him in evaluating orders to show cause. The 
government objected on the ground that Ms. Fraser was representing the Plaintiff in a pending 
but unrelated administrative action against the government. See Government’s Opposition To 
Special Master’s Proposed Retention Of Anne H.S. Fraser, Esq. To Assist The Special Master 
With Motions For Orders To Show Cause (attached as Exhibit 1F). The government urged that 
Ms. Fraser’s retention “would raise serious issues as to whether the Special Master could 
continue to evaluate the motions for orders to show cause.” Id. at 4. The government noted, 
further, that neither the Special Master nor Ms. Fraser had made the full disclosure, on the 
6/ In addition, Mr. Christie was retained to provide assistance in matters relating to retention and 
protection of IIM records. He was not hired to investigate allegations of retaliation he himself 
made. 
8
record, of the basis for the disqualification, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Code of 
Judicial Conduct. See id. at 5. 
The Special Master receded in this dispute and did not hire Ms. Fraser. Four months 
later, the Special Master chose to hire Mr. Smith. This time, he proceeded without giving the 
government the chance to object. He cannot now plausibly contend that the government’s 
consent should be inferred. 
The Special Master also places some weight on the fact that Mr. Smith was present when 
the Special Master inspected a collection of documents at Interior on February 27, 2003. See 
Special Master’s Response at 20. Although the government disputes certain aspects of the 
Special Master’s account of that meeting, the essential and undisputed fact is that government 
counsel was present. See id.7 Mr. Smith’s presence did not constitute an ex parte contact, and 
the Special Master does not suggest that he notified the government that he would be engaging in 
ex parte contacts, much less that he would be putting Mr. Smith on the payroll. 
Indeed, the most that the Special Master claims for his conduct is that he “did not conceal 
his decision to hire Smith,” id. at 21 n.18, an unusual distinction for a judicial officer. As the 
7/ The Special Master says that it was counsel for Interior that “arranged” Mr. Smith’s attendance 
at the February 27, 2003 inspection. See Response at 20. The Special Master is mistaken. 
Counsel for Defendants had objected on two previous occasions – in October 2002 and January 
2003 – when the Special Master had suggested that he would be able to narrow the scope of his 
requested documents if Mike Smith were to attend an inspection of the document collection with 
him. Counsel for Defendants informed the Special Master that if he wanted Mike Smith, or 
some other representative from NAID who was familiar with their allegations, to attend the 
February 27, 2003 inspection, Interior would no longer object to his presence at the inspection. 
Counsel informed the Special Master that Interior had changed its position because it believed 
that the presence of an NAID representative would help narrow the scope of the request and 
avoid the needless expense of copying, and reviewing, all 41,000 pages of documents. Counsel 
for Defendants did not arrange for Mr. Smith’s presence at the inspection in February and indeed 
had no communication with him prior to the inspection. 
9
Special Master makes plain, what he means by this statement is that the billing records that he 
filed on April 1, 2003, indicated that an individual with the initials “MSS” had been working for 
him since February 27, 2003. The time records did not identify “MSS.” See Invoice #35, #37 
(attached as Exhibits D & E to the Motion for Disqualification). 
The Special Master’s reliance on the August 12, 1999 consent order dealing with 
retention and production of IIM records similarly fails to advance his argument. Pursuant to that 
Order, Interior advised field offices to provide the Special Master with full cooperation in his 
execution of document retention oversight. An “Anti-Reprisal Order” issued by the Special 
Master on February 8, 2001, advised employees that they could communicate directly with the 
Special Master in this regard. Neither the 1999 consent order nor the “Anti-Reprisal Order” had 
any application outside the specific context to which they were addressed, and clearly had no 
bearing on the 2003 investigation of NAID’s allegations. And, of course, nothing in these orders 
could remotely be construed to allow the Special Master to put hostile witnesses on his payroll to 
analyze evidence. Interior’s 1999 instruction to its field offices had no application to the NAID 
investigation and nothing to do with the Special Master’s hiring authority.8 
In sum, the Special Master’s attempt to infer constructive consent to his hiring of Mr. 
Smith fails at every turn. 
8/ Even in the context of the Special Master’s assignment to monitor the retention and protection 
of IIM records, the issue of his ex parte contacts has been the subject of much correspondence 
and dispute and has resulted in the government’s motion to preclude his use of ex parte contacts. 
See Interior Defendants’ Motion for An Order Directing the Special Master To Conform His 
Conduct To Limits Stated by the Court of Appeals; To Vacate Or Clarify Existing Orders As 
Appropriate; And to Act On This Motion on an Expedited Basis (Dkt. 2295) (pending since Sept. 
24, 2003). 
10
B. The Special Master’s Role In Investigating NAID’s allegations Did Not 
Authorize Him To Hire A Witness To Gather And Analyze The Evidence Of 
His Own Assertions. 
Similarly without basis is the Special Master’s suggestion that he was authorized to hire 
Mr. Smith without the government’s consent because “his role was limited simply to 
‘superintending compliance with the district court’s decree,’ i.e., the reporting requirements.” 
Special Master’s Response at 27 (quoting Cobell, 334 F.3d at 1143) (quoting Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 
F.2d 1115, 1162 (5th Cir.), amended in part, reh’g denied in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 
(5th Cir. 1982)). 
The Special Master’s misreading of the D.C. Circuit’s decision is remarkable. As the 
Court of Appeals explained, the Special Master’s role could not have been limited to enforcing a 
decree, “for there was no decree to enforce, let alone the sort of specific and detailed decree 
issued in Ruiz and typical of such cases.” Cobell, 334 F.3d at 1143; see also id. (contrasting the 
district court’s declaratory judgment ruling with “court decrees that are as thick as phone books”) 
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, the D.C. Circuit did not purport to endorse 
Ruiz even in the context of the administration of complex decrees because that question was not 
before it. And, of course, Ruiz itself lends no support for the hiring of adverse persons to help 
prepare decisions. 
