IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Plaintitt_, Civil Action No. 96-1285 (JR) V. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et a 1,, Defendants. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT PART OF THE COURT S ORDER OF APRIL 20, 2007 DIRECTING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES TO PLAINTIFFS Defendants respectfully move the Court to reconsider that part of its Order of April 20, 2007, in which it approved the full amount of two fee petitions filed by Plaintitt_. Order of April 20, 2007, at 4-5 [Dkt No. 3312] ("Order"). In that portion of the Order, the Court states that the dollar amounts sought by Plaintitt_ had "not been seriously contested" by Defendants. Id.____ We respectfully request that the Court reconsider its Order, because Defendants in fact raised numerous, specific objections to the amounts requested and proposed alternative fee calculations to the Court that support just a fraction of Plaintitt_' fee claims. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), Defendants conferred with Plaintitt_' counsel about this motion and counsel indicated that Plaintitt_ will oppose the motion. BACKGROUND Plaintift_' fee requests follow from two orders entered by the Court in 2003. In one -1- instance, Plaintitt_ succeeded on a December 2002 motion to compel am answer from a deposition witness, Donna Erwin, to a question unrelated to the substance of the case. The Court compelled further deposition of Ms. Erwin and authorized Plaintitt_ to seek the reasonable fees incurred in pursuing their motion to compel and in conducting the follow-up deposition. Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 16, 32 (D.D.C. 2003). Plaintitt_ later claimed fees totaling $162,761.52 purportedly related to those two tasks. Defendants thereupon submitted a 19-page brief and appendix contesting most of the fees, disputing inflated billable rates, and asserting that the 468 hours billed were excessive and involved activities not reimbursable under the Court's sanctions order. See Defendants' Objections to Plaintitt_' Request For Attorney's [sic] Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Court's February 5, 2003 Ruling (Dec. 14, 2004) [Dkt No. 2783] (Exhibit A hereto). Defendants offered a competing fee calculation, which indicated that Plaintitt_ were entitled to $15,889.50, not the $162,761.52 they claimed. The second claim for fees arose from am order imposing sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g), based on Defendants' use of a declaration executed by Frank Sapienza, former Director of the General Services Administrations' Indian Trust Accounting Division. Cobell v. Norton, 214 F.R.D. 13 (D.D.C. 2003). Defendants had submitted the declaration to support a motion for partial summary judgment, filed in 2000. Based upon a hearsay statement made without personal knowledge by counsel for the Government Accountability Office in a letter, which appeared to contradict Mr. Sapienza, the Court found Mr. Sapienza's declaration false and authorized an award of fees and costs to "compensate PlaintifI_ for any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred.., as a result of opposing the claims set forth in the Sapienza Affidavit submitted in conjunction with" Defendants' motion. Id__._ at 22-23. -2- Plaintifl_ thereafter requested $356,804.12, reflecting 1,165.70 billable hours purportedly related to their 38-page opposition and appendix. Defendants objected to the fee request, filing Defendants' Corrected Objections to Plaintifl_' Statement of Fees and Expenses Filed June 21, 2004 (July 23, 2004) [Dkt No. 2619] (Exhibit B hereto). Defendants argued that Plaintifl_' request was so excessive the Court should deny am award altogether and, in the alternative, proposed a fee calculation demonstrating that Plaintifl_ were entitled to no more than $29,322.50. The Order of April 27, 2007 does not address Defendants' objections or alternate fee calculations and does not explain the reasonableness of the fees awarded. The Order states that "the government must now pay to plaintif_' counsel the sum of $519,565.64," after observing that the "dollar amounts of the [PlaintifI_' fee] statements have not been seriously contested," id____ at 4, and that the fee requests appeared "reasonable," id. at 5. Defendants respectfully move the Court, in the interest of justice, for reconsideration of the award. ARGUMENT JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT THE COURT RECONSIDER ITS AWARD OF FEES TO PLAINTIFFS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) "governs reconsideration of orders that do not constitute final judgments in a case." Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266, 271 (D.D.C. 2004). The Court has previously concluded that it "will adhere to the 'as justice requires' standard for determining whether to grant reconsideration of an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b)." Id.._, at 272. Application of this standard "amounts to determining, within the Court's discretion, whether reconsideration is necessary under the relevant circumstances." Id.____ The Court has stated that there "does not seem to be any real distinction" between the "as justice requires" -3- standard and that employed by other courts, such as the one in Neal v. Honeywell, No. 93-C- 1143, 1996 WL 627616 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 1996). Cobell, 224 F.R.D. at 272. In Neal, the court concluded that reconsideration is appropriate when "the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." Neal, 1996 WL 627616, at *2-3 (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). In light of the Court's observation that the fee requests were not "seriously contested," Defendants respectfully submit that the Court may have misapprehended Defendants' objections. Defendants did, in fact, contest the propriety and reasonableness of the fees claimed by Plaintitt_. As the Court noted in reviewing previous fee requests, "[t]he D.C. Circuit has admonished.., that 'where a fee is sought from the United States, which has infinite ability to pay, the court must scrutinize the claim with particular care. '''1 Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. 122, 125 (D.D.C. 1999) (quoting Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 888 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc)). Moreover, regardless of whether the Court decides to approve the full amount requested, reconsideration is necessary in order to set out the Court's reasons supporting its decision. As 1 Plaintitt_' previous fee requests establish a record of inflated claims and so warrant especially careful scrutiny: on Plaintitt_' petition in connection with the first contempt trial, the Court approved about 26% of Plaintitt_' request ($624,643.50 out of $2,366,684 sought), Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. at 123; on a sanctions award in 2002, the Court approved just over 30% of Plaintitt_' request ($125,484.87 out of $409,038.82 requested), Cobell v. Norton, 231 F. Supp. 2d 295,299 (D.D.C. 2002); and on Plaintitt_' interim fee request under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Court approved approximately 48% of the amount claimed ($7,066,471.77 out of $14,528,467.21 requested), Cobell v. Norton, 407 F. Supp. 2d 140, 144-45 (D.D.C. 2005). -4- the D.C. Circuit has stated, "a meaningful review requires a record that elucidates the factors that contributed to the fee decision and upon which it was based." Evans v. Sheraton Park Hotel, 503 F.2d 177, 188 (D.C. Cir. 1974); see also Davy v. CIA, 456 F.3d 162, 167 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("If the district court fails to articulate the basis for its attorney fee decision, we believe remand for adequate explanation of its reasoning is in order." (citing Copelaaad v. Marshall, 641 F.2d at 901 n.39). Thus, we respectfully request that the Court grant reconsideration in order to articulate its reasons for any fees and costs the Court approves upon consideration of Defendants' objections. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the award of fees granted by the Court in its Order of April 20, 2007 should be granted. Dated: April 26, 2007 Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL F. HERTZ Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Director /s/Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Deputy Director D.C. Bar No. 406635 MICHAEL J. QUINN Trial Attorney D.C. Bar No. 401376 Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 (202) 616-0328 -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on April 26, 2007 the foregoing Defendants 'Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order ofApril 20, 2007 Directing Payment ofAttorney Fees to Plaintiffs' 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 all. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:96cv01285 (JR) ) DIRK KEMPTHORNE, ) Secretary of the Interior, et all. ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' 'Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's' Order ofApril 20, 2007 Directing Payment ofAttorney Fees to Plaintiff;' [Dkt. No. ]. Upon consideration of said Motion, any opposition and reply thereto, and the entire record of this case, it is hereby ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the one paragraph of Court's Order of April 20, 2007 [3312] addressing Plaintiffs' fee requests and ordering the government to pay $519,565.64 to Plaintiffs counsel is hereby VACATED, without effect to the remainder of said Order; and it is further ORDERED, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' fee requests of June and November 2004, [2596] and [2762], and Defendants objections thereto, [2619] and [2783], that the government shall pay to Plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $ , for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum. SO ORDERED. Dated: ,2007 Hon. James Robertson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S FEBRUARY 5, 2003 RULING In its February 5, 2003 ruling, this Court imposed sanctions under Fed. R. Cir. P. 37 upon certain of defendants' counsel because the Court found they had improperly' asserted the attorney-client privilege as to a question plaintiffs had posed to then-Acting Special Trustee Donna Erwin during her December 20, 2002 deposition. Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 16 (2003) (the "Feb. 5, 2003 Order"). Specifically, the Court ordered defense counsel to pay plaintiffs for two categories of fees and expenses: (1) "all reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in making plaintiffs' motion to compel" Donna Erwin to respond tlhe question as to which the privilege had been asserted and (2) "all reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred as a result of having to re-depose Donna Erwin." Id. at 32. On November 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a "Report on the Status of the Evidence Concerning Defendants' and the Department of Justice's Misrepresentations to this Court on December 13 and December 17, 2003 and Request for Attorney's Fees with Respect Thereto" (Plaintiffs' "Report"). The title of the filing itself reveals that the plaintiffs have grossly EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 1 of 76 misconstrued the scope of the Feb. 5, 2003 Order. Defendants have moved to strike the "Report" which was both unauthorized and improper, and any fees associated with the generation of the "Report" should be disallowed. See Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' "Report" Regarding the Erwin Scheduling Matter and Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof (both filed Nov. 29, 2004) (collectively, "Defendant's Motion to Strike"). While plaintiffs' fee petition should have been limited to the two categories of work set out in the Feb. 5, 2003 Order, plaintiffs have submitted a petition for fees far beyond that authorized by the Court. Plaintiffs' claim of $162,761.52, representing some 468 hours, for a motion to compel on a single unanswered deposition question and the re-posing of that question is facially excessive. Not only do plaintiffs seek fees for categories beyond those for which the Court imposed sanctions, but they seek fees for four different individuals, including three attorneys, for obviously duplicative and non-productive work. Background In early December 2002, plaintiffs sought to take the deposition of Donna Erwin, who was then the Acting Special Trustee, as part of the preparation for Trial 1.5. The government sought to defer Ms. Erwin's deposition, and that of Bert Edwards, until after January 6, 2003, the date the Court had assigned for the government to file its historical accounting plan. As grounds for the motion, the government argued that Ms. Erwin was intensely involved in the creation of the plans and had certain personal obligations in late December 2002 that would make it overly burdensome for her to be deposed before January 6, 2003. The Court held a hearing on the matter on December 13, 2002. A misunderstanding between government counsel and Donna -2- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 2 of 76 Erwin and her staff resulted in inaccurate information concerning Ms. Erwin's plans to be in Washington, DC prior to January 6, 2003 being given to the Court at the December 13 hearing. The Court ordered Ms. Erwin to submit to deposition the week following the December 13 hearing, but directed that the deposition be conducted in Albuquerque, New' Mexico, where Ms. Erwin resided. Following a subsequent hearing before the Court on December 17, 2002 at which government counsel attempted to explain the misunderstanding regarding Ms. Erwin's schedule, Ms. Erwin was deposed by plaintiffs in Washington, DC on December 20, 2002. Ms. Erwin was not called to appear in person as a witness by either side at Trial 1.5. Plaintiffs began the December 20, 2002 deposition of Ms. Erwin at approximately 10:30 am and agreed to conclude questioning by 4:30 pm so that Ms. Erwin could make her flight back to Albuquerque. Dec. 20, 2002 Erwin Dep. at 4 (Exhibit A). Shortly before 4:30, having apparently concluded their questioning of Ms. Erwin regarding Trial 1.5 issues, plaintiffs' counsel asked Ms. Erwin regarding the December 13 and 17, 2002 hearings: "And you believe your attorneys have been fully truthful with the Court?" Id. at 284; see also id. at 289 (noting time of 4:38 pm). Government counsel asserted a privilege and, after a conference with Ms. Erwin, directed her not to answer the question.1 On or about January 1, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Ms. Erwin to answer the question. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on January 15, 2003, and plaintiffs filed their reply on January 28, 2003. On February 5, 2003, the Court granted the motion. The Court also awarded plaintiffs sanctions for reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in presenting Iplaintiffs' counsel asked variations on this same question in the ensuing minutes and were met with the same objection by government counsel. -3- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 3 of 76 the motion to compel and in re-deposing Ms. Erwin upon the matter she had been directed not to answer. Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 16, 32-33 (D.D.C. 2003) (the "Feb. 5, 2003 Order"). The Court did not in that order or subsequently authorize or direct the plaintiffs or anyone else to file a "report" regarding the Erwin scheduling matter. Ms. Erwin retained personal counsel and submitted to re-deposition on February 12 and 13, 2003. She was re-deposed again on October 14, 2004, pursuant to the Court's September 2, 2004 Memorandum and Order at 7 ("Sept. 2, 2004 Order"). Argument The Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order very clearly limited plaintiffs' fee award to time and expenses for the motion to compel and to re-deposing Ms. Erwin on the question about whether she believed the government's attorneys had made misrepresentations to the Court in the December 13 and 17, 2002 hearings. The purpose of the sanctions award was to compensate plaintiffs, as the successful moving party, for "the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees .... " Fed. R. Cir. P. 37(a)(4)(A). The rule does not provide for punitive damages, and this Court never indicated that it intended to impose any sanctions beyond those authorized by the rule. A. Application of Legal Standards to Plaintiffs' Petition This Court has previously held that "[t]he proper method of awarding attorneys' fees for a violation of Rule 37 is the lodestar method in which the court multiplies a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours expended." Cobell v. Norton, 231 F. Supp. 2d 295, 300 (D.D.C. 2002). As the fee applicants, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that their petition -4- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 4 of 76 is limited to the scope of the Court's award and is otherwise reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983) ("[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates."); American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 72 F.3d 907, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1995); In reNorth, 59 F.3d 184, 189 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Cobell, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 300. Applying these criteria, as explained below, defendants submit that plaintiffs' fee award should be limited to $14,428.00. 1. Hourly Rates Plaintiffs seek fees for their counsel at hourly rates that comport with the Laffey Matrix 2, and defendants do not object to these rates in the computation of the fee award. However, because plaintiffs could have - and should have - completed their re-deposition of Ms. Erwin upon the question that was the subject of their motion to compel in February 2003, defendants submit that plaintiffs' counsel's hourly rates should be those set forth by the Laffey Matrix in effect from June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003. That Matrix is attached as Exhibit J. Accordingly, defendants do not object to the following hourly rates for plaintiffs' counsel: Mark Brown: $370 Dennis Gingold: $370 Keith Harper: $265 Defendants do, however, object to the rates sought for non-attorney Geoffrey Rempel. While the Court has previously awarded plaintiffs fees for Mr. Rempel based upon his 2As this Court has previously observed, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 302, the :matrix first developed in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), and updated in subsequent years has been accepted in this Circuit as an appropriate standard for prevailing market rates in this community. Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995). -5- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 5 of 76 qualifications as a certified public accountant ("CPA"), it is clear from the records submitted in the present petition that Mr. Rempel performed no work for which accounting expertise was required, but rather performed paralegal and clerical type work. Accordingly, if the Court awards plaintiffs any compensation at all for Mr. Rempel's work 3, it should be at the paralegal rate set forth by the June 2002-May 2003 Laffey Matrix - i.e., $100. 2. Hours Expended In addressing a previous fee request made under Rule 37 in this case, this Court observed that "[a] near 'but for' relationship must exist between the Rule 37 violation and the activity for which fees and expenses are awarded." Cobell, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 303-04, quoting Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. 122, 127 (D.D.C. 1999). Thus, the Court held that plaintiffs could "recover for expenses that directly arise from [the activity for which sanctions were imposed], not for expenses incurred while engaged in other matters." Cobell, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 304. Accordingly, plaintiffs' fee award should be limited to (a) a reasonable number of hours expended upon the preparation of their motion to compel and their reply to the defendants' opposition to the motion, as well review of the Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order, and (b) a reasonable number of hours to re-depose Ms. Erwin upon the question she was directed not to answer and some time for follow up. See Sept. 2, 2004 Order at 4 ("The February 2003 opinion granted plaintiffs prospective relief in the form of a second deposition of Ms. Erwin, and compensatory relief in the form of sanctions for having to redepose Ms. Erwin and file a motion to compel. 3As discussed further below, Mr. Rempel's work for which plaintiffs seek compensation here was not within the scope of the Court's fee award and/or was duplicative or unnecessary. -6- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 6 of 76 Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. at 28, 32. Plaintiffs have received all of the relief to which they are entitled."). However, in the current petition, plaintiffs seek fees for activities that are far beyond the scope of the Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order and for activities they clearly would have engaged in whether or not defense counsel had interposed the privilege objection that was overruled in that Order. These sorts of activities do not meet the "but for" test, and no fees should be allowed for them, as explained further below. (a) Reasonable Time Expended on Motion to Compel A summary of the fees plaintiffs seek for work that "directly arise[s] from" their motion to compel Ms. Erwin to respond to the question as to which the privilege had been asserted is set forth below. 4 Defendants do not object to the fees sought for Mr. Harper's work on the motion to compel, as it appears from the records that he was the principal drafter of the motion and the reply, and his total time expended on preparing the motion, reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply, and reviewing the Court's opinion (37.9 hours) is reasonable. Defendants also do not object to a reasonable amount of time for another of plaintiffs' counsel - either Mr. Brown or Mr. Gingold, but not both - to review and comment upon Mr. Harper's draft briefs. Mr. Brown spent 1.166 hours reviewing the motion to compel, and 3.25 hours reviewing the reply and discussing it with Mr. Harper. Defendants believe this time is reasonable. Defendants also do not object to an award to Mr. Brown for one hour to review the 4A detailed compilation of plaintiffs' petition for fees related to this activity is set out in Exhibit B. -7- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 7 of 76 Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order (the same amount of time charged by Mr. Harper), since Mr. Brown took the December 20, 2002 and the February 2003 depositions of Ms. Erwin. 5 Defendants object to the time charged for Mr. Gingold's participation in the motion to compel. Mr. Harper was an attorney with approximately 9 years of experience, including 7 years on this case, at the time he prepared the motion and reply (Harper Dec. ¶¶ 1, 8), and he therefore did not require supervision by two senior attorneys. See Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. and Energy Recovery Special ServiceDist. v. EPA, 169 F.3d 755,761 (D.C. Cir. 1999)(per curiam) (reducing fee request for duplication of effort, including multiple attorneys :reviewing and editing briefs); Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 972 (D.D.C. 2004) (criticizing fee application for including billings for three senior attorneys). The motion to compel did not address any special or complicated legal questions that required multiple senior attorneys to review it. Accordingly, Mr. Gingold's review of the motion to compel was duplicative of Mr. Brown's and should not be included in the fee award. If plaintiffs wish, in the alternative to seek compensation for Mr. Gingold's review of the motion to compel (totaling 3.5 hours on January 1, 2003) and conferences with Mr. Harper regarding the motion (totaling 1.1 hours on December 21, 2002, December 26, 2002 and January 1, 2003), defendants would not object so long as they do not also obtain fees for Mr. Brown's review of the same motion on December 30, 2002 and 5In two entries for February 5, 2003, Mr. Brown charged for reading: two opinions that the Court issued that day and for conferring with Mr. Harper "re: strategy" for a total of 2.25 hours. See Exhibit B. Because it is unclear how much of these activities "directly ar[o]se from" the motion to compel Ms. Erwin's testimony, and it is plaintiffs' burden to establish their entitlement to fees, we submit that it is appropriate for the Court to limit plaintiffs' request in this regard to one hour for Mr. Brown's review of the ruling on the motion to compel. See Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 970-71 (D.D.C. 2004) (noting difficulties presented when time records lump multiple tasks together). -8- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 8 of 76 January 1, 2003 (totaling 1.166 hours). This alternative calculation is shown in the second table below. Accordingly, defendants submit that plaintiffs' fee award concerning the motion to compel should be computed as follows: , ..... ..... Attomey Rate Hours Fee I Keith Harper $265 37.9 $10,043.50 Mark Brown $370 5.416 $ 2,003.92 TOTAL 43.316 $12,047.42 OR Attorney ............ Keith Harper $265 37.9 $10,043.50 Mark Brown $370 4.25 $ 1,572.50 Dennis Gingold $370 4.6 $ 1,702.00 TOTAL 46.75 $13,318.00 (b) Reasonable Time to Re-Depose Ms. Erwin Ms. Erwin was directed not to answer a single question (whether she believed defendants' attorneys had been "entirely truthful" to the Court in the December 13 and 17, 2002 hearings) and a variation on that question (whether she believed defendants' attorneys had made any "misrepresentations" to the Court at those hearings). The plaintiffs themselves acknowledged in their motion to compel that this question had been posed "near[] the close of the deposition for -Q- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 9 of 76 that day .... " Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel at 3. Ms. Erwin had already sat through 6 hours of deposition when the question arose, and the Rules limited plaintiffs to 7 hours in a single day, absent leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). Thus, allowing one hour for lunch, plaintiffs could not have deposed Ms. Erwin on December 20, 2002 for more than an additional two hours even if no objection had been interposed. Indeed, after the Court granted the motion to compel, two hours should have been more than sufficient for plaintiffs to re-pose the question as to which the objection had been made and to conduct reasonable follow up. Further, no additional preparation should have been needed simply to re-pose the same question plaintiffs' counsel had already asked Ms. Erwin on December 20, 2002. 6 Defendants do not object to time expended in February 2003 to arrange the date for the re-deposition with government counsel and with Ms. Erwin's private counsel, although we believe these arrangements could have been accomplished in no more than one hour in total. 7 Accordingly, plaintiffs should be awarded a maximum of two hours of Mr. Brown's time to re- pose the question allowed by the Feb. 5, 2003 Order and one hour to arrange the re-deposition, for a total of$1,110.00 ($370/hour x 3 hours). 8 6As noted above, defendants do not object to an award of one hour e, ach for Mr. Harper and Mr. Brown to review the Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order so that they would be aware of the scope of the Court's ruling. Review of the Order should have been sufficient preparation for the re-deposition of Ms. Erwin. 7Mr. Gingold apparently undertook to arrange the deposition date. See Exhibit B (Gingold entries for 2/5/03 and 2/6/03). Since his hourly rate is the same as Mr. Brown's, defendants have no objection to compensating plaintiffs for one hour of Mr. Gingold's time in this regard. 8Defendants acknowledge that in prior rulings involving fee awards under Rule 37, this Court has held that across-the-board percentage reductions for entire fee awards are the preferred (continued...) -10- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 10 of 76 Accordingly, plaintiffs' total fee award under the Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order should be no more than $14,428.00 ($13,318.00 + $1,110.00) B. The Court Should Deny the Remainder of Plaintiffs' Petition Because It Seeks Fees for Matters That Did Not "Directly Arise" From Defense Counsel's Privilege Objection. Plaintiffs wish to charge defense counsel with costs having nothing to do with the privilege asserted at the end of the December 20, 2002 Erwin deposition or the subsequent motion to compel. Plaintiffs seek compensation for activities relating to the scheduling and taking of Ms. Erwin's December 20, 2002 deposition - all activities that occurred before the privilege had even been asserted. Those activities, aggregated in Exhibit C, cannot possibly be deemed to have arisen from the privilege assertion or the motion to compel. These activities total 83.043 hours, and plaintiffs' request of $27,809.91 (at 2002-03 rates) for these activities should be denied in total. Plaintiffs also seek compensation in connection with document requests that they elected to serve with their notices of deposition upon Ms. Erwin and her assistant, Michelle Singer, after this Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order was issued. See Exhibit E. Time spent on these document requests cannot be compensable because plaintiffs have failed to show a "but for'connection 8(...continued) practice in this Circuit for challenging fee petitions on grounds of excessive: time expenditure. Cobell, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 305; Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. 122, 126 (D.D.C. 1999). In this opposition, however, defendants are making specific objections to specific time entries, and accordingly, we do not propose an across-the-board percentage cut. -ll- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 11 of 76 between the defendants' objection at the Dec. 20, 2002 deposition of Ms. Erwin and the document requests. At the time plaintiffs originally posed their question to Ms. Erwin on Dec. 20, 2002, they did not have any of the documents they subsequently requested, and indeed they had not even issued a request for those documents. The privilege assertion did not somehow prevent plaintiffs from asking Ms. Erwin about the documents, because plaintiffs had not yet requested them. Accordingly, there is no "but for" connection between the privilege assertion and the document requests. Rather, it appears that plaintiffs' counsel issued the document requests as part of plan to further "investigate" the Erwin scheduling issue after the Court had already ruled upon their motion to compel. Plaintiffs' election to expand the scope of their inquiry was theirs alone: the Court did not direct or authorize them to do this 9, and it did not include their work on the document requests within the scope of the Rule 37 sanctions order. Defendants responded to the document requests, and plaintiffs never filed any challenge to those responses. Accordingly, compensation sought by plaintiffs for time spent preparing the document requests and reviewing the responses (8.216 hours) should be denied. Likewise, the time sought by plaintiffs for activities in connection with Michelle Singer's deposition (a total of 25.2 hours) are not compensable under the Feb. 5, 2003 Order. See Exhibit F. Plaintiffs never sought to depose Ms. Singer before the issuance of the Feb. 5, 2003 Order, and defendants never objected to producing her. Accordingly, there is no basis to include work associated with her deposition in the Rule 37 fee award, and plaintiffs cannot be compensated for these activities. 9Indeed, as argued in Defendants' Motion to Strike, plaintiffs were legally disqualified from acting in the capacity of a special master or special prosecutor in an investigation of their opposing counsel. The Court so held in its Sept. 2, 2004 Order at 4-5. -12- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 12 of 76 As noted above, defendants' objection at the Dec. 20, 2002 deposition prevented plaintiffs from questioning Ms. Erwin about the scheduling issue for, at most, two additional hours. At the re-deposition in February 2003, however, plaintiffs decided to depose Ms. Erwin on a variety of matters that had nothing to do with the subject of their motion to compel, including Trial 1.5 issues, the scope of a fiduciary's privileges, and the deliberative process privilege. Both government counsel and Ms. Erwin's personal attorney urged plaintiffs' counsel to restrict their questioning to the matter covered by the Feb. 5, 2003 Order or at least to complete questioning on that matter first before moving on to other topics, but plaintiffs' counsel refused, and the then-Special Master Monitor did not direct them to proceed as suggested. Exhibit A at 503-08 (Feb. 12, 2003); 543-44; 711-12 (Feb. 13, 2003); see also Exhibit A at 813- 16 (Oct. 14, 2004 Dep.) (colloquy between Ms. Erwin's personal counsel, Mr. Reynolds, and plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Brown, referencing earlier depositions). Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel spent substantial time both in the two February 2003 deposition sessions and in the October 2004 session questioning Ms. Erwin about documents that had been produced pursuant to the document requests issued after the Feb. 5, 2003 Order. While defendants did not object to the questioning concerning the produced documents, that questioning certainly did not have a "but for" connection to the privilege assertion because, as noted above, plaintiffs had not even issued the document requests at the time defendants interposed the privilege objection at the Dec. 20, 2002 deposition. Significantly, plaintiffs did not even get around to re-posing the particular question that had been the subject of their motion to compel until well into the second session with Ms. Erwin on February 13, 2004. See Exhibit A at 627-28; 645-55. Because plaintiffs could have accomplished the limited re-deposition for which they received the sanctions award in -13- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 13 of 76 less than half a day in February 2003, the Court should not allow plaintiffs compensation for any time expended in arranging, preparing for and taking the third day of deposition in October 2004.1° Defense counsel cannot be held liable for plaintiffs' lengthy circumnavigation of the single issue as to which the Court had ordered relief. Plaintiffs' counsel also seek substantial compensation for "strategizing" and "preparing" for Ms. Erwin's two deposition sessions in February 2003. As noted above, no preparation was required simply to re-pose the question the Court had directed Ms. Erwin to answer in its Feb. 5, 2003 Order, other than reading the Order itself. The "strategizing", "discussing" and "preparing" activities appear related to plaintiffs' decision to question Ms. Erwin about other matters and about the documents that had been produced. Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to prove that time spent on these activities "ar[o]se directly from" the privilege assertion at the Dec. 20, 2002 deposition, and they should not receive compensation for it. Certainly, plaintiffs have not demonstrated why three lawyers (Messrs. Brown, Gingold and Harper) were needed to "prepare" to ask Ms. Erwin the single question she had previously been directed not to answer, or why Mr. mOn October 14, 2004, plaintiffs held their third session with Ms. Erwin on the scheduling issue after the Court, having reviewed the transcripts from the two February 2003 sessions, sua sponte afforded them a final day of deposition with Ms. Erwin. Sept. 2, 2004 Order at 6, 7. Again, plaintiffs' counsel took well over an hour before finally asking the question defense counsel had objected to at the Dec. 20, 2002 deposition. Exhibit A at 804 (showing start time of 10:03 am); 856 (showing a break from 11:13 to 11 : 15); 871 (questions regarding whether government counsel were "forthcoming" with the Court at the December 2002 hearings). The time objected to on this ground is included in Exhibit D and totals over 35 hours (Brown entries from 10/10/04 throughl0/14/04, totaling over 33 hours; Gingold entries from 9/8/04 to 9/24/04, totaling 1.7 hours), an astounding figure for a deposition that lasted under fi_ur hours and should not have been necessary at all. Exhibit A at 938 (showing concluding time of 1:33 pm). -14- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 14 of 76 Harper was needed at the deposition. _ In short, the time records and transcripts make clear that plaintiffs' counsel did not intend to limit their interrogation of Ms. Erwin to the question the Court had compelled her to answer in the Feb. 5, 2003 Order. That was plaintiffs' choice, and they cannot look to defense counsel to compensate them for it. Finally, plaintiffs seek a total of $37,432.99, representing 96.988 hours at 2002-03 rates, spent by three attorneys compiling and reviewing their "Report on the Status of the Evidence Concerning Defendants' and the Department of Justice's Misrepresentations to this Court on December 13 and December 17, 2003 [sic]" - a document which the Court did not ask for, which does not comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and which represents a biased "investigation" that plaintiffs' counsel were legally ineligible to undertake against their adversaries in this civil case. See Defendants' Motion to Strike. Time related to this activity is assembled in Exhibit H. Plaintiffs' unilateral decision to prepare and file this report is no different from the show cause motion that this Court found outside its Rule 37 order in Cobell, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 304. Whether or not the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Strike plaintiffs' "Report", it is clear that plaintiffs may not be compensated under' Rule 37 for generating it. The balance of the activities for which plaintiffs seek remuneration do not bear a clear "but for" relationship to the two activities for which the Court awarded fees; in the Feb. 5, 2003 _lTime entries objected to on this ground are also included in Exhibit D and total almost 129 hours. Further, defendants object to all the time sought by plaintiffs for Mr. Rempel's activities. Mr. Rempel was not involved in any way in the motion to compel, and it is clear from his time entries that his work was either duplicative of the attorneys' work or simply cannot be said to have "directly arise[n] from" the privilege assertion and the Court's directive that Ms. Erwin submit to re-deposition upon the question she had been directed not to answer. -15- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 15 of 76 Order. As noted above, plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating their entitlement to the fees they seek. The activities as to which plaintiffs have failed to make adequate proof are set forth in Exhibit G, and plaintiffs should not receive compensation for those items, u C. Fee Petition Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable compensation for preparing their fee petition. However, plaintiffs clearly seek too much in this regard.13 The only work fi?r which the Court ordered Rule 37 sanctions was clearly delimited by date (from the day after Ms. Erwin's December 20, 2002 deposition until the filing of plaintiffs' reply brief on January 28, and then time to review the Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order and to set up and retake Ms. Erwin's deposition pursuant to the Order). Had plaintiffs' counsel limited themselves to the actual scope of the 12Numerous items included in other exhibits also fall into this category. For example, plaintiffs should not be compensated for "summariz[ing] Erwin deposition transcripts" because they would have done that in preparation for Trial 1.5 whether or not Ms. Erwin had answered the question as to which privilege was asserted. See Exhibit H (Brown entries for 5/21/03 and 5/22/03). Likewise, there has been no showing as to why research regarding "Chinese Walls", conducted after Ms. Erwin's redeposition in February 2003, had anything to do with the question the Court had compelled her to answer in the Feb. 5, 2003 Order. See Exhibit D (Brown entries for 2/18/03, 2/19/03, 3/3/03). Similarly, plaintiffs seek compensation for Mr. Brown's three conversations with a court reporter in late December 2002 regarding the Erwin deposition. See Exhibit G (totaling .916 hours). But plaintiffs present no evidence that these calls were particularly related to the motion to compel as opposed to the other activities relating to the preparation of the historical accounting plan and Trial 1.5. Also, it is not clear why plaintiffs' counsel should be compensated for discussing the "Erwin situation" with Eloise Cobell when it is unclear that those conversations were limited to the motion to compel and the redeposition of Ms. Erwin upon the one question she had been directed not to answer, as opposed to discussions regarding questions on other, non-compensable matters. See Exhibit D (Gingold entry for 1/9/03); Exhibit G (Brown entry for 1/17/030; Gingold entries for 2/5/03 and 2/11/03). _3Plaintiffs' request for fees in connection with preparing their fee petition are assembled in Exhibit I. -16- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 16 of 76 Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order, it would not have required a total of over 37 hours by three attorneys and one paralegal to compile and edit the compensable time. Likewise, plaintiffs' counsel have already prepared and submitted declarations concerning their qualifications and rates in connection with earlier fee petitions in this case. It should not have taken them multiple hours to update those declarations for purposes of this petition. Further, plaintiffs should have asked Ms. Erwin in February 2003 the question the Court had compelled her to answer in its Feb. 5, 2003 Order. For whatever reason, they did not do so. Certainly, there was nothing preventing them from asking that question in the two sessions they had with Ms. Erwin at that time. It was also plaintiffs' decision to wait more than 20 months to file their fee petition. Defendants should not be charged a higher rate simply because of plaintiffs' delay. Accordingly, the rates that should apply to plaintiffs' fees on fees award should be those set out in the 2002-03 Laffey Matrix (Exhibit J). Consistent with this Court's method in Cobell, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 307, plaintiffs' request for fees incurred in preparing their fee petition should be reduced in the same proportion as that between their non-compensable time and their compensable time. This method results in a reduction to 10.63% of the total hours plaintiffs seek for their fee petition (37.131 hours), for a total of 3.95 hours, as shown below: Total Compensable Hours = 49.7514 = 10.63% Total Hours Sought = 468.224 is 14This figure represents the 46.75 hours shown in the second table in Part A(2)(a) above added to the three hours set forth in Part A(2)(b). _SThis figure is derived from adding together the hours reported by Messrs. Brown, Gingold, Harper and Rempel in the fee petition. -17- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 17 of 76 Multiplying the reduced hours (3.95) by the rate of the highest billers for the appropriate time period ($370) yields a maximum award of $1,461.50 for plaintiffs' attorneys' work on the fee petition. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs should receive a maximum of $15,889.50 ($14,428.00 + $1,461.50) for work "directly aris[ing] from" the motion to compel and the Court's Feb. 5, 2003 Order allowing re-deposition of Ms. Erwin upon the question as to which the Court found the privilege had improperly been asserted, including reasonable fees for preparing their fee petition. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General STUART E. SCHIFFER Deputy Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL F. HERTZ Director / //r_ //2A 4S , DCd e Wel, 5 D.C. Bar 1'_0./425194 Tracy L. HWmer D.C. Bar No. 421219 Attorneys Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 261 -18- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 18 of 76 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 307-0474 DATED: December 14, 2004 -19- EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 19 of 76 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on December 14, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs'Request for Attorneys'Fees and Expenses Pursuant to with the Court's February 5, 2003 Ruling 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 EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 20 of 76 Transcript of the Testimony of: DONNA ERWTN Date: December 20, 2002 Case: CORBELL v DEPT. OF INTERIOR NEAL R. GROSS & CO., INC. 20:2.234.4433 1323 Rhode Island Ave., NW fax 202.387.7330 Washington, DC 20005-3701 info@nealrgross.com EXHIBIT A Del_mdants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Court's February 5, 2003 Ruling Page 1 of 39 .................................................. . .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. EXHIR!Z._ Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 21 of 76 Page 4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (10:35 a.m.) 3 Whereupon, 4 DONNA ERWlN 5 was called as a witness by counsel for the plaintiffs 6 and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and 7 testified as follows: 8 MR. BROWN: Good morning, Ms. Erwin. My 9 name is Mark Brown. I am one of the attorneys for the 10 plaintiffs. I apologize for our late start here. You 11 need to catch a plane and be out of here at 4:30. Is 12 that right? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 MR. BROWN: All right. We are going to do 15 our best to accommodate you. 16 MS. SPOONER: We really appreciate that. 17 Can I have a moment to put a couple of 18 things on the record? 19 MR. BROWN: Sure. 20 MS. SPOONER: First is to thank you for 21 agreeing to start earlier, although I know that wasn't 22 the detail there, and for agreeing to let Ms. Erwin EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 39 ..... ........................ ,: _ _ F v-w_Z._ ........... Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorne Fees t Plainti fs 2927_c45-7e_e-426c-_463-dbbfObb19735 Page 22 of 76 Page 284 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 By MR. BROWN: 3 Q And you believe your attorneys have been 4 fully truthful with the Court? 5 MS. SPOONER: I'm going to object on that 6 on the grounds that it's protected by the attorney- 7 client privilege. 8 MR. BROWN: It can't possibly be. 9 MR. KIEFFER: It's her belief she has 10 about her attorneys. It's not whether her attorney 11 said -- 12 MS. SPOONER: Yes, except that we've had 13 a number of discussions about that and I don't 14 believe, as with Ms. Skobell, when Mr. Gingold made 15 objections that she can properly separate her 16 discussions with her attorneys from her beliefs. 17 MR. GINGOLD : We're dealing with a 18 finding by the Court that Ms. Erwin deliberately 19 deceived the Court. That's a finding of fraud with no 20 exceptions to privilege to the extent it exists 21 applies here in the -- 22 MS. SPOONER: Absolutely not. I'm EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A_omey Fees t 9 Pl_ti_'s .......... Z _ _'/cc4t)-/eTe-4z bC-_J,R.b...t-a D OTU D D l 9735 Page 23 of 76 Page 289 1 THE WITNESS: No. 2 MR. BROWN: Who is your personal counsel? 3 THE WITNESS: I am just in the process of 4 discussing with someone. 5 MR. BROWN: So you have not obtained 6 personal counsel? 7 THE WITNESS: I've not obtained personal 8 counsel. I am in the process. 9 MR. BROWN: Okay. Ms. Erwin, don't you 10 have the opportunity to do that. 11 MS. SPOONER: Ms. Erwin has to go. It's 12 now 4:37 by my clock. 13 MR. BROWN: Well, we've taken that break, 14 so I want to finish that line of questions. 15 MS. SPOONER: We were 5 minutes on that 16 break. It's now 4:38 by my clock. 17 MR. BROWN: Are you instructing her not to 18 answer any further questions? 19 MS. SPOONER: What other lines of 20 questioning do you have? 21 MR. BROWN: We're going to find out. 22 MS. SPOONER: No, given those certain EXHIBIT a Page 4 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorne Fees t Plaintif s 2927_c45-7e_e-426c-_,63-d b bfObb 19735 Page 24 of 76 Transcript of the Testimony of: DONNA ERWIN Date: February 12, 2003 Case: COBELL v DEPT. OF INTERIOR NEAL R. GROSS & CO., INC. 202_.234.4433 1323 Rhode Island Ave., NW fax 202.387.7330 Washington, DC 20005-3701 info@nealrgross.com EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 25 of 76 Page 503 1 record. 2 THE WITNESS: I donlt believe that[s what 3 I testified that Ms. Singer said. 4 BY MR. BROWN: 5 Q How is that inaccurate? 6 A Ms. Singer made a general comment that she 7 thought that as it dealt with records there were some 8 problems there between the records in Justice. I have 9 never had any. I have never had a problem with 10 Justice Department up until this point. 11 MR. BROWN: I think we can probably break 12 at this point. 13 MR. KIEFFER: Right now. What time do you 14 want to start tomorrow morning? 15 MR. BROWN: 10:00 a.m. 16 MR. KIEFFER: She has a 6:00 p.m. plane 17 which means she probably has to leave here about 4:30 18 p.m. You understand the limitation on your time. 19 MR. BROWN: I understand that as to this 20 subject matter. 21 MR. KIEFFER: Okay. 22 MR. WELLS: That[s fine with me. I[m EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of At_obr_5_ e __Sgt_lP/l_a_3q3i_'. _ f 5 f,1Ff 021567c731 f Page 26 of 76 Page 504 1 going to have at least an hour and a half questions. 2 So I donlt know if we start at 10:00 a.m., we{ll be 3 finished by 4:30 p.m. You might want to start 4 earlier. 5 MR. KIEFFER: YouJjre going to have 6 questions after hels finished. It may mean you may 7 have to come back another day then. I',m not going to 8 limit his ability to cross examine her because you may 9 have questions. 10 MR. WELLS: I understand that. If we',re 11 trying to get done, it should be everybody should have 12 a fair shot while she',s here. Ifit',s that 13 complicated, we could start as early as 8:00 a.m. to 14 get this done. 15 MR. K1EFFER: And that{s fine with me. 16 MR. HARPER: I don',t want to start that 17 early. 18 MR. WELLS: Okay. 19 MR. HARPER: If you want to start at 9:30 20 a.m., that',s fine. 21 MR. BROWN: Are you ruling that he 22 absolutely has to ask his questions tomorrow? EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 39 ,_ _ EXHIIRIT A ............................... Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of ABg_t_/e_ge _ g3 _l_f_f5 f- 10215b7c731f Page 27 of 76 Page 505 1 MR. KIEFFER: No. I_m trying to 2 accommodate both sides here. I want this on the 3 record. We know Ms. Erwin has to leave at 4:30 p.m. 4 from here. 5 MR. REYNOLDS: I_d like to interject 6 another thought for what itls worth which is she has 7 outside counsel to deal with but I think is this part 8 of the deposition. If she comes back it could well be 9 that items not really something that{s going to require 10 outside counsel to be present because if_s going to 11 involve a whole lot ofwhat{s going on officially in 12 this lawsuit thales not what F_m about. So my point 13 is my strong preference would be to try to wind up a 14 deposition if we can on this point which could save 15 the Government money which I would hope they would 16 want to do and also a lot of time and inconvenience if 17 we could do it. If the rest of the deposition is 18 going to relate to something having nothing to do with 19 my involvement, to bring me back on another day just 20 to tag on to that is not the best use ofanybody_,s 21 time or money. 22 MR. KIEFFER: Mr. Reynolds, it may not EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 39 _, : EXHIRI_A: Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment ofAl_BNfet_ge__ f_-_fSf-1021567cZ31f Page 28 of 76 Page 506 1 have to do with the subject today but items going to 2 have to do with your client. So I would represent 3 probably that you may want to be here but that_s up to 4 you obviously. But we have a limited amount of time. 5 Now I know that at least Mr. Wells has signaled that 6 he has about an hour and a half worth of questions. 7 If you think you only have an hour and a half minus 8 the time between 10:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., you only 9 have questions for that amount of time, fine. 10 MR. HARPER: If the Government could say 11 when they could make Ms. Erwin available for 12 subsequent depositions regarding other subject 13 matters, not regarding the scheduling issues that we 14 have been discussing here today, but her role as 15 Acting Special Trustee and specify by tomorrow, then 16 we have no problem agreeing to date subsequent to 17 continue the depositions. 18 MR. WELLS: I thought that we only had a 19 limited amount of time, seven hours, and specifically 20 for her that there was going to be some knowledge of 21 the deposition. Web, re opening now for a second 22 session. EXHIBIT A Page 9 of 39 1_' _s_TTT_ IT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment o f At_g_age_e_e_ __ _l_n_f__f5i_ 10215b7c731f Page 29 of 76 Page 507 1 MR. HARPER: Where was that ruling? That 2 there were seven hours of deposition. 3 MR. KIEFFER: I_ve never said that on 4 someone as significant as Ms. Erwin. In fact if I_ve 5 said anything Ild say that the time would have to be 6 longer. But I continue this deposition after the 7 first day which was repeatedly delayed. 8 MR. HARPER: Can I raise one more issue, 9 Mr. Kieffer? That is that we received these documents 10 very late and we may be receiving additional documents 11 that are related especially to this issue. After 12 reviewing those documents there may very well be 13 additional questions that web, re going to have to ask 14 Ms. Erwin regarding this and other subject matters. 15 So I think that the notion that we can agree today to 16 make tomorrow the last time web, re going to depose her 17 on this issue isn_t reasonable given how this is 18 playing out. Certainly we have extensive additional 19 questions regarding her role in trust reform and in 20 preparation for the trial 1.5 to commence on May 1, 21 2003. 22 MR. KIEFFER: The only question that I EXHIBIT A Page 10 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorne Fees to Plaintiffs ObOS"_e66-9517-4337-9f5f-10215b7c731f Page 30 of 76 Page 508 1 want to know from you is based on every accommodation 2 that I_m trying to put forth for both parties. Do you 3 want to start any earlier than 10:00 a.m.? 4 MR. BROWN: We can start at 9:30 a.m. but 5 I still need to go through these documents. 6 MR. KIEFFER: You will have every 7 opportunity to go through those documents as long as 8 it takes you. If we have to continue the deposition 9 until the documents are presented and you finished all 10 your questions, we]ll do that. So we will start at 11 9:30a.m. 12 THE WITNESS: And Your Honor, I assume 13 welre going to end at 4:30 p.m. 14 MR. KIEFFER: She has a plane to catch at 15 6:00 p.m. I haven]t heard anybody say they want her 16 to cancel that. 17 MR. BROWN: We made that accommodation for 18 her. 19 MR. HARPER: Can I have one more thing on 20 the record, Mr. Kieffer. That is there was an 21 objection sustained regarding a question that we had 22 asked but of course we are left in the dark as to why EXHIBIT A Page 11 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorne Fees to Plaintiffs Ob08 _e66-9517-4337-9f5f-10215b7c731f Page 31 of 76 Transcript of the Testimony of: DONNA ERWIN Date: February 13, 2003 Case: COBELL v DEPT. OF INTERIOR NEAL R. GROSS & CO., INC. 202.234.4433 1323 Rhode Island Ave., NW fax 20:2.387.7330 Washington, DC 20005-3701 info@nealrgross.com EXHIBIT A Page 12 of 39 F'gHIBIT A _ Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 32 of 76 Page 517 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 9:38 a.m. 3 COURT REPORTER: On the record. Ms. 4 Erwin, I want to advise you that you are still under 5 oath. 6 Whereupon, 7 DONNA ERWIN 8 was called as a witness and, having been previously 9 duly sworn, assumed the witness stand, was examined 10 and testified further as follows: 11 MR. KIEFFER: This is Joseph Kieffer the 12 Special Master. This is the second day of the 13 continuing deposition of Donna Erwin. ! would like to 14 put one statement on the record here. Last night 15 there was some debate, discussion about when the 16 Government and Ms. Erwin's personal counsel would have 17 an opportunity to cross examine. ! said something to 18 the effect that I was trying to accommodate both 19 parties. ! did not mean to indicate that I thought 20 this deposition would be concluded today and that all 21 testimony would have to be taken today. 22 Obviously having read last night the EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A6_c_8_cF3e__slt_0__i_f_'_c3_27aS02cdc447P Page 33 of 76 Page 543 1 Q Before Thanksgiving? 2 A I don't know. I just know that somewhere 3 I do have a message from Ross Swimmer that said please 4 review this. 5 Q And he sent an attachment? 6 A I don't know if it's an attachment or it's 7 within the e-mail. 8 Q But it's a section of the Plan? 9 A I don't know if it's a section of the Plan 10 or regarding scheduling for the Plan. I would have to 11 look. It is nothing that has trust data on it. 12 Q What do you define as Trust data? 13 MR. WELLS: I would object to the 14 questions. This is outside the scope of the subject 15 matter of this aspect of deposition. She has already 16 said that the Swimmer e-mail had to do with the Plan 17 and not with the controversy that we are here today 18 for. 19 MR. KIEFFER: This deposition isn't 20 limited to this. This is the continuing deposition of 21 Donna Erwin concerning the Plan. Now there was a 22 motion to compel about specific issues that she did EXHIBIT A Page 14 of 39 _VIJTD l_l_ A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of _._cr_c___ee _o0__![_'_c3_27a802cctc447P1 Page 34 of 76 Page 544 1 not want to answer in her deposition. But I haven't 2 limited and the Court hasn't limited the nature of 3 this deposition from the first day of that deposition. 