The Special Master was not monitoring compliance with a complex decree, but 
investigating whether the government had committed contempt or fraud on the Court. Compare 
Cobell, 334 F.3d at 1148 (“the district court held Secretary Norton in contempt for ‘filing false 
and misleading quarterly status reports starting in March 2000, regarding TAAMS and BIA Data 
Cleanup’”) (quoting 226 F. Supp. 2d 1, 124 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2002); with Nov. 5, 2002 Order, at 
11
1 (“The Court wishes to ascertain whether there is any validity to NAID’s contention that the 
Department of Interior withheld information from the Court that should have been disclosed in 
the Eighth Quarterly Report; and is directing the Special Master to investigate whether Interior 
engaged in any such concealment.”). The Special Master’s findings and conclusions were 
pertinent to precisely the type of judicial determination contained in the Court’s contempt ruling, 
and were immediately understood as such by Plaintiffs when they filed the Special Master’s 
report with the Court of Appeals as evidence of “contumacious conduct.” See Exhibit C attached 
to the Motion for Disqualification. The Special Master’s suggestion that a judicial officer 
investigating such allegations can secretly hire the complaining witness is difficult to fathom. 
Additional Contentions of the Special Master Are Similarly Without Merit. C. 
Various additional contentions advanced by the Special Master are likewise devoid of 
merit. 
1. The Special Master urges that the recent amendments to Rule 53 validate his conduct 
and that the government “is viewing this case through an outdated lens.” Response at 13. 
One may search in vain for any aspect of the amendments that suggests that the Special 
Master’s conduct is anything but improper. As noted, the amendments remove any doubt that a 
master is subject to the same ethical constraints as a judge. To the extent that the rule 
countenances any departure from this standard, it requires the consent of the parties. See Rule 
53(a)(2). Amended Rule 53 further requires that “the circumstances – if any – in which the 
master may communicate ex parte with the court or a party” be set forth in the order appointing 
the master and defining his duties, which is subject to objection by the parties. Rule 53(b)(2)(B). 
Nothing in the amendments or their history suggest that they usher in a new era in which masters 
12
put witnesses on the payroll to analyze the evidence in support of their own allegations. To the 
contrary, the Advisory Committee Notes to the Rule 53 amendments caution that “[i]n most 
settings . . . ex parte communications with the parties should be discouraged or prohibited,” 
while recognizing that they may be appropriate in limited contexts such as “seeking to advance 
settlement,” or in “in camera review of documents to resolve privilege questions.” Note to 
subdivision (b). 
2. The Special Master’s contention that he was “compell[ed]” to hire Mr. Smith because 
the government “had failed to produce a host of relevant documents,” Response at 24, is difficult 
to fathom. If the Special Master was dissatisfied with the pace of the government’s document 
production, he could have sought an order from the district court. He was manifestly not free to 
hire the complaining witness to obtain information directly from that source.9 
In any event, Mr. Smith’s role was not limited to supplying documents. By the Special 
Master’s own account, Mr. Smith also “analyz[ed] the relevant documents, including material 
that Interior had filed with the Court.” Id. at 11. See also id. at 22 (“Smith’s work was 
consumed with records analysis”); id. (time entries “reflect Mr. Smith’s memorializing of his 
efforts to organize and record his analysis of the relevant documents”). Even assuming that 
9/ The Special Master’s allegations of “stalling” are without basis. He claims that it was not until 
February 2003 – over four months after his initial request for documents in October 2002 – that 
the government invited him to inspect the collection of responsive documents. See Response at 
20. The Special Master was not authorized to conduct his investigation until November 5, 2002. 
He also omits that Interior invited him to inspect the documents on December 10, 2002. Indeed, 
he accepted that invitation and then on the morning of the inspection sent his assistant, Shana 
Greatman, to inspect the documents on his behalf. See Letter From Phil Seligman to the Special 
Master (Jan. 29, 2003) (attached as Exhibit 1G). In any event, the accuracy of his “stalling” 
allegation is irrelevant to the issue of disqualification. We note that even by the Special Master’s 
own account he hired Mr. Smith after the government had responded to the Special Master’s 
document request. 
13
Mr. Smith did not draft or edit any of the report, that Mr. Smith was “consumed” with analyzing 
the evidence of his own allegations is quite sufficient to require the Special Master’s recusal. See 
Hall v. Small Business Admin., 695 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir. 1983) (in light of his law clerk’s 
conflict of interest, the magistrate judge’s recusal was required, and his “assertion that he had 
made up his mind immediately after hearing the case, without the law clerk’s assistance,” was 
“immaterial”).10 
3. It is also suggested that the Special Master may have rectified any problems created by 
hiring Mr. Smith by attaching the documents cited in his report. Such attachments alter neither 
the fact nor appearance of bias. In any event, such attachments cast no light on the extent to 
which the choice of documents was shaped by Mr. Smith. Nor, of course, do the documents 
reflect Mr. Smith’s “analysis,” which is part of the fabric of the report. Nor do they indicate 
which documents were reviewed but were not cited in the Special Master’s report. 
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, the Special Master's Response merely provides further support for his 
recusal. 
Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 5, 2004 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
10/ Although the Special Master suggests that Mr. Smith was hired for his “expertise,” Response 
at 2, 20, Mr. Smith’s only “expertise” was his first-hand knowledge and participation in the 
events which prompted NAID’s complaint against Interior. 
14
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ Sandra P. Spooner 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
15