4 MR. REYNOLDS: I understand that but I 5 guess I would ask since you've said that she's going 6 to be called back for continuing depositions on 7 continuing matters that we have an interest in seeing 8 if we can bring this particular deposition relating to 9 this matter to a close at some reasonable point in 10 time that we make some effort to confine the 1 1 questioning that relates to this issue to the matter 12 that's on the table. Otherwise we could go on for 15 13 days if we open it up to allow for probing of a whole 14 lot of other issues that might be relevant to a second 15 or third deposition. 16 MR. KIEFFER: This is a continuing 17 deposition that had no limitations on it. The 18 questions that he is asking may well relate back to 19 something that has to do with the communications with 20 her attorneys and I'm going to allow him to go 21 forward. 22 (Question read back.) EXHIBIT A Page 15 of 39 ............ _ ......................................... ........... _ .............. ................................... ... _ _y[i_n._ _t Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of 5_o_c_l_P_Ni_'_c3_27aS02cac447 Page 35 of 76 Page 627 1 THE WITNESS: Thank you. (Perusing 2 document.) 3 BY MR. BROWN: 4 Q Have you had a chance to review the 5 document? 6 A Scanned it, yes. 7 Q Can you direct us to the representation in 8 the transcript that upset you? 9 A Page 11. There's two places. There's 10 several places, but let's start there. 11 Q Okay. Let's start there. 12 A Page 11, line 11, "Isn't that 13 astonishing?" And Mr. Petrie says, "Your Honor, on 14 one level, sort otTM -- and maybe there was going to be 15 further since he was interrupted, but it sounded like 16 to me that he was confirming that was astonishing. On 17 pagel2-- 18 Q Wait a minute. It's astonishing that the 19 news came from Mr. Harper? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Why does that upset you? 22 A Because it sounded like my counsel was EXHIBIT A Page 16 of 39 ................................ EXtlt_t_ A_ _ Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A6t_Oc_gc____ee _0__fiNi_gf_c3_27a802cdc447P1 Page 36 of 76 Page 628 1 unaware of my travel schedule. Page 12 -- 2 Q Is there a misrepresentation that Mr. 3 Petrie made on page 11 that you can point to? 4 A No because I think he could have been 5 interrupted when he says, "on one level." We are not 6 sure what he was -- the continuation was. 7 Page 12. 8 Q Okay. 9 MR. WELLS: Is there a question? The 10 question is, looking for misrepresentation. The term 11 "misrepresentation" is argumentative and assumes facts 12 not in evidence. 13 SPECIAL MASTER-MONITOR KIEFFER: All 14 right. Let's try not to characterize a question as 15 argumentative because it is probing, Mr. Wells. It 16 wasn't an argumentative question. He is asking her 17 what on page 12 she found upsetting and possibly 18 misrepresentation. That's the outstanding question. 19 THE WITNESS: I am sorry. Page 11. At 20 the top of page 11, bottom of page 10, starting with 21 line 22, where he states that if these facts had been 22 disclosed to him and Mr. Petrie says he fully agrees. EXHIBIT A Page 17 of 39 ............. FYH!R]_ A : Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A6tt_r_e_c3_]_0._li_i_}c3_27aS02cgc447oe Fe s P 1 f Page 37 of 76 Page 645 1 As you sat there, it was your belief that 2 Mr. Petrie had led the court to believe that you had 3 not been forthcoming, correct? 4 A I believe that was that the court was left 5 with that impression. 6 Q And you believe that that was because of 7 what Mr. Petrie said? 8 A I believe that it was a combination of the 9 Friday hearing and the court's understanding as we 10 left the courtroom. 11 Q And you were upset because Mr. Petrie 12 didn't explain that you weren't involved, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q The reason you put "I" in quotation marks 15 is to put the emphasis on the fact that the focus was 16 unfairly on you? 17 A Correct. 18 Q Let's go down about halfway down the page, 19 where it says, "To further the matter." I am going to 20 ask you to identify in your statement what 21 misrepresentations you believe are referenced here 22 that Mr. Quinn made to the court. EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment ofAttorne Fe s o P1 " i 66c4e_c3-_1 _O-4_]_-fo_c3-27a802cd c447 Page 38 of 76 Page 646 1 A I don't -- 2 MR. WELLS: Object to the form of the 3 question. Lack of foundation, too. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't know where you are. 5 I'm sorry. 6 MR. BROWN: I'm sorry. Halfway down. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 MR. BROWN: "To further the matter, when 9 the court inquired about my leave, Mr. Quinn 10 responded." 11 THE WITNESS: Everyone plans to continue 12 work, yes. 13 BY MR. BROWN: 14 Q I would like you to read until the end of 15 that paragraph and tell us what words in there you 16 believe to be misrepresentations that you attribute to 17 Mr. Quinn. 18 A I am not saying they are 19 misrepresentations. I want to be clear on that 20 because he does state that this is his understanding. 21 So what I am saying is that I will read. And then we 22 will -- you can ask your question. EXHIBIT A Page 19 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A6_cF___l_Cb__[_ca_27aa02cdc447oe e s P 1 Page 39 of 76 Page 647 1 Mr. Quinn responded, "Ms. Erwin plans to 2 continue work. My understanding from her." 3 Q Is that a misrepresentation? 4 A "From her" disturbed me a bit because it 5 tended to indicate that someone had spoken to me. "As 6 if she can get" -- 7 Q If that representation were interpreted by 8 the court as such, it would be a misrepresentation, 9 would it not? 10 MR. WELLS: ! think she should be allowed 11 to finish her answer. 12 MR. REYNOLDS: I am going to object to 13 that question because she has already testified that 14 she was not saying it was a misrepresentation since he 15 has said it was his understanding. 16 SPECIAL MASTER-MONITOR KIEFFER: Well, he 17 can count that. 18 MR. REYNOLDS: He certainly can, but he 19 can't mischaracterize her testimony. 20 SPECIAL MASTER-MONITOR KIEFFER: All 21 right. Fine. I am just letting you know I don't 22 think he is. You asked her what do you -- EXHIBIT A Page 20 of 39 ......... FYHIB!T A .......................................... :, Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of %_c4e_c___g__l_!_f_c3_27aa02cdc447ornee P tl Page 40 of 76 Page 648 1 MR. REYNOLDS: Then we have no problem. 2 SPECIAL MASTER-MONITOR KIEFFER: What does 3 he think? What does he think or what does she think 4 is wrong with that statement that Mr. Quinn made? 5 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Is that the pending 6 question? 7 SPECIAL MASTER-MONITOR KIEFFER: Mr. 8 Brown, ask your question. 9 BY MR. BROWN: 10 Q His statement to the court, you underlined 11 "from her," correct? 12 (No response.) 13 BY MR. BROWN: 14 Q You have to answer audibly. 15 A Yes. 16 Q And you were calling that to the readers' 17 attention, correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Because you consider it to be a misleading 20 statement, correct? 21 A I considered it to be a statement that 22 could be misinterpreted. EXHIBIT A Page 21 of 39 FYHm_T__ Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of %_c4e_c_____41_]_n_!_c3_27a802cclc447ornee P tl Page 41 of 76 Page 649 1 Q Did you not consider it to be misleading? 2 A I am not an attorney. So -- 3 Q Attorneys aren't the only ones who could 4 characterize things as misleading. 5 A I understand that. As I said, not that I 6 thought it was a misrepresentation, not that I thought 7 it was misleading. I thought that it could be 8 misinterpreted. 9 Q Well, is it a true statement? Did he get 10 that understanding from you? 11 A Not directly. 12 Q What is your definition of a 13 misrepresentation? 14 A A misrepresentation would be something 15 that was false or you were representing something that 16 was not accurate. 17 Q And is it not accurate that he got that 18 understanding from you? 19 A He probably is perceiving that that was 20 like a fourth hand received from me. My concern would 21 only be that it was not, again, interpreted to be 22 directly from me. EXHIBIT A Page 22 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of _t_c4e_c___lomee 5___j!_f_c3_27a802cdc447Pt, Page 42 of 76 Page 650 1 Q What is your definition of misleading? 2 A Be led in the wrong direction. 3 Q From the truth? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Well, your definition of misrepresentation 6 is false or not accurate. So let's take that. Let's 7 go through this passage. And you tell me what 8 statements in here you believe that Mr. Quinn made to 9 the court or you understood Mr. Quinn to have made to 10 the court on December 18th were misleading, were false 11 or inaccurate. 12 SPECIAL MASTER-MONITOR KIEFFER: You mean 13 December 13th? 14 MR. BROWN: I'm sorry. No. Let me 15 rephrase the question. 16 BY MR. BROWN: 17 Q When you were sitting on December 18th 18 writing this statement, I would like you to go through 19 your language here and tell me what you believe then 20 or believe now -- if there is a difference, please 21 point it out to us -- what you considered to be false 22 or not accurate? EXHIBIT A Page 23 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of _ee_c__e_B__a__g_ca_aaS02¢ac44r Page 43 of 76 Page 651 1 MR. WELLS: Object. Lack of foundation. 2 Assumes facts not in evidence. 3 SPECIAL MASTER-MONITOR KIEFFER: She has 4 already stated what she thinks misrepresentation 5 means. It's false or inaccurate. Now he is asking 6 her what in this statement is false and inaccurate. 7 There is a foundation for it. 8 Go ahead, Mr. Brown. 9 BY MR. BROWN: 10 Q Ma'am? 11 A My understanding from her -- I'm not 12 saying that it is a misrepresentation, it was not 13 directly from me. 14 Q Is that false or inaccurate? 15 MR. WELLS: Objection. Compound. 16 BY MR. BROWN: 17 Q Is it your testimony that -- 18 A It is inaccurate that it was directly from 19 me. 20 MR. REYNOLDS: Go off the record. 21 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 22 the record briefly at 12:15 p.m.) EXHIBIT A Page 24 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A6t_zn_l_;_c___j1_o0__li_!_,_c3_27a802cdc447oe e s P , Page 44 of 76 Page 652 1 THE WITNESS: Am I reading again? 2 BY MR. BROWN: 3 Q You are reading. Read to yourself. And 4 when you come to a passage that is what you believe to 5 be a statement Mr. Quinn that is false or not 6 accurate, please read it out loud to us. 7 MR. WELLS: Let me renew the objection as 8 a compound question. 9 THE WITNESS: Two lines down, it says that 10 the -- "I am taking my son to a special soccer 11 recruiting event in Florida until the 30th. And then 12 she would return back to the office." 13 BY MR. BROWN: 14 Q What is false or inaccurate about that? 15 A It is inaccurate that I was not -- my 16 reservations for return was not until the 31 st and 17 that I had complications that might be going to Tulsa 18 even. And so I was not -- did not expect to be back 19 to the office until after the 1 st of the year. 20 Q Keep going, please. 21 A Further down, it says, "As far as I 22 understand, Your Honor, she does not plan to be in EXHIBIT A Page 25 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A6t_Ocr_c___sl_3__(_!_}c3_27a802cdc447ee P , Page 45 of 76 Page 653 1 Washington, D.C. at all until at least after January 2 6. I do not" -- he says he -- that's his 3 understanding, but that would never have been my 4 understanding. 5 Q So you consider it to be false or not 6 accurate? 7 A Not accurate, but it does state it is his 8 understanding. Again, as it states, again, I knew I 9 had reservations that indicated I would not be in the 10 office until after the first of the year. These 11 reservations were made on November the 16th, 2002. 12 Q I'm sorry? 13 A And that's accurate. That is just an 14 explanation of what I just -- reinforcing what I had 15 just said. 16 Q All right. Well, I was asking you to read 17 out loud what you consider to be inaccurate or false. 18 A I'm sorry. Okay. 19 Q So what you just read, you don't have a 20 problem with any of that? 21 A No. 22 Q Okay. Is there any other passage that you EXHIBIT A Page 26 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A_og2_c_e_ss1_OoPt_Ni__'_c3_27a802cdc447 Page 46 of 76 Page 654 1 consider to be false that is attributed to Mr. Quinn? 2 A No. 3 Q I'm sorry? No? 4 A Is that starting with the -- where did you 5 want me to start in this paragraph, please? 6 Q "To further the matter." 7 A Okay. 8 Q All the way to the end of that paragraph. 9 A I think that would be the only two items. 10 Q Do you interpret what is written here -- 11 let me rephrase that. 12 Do you believe Mr. Quinn was suggesting 13 that you led him to believe that you wouldn't be in 14 Washington? 15 A That would be my reading. 16 Q And that was upsetting to you when you 17 learned about it? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Yes? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And is it your interpretation that the 22 underscored language from her is suggesting that he EXHIBIT A Page 27 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A_omey Fees to Plaintiffs .......... bbC4eZcJ-ul Ju-4auu-olc_-zla_ozcac44t Page 47 of 76 Page 655 1 talked to you? 2 A That would have been -- could have been an 3 interpretation. 4 Q Isn't that the most likely interpretation 5 in your mind? 6 A In my mind. 7 Q Now, these reservations being made in 8 November 16, 2002 were for the Florida trip, correct? 9 A Correct. 10 Q When were your reservations made to come 11 to D.C.? 12 A I had told my secretary once she knew they 13 were at the J. W. Marriott. She would have made 14 reservations both at the hotel -- and I don't know 15 when she actually made those. The day we were told 16 about them, I asked her to check on availability. So 17 I don't know the exact dates that those were 18 completed. I understood we had reservations. 19 Q When did you first learn you had 20 reservations? 21 A What I normally do is I would tell her, 22 "We're aware of this trip. Set up reservations." And EXHIBIT A Page 28 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A_omey Fees to P l_ntifl_ .......... _o_c4ezc3-u] 3u-4a'_u-D t co-zta_u,'cac44t Page 48 of 76 Page 711 1 purpose of the litigation. And I think because of the 2 intermingling of roles, particularly when you're 3 dealing with counsel who's preparing her, who have 4 been trust counsel, if I could use that term. 5 SPECIAL MASTER KIEFFER: That's why we had 6 the voir dire. That's why I asked questions. That's 7 why you asked questions. I could find nothing in what 8 she said that indicated there was a mixing of roles 9 here. Sometimes if you know someone is going to be 10 deposed about something that's specific and technical, 11 you can't use the normal litigation counsel you have 12 because they don't have the background for it. This 13 may have been one of those cases. Mr. Jensen did, but 14 I'm willing if you want me to, to go in-camera on the 15 record and have a full proffer of what discussions 16 were and I'll rule on that. I don't think I have to, 17 but I'm willing to do it. 18 MR. WELLS: Or ifI could clear this 19 procedure, we've already spent well over an hour on 20 this particular meeting. I think, as I understand the 21 ruling that was made last week is, discussions in any 22 context that deal with her schedule or her planning EXHIBIT A Page 29 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Atto.rne,y Feesto Plaintiffs .......... 66c4ezcJ-_J] dU-40_U-DlC3-Zla_uzc(]c441 Page 49 of 76 Page 712 1 are not privilege, and as you've gone through his 2 December 23rd opinion, discussions that deal with 3 certain specified topics under certain conditions are 4 privileged, and I suggest that you just stand on the 5 prior ruling. If he wants to ask questions about 6 planning and scheduling issues that may have been 7 discussed at that meeting, and then move forward to 8 other topics. 9 SPECIAL MASTER KIEFFER: Well, because of 10 the nature of this particular deposition and the 11 particular subjects, I'm giving broad latitude and can 12 ask, because it might be related back to the questions 13 that the judge granted the motion to compel on. If he 14 wants to spend his time this way, that's up to him, 15 but he's running out of time, at least today. 16 MR. BROWN: All right, Your Honor. Well, 17 I'm going to have other questions on that, but in 18 light of your ruling I will move on with that in mind, 19 and we'll see if some of these other questions can 20 flesh this out a little bit. 21 BY MR. BROWN: 22 Q At any time before the deposition started, EXHIBIT A Page 30 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs 66c4ezc3-9130-4d90-b7c3-27a802cac447 Page 50 of 76 Transcript of:Donna Erwin Date: October 14, 2004 Volume: Case: Cobell v. U.S. DOI Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Phone: 202-234-4433 Fax: 202-387-7330 Email: info@nealrgross.com Internet: www.nealrgross.com EXHIBIT A Page 31 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 51 of 76 Page 804 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (10:03 a.m.) 3 WHEREUPON, 4 DONNA M. ERWIN 5 was called for examination by Counsel for the 6 Plaintiff and, having been first duly sworn, was 7 examined and testified as follows: 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. BROWN: 10 Q Good morning, Ms. Erwin. 11 A Good morning. 12 Q When did you cease being Acting Special 13 Trustee? 14 A March, approximately March of 2003. 15 Q Can you tell us what subsequent positions 16 you've had since then? 17 A Acting Principal Deputy Special Trustee 18 and Principal Deputy Special Trustee for American 19 Indians. 20 Q Does Ms. Singer still work with you? 21 A Yes, she does. 22 Q I gather you've met with Mr. Reynolds in EXHIB1T A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of o e e s o P1 i ti Ast_,_f_-_a_e-4 "_a_)-__ce-eed 297f73e77 Page 52 of 76 Page 813 1 area, that would have to be done at another time and 2 another occasion with leave of court, because that's 3 not the scope of what the Court granted for the 4 purposes of this deposition. 5 MR. BROWN: Well, let me see if we can cut 6 through all this. Back in December of'02, part of 7 what we were -- and there were a number of 8 interchanges on the record that Mr. Kieffer, the Court 9 Monitor, ruled on. And at that time, issues related 10 to Trial 1.5 were on the table and were being 11 examined. 12 Obviously, those are not on the table 13 anymore, so the scope is considerably narrower. But 14 other than that, I don't read the Court's order as -- 15 as excluding anything but Trial 1.5-type questions. 16 For example, is it your position that 17 questions relating to the December 13 or December 17, 18 2002, hearings at which she was questioned on in that 19 deposition that were scheduling-type questions in my 20 mind, are those off limits in your mind? 21 MR. REYNOLDS: For this deposition they 22 are, yes. This deposition is, in essence, a EXHIBIT A Page 33 of 39 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. FX_IBIT _.............................. Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Atto e ees o P1 i i 5e_,_-7a_e-4 _-£8t_ce-eed297f73 e77 Page 53 of 76 Page 814 1 continuation of a deposition that you scheduled and 2 took in February. And the lines were drawn pretty 3 clearly at that deposition and were stated on the 4 record then without objection -- that the deposition 5 was for the purpose of exploring precisely the 6 conversations that Ms. Erwin had with Mr. Petrie, I 7 think it was Mr. Quinn, Ms. Spooner, and others -- Ms. 8 Singer -- as it related to the matter of scheduling 9 her December 2002 deposition, because the issue had 10 come up in colloquy with the Court in a way that the 11 Court was of the view -- may have resulted in some 12 misrepresentation to the Court. 13 And precisely because Plaintiffs were 14 claiming there was misrepresentation made to the 15 Court, the Court allowed for depositions to go into 16 that discrete issue. And it was that discrete issue 17 that was a subject of the deposition that you have 18 asked to be continued, asked the Court to be 19 continued, and the Court has agreed to continue it. 20 And at the time that this request was 21 made, you asked whether you would be permitted to go 22 beyond the scope of-- the narrower scope of the EXHIBIT A Page 34 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attome2.Fees,,to Plaintiffs ........ :3eJo 4ZT3-tatoe-,.,. ] au-_ce-eeclz_/f/Jell Page 54 of 76 Page 815 1 earlier deposition, and the Court said no, that you 2 would be limited to examine, to the extent you felt it 3 necessary, further the matters that he had allowed you 4 to examine initially in connection with this question 5 of scheduling the deposition, and what colloquy or 6 discussions and conversations were had in and around 7 that time. 8 I think the Court is pretty clear on that. 9 If you feel that there is a need to depose Ms. Erwin 10 on other issues, and you are interested in doing so, 11 that would be something that Mr. Wells can speak to 12 and you -- you may have to go back to the Court to do 13 it. 14 But it's clear to me that in terms of my 15 representation of Ms. Erwin that the matters that she 16 can be deposed on today are the matters that you have 17 interrogated her on in the February deposition. And 18 anything that might bear directly on that situation is 19 certainly fair game for this deposition. 20 MR. BROWN: Okay. Well, at the end of 21 that deposition, you made a request that we limit our 22 questioning to things that you thought would pertain EXHIBIT A Page 35 of 39 ,_ E_XHIBIT A ..................................... _ ....... Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of AgtteO3r_,_fF33e__gPl_Njft_ce_eed297f73e77 Page 55 of 76 Page 816 1 to -- for which she would need personal counseling, 2 and you were turned down by Mr. Kieffer. 3 I have no problem limiting this deposition 4 to generally what you were trying to limit it to then. 5 But the statement in the February 5, 2003, opinion of 6 the Court is all questions related to the subject 7 matter of those questions. Now, it's quite clear that 8 the Court was very concerned about whether it had made 9 -- a misrepresentation had been made to it. 10 Now, as long as -- I have no problem 11 conceptually limiting the deposition to things that 12 pertain to that, but I'm not going to have an 13 artificial restriction on it. When I told you we were 14 going to get out of here by 2:00 -- I hope to -- it 15 was based on focusing on those types of questions, not 16 Trial 1.5 questions, not Trial 2 questions. And ! 17 understand that. 18 But ! understood you earlier to say that 19 questions about the December 13, 2002, hearing, and 20 the December 17, 2002, hearing are somehow beyond the 21 scope of this deposition. Did I hear that correctly? 22 MR. WELLS: You're talking about the EXHIBIT A Page 36 of 39 ....... ,._._,_,,_._ ........................................................................ E_XHIBIT A ,_ ....... Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Atto e ees o Plai ti 5e _r_g'_-7ade-4 lgr_-_ce-eed 297f73e77 Page 56 of 76 Page 856 1 that you answer that question insofar as it has to do 2 with any conversations relating to the scheduling of 3 your deposition back in December, that to the extent 4 that there are conversations outside the area of your 5 deposition and the issue that was before the Judge 6 with regard to the conversations leading up to that 7 deposition, I'm going to direct you not to answer. 8 THE WITNESS: Then I need to speak with 9 you a second. 10 (Whereupon, the proceedings in the 11 foregoing matter went off the record at 12 11:13 a.m. and went back on the record at 13 11:15 a.m.) 14 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Let's have the 15 question read. 16 (Whereupon, the previous question was 17 played back by the Court Reporter.) 18 MR. BROWN: ! don't think that was the 19 question, was it? No. 20 (Whereupon, the requested portion was 21 played back by the Court Reporter.) 22 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Go -- right after EXHIBIT A Page 37 of 39 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of AstteO3_z_fF3e__s _P41_r_!f{,_ce_eed297f73e77 Page 57 of 76 Page 871 1 or should have gone into court on Tuesday and stated, 2 'My understanding was inaccurate,' which in both cases 3 would have been forthcoming and truthful." Do you see 4 that statement? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Is it your position that Mr. Quinn was not 7 forthcoming to the Court? 8 A I believe it would have eliminated the 9 misunderstanding or the miscommunication that was 10 there. 11 Q Do you believe he was not forthcoming with 12 the Court? 13 A I believe that he didn't have all the -- 14 Mr. Quinn, are you asking? 15 Q Yes. 16 A I believe Mr. Quinn had the information, 17 as Mr. Petrie stated on the 17th he had the 18 information that he got directly from Mr. Petrie. 19 Q Do you believe Mr. Petrie was not 20 forthcoming to the Court? 21 MR. WELLS: Are you talking about on the 22 17th? EXHIBIT A Page 38 of 39 UV1JTD l_l_ A ................................................... _ .............. ,_ ................... :, :::: :: :::::::::: : :_ ....................... ::_: ;_<.::_: _, _ ......................... _::::::::: _ s _,_ ,, _<_. ::::: _ Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment ofa_poe4Y2_3e_elSat_e__ar__f_'_ce_eed297173e77oP 1 Page 58 of 76 Page 938 1 MR. BROWN: We'll stipulate that Ms. Erwin 2 will have 30 days from receipt of the transcript by 3 her counsel within which to review, make any changes, 4 and sign. That also has to pertain to the other 5 transcripts as well. 6 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. 7 MR. BROWN: Okay? So-- 8 MR. REYNOLDS: Sure. 9 MR. BROWN: -- all transcripts will be 10 reviewed and signed within 30 days of the receipt of 11 this transcript. 12 And Mr. Wells wants confirmation that this 13 deposition is now concluded, and he shall have it. 14 MR. WELLS: Thank you. 15 (Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the taking of 16 deposition in the above-entitled matter 17 was concluded, signature NOT having been 18 waived.) 19 20 21 22 EXHIBIT A Page 39 of 39 _VIJTD l_l_ A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of A_t___a_e__r_!_ce_eect297f73e77oe e s P 1 1 Page 59 of 76 Exhibit B Date Task Hours Fee BROWN 12/30/2002 REVIEW ERWlN MOTION TO COMPEL 0.333 $123.21 01/01/2003 REVIEW ERWlN MOTION TO COMPEL 0.833 $308.21 01/28/2003 REVISE ERWlN MOTION TO COMPEL REPLY; TELEPHONE CONFERENCES 3.25 $1,202.50 02/05/2003 REVIEW 2 COURT OPINIONS RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE AND 1.75 $647.50 ERWlN MOTION TO COMPEL; OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM/KH RE STRATEGY 02/05/2003 REVIEW 2 COURT OPINIONS RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE AND 0.5 $185.00 ERWIN MOTION TO COMPEL; UPDATE DEADLINES RE SAME Subtotal 6.666 2,466.42 GINGOLD 12/21/2002 TELCOMS. HARPER RE ERWIN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND 0.4 $148.00 OBSTRUCTION BY SPOONER RE MISREPRESENTATIONS TO COURT ON ERWIN AVAILABILITY IN D.C. 12/26/2002 TELCOM. HARPER RE MOTION TO COMPEL ERWIN DEPOSITION 0.2 $74.00 01/01/2003 REVIEW AND REVISE MOTION TO COMPEL AND PROPOSED ORDER. 3.5 $1,295.00 01/01/2003 TELCOMS. HARPER RE SAME. 0.5 $185.00 02/05/2003 TELCOM BRAD REYNOLDS, ERWIN'S PRIVATE COUNSEL, RE SAME. 0.3 $111.00 02/06/2003 TELCOMS. REYNOLDS RE ERWlN DEPOSITION ISSUES. 0.7 $259.00 Subtotal 5.6 2,072.00 HARPER 12/31/2002 DRAFT MOTION TO COMPEL AND SANCTIONS FOR DEPOSITION OF ERWIN 6.5 $1,722.50 01/01/2003 FINALIZE ERWlN MOTION TO COMPEL AND PROPOSED ORDER 2.3 $609.50 01/01/2003 DRAFT MOTION TO COMPEL ERWIN DEPOSITION AND SANCTIONS 5.5 $1,457.50 PURSUANT TO RULE 37; REVIEW CASELAW AND TRANSCRIPTS FOR SAME; DISTRIBUTE FOR COMMENT 01/09/2003 TELEPHONE CALL TO MKB RE: ERWlN BRIEFING AND ADDITIONAL 0.3 $79.50 ARGUMENTS 01/23/2003 REVIEW DEFS' OPPOSITION BRIEF TO MPTION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY OF 2 $530.00 ERWlN RE: SCHEDULING ETC. 01/26/2003 DRAFT BEGIN DRAFTING REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 7 $1,855.00 COMPEL TESTIMONY OF ERTWlN 01/27/2003 DRAFT REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY OF 2.9 $768.50 ERWIN 01/28/2003 PREPARATION FOR REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 1.4 $371.00 TESTIMONY OF ERWlN 01/28/2003 FINALIZE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY 9 $2,385.00 OF ERWlN 02/05/2003 REVIEW OPINION ON ERWlN PRIVILEGE 1 $265.00 Subtotal 37.9 10,043.50 Total 50.166 14581.92 Exhibit B Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 1 of 1 EXttIBIT B Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the_HNTebruary 5, 2003 Ruling Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 60 of 76 Exhibit C Date Task Hours Fee BROWN 12/12/2002 REVIEW SPECIAL MASTER-MONITOR REPORT RE ERWIN DEPOSITION 0.5 $185.00 12/13/2002 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM RE STRATEGY RE COURT HEARING; 1.666 $616.42 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND COURT HEARING RE DISCOVERY; OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM RE STRATEGY AT COURT HOUSE 12/13/2002 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM/KH RE DISCOVERY STRATEGY 0.333 $123.21 12/15/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.5 $555.00 12/15/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION; REVIEW PRIOR DEPOSITION 2.166 $801.42 TRANSCRIPT 12/15/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.083 $1,140.71 12/16/2002 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM RE TRIBAL TASK FORCE MEETING 0.25 $92.50 12/16/2002 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KH/TEAM RE ERWIN BEING IN DC 0.333 $123.21 12/16/2002 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH GMR/KH/DMG RE TRIBAL TASK FORCE; 0.5 $185.00 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KH RE ERWIN DEPO LOGISTICS 12/16/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.583 $585.71 12/16/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.666 $616.42 12/16/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.666 $1,356.42 12/17/2002 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND COURT HEARING RE DEPOS; OFFICE 1.25 $462.50 CONFERENCE WITH TEAM 12/17/2002 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH EPC/TEAM RE ERWIN STATUS 0.5 $185.00 12/17/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 2.416 $893.92 12/17/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 0.333 $123.21 12/17/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 2 $740.00 12/18/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.666 $1,356.42 12/18/2002 PREPARE LETTER TO PETRIE RE DEPO LOCATION CHANGE 0.333 $123.21 12/19/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 4.75 $1,757.50 12/19/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.583 $1,325.71 12/19/2002 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.666 $616.42 12/20/2002 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND ERWIN DEPO 8 $2,960.00 Subtotal 45.743 16,924.91 Exhibit C Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT C Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for ,_I_l_ _es and Expenses Pursuant to Defendants' M_fi_n°_'tl_e_li_8t_ _h_)03 Ruling Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 61 of 76 Exhibit C Date Task Hours Fee GINGOLD 12/12/2002 TELCOMS. HARPER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 0.3 $111.00 RE ERWIN DEPOSITION. 12/13/2002 TELCOM. HARPER RE SAME. 0.1 $37.00 12/13/2002 REVIEW MATERIALS IN PREPARATION FOR HEARING CONCERNING 1.2 $444.00 DEFENDANTS' EFFORTS TO BAR OR LIMIT DEPOSITION OF ERWIN TO ALBUQUERQUE DUE TO WHAT IS REPRESENTED TO THE COURT AND PLAINTIFFS AS HER INABILITY TO BE IN D.C. FOR DEPOSITION DUE TO SCHEDULE CONFLICTS. 12/13/2002 APPEAR IN COURT FOR HEARING RE SAME. 0.6 $222.00 12/13/2002 MEET WITH HARPER, REMPEL RE SAME AND DEPOSITION ISSUES. 0.5 $185.00 12/16/2002 TELCOMS. HARPER RE SAME, STRATEGY AND ACTION RE SAME. 1.1 $407.00 12/16/2002 CONF CALLS HARPER, REMPEL AND BROWN RE ERWIN DEPOSITION 0.6 $222.00 ISSUES, ERWIN'S ATTENDANCE IN DC AT TRIBAL TASK FORCE MEETING.. 12/17/2002 CONF CALL REMPEL, BROWN AND HARPER RE ERWIN HEARING ISSUES. 0.5 $185.00 12/17/2002 APPEAR IN COURT RE SAME. 0.5 $185.00 12/17/2002 TELCOMS. HARPER RE SAME, STRATEGY, ETC. 0.7 $259.00 12/17/2002 TELCOM. COBELL RE ERWIN DEVELOPMENTS. 0.2 $74.00 12/20/2002 ASSIST BROWN IN ERWIN DEPOSITION 7.7 $2,849.00 12/20/2002 TELCOM. HARPER RE SAME. 0.1 $37.00 Subtotal 14.1 5,217.00 Exhibit C Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 2 o.['3 EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 62 of 76 Exhibit C Date Task Hours Fee HARPER 12/03/2002 CONFERENCE WITH DG RE: DEPOSITIONS NEEDED PRIOR TO JANUARY 0.3 $79.50 6TH; (TO BE CONTINUED) 12/06/2002 DRAFT NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS FOR ERWlN, EDWARDS AND EDS 0.8 $212.00 12/06/2002 CONFERENCE CALL WITH DEPOSITION SCHEDULINF - NOTICE OF 0.4 $106.00 DEPOSITIONS 12/11/2002 TELEPHONE CALL FROM PETRIE; MEET AND CONFER RE: DEFS' MOTION 0.2 $53.00 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EDWARDS ERWlN DEPOSITIONS: FILED WITH KIEFFER 12/12/2002 REVIEW RECORD IN PREP FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 1.4 $371.00 12/12/2002 CONFERENCE CALL WITH MASTER MONITOR AND GOV COUNSEL RE: 1.6 $424.00 DEPOSITIONS OF ERWlN AND EDWARDS AND PREPARATION FOR SAME 12/13/2002 REVIEW CT ORDER ON DEPOSITIONS 0.2 $53.00 12/13/2002 COURT APPEARANCE ORAL ARGUMENT RE: DEFS' MOTION FOR 0.8 $212.00 PROTECTIVE ORDER RE ERWlN AND EDWARDS; CONFER WITH CO COUNSEL PRE AND POST; CT DENIED MOTION 12/13/2002 PREPARATION OF ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE JUDGE LAMBERTH ON 2 $530.00 ISSUE OF DEPOSITIONS 12/16/2002 CONFERENCE WITH DG RE: REMPEL ATTENDANCE AT MEETING WITH 0.4 $106.00 TRIBES 12/16/2002 TELEPHONE CALL TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND DISCUSS WITH DG 0.3 $79.50 12/16/2002 CONFERENCE WITH DG AND GR RE: ATTENDANCE OF ERWlN 0.5 $132.50 ACCORDING TO CASON; IPDATE ON MEETING 12/17/2002 COURT APPEARANCE DEF'S DECEPTION REGARDING ERWlN AND POST 0.8 $212.00 DISCUSSION 12/17/2002 PREPARATION FOR COURT APPEARANCE REGARDING DEFS' 1.5 $397.50 MISREPRESENTATIONS Subtotal 11.2 2,968.00 REMPEL 12/13/2002 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND HEARING REGARDING DEPOSITION OF 1.3 $292.50 DONNA ERWlN AND OTHER TRIAL 1.5 WITNESSS. 12/13/2002 MEET W/GINGOLD, HARPER RE ERWlN AND DEPOSITION ISSUES. 0.5 $112.50 12/16/2002 ATTEND TRUST REFORM TASK FORCE MEETING. AT THIS HEARING I 7 $1,575.00 IDENTIFIED DONNA ERWlN AS BEING IN ATTENDANCE. 12/16/2002 CC W/GINGOLD, HARPER RE STATUS OF TASK FORCE MEETING; 0.6 $135.00 SPECIFICALLY REGARDING ERWIN'S ATTENDANCE AT THE TASK FORCE MEETING. (2 CALLS) 12/16/2002 DRAFT DECLARATION REGARDING TASK FORCE MEETING AND ERWIN'S 0.3 $67.50 ATTENDANCE. 12/17/2002 CC W/COBELL, GINGOLD, HARPER, BROWN RE STATUS OF TRIAL 1.5 0.5 $112.50 PREPARATIONS AND HEARING REGARDING ERWlN. 12/17/2002 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND HEARING. 0.8 $180.00 12/20/2002 ATTEND ERWIN DEPOSITION (LEFT EARLY TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1.5 1 $225.00 REPORT PREPARATIONS). Subtotal 12 2,700.00 Total 83.043 27809.91 Exhibit C Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 63 of 76 Exhibit D Date Task Hours Fee BROWN 01/03/2003 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM RE ERWlN DEPOSITION STRATEGY 0.333 $123.21 01/30/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. LEVITAS RE ERWIN PRIVILEGE 0.333 $123.21 ISSUE; OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH DMG 02/05/2003 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM RE ERWIN STRATEGY 0.333 $123.21 02/05/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 0.333 $123.21 02/05/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.583 $585.71 02/05/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.583 $585.71 02/05/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KH/TEAM RE ERWIN STRATEGY 0.166 $61.42 02/05/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH KH/OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM 0.333 $123.21 RE SUBPENA OF ERWIN STRATEGY 02/06/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KHFFEAM RE ERWIN DEFENSE; OCW 0.333 $123.21 DMG RE SAME 02/06/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM RE DEPO NOTICES; REVIEW SAME 0.583 $215.71 02/06/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.166 $431.42 02/06/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.083 $400.71 02/08/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.25 $462.50 02/10/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.416 $1,263.92 02/11/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.083 $1,140.71 02/11/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.333 $1,233.21 02/11/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.833 $1,418.21 02/12/2003 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND DEPO OF ERWlN 5 $1,850.00 02/12/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 2.75 $1,017.50 02/12/2003 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.833 $1,418.21 02/13/2003 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH KH RE ERWIN STRATEGY 0.333 $123.21 02/13/2003 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND DEPO OF ERWIN 6.833 $2,528.21 02/13/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DMG/KH RE ERWIN DEPO 1.083 $400.71 STRATEGY/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE STRATEGY 02/15/2003 LEGAL RESEARCH RE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN TRUST CONTEXT 2.75 $1,017.50 RE JENSEN RE MOTION TO COMPEL ERWIN TESTIMONY 02/15/2003 LEGAL RESEARCH RE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN TRUST CONTEXT 2.25 $832.50 RE JENSEN RE MOTION TO COMPEL ERWIN TESTIMONY 02/16/2003 LEGAL RESEARCH RE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN TRUST CONTEXT 3.583 $1,325.71 RE JENSEN RE MOTION TO COMPEL ERWIN TESTIMONY; PREPARE MEMORANDUM RE SAME 02/16/2003 LEGAL RESEARCH RE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN TRUST CONTEXT 3.416 $1,263.92 RE JENSEN RE MOTION TO COMPEL ERWIN TESTIMONY 02/18/2003 LEGAL RESEARCH RE CHINESE WALLS RE ERWIN MOTION TO COMPEL 2.416 $893.92 02/18/2003 LEGAL RESEARCH RE CHINESE WALLS RE ERWIN MOTION TO COMPEL 3.083 $1,140.71 02/19/2003 LEGAL RESEARCH RE CHINESE WALLS RE ERWIN MOTION TO COMPEL 1.416 $523.92 02/19/2003 PREPARE ERWIN MOTION TO COMPEL 2.916 $1,078.92 02/20/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KH RE ERWIN STRATEGY 0.333 $123.21 02/20/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TEAM/KH RE ERWIN STR/TRIAL 2 $740.00 03/03/2003 LEGAL RESEARCH RE CHINESE WALLS 0.333 $123.21 03/03/2003 REVIEW ERWlN TRANSCRIPT FOR NEXT SESSION OF HER DEPOSITION 3.25 $1,202.50 Exhibit D Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page I of 4 EXHIBIT D Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request Ibr ,t_3¢ t_ees and Expenses Pursuant to Defendants' Mb_i_Pt-gfl_f_eetiggtd_ _,h_aQ 03 Ruling Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 64 of 76 Exhibit D Date Task Hours Fee 03/03/2003 REVIEW ERWIN DOCUMENTS FOR ERWIN/SINGER DEPO 1.666 $616.42 03/11/2003 REVIEW ERWlN PRIVILEGE LOG LETTER 0.333 $123.21 10/10/2004 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH DMG RE ERWlN STRATEGY 0.333 $129.87 10/10/2004 REVIEW ERWIN DEPOS IN PREPARATION FOR ERWlN DEPO 3.166 $1,234.74 10/11/2004 LEGAL RESEARCH RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE/PRIVILEGE 1.583 $617.37 ISSUES IN PREPARATION FOR ERWlN DEPO 10/11/2004 REVIEW COURT TRANSCRIPTS AND OPINIONS IN PREPARATION FOR 1.666 $649.74 ERWlN DEPO 10/11/2004 REVIEW ERWlN DEPOSITIONS IN PREPARATION FOR ERWlN DEPO 2.166 $844.74 10/12/2004 REVIEW DOCS IN PREPARATION FOR ERWlN DEPO 2.916 $1,137.24 10/12/2004 REVIEW ERWlN DEPOSITIONS IN PREPARATION FOR ERWtN DEPO 2.666 $1,039.74 10/13/2004 PREPARE FOR ERWlN DEPO 2.416 $942.24 10/13/2004 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 3.916 $1,527.24 10/13/2004 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 4.333 $1,689.87 10/14/2004 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH RUTH HARGROW RE DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 0.333 $129.87 10/14/2004 PREPARE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 2.833 $1,104.87 10/14/2004 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND ERWIN DEPOSITION 5 $1,950.00 Subtotal 105.981 39,879.51 Exhibit D Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 2 o.['4 EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 65 of 76 Exhibit D Date Task Hours Fee GINGOLD 01/09/2003 TELCOM. COBELL RE. ERWlN SITUATION. 0.5 $185.00 01/14/2003 REVIEW/MARKUP DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL. 0.5 $185.00 02/05/2003 OUTLINE NATURE AND SCOPE OF ERWlN DEPOSITION PER COURT 1.4 $518.00 02/05/2003 REVIEW/MARKUP COURT MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE ERWlN AND 1 $370.00 NEW DEPOSITION. 02/05/2003 TELCOMS. HARPER RE SAME AND ISSUES TO BE EXPLORED IN 1 $370.00 02/06/2003 CONF CALL BROWN, REMPEL, HARPER RE SAME. 0.4 $148.00 02/06/2003 REVIEW ERWlN CONTEMPT 1 TRIAL TESTIMONY (1.21.99), TRIAL 1 9.9 $3,663.00 TESTIMONY (6.22-23.99), DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT TO PREPARE QUESTIONS FOR 2.12.03 DEPOSITION RE 2.5.03 MEMORANDUM AND 02/06/2003 TELCOMS. HARPER RE ABOVE. 1.7 $629.00 02/07/2003 CONTINUE REVIEW OF ERWlN LITIGATION TESTIMONY RE SAME. 7.9 $2,923.00 02/08/2003 CONTINUE REVIEW OF ERWlN TESTIMONY RE SAME. 4.2 $1,554.00 02/09/2003 CONTINUE REVIEW OF ERWIN TESTIMONY RE SAME. 3.2 $1,184.00 02/11/2003 TELCOMS. REYNOLDS RE ERWlN DEPOSITION ISSUES. 0.2 $74.00 02/11/2003 TELCOM. HARPER RE SAME. 0.4 $148.00 02/11/2003 CONF CALL BROWN, HARPER, AND REMPEL RE SAME. 0.1 $37.00 02/12/2003 TELCOMS. HARPER RE MEMORANDUM TO FILE RE SAME. 0.3 $111.00 02/12/2003 TELCOM. LEVITAS RE SAME. 0.1 $37.00 02/12/2003 DISCUSSION WITH REMPEL RE ERWlN MEMORANDUM RE AVAILABILITY 2 $740.00 FOR DEPOSITION IN WASHINGTON AND DECEPTION. 02/12/2003 CONF CALL BROWN, HARPER RE BROWN BRIEFING ON ERWlN 0.3 $111.00 09/08/2004 TELCOM. REYNOLDS TO SET UP DATE FOR ERWlN DEPOSITION TO 0.3 $117.00 COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW COURT ORDER. 09/23/2004 TELCOM. REYNOLDS TO WORK OUT DATE FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION AND 0.2 $78.00 AGREE TO JOINTLY REQUEST ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE SAME IN LIGHT OF TIME CONSTRAINT SET FORTH IN COURT ORDER. 09/24/2004 DRAFT JOINT RE SAME. 0.5 $195.00 09/24/2004 TELCOMS. REYNOLDS RE SAME, COMMENTS, EDITS. 0.5 $195.00 09/24/2004 TELCOM. HARPER RE SAME AND INFORMATION TO BE SOUGHT FROM 0.5 $195.00 ERWlN. Subtotal 37.1 13,767.00 Exhibit D Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 66 of 76 Exhibit D Date Task Hours Fee HARPER 02/05/2003 CONFERENCE WITH IIM TEAM REGARDING COURT'S OPINION 1 $265.00 ADDRESSING ISSUES RELATED TO ERWIN DEPOSITION SCHEDULING; DEPOSTION; NOTICE ETC. 02/05/2003 CONFERENCE CALL WITH DG RE: ERWIN DEPOSITION 0.5 $132.50 02/06/2003 CONFERENCE WITH DG AND THEN MKB RE: RE-DEPOSITION OF DONNA 0.6 $159.00 ERWIN 02/07/2003 CONFERENCE WITH DG RE: ERWIN DEPOSITION AND WHO ELSE WE MAY 1.5 $397.50 NEED TO DEPOSE; PREPARE NOTICE FOR SPOONER; QUINN, PETRIE ETC. 02/08/2003 CONFERENCE WITH MKB RE: NECESSARY PREP FOR ERWIN 0.3 $79.50 DEPOSITION; QUESTIONS; DOCS TO REVIEW 02/09/2003 REVIEW ERWIN TRANSCRIPT FROM 12/20 IN PREP FOR ERWIN 1.2 $318.00 DEPOSITION; DISCUSS PRODUCTION OF DOCS WITH DG 02/10/2003 REVIEW MATERIAL RE: DONNA ERWIN DEPOSITION 1.4 $371.00 02/10/2003 CONFERENCE CALL WITH MKB RE: PREPARATION FOR ERWlN 0.4 $106.00 DEPOSITION; DISCUSS SAME WITH DG 02/12/2003 APPEAR AT ERWlN DEPOSITION AND DISCUSSIONS WITH MKB IN 4 $1,060.00 PREPARATIONS THEREOF 02/13/2003 GENERAL DEPOSITION OF DONNA ERWlN RE: GOV'T 6 $1,590.00 Subtotal 16.9 4,478.50 REMPEL 02/06/2003 CC W/BROWN, REMPEL, HARPER RE ERWIN DEPOSITION AND 0.4 $90.00 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. 02/11/2003 CC W/BROWN, HARPER, GINGOLD REGARDING ERWIN DEPOSITION 0.1 $22.50 02/12/2003 REVIEW ERWlN MEMORANDUM TO FILE REGARDING HER DECEMBER 0.5 $112.50 DEPOSITIONS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH HER ATTORNEYS. 02/12/2003 DISCUSS W/GINGOLD RE ERWIN MEMORANDUM. 2 $450.00 02/13/2003 CC W/LITIGATION TEAM RE ERWIN. 1.2 $270.00 08/19/2004 DRAFT, EDIT NOTICE REGARDING ERWIN TRANSCRIPT (IN RESPONSE TO 0.4 $90.00 COURT ORDER). Subtotal 4.6 1,035.00 Total 164.581 59160.01 Exhibit D Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 4 o3"4 EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 67 of 76 Exhibit E Date Task Hours Fee BROWN 02/05/2003 PREPARE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR ERWIN 0916 $338.92 Subtotal 0.916 338.92 HARPER 02/05/2003 DRAFT NOTICE OF DEPOSITION-ERWIN 0.8 $212.00 02/05/2003 FINALIZE RE-DRAFT DEPOSITION NOTICE WITH REQUEST FOR 1.5 $397.50 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; INCLUDE EDITS FROM DG AND MKB; FINALIZE 02/11/2003 REVIEW DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN PREP FOR ERWIN DEPOSITION 2 $530.00 02/19/2003 PREPARATION OF REVIEW DOCUMENTS PRODUCED FOR ERWIN 3 $795.00 DEPOSITION Subtotal 7.3 1,934.50 Total 8.216 2273.42 Exhibit E Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 1 of l EXHIBIT E Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and E_I[_13_ Pursuant to the Court's Defendants' Motp_St_ss.i_0T_aRulin g Part of the Court s Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 68 of 76 Exhibit F Date Task Hours Fee BROWN 03/04/2003 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND SINGER DEPO 4.5 $1,665.00 Subtotal 4.5 1,665.00 GINGOLD 02/15/2003 TELCOMS. HARPER RE SAME AND ISSUES RE SINGER DEPOSITION. 0.7 $259.00 02/19/2003 TELCOMS. HARPER RE SAME. 0.2 $74.00 02/19/2003 TELCOMS. REYNOLDS RE DATE, SCOPE OF SINGER DEPOSITION - 0.3 $111.00 TENTATIVELY SET FOR 2.27.03. 03/04/2003 TELCOM. HARPER RE SINGER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY ON THIS DATE. 0.3 $111.00 Subtotal 1.5 555.00 HARPER 02/06/2003 DRAFT AND DISTRIBUTE SINGER DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUEST 0.7 $185.50 FOR PRODUCTION 02/15/2003 PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF MICHELE SINGER 2 $530.00 02/18/2003 CONFERENCE WITH DG (3 TIMES) RE: SCHEDULING OF SINGER 0.5 $132.50 02/21/2003 REVIEW MATERIAL IN PREP FOR DEPOSITION OF SINGER 2 $530.00 03/03/2003 PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF MICHELE SINGER; REVIEW 7 $1,855.00 DOCUMENTS; REVIEW TRANSCRIPT; DRAFT QUESTIONS 03/04/2003 APPEAR AT DEPOSITION OF MICHELE SINGER 7 $1,855.00 Subtotal 19.2 5,088.00 Total 25.2 7308 Exhibit F Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 1 of ! EXHIBIT F Defendan_v_b_etcrtigns to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorh6N_F[[s_nd Expenses Pursuant Defen t r _ _fie_,_£{_s1,1_.._,, 2_P3t Ruling raft otthe _ourt's uraer of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 69 of 76 Exhibit G Date Task Hours Fee BROWN 12/23/2002 TELEPHONE CONFERENCES COURT REPORTER RE ERWlN TRANSCRIPT 0.333 $123.21 12/26/2002 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE ERWIN 0.25 $92.50 12/27/2002 TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH ERWIN COURT REPORTER 0.333 $123.21 01/17/2003 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH EPC RE ERWIN 0.083 $30.71 Subtotal 0.999 369.63 GINGOLD 02/05/2003 TELCOMS. COBELL RE SAME. 0.3 $111.00 02/11/2003 TELCOM. COBELL RE SAME. 0.1 $37.00 02/13/2003 TELCOM. LEVITAS RE SAME. 0.1 $37.00 02/13/2003 CONF CALL BROWN, HARPER, REMPEL RE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER 1.2 $444.00 ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS A RESULT OF LATEST ERWIN DEPOSITION. 02/17/2003 TELCOMS. REYNOLDS RE ERWIN, SINGER DEPOSITIONS. 0.2 $74.00 Subtotal 1.9 703.00 Total 2.899 1072.63 Exhibit G Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 1 of l EXHIBIT G Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Court's February 5, 2003 Ruling EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 70 of 76 Exhibit H Date Task Hours Fee 11/15/2004 FINALIZE AND CROSS-REFERENCE EVIDENTIARY SUMMARY 2.416 $942.24 11/15/2004 PREPARE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE ERWIN; 3.166 $1,234.74 OFFICE CONFERENCES WITH RUTH RE EXHIBITS; OFFICE CONFERENCES WITH DMG RE EVIDENCE Subtotal 81.488 31,706.99 GINGOLD 11/13/2004 REVIEW, REVISE SANCTIONS BRIEF RE SAME. 1.9 $741.00 11/13/2004 DISCUSSION WITH BROWN RE BRIEF, CULPABILITY OF SPOONER, 0.4 $156.00 PETRIE, GRILES, CASON, JENSEN AND APPARENT IGNORANCE OF QUINN; ADVERSE INFERENCES RE PETRIE WARRANTED DUE TO HIS DESTRUCTION OF CRITICAL NOTES. 11/14/2004 REVIEW, REVISE SATURDAY, RED-LINED MKB BRIEF RE ERWIN 1.5 $585.00 11/14/2004 TELCOMS. HARPER RE COMMENTS RE SAME. 0.4 $156.00 11/14/2004 DISCUSSION BROWN RE SAME. 0.3 $117.00 11/15/2004 REVIEW AND REVISE CURRENT DRAFTS OF REPORT ON STATUS OF 5.2 $2,028.00 EVIDENCE RE ERWIN, SUMMARIES, EVIDENTIARY EXHIBIT, AND DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER RE SAME. Subtotal 9.7 3,783.00 HARPER 11/11/2004 RVW ERWIN DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT FOR MOTION TO COMPEL 2.2 $737.00 SANCTIONS AWARD BRIEF; DISCUSS WITH DG 11/12/2004 RVW AND EDIT ERWIN DEPOSITION MEMORANDUM AND EVIDENTIARY 3.6 $1,206.00 STATEMENT; DISCUSS WITH DG AND MKB Subtotal 5.8 1,943.00 Total 96.988 37432.99 Exhibit H Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 71 of 76 Exhibit H Date Task Hours Fee BROWN 05/21/2003 SUMMARIZE ERWIN DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 0.333 $126.54 05/22/2003 SUMMARIZE ERWlN DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 1.5 $570.00 05/22/2003 SUMMARIZE ERWlN DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 4.75 $1,805.00 05/22/2003 SUMMARIZE ERWlN DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 0.75 $285.00 08/18/2004 REVIEW COURT ORDER RE ERWlN DEPO; REVIEW AND ANNOTATE 0.833 $324.87 DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT 10/26/2004 LOAD ERWlN TRANSCRIPT INTO SUMMATION AND FORMAT 0.25 $97.50 10/28/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE -- VOL II 0.333 $129.87 10/29/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE -- VOL II 0.916 $357.24 10/29/2004 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH DMG/KH RE ERWlN APPLICATION 0.75 $292.50 10/29/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE 2.416 $942.24 10129/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE -- VOL II 1.75 $682.50 10/30/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE -- VOL II 3.583 $1,397.37 10/30/2004 PREPARE LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL RE PETRIE NOTES 0.333 $129.87 10/31/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWIN EVIDENCE -- VOL II & III 1.166 $454.74 11/01/2004 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH DMG; FINALIZE DODGE WELLS LETTER RE 0.583 $227.37 PETRIE NOTES: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH NARF 11/03/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE 2.25 $877.50 11/05/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE -- VOL III 3.5 $1,365.00 11/05/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWIN EVIDENCE 2.666 $1,039.74 11/06/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE -- VOL Ill 2.916 $1,137.24 11/08/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE -- VOL Ill 2.25 $877.50 11/08/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE; SUMMARIZE ERWlN 3.166 $1,234.74 DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT IV 11/09/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWIN EVIDENCE 3.416 $1,332.24 11/09/2004 TELEPHONE CONFERENCES RUTH; PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN 4.166 $1,624.74 EVIDENCE; SUMMARIZE ERWlN DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT IV 11/10/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE; REVIEW DOCUMENTS 2.333 $909.87 PRODUCED WITH RESPECT THERETO 11/11/2004 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH DMG RE ERWlN MATTER 0.25 $97.50 11/11/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE; REVIEW DOCUMENTS 4.083 $1,592.37 PRODUCED WITH RESPECT THERETO 11/12/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE; SINGER DEPOSITION 2.166 $844.74 11/12/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE; SINGER DEPOSITION 2.5 $976.00 11/13/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE; SINGER DEPOSITION 3.916 $1,527.24 11/13/2004 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH DMG RE ERWIN APPLICATION; 1.75 $682.50 INCORPORATE HIS CHANGES IN EVlDENTIARY SUMMARY 11/14/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE; SINGER DEPOSITION; OFFICE 4.75 $1,852.50 CONFERENCES WITH DMG; E-MAIL TO KH RE EVIDENCE 11/14/2004 FINALIZE AND CROSS-REFERENCE EVlDENTIARY SUMMARY 2.666 $1,039.74 11/14/2004 PREPARE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE ERWIN 2.25 $877.50 11/14/2004 PREPARE SUMMARY OF ERWlN EVIDENCE; SINGER DEPOSITION 2.333 $909.87 11/15/2004 PREPARE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE ERWlN 2.333 $909.87 Exhibit H Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT H Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and Expenses Pursuant to eC x- Naa 5 o De}lelen(_lan_s _o_ion toli_ldC_Sl_er_)a? Ruling Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 72 of 76 Exhibit I Date Task Hours Fee BROWN 10/27/2004 GATHER ERWIN TIME 1.083 $422.37 10/27/2004 GATHER ERWIN TIME 2.666 $1,039.74 10/28/2004 GATHER ERWIN TIME; PREPARE MKB AFFIDAVIT 2.416 $942.24 11/15/2004 PREPARE MKB ERWIN AFFIDAVIT; GATHER TIME 3.666 $1,429.74 Subtotal 9.831 3,834.09 GINGOLD 11/10/2004 TELCOM. HARPER RE ERWIN TIME, PREPARATION OF BRIEF RE SAME, 0.2 $78.00 FILING DEADLINE RE SAME. 11/10/2004 REVIEW, IDENTIFY TIME RECORDS RELEVANT TO PREPARATION OF 5 $1,950.00 SANCTIONS RE ERWIN. 11/10/2004 BEGIN SEGREGATION OF RELEVANT TIME AND RESTATE SAME ON 2.5 $975.00 SCHEDULE TO BE APPENDED TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SANCTIONS TIME TO BE FILED. 11/11/2004 CONTINUE SEGREGATION AND RESTATEMENT OF RELEVANT TIME RE 0.3 $117.00 SAME. 11/13/2004 CONTINUE IDENTIFICATION AND SEGREGATION OF RELEVANT TIME, 0.3 $117.00 COMPARE TO TIME RECORDED RE REMPEL. 11/13/2004 BEGIN PREPARATION OF AFFIDAVIT RE SAME. 0.6 $234.00 11/15/2004 DISCUSSIONS WITH BROWN RE SAME, SERVICE ISSUES PER ORDER. 1.2 $468.00 11/15/2004 REVIEW TIME ENTRIES AND DISCUSS SAME WITH REMPEL RE 0.3 $117.00 RELEVANCE TO AND CONFORMITY WITH ERWIN SANCTIONS FEE 11/15/2004 REVISE DRAFT AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SANCTIONS FEE APPLICATION. 1.8 $702.00 11/15/2004 REVIEW REMPEL DRAFT AFFIDAVIT RE SAME. 0.1 $39.00 11/15/2004 TELCOMS. HARPER RE SAME. 0.3 $117.00 Subtotal 12.6 4,914.00 HARPER 11/12/2004 RVW TIME RECORDS TO CULL TIME RELATED TO MOTION TO COMPEL 2.2 $737.00 DEPOSITION AND RELATED MATTERS 11/14/2004 RVW FURTHER TIME RECORDS AND ERWIN DEPOSITION SANCTIONS 2.3 $770.50 BRIEF AND DISCUSS SAME WITH DG: REVIEW VARIOUS EMAILS FROM DG 11/15/2004 RVW AND EDIT ERWIN BRIEF AND FEES & EXPENSE STATEMENT; DRAFT 5.2 $1,742.00 AFFIDAVIT AND CALCULATE TIME; TIME REVIEW AND DISCUSS WITH CO- COUNSEL Subtotal 9.7 3,249.50 REMPEL 11/13/2004 COMPILE, EDIT TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER. 1.5 $337.50 11/14/2004 COMPILE, EDIT TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER. 1.5 $337.50 11/15/2004 FINALIZE TIME. COMPARE TO GINGOLD TIME. DISCUSS W/ 2 $450.00 Subtotal 5 1,125.00 Total 37.131 13122.59 Exhibit I Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT I Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and Expenses Pursuant _to ;the .C_uX_lsBgel}ma_ 5_2003 Ruling tmienaams' Ivlo_lon to Reconsrder 'lhat Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 73 of 76 _FFEY MATRIX 1 992 - 2003 Years (Rate for June 1 - May 31, based on prior year's CPI-U) Experience 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-98 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 20+ years 300 305 310 315 325 330 335 340 350 360 370 11-19 years 265 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 305 315 325 _._ ............... 8-10 years 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 260 265 4-7 years 170 175 180 195 190 195 195 200 205 210 215 1-3 years 130 135 140 145 150 155 155 160 165 170 175 Paralegals & Law Clerk 75 75 80 80 80 85 85 90 90 95 100 COMMUNITY PROSECLrnON PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH VICTIM WITNESS ASSISTANCE PARTNERSHIPS PRESS RELEASES EMPLOYMENT IESPANOL CONTACT US BNKS Sn'E MAP Explanatory Notes 1. This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience (evels and paralegals/law clerks has been prepared by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. The matrix is intended to be used in cases in which a "fee-shifting" statute permits the prevailing party to recover "reasonable" attorney's fees. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (b) (Equal Access to Justice Act). The matrix does not apply in cases in which the hourly rate is limited by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 2. This matrix is based on the hourly rates allowed by the District Court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1021 (1985). It is commonly referred to by attorneys and federal judges in the District of Columbia as the "Laffey Matrix" or the "United States Attorney's Office Matrix." The column headed "Experience" refers to the years following the attorney's graduation from law school. The various "brackets" are intended to correspond to "junior associates" (1-3 years after law school graduation), "senior associates" (4-7 years), "experienced federal court litigators" (8-10 and 11-19 years), and "very experienced federal court litigators" (20 years or more). See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371. 3. The hourly rates approved by the District Court in Laffey were for work done principally in 1981-82. The Matrix begins with those rates. See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371 (attorney rates) & 386 n.74 (paralegal and law clerk rate). The rates for subsequent yearly periods were determined by adding the change in the cost of living for the Washington, D.C. area to the applicable rate for the prior year, and then rounding to the nearest multiple of $5 (up if within $3 of the next multiple of $5). The result is subject to adjustment if appropriate to ensure that the relationship between the highest rate and the lower rates remains reasonably constant. Changes in the cost of living are measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV, as announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for May of each year. 4. Use of an updated Laffey Matrix was implicitly endorsed by the Court of Appeals in Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The Court of Appeals subsequently stated that parties may rely on the updated Laffey Matrix prepared by the United States Attorney's Office as evidence of prevailing market rates for litigation counsel in the Washington, D.C. area. See Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1105 & n. 14, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1115 (1996). Lower federal courts in the District of Columbia have used this updated Laffey Matrix when determining whether fee awards under fee-shifting statutes are reasonable. See, e.g., Blackman v. i-)istrict of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 1999); Jefferson v. Milvets System Technology, Inc., 986 F. Supp. 6, 11 (D.D.C. 1997); Ralph Hoar & Associates v. Nat? Highway Transportation Safety Admin., 985 F. Supp. 1, 9-10 n.3 (D.D.C. 1997); Martini v. Fed. Nat? MtgAss'n, 977 F. Supp. 482,485 n.2 (D.D.C. 1997); Park v. Howard University, 881 F. Supp. 653, 654 (D.D.C. 1995). EXHIBIT J Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorne),_Fees and Expenses Pursuant to _ . the C_l_ff_et)ruary.5, 2003 Ruling ueierlQarlts' NIOI1Orl Io Keconslaer lna_ Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 http ://www.usdoj .g_v/usa_/dc/Divisi_ns/Civi_-Divisi_n/_affey-Matrix-2.ht_[_Nfr_,_tI_e_eF_,° _t 1:29:5... Page 74 of 76 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 Plaintiffs' Report on the Status of the Evidence Concerning Defendants'and the Department of Justice's Misrepresentations To ,this Court on December 13 and December 17, 2003 and For Attorney's Fees with Respect Thereto, Dkt # 2762. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Statement, Defendants' Objections, any Reply thereto, the applicable law and the entire record of this case, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall, with in 20 days of this order, pay $15,889.50 in reasonable Fees and Expenses pursuant to the Court's February 5, 2003 Memorandum and Order, Dkt # 1772. SO ORDERED. Hon. Royce C. Lamberth UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court for the District of Columbia Date: EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 75 of 76 CC: Michael F. Hertz Dodge Wells Tracy L. Hilmer Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 261 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Fax (202)616-3085 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. 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 EXHIBIT A Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 76 of 76 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. ) ) NOTICE On July 21, 2004, Defendants filed their Objections To Plaintiffs' Statement Of Fees And Expenses Filed June 21, 2004 ("Defendants' Objections"). Exhibit A to our objections is intended to list all of the fee entries submitted by Plaintiffs that fall outside the scope of the Court's relevant orders, but the version originally filed contains an incomplete listing. As a result, the hours and value of those improper billing entries were erroneously stated in Defendants' Objections (pp. 4, 6) as $118,716.26. A corrected listing in the attached Exhibit A indicates that the total sum of such entries is $225,415.32. Calculations concerning Plaintiffs' billable time that is within the scope of the Court's orders and the maximum potential recovery to which Plaintiffs might be entitled were also inaccurately stated in the original filing (pp. 4,8-9), and they too have been corrected. A $30 error in the calculation of the total fees sought by Plaintiffs (pp. 2,3,5,7) has also been adjusted. Exhibit C to Defendants' Objections is intended to itemize Plaintiffs' fee entries that are internally inconsistent, but incorrectly indicated that the total for these improper entries was $12,463.15 for 34.06 hours. The corrected total for the improper entries is $11,932.15 for 34.549 hours. Some EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 1 of 122 of the objection descriptions in the table were also modified. Exhibit C, and the reference to the total value of those entries at page 11 of the main text of Defendants' Objections, have been corrected accordingly. Defendants' original filing also refers (at footnote 14) to Exhibit D, a table that lists all of the billing entries for which Plaintiffs seek recovery and Defendants' applicable objections, but fails to include the actual exhibit. Defendants hereby file the corrected documents and, for the Court's convenience, attach a complete copy of Defendants' Obj ections in which the aforementioned corrections have been made. Dated: July 23, 2004 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Associate Attomey General PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attomey General STUART E. SCHIFFER Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Director SANDRA P. SPOONER Deputy Director D.C. Bar No. 261495 JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ Senior Trial Counsel GINO D. VISSICCHIO Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 (202) 514-7194 EXHIBIT B 2 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 2 of 122 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' CORRECTED OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF FEES AND EXPENSES FILED JUNE 21, 2004 Pursuant to the Court's Order of May 25, 2004, Defendants respectfully submit their objections to Plaintiffs' Statement Of Fees And Expenses In Accordance With The Court's March 11, 2003 Order (filed June 21, 2004) ("Plaintiffs' Statement"). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On March 11, 2003, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order imposing sanctions against Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g) based on the filing of a declaration executed by Frank Sapienza, the former Director of the Indian Trust Accounting Division of the General Services Administration ("Sapienza Declaration").l Specifically, the Court ordered Defendants to "compensate Plaintiffs for any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by plaintiffs as a result of opposing the claims set ibrth in the Sapienza Affidavit submitted in conjunction with defendants' Third Motion. ''2 Mem. & Order at 15. The t On May 25, 2004, the Court denied our motion to reconsider the sanctions ruling. 2 The "Third Motion" refers to Defendants' Third Phase II Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (filed Sept. 19, 2000) ("Third Motion"). EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 3 of 122 Court ordered Plaintiffs to submit an application "detailing the amount of reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred as a result of preparing and filing their opposition brief to the Third Motion." Id. Plaintiffs have submitted a fee application seeking a staggering $356,804.12, based on 1,165.7 claimed billable hours, in response to the Court's Order allowing them recovery for the preparation of a single summary judgment opposition brief. In so doing, they disregard the limitation prescribed in the Court's Order, seek reimbursement for other motions and activities for which the Court has not allowed them recovery, and seek unreasonable levels of compensation for the work that they ostensibly performed. Because Plaintiffs have so overreached in seeking reimbursement of fees which they could not reasonably believe the Court allowed them to recover, their entire application should be denied under established law in this Circuit. Alternatively, their total claim should be substantially reduced to $29,322.50, a reasonable amount in light of the relief contemplated by the Court's Order. ARGUMENT I. Because Plaintiffs Improperly Seek Fees And Expenses Based On Work For Which They Have Not Been Awarded Recovery, Their Entire Claim Should Be Disallowed The Court's March 11, 2003 Memorandum and Order permits the Plaintiffs to seek reimbursement for fees and expenses "incurred as a result of preparing and filing their opposition brief to the Third Motion." Mere. & Order at 15. Viewed against these clear parameters, Plaintiffs' application is so outlandish that it warrants denial in its entirety. This Court previously has recognized the exacting standards that are to be applied in reviewing fee applications against the government: "The D.C. Circuit has admonished.., that 2 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 4 of 122 'where a fee is sought from the United States, which has infinite ability to pay, the court must scrutinize the claim with particular care.'" Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. 122, 125 (D.D.C. 1999) (quoting Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 888 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). And, in Environmental Defense Fund v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254, 1258 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the D.C. Circuit warned: We may deny in its entirety a request for an "outrageously unreasonable" amount, lest claimants feel free to make "unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be reduction of their fee to what they should have asked for in the first place." (quoting Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057, 1059 (7th Cir. 1980), and citing Jordan v. Dep't of Justice, 691 F.2d 514, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Trichilo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 823 F.2d 702, 708 (2d Cir. 1987)). The court also noted that, as an alternative to disallowance of the entire fee request, a court may "impose a lesser sanction, such as awarding a fee below what a 'reasonable' fee would have been in order to discourage fee petitioners from submitting an excessive request." 1 F.3d at 1258. After considering the fees claimed and work performed, the court disallowed the entire fee sought by one of the attorneys for the applicant (but not the others) because of an excessive amount of time claimed for certain tasks. Id. Plaintiffs' Statement fits precisely within the "outrageously unreasonable" standard described in Environmental Defense Fund. Aside from the fact that the overall amount claimed by Plaintiffs (1,165.7 hours and fees and expenses totaling $356,804.12) is grossly excessive in light of the matter for which recovery was allowed, Plaintiffs' Statement is outrageously unreasonable because it seeks substantial sums for work on motions and other tasks for which 3 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 5 of 122 they were not authorized to request fees. 3 Plaintiffs had no basis to believe that they were entitled to include that work in their present application. Their conduct is aggravated by the fact that they have engaged in this practice twice before. 4 A substantial sanction is appropriate to ensure that this does not happen again. 5 Based upon the dates and descriptions of work contained in the fee statements attached to Plaintiffs' Statement, the vast majority of the hours for which Plaintiffs seek recovery (at least 713.1 hours, which is 61% of the 1,165.70 total hours claimed) involves work on activities other than preparing and filing their opposition brief to the Third Motion. 6 See Exh. A (identifying the various activities outside the scope of the Court's Order for which Plaintiffs seek fees). Plaintiffs even go so far as to seek recovery for work on motions as to which they did not prevail, such as 3 Moreover, as discussed in detail in Section II.B.3, infra, there is reason to believe that Plaintiffs have modified their billing records in an effort to increase their fee request. This conduct further militates in favor of denial of their entire fee award. 4 Following the 1999 contempt proceeding, Plaintiffs submitted an application for over $2.3 million, which the Court reduced to under $625,000, finding that Plaintiffs included in their application much work on matters beyond the scope of what the Court's decision stated they could recover at that time. Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. at 123, 139-40. On April 29, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a fee statement claiming over $409,000 for opposing two short discovery motions. The Court substantially reduced that award to $125,484.87, finding that Plaintiffs again included work beyond the scope of the recovery permitted by the Court. Mem. Op. and Order (Nov. 12, 2002). 5 This is particularly important now because Plaintiffs are preparing what is likely to be, based on prior practice, an equally excessive interim fee petition pursuant to EAJA. It bears noting that Plaintiffs have now sought two extensions of time (which the Court has not yet acted upon) in order to compile their "contemporaneous" billing records for that interim petition. 6 The actual quantity of inappropriately claimed time may be higher; many of Plaintiffs' time entries include unsegregated tasks and are too vague to clearly identify which activity they involve. 4 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 6 of 122 their motion to amend their contempt motion, cross-motions for summary judgment, and their opposition to Defendants' motion to withdraw three summary judgment motions. 7 Plaintiffs have ignored the Court's clear instruction that their application be limited to those fees and expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and filing of their opposition brief to the Third Motion. Instead, Plaintiffs' Statement is so far afield from these simple parameters that it cannot reasonably have been thought proper. Because Plaintiffs' Statement contains time for so many clearly non-recoverable tasks, we respectfully request that the Court disallow Plaintiffs' request for recovery in its entirety. As the D.C. Circuit recognized in Environmental Defense Fund v. Reilly, 1 F.3d at 1258, that is the only effective way to deter such wrongful conduct. II. Alternatively, Plaintiffs' Statement Should Be Substantially Reduced Because It Exceeds The Scope Of The Relief Ordered By The Court And Is Grossly Excessive Plaintiffs' Application far exceeds the relief ordered by the Court. First, Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of fees and expenses for work that was not incurred in connection with preparing and filing their opposition brief to the Third Motion. Second, the fees and expenses that Plaintiffs seek are unreasonable because $356,804.12, based on 1,165 hours, is a patently excessive amount for the preparation of a single summary judgment opposition brief. The billing 7 See Order (Mar. 11, 2003) (denying Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards); Order (Sept. 17, 2002) (denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment as to (A) There Being No Temporal Limit to Defendants' Obligation to Account, and (B) the Non-Settlement of Accounts); Memorandum and Order (Mar. 11, 2002) (granting Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Three Motions for Partial Summary Judgment). 5 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 7 of 122 entries are also replete with inconsistencies and other improprieties, and include the application of an inappropriate billing rate for non-professional work. Plaintiffs' Fee Statement should be denied insofar as the billing entries included therein suffer from these defects. A. Plaintiffs' Application Goes Beyond The Relief Ordered By The Court The Court expressly limited the fees and expenses for which Plaintiffs could seek reimbursement to those "incurred as a result of preparing and filing their opposition brief to the Third Motion." Mem. & Order at 15. Plaintiffs disregard this limitation and seek fees and expenses for a variety of work unrelated to their opposition brief to the Third Motion, including discovery-related activities; summary judgment motions relating to the Phase 1.5 trial; an opposition to Defendants' motion to withdraw three summary judgment motions and Plaintiffs' cross-motions; a motion to amend Plaintiffs' request for contempt orders; and an opposition to Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's sanctions order. See Exh. A. None of these activities can be construed as "preparing and filing their opposition brief' to the Third Motion for summary judgment and, therefore, they are outside the scope of the Court's Order. Indeed, some of the work for which Plaintiffs seek reimbursement was allegedly performed by Mr. Gingold in June and July 2000, and by Mr. Rempel in June 2000, before the Third Motion was even filed) The total value of fees and expenses claimed by Plaintiffs that are outside the scope of the Court's Order is $225,415.32. s The Third Motion and accompanying Sapienza Declaration were filed on September 19, 2000. 6 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 8 of 122 B. Plaintiffs' Application Is Excessive And Unreasonable Plaintiffs seek exorbitant compensation for both work ostensibly within the scope of the Court's Order and activities clearly outside the Order's parameters. They also improperly seek to have non-professional services compensated at a professional rate, and base a significant portion of their fee request on inconsistent or otherwise defective billing entries. 1. The Number Of Billable Hours For Which Plaintiffs Seek Compensation Is Unreasonable Plaintiffs have requested $356,804.12 for 1,165.70 hours of billed time. Under no interpretation can such a sum be deemed reasonable for "preparing and filing their opposition to the Third Motion." In a recent decision analyzing the reasonableness of a fee application, this Court found it appropriate to compare the total number of hours worked to the specific document produced. Mitchell v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 217 F.R.D. 53, 58-60 (D.D.C. 2003) (Facciola, MJ); see also Environmental Defense Fund v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254, 1258 (evaluating fee application under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by multiplying prevailing ihourly rate by number of attorney hours reasonably expended). In making this assessment, the Court considered the complexity of the legal issues and factual analysis involved, as well as whether the work was appropriately delegated. Mitchell, 217 F.R.D. at 58. Applying these factors, the Court found that the fee application was unreasonably high. A 16-page motion for which the applicant sought recovery cost $12,866.25, or $800 per page, to prepare; other documents for which recovery was sought cost more than $500 per page. In finding these sums unreasonable, the Court determined that the work performed by a junior lawyer, allowing for necessary research and familiarization 7 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 9 of 122 with applicable legal principles, should not exceed one hour per page. The Court further held that a senior lawyer, whose role generally is limited to supervising and editing, should be capable of reviewing a ten-page draft in one hour. Based on these conclusions, the fee award was substantially reduced. Id. at 60. Even looking only at the time Plaintiffs attribute to opposing the Third Motion, which is the only time compensable under the Court's March 11, 2003 and May 25, 12004 Orders, the fees and expenses Plaintiffs seek reach dizzying heights. Plaintiffs claim to have spent 452.83 hours and have billed $131,389.50 to prepare their 38-page opposition brief to the Third Motion and the accompanying 73-page "evidentiary appendix. ''9 This amounts to $1183.69 per page! 10 Id. No degree of complexity could justify such overreaching, particularly given the number of years of legal experience possessed by the lawyers who performed the work. Even employing the rate of one hour per page utilized in Mitchell for the work of an inexperienced attorney, Plaintiffs' 9 This is based on the following individual hours billed by Plaintiffs for work on their opposition brief to the Third Motion: Mr. Brown - 146.23 hours; Mr. Harper - 96.3 hours; Mr. Gingold- 105.2 hours; and Mr. Rempel- 105.1 hours. It is not clear that the appendix Plaintiffs filed with their opposition brief, titled "Evidentiary Appendix Filed In Opposition To Defendants' Third Phase II Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Re: Settlement Of Accounts By Treasury And GAO), should be factored into the fee analysis. But for purposes of computing the maximum award to which Plaintiffs could be entitled, we include it here as work for which fees may be recoverable under the Court's Order. i0 The time submitted by Plaintiffs for work not within the scope of the Court's orders (and therefore not compensable at all) is similarly extravagant. For example, Plaintiffs claim to have spent 201.5 hours and seek more than $52,000, or $4,053 per page, for preparing their 13- page motion to amend their contempt motion, and 134.42 hours and $29,179, or $1,621 per page, for opposing Defendants' motion to withdraw summary judgment motions and for preparing cross-motions. 8 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 10 of 122 fees for preparing their opposition to the Third Motion still would be reduced to an amount based on 111 hours of work, or 25% of the hours that Plaintiffs have submitted. Reducing the hours to 25% of those submitted by Plaintiffs, the maximum fees to which Plaintiffs would be entitled with respect to opposing the Third Motion are $29,322.50, consisting of: $12,810 for Mr. Brown (36.6 hours at $350/hour); $4,940.50 for Mr. Harper (24.1 hours at $205/hour); $9,205 for Mr. Gingold (26.3 hours at $350/hour); and $2,367 for Mr. Rempel (26.3 hours at the paralegal rate of $90/hour _ _). Accordingly, any fee award to Plaintiffs for their work in preparing the opposition brief to the Third Motion should not exceed $29,322.50. 2. Non-Professional Services Rendered By Plaintiffs' Counsel's Consultant Does Not Merit Compensation At A Professional Rate Plaintiffs improperly seek reimbursement for time billed by non-lawyer Geoffrey Rempel at the professional rate of $225 per hour, based on an earlier decision of the Court finding that Mr. Rempel had performed professional accounting services in connection with a prior fee application. See Affidavit of Geoffrey Rempel, executed June 21, 2004 and submitted with Plaintiffs' Statement ("Rempel Aft."), at ¶ 20 (citing Memorandum Opinion (Nov. 12, 2002) at 9). Here, however, Mr. Rempel rendered no professional accounting services in connection with Plaintiffs' opposition brief to the Third Motion. Instead, his work consisted primarily of assisting with the drafting of legal papers and providing other litigation support to Plaintiffs' counsel. As a result, he cannot be compensated based on the provision of professional accounting services. Indeed, because he is not actively licensed as a CPA, see Rempel Aft., ¶ 1, he is not authorized to _ As discussed in Section II.B.2, infra, Mr. Rempel rendered no professional accounting or legal services that would justify a professional rate of compensation for his work. 9 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 11 of 122 render professional accounting services. And because he is not a lawyer, he cannot be compensated professionally in that capacity either. Rather, Mr. Rempel's role in connection with Plaintiffs' opposition to the Third Motion can properly be deemed to be only that of a paralegal, and his billing rate should be adjusted downward to reflect that status. Under the Laffey matrix, paralegal work performed in the year 2000 (when Plaintiffs prepared their opposition brief) is compensable at the hourly rate of $90. Accordingly, any fees awarded to Plaintiffs based on work performed by Mr. Rempel in connection with Plaintiffs' opposition to the Third Motion should be reduced by $135 per hour ($225-$90) to reflect the appropriate nature of Mr. Rempel's work. 12 3. The Specific Time Entries Submitted By Plaintiffs Reveal Patent Improprieties Plaintiffs' Statement is replete with improper billing entries that warrant denial of fees claimed for that work. First, Plaintiffs' counsel seek reimbursement of fees and expenses that were already submitted, and rejected, on two prior occasions in connection with Plaintiffs' efforts to hold the Secretary and Assistant Secretary in contempt. See Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1133 (D.C.Cir. Jul 18, 2003), Cobell v. Norton, 319 F.Supp.2d 36 (D.D.C. 2004). Having attested to those fees as having been incurred in connection with their contempt charges, Plaintiffs cannot now claim such fees as having been incurred in connection with opposing the Third Motion. Plaintiffs employ similar tactics with respect to time that they previously 12 As discussed in Section II.A, supra, time billed by Mr. Rempel for activities unrelated to Plaintiffs' opposition to the Third Motion is not compensable under the Court's order. Moreover, as discussed in Section II.B, supra, the hours Mr. Rempel does attribute to Plaintiffs' opposition brief are excessive and must be reduced to a reasonable level, i.e., 25% of the hours he claims. 10 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 12 of 122 submitted in connection with the Mona Infield matter. The total value of all time entries included in Plaintiffs' Statement that have been double billed, which are identified in Exhibit B, is $57,748.50. Second, in numerous instances, time entries by one member of Plaintiffs' litigation team are not consistent with those of others. For example, Mr. Gingold seeks reimbursement for an alleged conference call of 0.4 hours with Mr. Harper and Mr. Brown on October 28, 2000, but the billing records of neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Brown indicate that any such conference call took place. Similarly, Mr. Gingold claims to have spent 1.3 hours on March 11, 2002, and 2.3 hours on March 13, 2002, in teleconferences with Mr. Harper, but Mr. Harper's records do not reflect that any such conferences occurred on those dates. Indeed, there are dozens of entries in the fee schedules submitted by Plaintiffs that are internally inconsistent. The total value of these improper entries, which are set forth in Exhibit C, is $11,932.15. Third, itemized entries included in Plaintiffs' present fee request that were also the subject of previous fee applications made by Plaintiffs in other contexts are not consistent with those prior entries. For example, in the fee application Plaintiffs filed on November 18, 2002, Mr. Gingold sought to be reimbursed for the following billing entry for June 2, 2000: Appear at Special Master meeting with defendants and their counsel; discuss withheld GAO documents and related memoranda re: DOJ/DOI misrepresentations regarding GAO disbursing officer account audits and discharge of accounting duties in accordance with 12/21/99 Court order. Affidavit of Dennis M. Gingold, executed Nov. 18, 2002, Att. B (included in Exh. B(1) hereto). However, in Plaintiffs' present fee application, the same (purportedly contemporaneous) billing entry bears little resemblance to the form in which it was previously submitted: 11 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 13 of 122 Accompanied by Rempel, met with Master, DOJ, DOI, & DOT re: production of accounting documents relevant to Cobell litigation, including all documentation that purports to represent the settlement of IIM accounts in the custody or control of disbursement officers. Brooks represented that the settlement of Disbursing [sic] officer accounts also settled IIM accounts. Asst. Secretary_ of the Treasury_ Don Hammond confirmed that the settlement of disbursing officer accounts did not result in accounting of IIM trust accounts. Affidavit of Dennis M. Gingold, executed June 21, 2004 ("Gingold Aft."), Schedule (included in Exh. B(1) hereto) (emphasis added). The obvious purpose of the new language apparently added by Mr. Gingold is to match statements he makes in his current affidavit in an effort to justify an award beyond the scope defined in the Court's Order: However, the attached Schedule does include time spent on this issue from the time this matter first was presented formally to the Special Master four years ago, a matter candidly discussed by the parties and counsel in the presence of the Master on June 2, 2000. During this meeting, Assistant Treasury_ Secretary_ Don Hammond explicitly admitted - contrary_ to knowingly false claims of defense counsel and the Interior defendants - that neither the GAO nor Treasury_ had settled, or conducted an accounting of, the accounts of individual Indian trust beneficiaries. Gingold Aft., ¶ 4 (emphasis added). While the foregoing entry is among the most egregious examples in Plaintiffs' Statement, it is only one of over forty billing entries that have been modified by Mr. Gingold to suit the present fee application.13 13 See Exh. (B)(1), Affidavits of Dennis Gingold of Nov. 5, 2002, Nov. 18, 2002, and June 20, 2004, and compare entries for June 2, 2000 (two entries), July 5, 2000, July 25, 2000, Sept. 24, 2000 (two entries), Sept. 25, 2000 (two entries), Sept. 26, 2000 (three entries), Sept. 28, 2000 (two entries), Sept. 30, 2000, Oct. 1, 2000, Oct. 5, 2000, Oct. 7, 2000 (two entries), Oct. 8, 2000, Oct. 28, 2000, Oct. 29, 2000 (two entries), Oct. 30, 2000, Oct. 31, 2000, Nov. 1, 2000, Nov. 2, 2000, Nov. 3, 2000 (four entries), May 1, 2002 (two entries), June 20, 2002, June 21, 2002, June 24, 2002, June 25, 2002, July 5, 2002, July 11, 2002, July 29, 2002, July 30, 2002, Aug. 6, 2002, and Aug. 7, 2002. 12 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 14 of 122 Plaintiffs also makes inconsistent claims with regard to the billing entries of Mr. Rempel. For example, the fee statement submitted in connection with Plaintiffs' second contempt campaign in 2002 included the following entry for Mr. Rempel for September 23, 2000: Review Defs' Motion for MSJ re: GAO settled accounts for contempt motion. Affidavit of Geoffrey Rempel, executed Nov. 18, 2002, Schedule (included in Exh. B(2))(emphasis added). But in Plaintiffs' present fee application, which is limited only to work related to Plaintiffs' opposition to the Third Motion, Mr. Rempel has deleted the reference "for contempt motion" in an apparent attempt to link his work for that day to the scope of the present fee matter. In the present application, his billing entry for September 23, 2(?00 now reads simply: Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO settlement of accounts. Rempel Aft., Schedule. In fact, new language has been added to virtually all of Mr. Rempel's present fee entries that were also the subject of a prior fee application in an apparent effort to make them appear related to the award contemplated by the Court. See, e.g., id. at 9/25/00 (adding the language "begin drafting and preparing response"); id. at 9/29/00 (adding the language "re settlement of accounts process"), id. at 10/5/00, 10/6/00, 10/26/00, 10/27/00, and 10/28/00 (adding the language "for purposes of drafting the opposition" to each entry); see Exh. B(2), Affidavits of Geoffrey Rempel of June 21, 2004 and Nov. 18, 2002, and compare entries for Sept. 25, 2000, Sept. 26, 2000, Sept. 27, 2000, (two entries), Oct 5, 2000, Oct. 6, 2000, Oct. 25, 2000, Oct. 26, 2000, Oct. 27, 2000, Oct. 28, 2000 (two entries) Oct. 29, 2000, Nov. 1, 2000, Nov. 2, 2000, Nov. 3, 2000, May 6, 2000. 13 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 15 of 122 This conduct warrants not only disallowance of those fees that are based on the manipulated billing entries, but outright denial of the entire fee application as outrageously unreasonable. See Section I, supra. Both Mr. Gingold and Mr. Rempel swore that their billing entries were made contemporaneously with the tasks allegedly performed. See Gingold Aft. at ¶ 2; Rempel Aft. at ¶ 15. Yet, these representations cannot be reconciled with the subsequent modification of Plaintiffs' bills to better suit their present fee application. A table identifying all of these suspect billing entries is attached hereto as Exhibit B.14 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue an order denying Plaintiffs' entire fee application as outrageously unreasonable. In the alternative, any fee award to Plaintiffs for preparing their opposition brief to the Third Motion should be reduced to an amount not exceeding $29,322.50. Dated: July 23, 2004 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Associate Attorney General PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attomey General STUART E. SCHIFFER Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Director SANDRA P. SPOONER Deputy Director D.C. Bar No. 261495 74 For the Court's convenience, a table reproducing all of the billing entries included in Plaintiffs' Statement, and describing our objections where applicable, is attached as Exhibit D. 14 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 16 of 122 JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ Senior Trial Counsel GINO D. VISSICCHIO Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 (202) 514-7194 15 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 17 of 122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on July 23, 2004 the foregoing Notice and Defendant's Corrected Objections to Plaintiffs' Statement of Fees and Expenses Filed June 21, 2004 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 f\ !" Zx,,IL4A,igV_vwl_ I_evinP. I_lln_ston / EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 18 of 122 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 Plaintiffs' Statement of Fees and Expenses in Accordance with the Court's March 11, 2003 Order, Dkt # 2596. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Statement, Defendants' Objections, any Reply thereto, the applicable law and the entire record of this case, it hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Statement of Fees and Expenses is, DENIED. SO ORDERED Hon. Royce C. Lamberth UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court for the District of Columbia Date: EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 19 of 122 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. Richard 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 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 20 of 122 Brown Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount :2/7/02 ?,esearch/Review GAO Report 2.5 $900.00 Outside of Scope 2/9/02 Legal Research re Cross-motion for MSJ 3.166 $1,139.76 Outside of Scope 2/11/02 Legal Research re Withdrawing MSJ; Prepare 3.25 $1,170.00 Outside of Memorandum of Points and Authorities Scope 2/12/02 Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 1.583 $569.88 Outside of Scope 2/12/02 Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 0.333 $119.88 Outside of Scope 2/13/02 Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 0.333 $119.88 Outside of Scope 2/13/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 0.666 $239.76 Outside of Scope 2/14/02 Revise Memorandum of Points and Authorities 2.92 $1,051.20 Outside of re Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Scope 2/14/02 IRevise Summary Judgment Opposition 4.916 $1,769.76 Ioutside of Scope 2/15/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 0.75 $270.00 Outside of Scope '2/15/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 3 $1,080.00 Outside of Scope 2/15/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 1.333 $479.88 Outside of /miscellaneous re service & tiling Scope 3/10/02 Review Opposition to Rule 56(g) Motion 1.666 $599.76 Outside of Scope 3/13/02 Prepare Reply re Cross-Motion for Summary 2.75 $990.00 Outside of Judgment Scope 3/13/02 Prepare Reply re Cross-Motion for Summary 6.916 $2,489.76 Outside of Judgment Scope 5/26/04 Review Court Orders re Sapienza Sanctions; 1.166 $443.08 Outside of Review File re Same Scope 6/8/04 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee 4.916 $1,868.08 ;Outside of Application Scope 6/9/04 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee 1.916 $728.08 Outside of Application Scope EXHIBIT A (Corrected) Def_dnats' Objections to Plaintiffs' _'_of Fees and Expenses Filed Defendants' Motion to Recj_d_i T_i_)4 Part of the Court's Order of April 20_ 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 21 of 122 Brown Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/9/04 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee 3.666 $1,393.08 Outside of Application; Scope Prepare MKB Affidavit re fees; Legal Research re Laffey _ates 5/10/04 Prepare MKB Affidavit re fees 1.916 $728.08 Outside of Scope 5/10/04 Legal Research re adjusted Laffey 1.25 $475.00 Outside of rates/McDowell Scope decision 6/10/04 Prepare MKB Affidavit re fees 3.166 $1,203.08 Outside of Scope 6/11/04 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee 0.583 $221.54 Outside of Application Scope 6/11/04 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees 2.916 $1,108.08 Outside of Scope 6/11/04 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees 1.833 $696.54 Outside of Scope 6/11/04 'Revise MKB Affidavit re fees/Prepare 3.75 $1,425.00 Outside of Application and Scope Order 16/14/04 _evise MKB Affidavit re fees/Prepare 4.166 $1,583.08 Outside of Application and Scope Order 5/14/04 Finalize MKB Affidavit re fees/Application and 1.666 $633.08 Outside of Order Scope 6/17/04 Telephone Conference with team re time entries 1.25 $475.00 Outside of re GAO fee application Scope Total $25,970.32 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 22 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 6/2/00 Accompanied by Rempel, met with Master, DOJ, DOI & 2.1 $735.00 Previously DOT re. production of accounting does. relevant to Billed/Denied Cobell litigation, including all documentation that Outside of purports to represent the settlement of IIM accounts in the Scope custody or control of disbursement officers. Brooks represented that settlement of Disbursing officer accounts also settled IIM accounts. Asst. Secretary of the Treasury Don Hammond confmued that the settlement of disbursing officer accounts did not result in an accounting of IIM trust accounts. 6/2/00 Prepare for Special Master meeting re. Defendants 0.8 $280.00 Previously misrepresentation re. settlement of Indian disbursing Billed/Denied officer accounts as accounting IIM trust accounts. Outside of Scope 6/5/00 Telcom. with Brian Ferrell, DOJ, requesting production 0.3 $105.00 Outside of of all documents relevant to settlement of IIM accounts in Scope the custody or control of disbursement officers, at least with respect to the named plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interes ? in conformity with the representations of Brooks at the 6.2.00 meeting at the Master's office. 6/6/00 Telcoms. with Ferrell re. same. (Document Production & 0.3 ,$105.00 Outside of Account Settlement) Scope 7/5/00 Telcoms. Holt re. GAO summary judgment/accounting 0.7 $245.00 Previously Billed/Denied Outside of Scope 7/25/00 Draft MSJ surreply re. defs' material misrepresentations re. 1.7 $595.00 Previously GAO Billed/Denied Outside of Scope 2/1/02 Meet and confer with Cynthia Alexander and Matt Fader, DO J, 0.1 $36.00 Outside of and object to defendants' motion to withdraw pending motion Scope/ for partial summary judgement regarding GAO Settlement of Inconsistent Accounts of disbursing officers as discharging the accounting of with Harper bill IIM Trust beneficiaries ("MSJ III"). 2/1/02 Telcom. Harperre. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope 2/1/02 Telcoms. Cobell re. same 0.3 $108.00 Outside of Scope EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 23 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order | Date Matter Claimed Objection I'ime Amount 2/4/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same, particularly impact false MSJ III was 0.2 $72.00 Outside of intended to have on class. Scope 2/12/02 Telcoms. Ferrell re. MSJ III issues, intended impact, etc. 0.2 ;72.00 Outside of Scope 2/14/02 Review and revise Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 8.5 $3,060.00 Outside of Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs' Cross- Scope Motions for Summary Judgment as to (B) The Non-Settlement of accounts to reinforce such settlement of Indian disbursing officer accounts does not constitute an accounting of IIM trust accounts. 2/14/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.2 1572.00 Outside of Scope 2/14/02 Conference call with Cobell and Rempel re. defs' motion to 0.4 $144.00 Outside of withdraw MSJ III, the intended affect of the motion, the Scope deception practiced on the district court, and reasons for the opposition. 2/15/02 Finalize revisions and refinement ofopp, to defs' motion and 6.2 $2,232.00 Outside of cross motion re. MSJ III. i Scope 2/15/02 i Conference call with Cobell and Rempel re opp. to motion to 0.5 $180.00 i Outside of I, withdraw MSJ III and crossmotion for summary judgment. Scope 3/5/02 Review, revise, and redraft reply to consolidated MSJ III cross 11 $3,960.00 Outside of motion and show cause motion. Scope 3/5/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.6 $216.00 Outside of Scope/ Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/8/02 Review, revise, and modify current draft of consolidated MSJ 12 $4,320.00 Outside of III crossmotion. Scope 3/11/02 Conference call with Cobell and Rempel re. consolidated MSJ 1.2 $432.00 Outside of III crossmotion, accounting implica bad faith, irreparable harm. Scope 3/11/02 Continue revisions and refinement ofMSJ III draft in 6.6 $2,376.00 Outside of accordance with discussion with Cobell and Rempel, and Scope Harper. 3/11/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 1.3 $468.00 Outside of Scope/ Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/11/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 1.I $396.00 Outside of Scope 3/11/02 Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ III reply draft and necessary 0.8 $288.00 Outside of revisions, additional supporting documents. Scope EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 24 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection l'ime Amount 3/12/02 Continue revisions and refinement of MSJ III reply draft, 14.5 $5,220.00 Outside of including factual appendix. Scope 3/12/02 Telcom. Harperre. same. 1.1 $396.00 Outsideof Scope/ Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/12/02 Conference call Brown and Harper re. same. 0.8 $288.00 Outside of Scope/ Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/12/02 Discussion with Rempel re. same. 0.6 $216.00 Outside of Scope 3/13/02 Finalize revisions and refinement of MSJ III reply draft, 13.2 $4,752.00 Outside of including factual appendix; confirm supporting documentation. Scope 3/13/02 Felcom. Harper re. same. 2.3 $828.00 Outside of Scope/ Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/13/02 :Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.5 $180.00 Outside of Scope 3/13/02 Conference call Cobell mad Rempel re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Outside of Scope/ Inconsistent with Harper bill 4/22/00 Review GAO Gamboa April 19, 2002 letter that confirms 0.5 $180.00 Outside of knowingly false representations made re. settlement oflIM Scope accounts. 4/22/00 Telcoms. Harper re. same and implications of knowingly false 0.6 $216.00 Outside of representations to Court and pltffs' and plaintiffs' counsel. Scope 4/23/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.5 $180.00 Outside of Scope 4/23/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 ;144.00 Outside of Scope/ Inconsistent with Harper bill 4/24/02 Review implications of Gamboa admissions and willful 2.9 $1,044.00 Outside of _ misrepresentations to Court and pltffs' counsel; review all Scope filings by government and plaintiffs related thereto and consider options to rectify consequences of deception. 4/24/02 Telcom. Holt re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Outside of I Scope/Denied 4/24/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.7 $252.00 Outside of Scope/Denied EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 25 of 122 Gin_gold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 4/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.5 $180.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 4/24/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 4/24/02 Telcom. Fasold re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Ouside of Scope/Denied 4/25/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 4/25/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/1/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office re. Gamboa 0.2 $72.00 Previously letter and its implications. Billed/Denied; Outside of Scope 5/1/02 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Previously Billed/Denied; Outside of Scope 5/2/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, re same. 0.4 $144.00 Previously Billed/Denied; Outside of Scope 5/2/02 Work on notice of supplemental authority re. Gamboa letter. 0.6 $216.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/2/02 Telcoms. Harper re. discussions with U.S. Attorney's office and 0.9 $324.00 Inconsistent notice of supplemental authority re. Gamboa letter, with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/3/02 Review and revise consolidated motion for leave to amend 5.6 $2,016.00 Outside of plaintiffs' 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion and finding Scope/Denied pursuant to R 56(g) per newly discovered evidence, i.e., the Gamboa letter. 5/3/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, re same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/ Previously Billed/Denied 5/4/02 Work on notice of supp. authority, leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ 3.9 $1,404.00 Outside of III contempt motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion Scope/Denied per newly discovered evidence. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 26 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Time Amount 5/5/02 Continue to draft and revise same. 6.3 $2,268.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/5/02 Telcom. Harper re. issues and implications re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/6/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Outside of Scope/ Previously Billed/Denied 5/6/02 Work on notice of supp. authority, leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ 5.3 $1,908.00 Outside of III contempt motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion Scope/Denied _er newly discovered evidence. 5/6/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.2 ;72.00 Inonsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/7/02 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 3.7 $1,332.00 Outside of motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly Scope/Denied discovered evidence. 5/7/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 1.2 $432.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/9/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/9/02 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 5.4 $1,944.00 Outside of motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly Scope/Denied discovered evidence. 5/10/02 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 0.2 $72.00 Outside of motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly Scope/Denied discovered evidence. 5/10/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/10/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/12/02 Telecom. Harper re same. 0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 27 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 5/13/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2.7 $972.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/13/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside Of Scope/Denied 5/13/02 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Outside of Scope 5/14/02 Telcom with Lawrence re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/14/02 Discussion with Rempel re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/14/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Outsideof Scope/Denied 5/14/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.5 15180.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/15/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 1.8 $648.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/15/02 Telcoms. Harper re. comments to same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/16/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outsideof Scope/Denied 5/16/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 7.4 $2,664.00 Outside of amendment ofMSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/16/02 Telcom. Scott Harris re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/17/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 7 $2,520.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/18/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 1.9 $684.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/20/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2.2 $792.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 28 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 5/24/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 4.7 $1,692.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/24/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 ;36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.4 ;144.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/25/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 4 $1,440.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/25/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/26/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 7.1 $2,556.00 i Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/27/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 8.8 $3,168.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/28/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2.6 $936.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/28/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/30/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2.5 $900.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 5/30/02 Telcom. Harperre. same. 0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope 5/31/02 Teleom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/1/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 3.4 i$1,258.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 29 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection I'ime Amount 6/3/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. meet and confer re filing ofMSJ III 0.4 $148.00 Outside of contempt motion. Scope/Denied 6/3/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2 $740.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered S_pe/Denied evidence. 6/3/02 Discussion with Rempel re. same. 0.5 $185.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/3/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.3 $I 11.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/4/02 i Continued telcoms. Lawrence re. meet and confer on MSJ III 0.7 $259.00 Outside of contempt motion. Scope/Denied 6/4/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/4/02 Finalize motion to amend 2.15 02 MSJ III contempt motion, 8.6 $3,182.00 Outside of amendment fo MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered !Scope/Denied evidence. 6/6/02 Research and analyze complex personal service issues re. 4 $1,480.00 Outside of nonparties as to same. Scope/Denied 6/6/02 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/6/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 0.6 $222.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/6/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.6 $222.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/7/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in 0.1 $37.00 Outside of connection with MSJ III contempt. Scope/Denied 6/7/02 Conference call Rempel, Harper, Brown concerning 1.1 $407.00 Inconsistent appealability of contempt re. MSJ III contemnors, officially and with Harper & individually, including DOJ attorneys. Brown bills; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/8/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. MSJ III personal service logistical 0.5 $185.00 Outside of issues. Scope/Denied 6/8/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 1.5 $555.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/9/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in 0.i $37.00 Outside of connection with MSJ IIl contempt. Scope/Denied EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 30 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 6/19/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced 0.5 ;185.00 Outside of in Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. Scope/Denied 6/20/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 i537.00 Outside of Scope/ Previously Billed/Denied 6/20/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Outside of Scope/Denied/In consistent with Harper bill 6/21/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/24/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. .0.3 $111.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/24/02 Meet with Cobell concerning Gamboa letter and MSJ III. 1 $370.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/25/02 Work on reply to MSJ III, including review ofdefs' cases and 5 $1,850.00 Outside of authorities and begin preparation of draft. Scope/Denied 6/25/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced 0.4 $148.00 Previously in Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/26/02 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply, includes research and 2.2 $814.00 Outside of draft revisions. Scope/Denied 6/27/02 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and 1.3 $481.00 Outside of draft revisions. Scope/Denied 6/27/02 Telcom. Harperre. same. 0.1 $37.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of :Scope/Denied 6/27/02 vleet with Cobell re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/28/02 l Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and 3.7 $1,369.00 Outside of draft revisions. Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend and Scope/Denied Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: The April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards). EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 31 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Firne Amount 6/28/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope 7/1/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced 0.1 $37.00 Outside of in Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. Scope/Denied 7/5/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 0.2 $74.00 Previously documents referenced, and in connection, with Gamboa letter. Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 7/9/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 0.5 $185.00 Previously documents referenced, and in connection, with Garnboa letter. Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 7/11/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 0.4 $148.00 Previously documents referenced, and in connection with Gamboa letter. Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 7/19/02 Prepare letter to Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 1 $370.00 Outside of documents referenced, and in connection with, Gamboa letter, Scope/Denied _articulafly with respect to does. created, or received, by Interior and Treasury in response to GAO general counsel's opinion that IIM accounts were not settled. 7/29/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 7/30/02 Prepare letter response to Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 8/6/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 8/7/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 8/8/02 Review first production of does. referenced in Gamboa letter 1.3 $481.00 Outside of further demonstrating bad faih of defs' in filing MSJ III. Scope/Denied 9/13/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. production of remaining relevant 0.2 $74.00 Outside of Gamboa related does. Scope/Denied 9/16/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 1/28/03 Conference call Harper and Brown re. need to file MSJ 0.4 $148.00 Outside of declaring settlement of disbursing officer accounts does not Scope; settle or constitute accounting oflIM Trust accounts. Inconsistent with Brown & Harper bills EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 32 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection _ime Amount 1/30/03 Review documents in support of statement ofundesputed 6.1 $2,257.00 Outside of material facts re. MSJ settlements of Account. Review and Scope revise Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the NonSettlement of Accounts and Defendants' Failure to Perform the Accounting, in Whole or Part, Ordered by this Court on December 21, 1999 and Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Fasts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 1/31/03 [Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 1/31/03 Review and revise motion for partial summary judgment and 5.4 $1,998.00 Outside of _Scope 2/3/03 Finalize revisions and refinement of motion for partial summary 6.1 $2,257.00 Outside of iudgment and undisputed material facts. Scope 2/15/03 Telcom. Harperre. same and opp. to defs' motion to strike GAO 0.4 $148.00 Outsideof MSJ. Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/21/03 Revise and redraft Reply to defs' opp. to GAO MSJ. 3.6 $1,332.00 Outside of Scope 2/21/03 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/21/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.2 $74.00 Outside of Scope 2/24/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/24/03 Telcoms. Levitasre. same. 0.5 $185.00 Outsideof Scope; 2/26/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.1 $37.00 Outside of Scope EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 33 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 2/27/03 Prepare affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion 4.3 $1,591.00 Outside of to Treat as Conceded Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Scope Judgment as to the NonSettlement of Accounts and Defendants' Failure to Perform the Accounting, in Whole or Part, Ordered by this Court on December 21, 1999 and to Strike as Untimely Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to NonSettlement of Accounts, or in the Alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Reply to Defendants' Opposition Brief; review and revise motion to strike as conceded Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 3/8/03 Review and Revise draft Motion to Continue and Enlargement 5.5 $2,035.00 Outside of of Time re. GAO Summary Judgment. Scope 3/12/03 Review and revise Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Defendants' 4.3 $1,591.00 Outside of Motions for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Cir. P. Scope 56(t") and to Enlarge Plaintiffs' Time to Respond Thereto and Affidavit of Dennis Gingold in Support Thereof and draft affidivate which avers, among other things, that 8 requests for does. regarding the April 19, 2002 Gamboa letter remained unsatisifed, affecting plaintiffs' ability to provide fully informed opposition to defs' motion. 3/10/03 Review documents and begin draft affidavit in support of 3.8 $1,406.00 Outside of Motion to Continue GAO MSJ due to failure of defendants' to Scope produced relevant referenced docuements. 3/12/03 Continue such review and preparation of affidavit. 0.3 $111.00 Outside of Scope 3/13/03 Finalize same and prepare affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' 7.4 $2,738.00 Outside of Motion to Continue Motions for Summary Judgment due to Scope failure of defendants to produce documents relevant to GAO Settlements issues, including evidence related to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re. April 19, 2002 Gamboa letter and document references contained therein. 3/13/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Outside of Scope 4/7/03 Review and revise Plaintiffs' Reply re. Motion to Continue 1.3 $481.00 Outside of )efendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. Scope R. Civ. P. 56(t") and to Enlarge Plaintiffs' Time to Respond Thereto due to defs' refusal to comply with relevant doe. production requests. 4/8/03 ?_eview and revise Opposition to Defendants' Latest Motion for 2.9 $1,073.00 Outside of Reconsideration with Respect to this Court's March 11, 2003 Scope Memorandum and Order and Request for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Submit Filing Detailing Amount of Reasonable Expenses and Attorneys' Fees Incurred. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 34 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection ['ime Amount 4/9/03 Review and Revise Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition 4.2 $1,554.00 Outside of to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Scope NonSettlement of Accounts. 6/7/04 Review relevant memoranda and orders and diary entries, 7 $2,730.00 Outside of allocate and begin preparation of time Scope 6/7/04 Telcom. Harper re. scope of orders and time allocation issues. 0.4 $156.00 Outside of Scope 6/8/04 Allocate, review briefs, other filings, affidavits, related briefs, 8.3 $3,237.00 Outside of and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions decision. Scope 6/9/04 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.7 $273.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 6/9/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 5.1 $1,989.00 l Outside of decision. Scope 6/10/04 Mlocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 8.4 $3,276.00 Outside of decision. Scope 6/11/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 6.5 $2,535.00 Outside of decision. Scope 6/12/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 4 $1,560.00 Outside of decision. Scope 6/13/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 4.8 $1,872.00 Outside of decision. Scope 6/14/03 Begin preparation of atfidavit in support of fee application. 5.7 $2,223.00 Outside of Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions Scope decision. 6/14/04 Revise draft affidavit in support of GAO fee request. 1 $390.00 Outside of Scope 6/14/04 Telcom. Harper re. GAO time and scope ofroders 0.2 $78.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 6/15/04 Allocate and adjust time in accordance with GAO sanctions 7 $2,730.00 Outside of decision; revise draft affidavit; review Rempel time and Scope affidavit to confirm accuracy and fairness; discuss issues with Rempel re same. 6/16/04 Review and revise GAO Fee Schedule to correct errors and 1.6 $624.00 Outside of clarify per discussions with Rempel and Harper as to scope of Scope Orders and work performed in connection with defendants' repeated filing of false Sapienza declaration. Revise affidavit to conform to such discussion. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 35 of 122 Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 6/16/04 Conference call Rempel and Harper to confirm accuracy of time 2 $780.00 Outside of entries and scope of action taken in connection with protection Scope; of class re. defs' repeated filing of false Sapienza declaration. Inconsistent with Harper bill 6/16/04 Conference call Rempel, Harper, and Brown re. same. 1 ;390.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper & Brown bills 6/17/04 Continue revision ofaffidavit in conformity with same. 0.9 $351.00 Outsideof Scope 6/17/04 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.2 ;78.00 Outside of Scope 6/19/04 Revise transmittal papers to Court in accordance with comments 0.8 ;312.00 Outside of from Rempel and Harper. Scope 6/19/04 Telcoms. Harper re. same and comments re. affidavits. 0.5 $195.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 6/20/04 ] Draft memorandum to Brown re. clarification of Brown 0.4 $156.00 Outside of affidavit and lime. Scope 6/21/04 Telcoms. Harper re. clarification of affidavits and time entries in 0.5 $195.00 Outside of conformity with order. Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 6/21/04 Review Brown revisions. 0.3 $117.00 Outside of Scope 6/21/04 Provide comments to Brown on additional revision. 0.2 $78.00 Outside of Scope 16/21/04 Continuing preparation of GAO time. 0.3 $117.00 Outside of Scope Total 362.5 $133,441.00 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 36 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection I'ime Amount 6/2/00 Meet and Confer/w DOI and DOI counsel before Special 6.5 $1,462.50 Outside of Master re various motions. Includes discussion w/Dennis Scope Gingold, Mark Brown between meetings and preparation and review of the existing status of discovery. During the course of this meeting Assistant Secretary Don Hammond confirmed that the settlement of accounts process did not constitute an accounting of the individual Indian trust accounts. 12/15/01 Review material, including facsimiles from the Department of 4.0 $900.00 Outside of Justice and discovery material and prepare for contempt trial. Scope 12/16/01 Review material, including facsimiles from the Department of 2.5 $562.50 Outside of Justice and discovery material and prepare for contempt trial. Scope 2/4/02 Review Defs' Motion to Withdrawal Motions for Summary 2.8 ;630.00 Outside of Judgment. Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Withdraw Scope; Pltfs MSJ. did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2"/10/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 5.9 $1,327.50 Outside of Includes review of trial testimony and exhibits attached to Scope; Plffs original MSJ. did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw _2/11/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 5.5 $1,237.50 Outside of Scope; Plffs did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/12/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 9.5 $2,137.50 Outside of Scope; Pltfs did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/14/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ and 0.4 $90.00 Outside of motion to withdrawal. Scope; Plffs did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/14/02 Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSYs and cross- 8.4 $1,890.00 Outside of motions for summary judgment and sanctions for seeking to Scope; Pltfs mislead the Court. did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 37 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 2/15/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ and 0.5 $112.50 Outside of motion to withdrawal. Scope; Plffs did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/15/02 Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSYs and cross- 6.8 $1,530.00 Outside of motions for summary judgment and sanctions for seeking to Scope; Plffs mislead the Court. File and service opposition, did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 3/5/02 Review defendants' opposition to plaintiffs MSJ (incl. 5.0 $1,125.00 Outside of settlement of accounts) and prepare to draft reply. Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/5/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and subsequent 0.3 $67.50 Outside of withdrawal. Scope; Pltfs did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 3/6/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 7.2 $1,620.00 Outside of (incl. settlement of accounts). Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/7/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 8.0 $1,800.00 Outside of (incl. settlement of accounts). Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/8/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 6.5 $1,462.50 Outside of (incl. settlement of accounts). Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/9/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 2.5 $562.50 Outside of (incl. settlement of accounts). Scope; Adj usted to i$95/hour I 3/10/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 1.5 $337.50 I Outside of (incl. settlement of accounts). Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/11/02 CC with Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ and 1.2 $270.00 Outside of drafting of reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ re settlement of Scope; accounts. Adjusted to $95/hour EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 38 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection rime Amount 3/11/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 1.5 $337.50 Outside of (incl. settlement of accounts). Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/11/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and drafting 0.8 $180.00 Outside of of reply in support of Plts' MSJ re settlement of accounts. Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/12/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and drafting 0.6 $135.00 Outside of of reply in support of Plts' MSJ re settlement of accounts. Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/12/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 6.0 $1,350.00 Outside of (incl. settlement of accounts). Scope; Adjusted to $95/hour 3/13/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ and 0.4 $90.00 Outside of drafting of reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ re settlement of Scope; accounts. Adjusted to $95/hour 3/13/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 11.2 $2,520.00 Outside of (incl. settlement of accounts). File and serve reply. Scope; Excessive; Time; Gingold bills 13.2 hrs. :for "finalizing revisions and i refinement" of reply draft 5/6/02 ylotiee of Supplemental Authority - Draft, prepare, file and 2.6 $585.00 Outside of serve notice regarding GAO letter from GAO General Counsel Scope; to Bert Edwards, Director of OHTA re settlement of accounts Previously process. Billed 5/9/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 4.5 $1,012.50 Outside of Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Scope Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Garnboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 39 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Time Amount 5/14/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 3.8 $855.00 Outside of Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Scope Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 5/14/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re motion to amend GAO Motion 0.1 $22.50 Outside of for Summary Judgment. Scope 5/15/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 4.8 $1,080.00 Outside of Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Scope Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding _ursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 5/30/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 1.5 $337.50 Outside of Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Scope Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/3/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 0.7 $157.50 Outside of Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Scope Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/3/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re motion to amend and Defs' 3rd 0.5 $112.50 Outside of MSJ (re settlement of accounts process). Scope 6/4/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 6.5 $1,462.50 Outside of Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Scope Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/6/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re GAO motion to amend and 0.7 $157.50 Outside of sanctions. Scope 6/6/02 CC w/investigator re service of motion to amend for 0.2 $45.00 Outside of individuals personally identified in that motion. Scope 6/7/02 CC w/Mark Brown, Keith Harper, Dennis Gingold re 1.1 $247.50 Outside of appealability of contempt in the context of GAO sanctions Scope memorandum. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 40 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 6/22/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 4.5 $1,012.50 Outside of Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Scope February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/23/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 5.2 $1,170.00 Outside of Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Scope February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/24/02 Draft and edit Reply in support ofPlaintiffs' Consolidated 2.1 $472.50 Outsideof Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Scope February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director 3eft Edwards. 6/24/02 Meet w/Elouise Cobell re Defs' 3rd MSJ and reply in support 1.2 $270.00 Outside of of motion to amend. Scope '6/25/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 5.3 $1,192.50 Outside of Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Scope February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Garnboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/25/02 Work with investigator to locate individuals identified in 1.5 $337.50 Outside of plaintiffs reply in support of motion to amend. Scope 6/26/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 6.4 $1,440.00 Outside of Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Scope February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/27/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 5.6 !$1,260.00 Outside of Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Scope February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a 'Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 41 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection rime Amount 6/28/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 1.9 $427.50 Outside of Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Scope February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 4/8/03 Draft and edit Opposition to defendants' motion to reconsider 8.5 $1,912.50 Outside of the Court's GAO sanctions memorandum opinion awarding Scope plaintiffs' sanctions for the deliberate filing of a false and misleading affidavit (Sapienza). 5/26/04 Review GAO Order, Consider order in context delay and year 1.5 $337.50 Outside of old motion for reconsideration. Review original 3/11/03 Scope; sanctions order. Adjusted to $105/hr. 5/26/04 Review time sheets for GAO-related material. Begin process of 1.5 $337.50 Outside of compiling time sheets. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/4/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 5.1 $1,147.50 Outside of and determining whether such time should be included in i Scope; application. Adjusted to ; 105/hr. 6/4/04 Discuss w/Dennis Gingotd regarding GAO fees and 0.4 $90.00 Outside of application. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/5/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 1.2 $270.00 Outside of and determining whether such time should be included in Scope; application. Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/6/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 2.5 $562.50 Outside of and determining whether such time should be included in Scope; application. Adj usted to $105/hr. 6/6/04 Discuss w/DG re GAO memorandum opinion and compiling 0.3 $67.50 Outside of time for application. Includes discussion of affidavits to be Scope; included. Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/7/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 6.1 $1,372.50 Outside of and determining whether such time should be included in Scope; application. Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/7/04 Draft affidavit in connection with GAO sanctions memorandum 1.3 $292.50 Outside of i$292.50. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider Thai Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 42 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection rime Amount 6/8/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 1.5 $337.50 Outside of and determining whether such time should be included in Scope; Adjusted to application. $105/hr. 6/9/04 Discuss GAO Sanctions and compilation of hours with Dennis 1.2 $270.00 Outside of Gingold. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/10/04 Discuss GAO Sanctions and compilation of hours with Dennis 0.4 $90.00 Outside of Gingold. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/10/04 Discuss GAO Sanctions and compilation of hours with Dennis 3.1 ;697.50 Outside of !Gingold. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/11/04 Draft affidavit in support of GAO application. 2.1 $472.50 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/11/04 Discuss with Dennis Gingold re GAO fee and expense 0.4 $90.00 Outside of application. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 16/14/04 Compile time records in support of GAO fee and expense 4.3 $967.50 Outside of application; includes review of draft cover prepared by Mark Scope; Brown. Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/15/04 Review Dennis Gingold hours, convert electronic file for 2.1 $472.50 Outside of editing, correct conversion errors. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/15/04 Review Dennis Gingold affidavit. 0.5 $112.50 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/15/04 Review and edit Rempel affidavit. 0.7 i$157.50 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/15/04 Discuss GAO with Dennis Gingold. 1.1 $247.50 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 43 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection rime Amount 6/16/04 Compile time records in support of GAO fee and expense 1.8 $405.00 Outside of application; includes review of draft cover prepared by Mark Scope; Brown. Previously Billed 6/16/04 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re GAO application. 0.5 $112.50 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/16/04 Review, edit Gingold Time and expense application. 2.2 $495.00 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to ;$105/hr. 6/17/04 CC w/Keith Harper, Dennis Gingold (Mark Brown some) re 2.0 $450.00 Outside of GAO application. Scope; inconsistent with Harper bill 6/17/04 Edit, Dennis Gingold GAO time. 1.6 $360.00 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/17/04 Edit, review Rempel time and application. 0.5 ;112.50 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/17/04 Review Mark Brown time and expense. 2.4 $540.00 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/17/04 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re GAO time. 0.8 $180.00 Outside of Scope; Adj usted to $105/hr. 6/18/04 CC w/Keith Harper, Dennis Gingold re GAO application and 0.2 $45.00 Outside of memorandum. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/18/04 Review and edit Gingold Time and expense for GAO 0.3 $67.50 Outside of application. Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/18/04 Update Rempel Affidavit and supporting GAO schedule. 1.1 15247.50 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 44 of 122 Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Claimed Objection _ime Amount 6/19/04 Discuss GAO application with Dennis Gingold. 0.4 $90.00 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/21/04 ?_eview Brown GAO time and affidavit. 0.9 ;202.50 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/21/04 Finalize edits and serve GAO application. 3.2 $720.00 Outside of Scope; Adjusted to 1$105/hr. Total 229.9 $51,727.50 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 45 of 122 Harper Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 12/10/00 Review government filings including motion for sanctions and 2.5 $512.50 Outside of reply motion for summary judgement on the settlement of scope accounts by GAO Pre-1951 2/14/02 Review draft brief in opposition to motion to withdraw and 1.5 $390.00 Outside of cross motion for summary judgement and discuss same with DG i scope 3/6/02 Telephone call from DG re: MSJ withdrawal and sanctions 0.4 $104.00 Outside of request scope, Inconsistent with Gingold's bill 3/12/02 Review and edit draft MSJ waiver brief and sanctions request 2 $520.00 Outside of reply scope 6/4/02 Review and edit GAO contempt supplemental and amendment 3.5 $927.50 Outside of scope 1/29/03 Conference call with IIM team re: response to government's Jan 1.1 $291.50 Outside of 6 plans and need for GAO summary judgement motion scope 1/31/03 Draft and finalize GAO summary judgement motion; edit; 8 $2,120.00 Outside of review and add additional authorities; finalize order and scope statement of incontraverted facts 3/12/03 Review opinion of court re: GAO "settlement of Accounts" and 1 $265.00 Outside of false affidavit; sanctions granted scope 4/8/03 Draft and edit opposition to motion for reconsideration for 2.5 $662.50 Outside of GAO sanctions award scope 4/12/03 Draft Plaintiffs reply in further support of MSJ on GAO failure 4.5 $1,192.50 Outside of to provide accounting scope 4/13/03 Draft and edit and discuss with co-counsel-plaintiffs reply in 5 $1,325.00 Outside of support of MSJ on GAO failure to settle accounts scope 4/14/03 Finalize reply in support of MSJ re: GAO failure to settle 3.3 $874.00 Outside of accounts scope 6/2/04 Review opinion denying motion for reconsideration for 0.4 $134.00 Outside of GAO/Sapienza bad faith affidavit fees and expenses scope 6/7/04 Review Time records for GAO/Sapenza statement of fees and 2.5 $837.50 Outside of expenses scope 6/7/04 Confer with DG re: GAO expenses and cover sheet for 0.5 $167.50 Outside of GAO/Sapenza bad faith affidavit scope 6/16/04 Review time records to determine what claims court's May 11 2.1 $703.50 Outside of order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza bad faith scope affidavit 6/17/04 Review edit cover memorandum to support fee application in 3 $1,005.00 Outside of compliance with courts May 11 order granting fees for GAO scope MSJ and Sapienza bad faith affidavit EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 46 of 122 Harper Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/17/04 Conference call to DG and GR to discuss scope of courts May 2 $670.00 Outside of 1 lth order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza bad faith scope; affidavit and review time jointly to ensure accuracy Inconsistent with Gingold's & Rempel's bill 6/18/04 Draft affidavit in support of fee application in compliance with 4.7 $1,574.50 Outside of court's May 11 order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza scope bad faith affidavit; finalize time record claims; review prior decisions to ensure conformity with prior judicial guidance Total 50.5 $14,276.50 Total Time and Amount Claimed Outside of Scope of Order Time Claimed Amount Total 713.1 $225,415.32 EXHIBIT 13 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 47 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 06/21/o4, Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Adjusted 11/I 8/02 & Amount _mount 11/05/02 Affidavits Items # 1 6/2/00 Prepare for Special Master meeting re. 0.8 $280.00 Previously $0.00 Defendants misrepresentation re. settlement _ Billed / Denied )f Indian disbursing officer accounts as accounting IIM trust accounts 2 6/2/00 Accompanied by Rempel, met with Master, 2.1 ;735.00 Previously $0.00 DO J, DOI, & DOT re. production of Billed / Denied accounting docs. relevant to Cobell litigation, including all documentation that purports to represent the settlement of IIM accounts in the custody or control of disbursement officers. Brooks represented that the settlement of Disbursing officer accounts also settled IIM accounts. Asst. Secretary of the Treasury Don Hammond confirmed that the settlement of disbursing officer accounts did not result in an accounting of IIM trust accounts. 3 7/5/00 Telcoms. Holt re. GAO summary 0.7 $245.00 Previously $0.00 judgment/accounting Billed / Denied 4 7/25/00 Draft MSJ surreply re. Defs' material 1.7 $595.00 Previously ;0.00 misrepresentations re. GAO Billed / Denied 5 9/24/00 Review MS J, note clefs' claims, identify 0.7 $245.00 Previously ;0.00 responses, and assess authorities in Billed / Denied opposition to such claims. 6 9/24/00 Review relevant documents and prepare 2.2 $770.00 Previously $0.00 letters to Brooks and Ferrell concerning Billed / Denied same and in response to letters defending MSJ claims. 7 9/25/00 Work on MSJ III response; begin review 8 $2,800.00 Previously $0.00 legal authorities, e.g., Billed / Denied "Law of Appropriations" and cases and Comptroller General discussion of nature and scope of settlement of accounts process and legal impact; begin review of documents related thereto. 8 9/25/00 Telcoms. Harper re. nature and scope of 0.3 $105.00 Previously $0.00 settlements-of-account process per Billed / Denied Comptroller General. 9 9/26/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 4.5 $1,575.00 Previously $0.00 research for MSJ III response. Billed / Denied I0 9/26/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III drait. 0.2 $70.00 Previously $0.00 Billed / Denied 11 9/26/00 Telcom. Holt re. same. 0.3 $105.00 Previously $0.00 Billed / Denied EXHIBIT B-1 (Gingold) l_e_l_]_bjections to Plaintiffs' Statement ' _8_s and l_rrm_r _Ri_Accxn s ' cordanee with the Defendants t_ "R ¢_ _ff_ ,_-_r 7._ "al: .... _OUl_ l_r_llsM, C I L_ZUUJ uroer Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 48 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 06/21/04, Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Adjusted 11/18/02 & Amount Amount 11/05/02 Affidavits Items # 12 9/28/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 6.2 $2,170.00 Previously ;0.00 research for MSJ III response Billed / Denied 13 9/28/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III draft. 0.4 $140.00 Previously $0.00 Billed / Denied 14 9/30/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 5 $1,750.00 Previously $0.00 research for MSJ III response Billed / Denied 15 10/1/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 1 $350.00 Previously $0.00 research for MSJ IIIresponse Billed / Denied 16 10/4/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III response. 1.4 $490.00 Previously $0.00 Billed / Denied 17 10/5/00 Telcom. Interior witness confirming false 0.1 $35.00 Previously $0.00 GAO MSJ. Billed / Denied 18 10/7/00 Continue work on MSJ III response; 9.1 $3,185.00 Previously $0.00 continue review of legal authorities; Billed / Denied documents, including data reports, oil & gas reports, and assessments of nature and scope of settlements process re. the class. 19 10/7/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III 0.9 $315.00 Previously $0.00 documentation issues given the refusal of Billed / Denied Interior and Treasury to produce documents to support their settlement of account claims. 20 10/8/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 3.9 $1,365.00 Previously ;0.00 research for MSJ III response. Includes Billed / Denied review of data reports, oil & gas reports, and assessments of nature and scope of settlements process re. the class; compare "accounting" to desk audits by GAO and Treasury of disbursing officer reports. 21 10/28/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ 4.5 $1,575.00 Previously $0.00 III. l Billed / Denied 22 10/28/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III issues. 0.5 $175.00 Previously $0.00 Billed / Denied 23 10/29/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ 4 $1,400.00 Previously $0.00 III. Billed / Denied 24 10/29/00 Telcom. Harper re. defendants' 0.1 $35.00 Previously $0.00 misrepresentations regarding Billed / Denied settlement of accounts v. accounting. 25 10/30/00 Continue revisions of MSJ III draft 4.6 $1,610.00 Previously $0.00 response. Billed / Denied EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 49 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 06/21/04, Date Matter Time Claimed ObjeCtion Adjusted 11/18/02 & Amount Amount 11/05/02 Affidavits Items # 26 10/31/00 Revise and redrafi opposition to MSJ III. 6.9 $2,415.00 Previously $0.00 Billed / Denied 27 11/1/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ 6.1 $2,135.00 Previously $0.00 III based on Rempel additions. Billed / Denied 28 1/2/00 Continue revisions of Rempel additions to 4.4 $1,540.00 Previously $0.00 MSJ III draft response and review and Billed / Denied comment on Rempel affidavit in support of certain factual statements including admissions of Hammond. 29 11/3/00 Finalize Plaintiffs' Opposition to 11.6 $4,060.00 Previously '$0.00 Defendants' Third Phase II Motion for Billed / Denied Partial Summary Judgement (Re: Settlement of Accounts by Treasury and GAO). 30 11/3/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. finalization of 0.4 $140.00 Previously $0.00 MSJ III opposition. Billed / Denied 31 11/3/00 Telcom. Ferrell re. service of MSJ III 0.1 $35.00 Previously $0.00 opposition. Billed / Denied 32 11/3/00 Telcom. Cobell re. MSJ III issues. 0.3 i$105.00 Previously $0.00 Billed / Denied 33 5/I/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's 0.2 $72.00 Previously $0.00 Office re. Gamboa letter and its Billed / Denied implications. 34 5/i/02 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's 0.4 $144.00 Previously ;0.00 Office, re. same. Billed / Denied 35 6/20/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Previously $0.00 Billed 36 6/21/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Previously $0.00 Billed 37 6/24/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously i$0.00 Billed 38 6/25/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO 0.4 $148.00 Previously $0.00 documents referenced in Gamboa letter but Billed withheld by defendants. 39 7/5/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to 0.2 $74.00 Previously $0.00 _roduce GAO documents referenced, and in Billed connection, with Gamboa letter. 40 7/9/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to 0.5 $185.00 Previously $0.00 produce GAO documents referenced, and in Billed connection, with Gamboa letter. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 50 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 06/21/04, Date Matter Time Claimed Objection i Adjusted 11/18/02 & Amount I Amount 11/05/02 Affidavits Items # 41 7/11/02 i Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to 0.4 $148.00 Previously $0.00 I produce GAO documents referenced, and in Billed connection with Gamboa letter. 42 7/29/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously $0.00 Billed 43 7/30/02 Prepare letter response to Lawrence re. 0.3 I$111.00 Previously $0.00 same. Billed 44 8/6/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $I 11.00 Previously $0.00 Billed 45 8/7/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Previously $0.00 Billed Total 96.6 $33,876.00 $0.00 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 51 of 122 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et at, on ) their own behalf and on behalf of ) all persons similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action v. ) No. 96-1285 (RCL) ) GALE NORTON, Secretary of the ) Interior, et at, ) ) Defendants. ) AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS M. GINGOLD 1. My name is Dennis M. Gingold. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and am lead attorney for plaintiffs in this action. I make this affidavit in support of plaintiffs' request for fees and expenses in connection with certain sanctionable conduct of defendants as outlined in this Court's March 11, 2003 Memorandum and Order and reaffirmed in its May 25, 2004 Memorandum and Order (collectively the "Orders"). 2. I maintain my time records in annual, hard copy diaries. Contemporaneous with the completion of a particular task or activity, I manually enter the time charged on the date the professional service is rendered; the specific matter or task; the time expended, to the tenth of an hour; and a brief description of the work performed. From this diary, I enter my time 1 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 52 of 122 IIM TRUST LITIGATION Gingold Schedule: GAO Settlement of Accounts Sanctions DATE TIME SUBJECT MATTER RATE AMOUNT 6.2.00 2.1 Accompanied by Rempel, met with Master, DO J, DOI, & DOT re. $350.00 $735.00-2 production of accounting docs. relevant to Cobell litigation, including all documentation that purports to represent the settlement of IIM accounts in the custody or control of disbursement officers. Brooks represented that the settle- ment of Disbursing officer accounts also settled IIM accounts. Asst. Secretary of the Treasury Don Hammond confirmed that the settlement of disbursing officer accounts did not result in an accounting of IIM trust accounts. 0.8 Prepare for Special Master meeting re. Defendants $350.00 $280.00 -1 misrepresentation re. settlement of Indian disbursing officer accounts as accounting IIM trust accounts. 6.5.00 0.3 Telcom. with Brian Ferrell, DOJ, requesting production of all $350.00 $105.00 dcouments relevant to settlement of IIM accounts in the custody or control of disbursement officers, at least with respect to the named plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interes ? in conformity with the representations of Brooks at the 6.2.00 meeting at the Master's office. 6.6.00 0.3 Telcoms. with Ferrell re. same. $350.00 $105.00 7.5.00 0.7 Telcoms. Holt re. GAO summary judgment/accounting. $350.00 $245.00-3 7.25.00 1.7 Draft MSJ surreply re. defs' material misrepresentations re. GAO $350.00 $595.00-4 accounting issues. 9.19.00 0.2 Telcom. Harper re. GAO settlement issues and action to take $350.00 $70.00 regarding Brooks delivery of threat to file motion for summary judgment claiming falsely that the settlement of disbursing officers' accounts for 30 years discharges defs' accounting duty from 1921-1950. 9.20.00 0.3 Telcom. with Harper re. same. $350.00 $105.00 9.22.00 0.8 Telcoms. with Ferrell re. GAO settlements of account issues and $350.00 $280.00 conflicting representatiions of Brooks and Hammond. 0.6 Meet with Rempel re. Defendants Third Phase II Motion for Partial $350.00 $210.00 Summary Judgment (Re: Settlement of Accounts by Treasury and GAO) ("MSJ III") and in responce collect documents in create factual appendix to explicitly refute misrepresentations, including opinion of Don Hammond. 9.24.00 0.7 Review MSJ, note defs' claims, identify responses, and assess $350.00 $245.00 -5 authorities in opposition to such claims. 2.2 Review relevant documents and prepare letters to Brooks and $350.00 $770.00 -6 Ferrell concerning same and in response to letters defending MSJ claims. EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 53 of 122 DATE TIME SUBJECT MATTER RATE AMOUNT 9.25.00 8.0 Work on MSJ III response; begin review legal authorities, e.g., $350.00 $2,800.00 -7 "Law of Appropriations" and cases and Comptroller General discussion of nature and scope of settlement of accounts process and legal impact; begin review of documents related thereto. 0.4 Telcom. with Ferrell re. same. $350.00 $140.00 0.3 Telcoms. Harper re. nature and scope of settlements-of-account $350.00 $105.00-8 process per Comptroller General. 9.26.00 4.5 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III $350.00 $1,575.00-9 response. 0.2 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III draft. $350.00 $70.00 -10 0.3 Telcom. Holt re. same. $350.00 $105.00 -11 9.27.00 5.0 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III $350.00 $1,750.00 response. 9.28.00 6.2 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III $3.50.00 $2,170.00-12 response. 0.4 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III draft. $350.00 $140.00 -13 9.30.00 5.0 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III $350.00 $1,750.00 -14 response. 10.1.00 1.0 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III $350.00 $350.00-15 response. 10.4.00 1.4 Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III response. $350.00 $490.00 "16 0.1 Telcom. Holt re. MSJ Ill issues. $350.00 $35.00 0.8 Review relevant authorities; docoumentation. $350.00 $280.00 10.5.00 4.9 Continue work on MSJ III response; continue review of legal $350.00 $1,715.00 authorities; documents. 0.1 Telcom. Interior witness confirming false GAO MSJ. $350.00 $35.00 -17 10.6.00 0.2 Discussion with Rempel re. relevance ofBIA regs. to MSJ III and $350.00 $70.00 Trial 1 testimony and exhibits related thereto for reference in opposition to MSJ III. 10.7.00 9.1 Continue work on MSJ III response; continue review of legal $350.00 $3,185.00 -18 authorities; documents, including data reports, oil & gas reports, and assessments of nature and scope of settlements process re. the class. 0.9 Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III documentation issues given the $350.00 $315.00 -19 refusal of Interior and Treasury to produce documents to support their settlement of account claims. 10.8.00 3.9 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III $350.00 $1,365.00-20 response. Includes review of data reports, oil & gas reports, and assessments of nature and scope of settlements process re. the class; compare "accounting" to desk audits by GAO and Treasury of disbursing officer reports. 10.28.00 4.5 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ III. $350.00 $1,575.00-21 0.4 Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status ofMSJ III and $350.00 $140.00 issues that need to be flushed out. 1.2 Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ IIl draft and necessary edits. $350.00 $420.00 0.5 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ IlI issues. $350.00 $175.00 -22 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 54 of 122 DATE TIME SUBJECT MATTER RATE AMOUNT 10.29.00 4.0 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ III. $350.00 $1,400.00 -23 0.1 Telcom. Harper re. defendants' misrepresentations regarding $350.00 $35.00 -24 settlement of accounts v. accounting. 0.2 Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ III draft and necessary edits. $350.00 $70.00 10.30.00 0.5 Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status ofMSJ III. $350.00 $175.00 1.0 Conference call with Rempel, Harper and Brown re. status of $350.00 $350.00 remaining tasks re. MSJ III response includling need for Rempel supporting affidavit vis-a-vis admissions of Don Hammond, etc. 4.6 Continue revisions ofMSJ III draft response. $350.00 $1,610.00-25 10.31.00 6.9 Revise and redraft opposition to MSJ III. $350.00 $2,415.00-26 I 1.1.00 6.1 Revise and redmft draft opposition to MSJ III based on Rempel $350.00 $2,135.00-27 additions. 11.2.00 4.4 Continue revisions ofRempel addtitions to MSJ III draft response $350.00 $1,540.00 -28 and review and comment on Rempel affidavit in support of certain factual statements including admissions of Hammond. 0.4 Conference call with Rempel, Harper and Brown re. status of $350.00 $140.00 remaining tasks and text of Rempel affidavit. 11.3.00 11.6 Finalize Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Third Phase II Motion $350.00 $4,060.00-29 for Partial Summary Judgement (Re: Settlement of Accounts by Treasury and GAO). 0.4 Telcoms. with Harper re. finalization ofMSJ III opposition. $350.00 $140.00 -30 0.1 Telcom. Ferrell re. service ofMSJ III opposition. $350.00 $35.00 -31 0.3 Telcom. Cobell re. MSJ III issues. $350.00 $105.00 -32 11.6.00 0.5 Telcom. Brown re. Sanctions for defs' materially false GAO MSJ $350.00 $175.00 III. 2.1.02 0.1 Meet and confer with Cynthia Alexander and Matt Fader, DOJ, and $360.00 $36.00 object to defendants' motion to withdraw pending motion for partial summary judgement regarding GAO Settlement of Accounts of disbursing officers as discharging the accounting of IIM Trust beneficiaries ("MSJ III"). 0.1 Telcom. Harper re. same. $360.00 $36.00 0.3 Telcoms. Cobell re. same. $360.00 $108.00 2.4.02 0.2 Telcom. Cobell re. same, particularly impact false MSJ Ill was $360.00 $72.00 intended to have on class. 2.12.02 0.2 Telcoms. Ferrell re. MSJ III issues, intended impact, etc. $360.00 $72.00 2.14.02 8.5 Review and revise Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Withdraw $360.00 $3,060.00 Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment as to (B) The Non-Settlement of accounts to reinforce such settlement of Indian disbursing officer accounts does not constitute an accounting of IIM trust accounts. 0.2 Telcoms. Harper re. same. $360.00 $72.00 0.4 Conference call with Cobell and Rempel re. defs' motion to $360.00 $144.00 withdraw MSJ III, the intended affect of EXHIBIT 13 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 55 of 122 DATE TIME SUBJECT MATTER RATE AMOUNT 0.2 Telcom. Fasold re. same. $360.00 $72.00 4.25.02 0.4 Telcom. Harperre. same. $360.00 $144.00 0.1 Telcom. Levitas re same. $360.00 $36.00 5.1.02 0.2 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office re. Gamboa letter $360.00 $72.00-33 and its implications. 0.4 Telcoms. Scott Hams, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. $360.00 $144.00-34 5.2.02 0.4 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, re same. $360.00 $144.00 0.6 Work on notice of supplemental authority re. Gamboa letter. $360.00 $216.00 0.9 Telcoms. Harper re. discussions with U.S. Attorney's office and $360.00 $324.00 notice of supplemental authority re. Gamboa letter. 5.3.02 5.6 Review and revise consolidated motion for leave to amend $360.00 $2,016.00 plaintiffs' 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion and finding pursuant to R 56(g) per newly discovered evidence, i.e., the Gamboa letter. 0. I Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, re same. $360.00 $36.00 5.4.02 3.9 Work on notice of supp. authority, leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III $360.00 $1,404.00 contempt motion, amendm.ent of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 5.5.02 6.3 Continue to draft and revise same. $360.00 $2,268.00 0.1 Telcom. Harper re. issues and implications re. same. $360.00 $36.00 5.6.02 0.2 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. $360.00 $72.00 5.3 Work on notice of supp. authority, leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III $360.00 $1,908.00 contempt motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 0.2 Telcoms. Harper re. same. $360.00 $72.00 5.7.02 3.7 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt $360.00 $1,332.00 motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 1.2 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. $360.00 $432.00 5.9.02 0.3 Telcoms. Harper re. same. $360.00 $108.00 5.4 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt $360.00 $1,944.00 motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 5.10.02 0.2 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt $360.00 $72.00 motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 0.1 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. $360.00 $36.00 0.1 Telcom. Harper re. same. $360.00 $36.00 5.12.02 0.2 Telcom. Harper re. same. $360.00 $72.00 5.13.02 2.7 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, $360.00 $972.00 amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 0.4 Telcoms. Harper re. same. $360.00 $144.00 0.3 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. $360.00 $108.00 5.14.02 0.4 Telcom with Lawrence re. same. $360.00 $144.00 0.1 Discussion with Rempel re. same. $360.00 $36.00 0.4 Telcom. Cobell re. same. $360.00 $144.00 0.5 Telcom. Levitas re same. $360.00 $180.00 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 56 of 122 DATE TIME SUBJECT MATTER RATE AMOUNT 2.0 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, $370.00 $740.00 amendment of MSJ I/I contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 0.5 Discussion with Rempel re. same. $370.00 $185.00 0.3 Telcoms. Harper re. same. $370.00 $111.00 6.4.02 0.7 Continued telcoms. Lawrence re. meet and confer on MSJ III $370.00 $259.00 contempt motion. 0.4 Telcoms. Harper re. same. $370.00 $148.00 8.6 Finalize motion to amend 2.15 02 MSJ III contempt motion, $370.00 $3,182.00 amendment fo MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 6.6.02 4.0 Research and analyze complex personal service issues re. non- $370.00 $1,480.00 parties as to same. 0.4 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. $370.00 $148.00 0.6 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. $370.00 $222.00 0.6 Telcoms. Harper re. same. $370.00 $222.00 6.7.02 0.1 Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in $370.00 $37.00 connection with MSJ III contempt.. 1.1 Conference call Rempel, Harper, Brown concerning appealability $370.00 $407.00 of contempt re. MSJ III contemnors, officially and individually, including DOJ attorneys. 6.8.02 0.5 Telcoms. Lawrence re. MSJ HI personal service logistical issues. $370.00 $185.00 1.5 Telcoms. Harper re. same. $370.00 $555.00 6.9..02 0.1 Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in $370.00 $37.00 connection with MSJ III contempt.. 6.19.02 0.5 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced in $370.00 $185.00 Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 6.20.02 0.1 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. $370.00 $37.00 -35 0.1 Telcom. Harper re. same. $370.00 $37.00 6.21.02 0.1 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. $370.00 $37.00 -36 6.24.02 0.3 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. $370.00 $ I 11.00-37 1.0 Meet with Cobell concerning Gamboa letter and MSJ III. $370.00 $370.00 6.25.02 5.0 Work on reply to MSJ III, including review of defs' cases and $370.00 $1,850.00 authorities and begin preparation of draft. 0.4 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced in $370.00 $148.00-38 Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 6.26.02 2.2 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and $370.00 $814.00 draft revisions. 6.27.02 1.3 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and $370.00 $481.00 draft revisions. 0.1 Telcom. Harper re. same. $370.00 $37.00 0.4 Meet with Cobell re.same. $1370.00 $148.00 6.28.02 3.7 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and $370.00 $1,369.00 draft revisions. Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 57 of 122 DATE TIME SUBJECT MATTER RATE AMOUNT Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: The April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards). 0.4 Telcom. Harper re. same. $370.00 $148.00 7.1.02 0.1 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced in $3'70.00 $37.00 Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 7.5.02 0.2 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO $3'70.00 $74.00-39 documents referenced, and in connection, with Gamboa letter. 7.9.02 0.5 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO $370.00 $185.00 -40 documents referenced, and in connection, with Gamboa letter. 7.11.02 0.4 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO $370.00 $148.00_4 1 documents referenced, and in connection with Gamboa letter. 7.19.02 1.0 Prepare letter to lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO $370.00 $370.00 documents referenced, and in connection with, Gamboa letter, particularly with respect to docs. created, or received, by Interior and Treasury in response to GAO general counsel's opinion that IIM accounts were not settled. 7.29.02 0.3 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. $370.00 $111.00 -42 7.30.02 0.3 Prepare letter response to Lawrence re. same. $370.00 $111.00-43 8.6.02 0.3 Telcoms. Lawrence re, same. $370.00 $111.00 -44 8.7.02 0.1 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. $370.00 $37.00 -45 8.8.02 1.3 Review first production of does. referenced in Gamboa letter $370.00 $481.00 further demonstrating bad faih of defs' in filing MSJ III. 9.13.02 0.2 Telcoms. Lawrence re. production of remaining relevant Gamboa $370.00 $74.00 related does. 9.16.02 0.1 Teleom. Lawrence re. same. $370.00 $37.00 1.28.03 0.4 Conference call Harper and Brown re. need to file MSJ declaring $370.00 $148.00 settlement of disbursing officer accounts does not settle or constitute accounting of IIM Trust accounts. 1.30.03 6.1 Review documents in support of statement ofundesputed material $370.00 $2,257.00 facts re. MSJ settlements of Account. Review and revise Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Non-Settlement of Accounts and Defendants' Failure to Perform the Accounting, in Whole or Part, Ordered by this Court on December 21, 1999 and Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Fasts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 0.3 Telcom. Harper re. same. $370.00 $111.00 1.31.03 5.4 Review and revise motion for partial summary judgment and $370.00 $1,998.00 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 58 of 122 FILED IN THE t UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 1 8 20ff2 FOR THE _/W_ MA_FI W_rrlNGTON, CLERK DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA u.s.msmrcrc0uRr ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., on ) their own behalf and on behalf of ) all persons similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action v. ) No. 96-1285 (RCL) ) GALE NORTON, Secretary of the ) Interior, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS M. GINGOLD 1. My name is Dennis M. Gingold. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and am lead attomey for plaintiffs in this action. I make this affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' Application for Fees and Expenses Related to the Sanctionable Conduct of Defendants and Their Counsel and Incurred as a Result of Having to Litigate the 2 "d Contempt Trial. 2. I maintain my time records first in a diary dedicated to this purpose. Contemporaneous with the completion of a particular task or activity, I enter in the diary the time charged on the date the service was rendered; identify the client; the matter; the hours expended, to the tenth of an hour; and a description of the work performed. From this diary, I enter my time EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 59 of 122 Attachment B DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT 05/31/00 Work on alcove ()TSC/fraud issues. 6.3 $2,i42.00 05/31/00 Telcom. Cobell re. above. 0.3 $102.00 06/01/00 Conf. calls Interior witnesses confirming defendants' 0.9 $315.00 false declarations and other reps. re. TAAMS, BIA data clean-up and accounting status, 06/01/00 Voice mail Infield re. above. 0.1 $35.00 06/01/00 Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 10.7 $3,745.00 06/02/00 Voice mail Babby re. above. 0. I $35.00 06/02/00 Prepare for Special Master meeting re. defs' misreps. 0.8 $280.00 -1 Re. above stated GAO audit/accounting issues. 06/02/00 Appear at Special Master meeting with defendants 0.5 $175.00 -2 and their counsel; discuss withheld GAO documents and related memoranda re. DOJ/DOI It misrepresentations regarding GAO disbursing officer account audits and discharge of accounting duties in accordance with 12/21/99 Court order. 06/03/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 3.8 $1,330.00 06/04/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 6 $2,100.00 06/05/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 2.6 $910.00 06/06/00 Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 6.1 $2,135.00 06/07/00 Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 6.5 $2,275.00 06/08/00 Re. same review recent decision on attorney 0.5 $175.00 misconduct and fraud on Court. 06/08/00 Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 6.1 $2,135.00 06/08/00 Telcom. Cobell re. above. 0.2 $70.00 06/09/00 Telcom. Infield re. security misrepresentations by 0.6 $210.00 defendants, including material omissions in McDivitt declaration. 06/10/00 Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 4.9 $1,715.00 06/10/00 Voice mail Holt re. same. 0.1 $35.00 06/I 1/00 Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 3.6 $1,260.00 35 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 60 of 122 Attachment B DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT iwl i ii 06/25/00 Voice mail exchange Holt re. contempt accounting 0.2 $70.00 issues and defendants motions for summary judgment re. same (e.g., GAO issues). 06/25/00 Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 6.5 $2,275.00 06/27/00 Telcom. Holt re. GAO Summary Judgment issues re. 0.5 $175.00 above. 06/27/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 6.2 $2,170.00 , 06/27/00 Voice mail Cobell re. above. 0.I $35.00 06/28/00 Voice mails and telcom. Interior witnesses 0.4 $140.00 confirming continuing TAAMS failure and cover-up and data clean-up problems and cover-up. 06/28/00 Work on OTSC/fraud re. same. 8.7 $3,045.00 06/29/00 Telcom. Interior witness, confirming OTSC/fraud 0.4 $140.00 facts. 06/29/00 Voice mail Holt re. above summary judgment issues. 0.1 $35.00 06/29/00 Meet with Interior witness to confirm same. 2 $700.00 06/30/00 Telcom. and voice mail Holt re. above. 0.6 $210.00 06/30/00 Conf. call Interior witnesses re. above. 0.8 $280.00 06/30/00 Work on above OTSC contempt issues. 7.2 $2,520.00 07/01/00 Work on above OTSC/fraudissues. 3.3 $1,155.00 07/02/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 5.6 $1,960.00 07/03/00 Telcom. and voice mail Holt re. GAO related 0.4 $140.00 summary judgment issues re. accounting contempt. 07/03/00 Work on OTSC/fraud. 5.8 $2,030.00 07/05/00 Review documents re. OTSC/fraud. 12.6 $4,410.00 07/05/00 Telcoms. Holt re. GAO related summary judgment 0.7 $245.00 -3 issues/accounting contempt. 07/06/00 Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 16.5 $5,775.00 07/07/00 Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 8.5 $2,975.00 07/10/00 Prepare memorandum re. newly discovered TAAMS 0.5 $175.00 and data clean-up problems; continuing fraud. 07/12/00 Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 1.9 $665.00 37 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attoi'neyFees to Plaintiffs Page 61 of 122 Attachment B DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT 0_/i22/00 Review documents lost records and serious concealed 1.5 $525.00 data clean-up issues re. Tribal credit programs. 07/23/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 1.3 $455.00 07/24/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 2 $700.00 07/25/00 Work on MSJ surreply re. defs' material 1.7 $595.00 -4. misrepresentations on GAO accounting issues. 08/03/00 Work on opposition to defendants' motion for 1 $350.00 protective order blocking discovery by plaintiffs. 08/04/00 Confer Rempel re. same. 0.1 $35.00 09/24/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO Motion for 0.7 $245.00 -5/-6 Summary Judgment ("MSJ"), including review of correspondence between me, Ferrell and Brooks re. defs' willfully false representations that the GAO audit of disbursing officers' accounts constituted an accounting'of IIM Trust assets. 09/24/00 Voice mail Harper re. same. 0.1 $35.00 09/25/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 8.0 $2,800.00 -7 09/25/00 Voice mail exchanges Harper re. same. 0.3 $105.00 -8 09/26/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ, 4.5 $1,575.00 -9 09/26/00 Telcom. and voice mail Harper re. same. 0.3 $105.00 -i0 09/26/00 Telcom. and voice mail Holt re. same. 0.4 $I40.00-11 09/28/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 6.2 $2,170.00-12 09/28/00 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $140.00 -13 09/30/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 5 $1,750.00 -14 10/01/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 1 $350.00 -15 10/04/00 Telcoms. Harper re. opposition to defs' GAO MSJ 1.3 $455.00 -16 and fraud on Court re. same. 10/05/00 Telcom. Interior witness confirming false GAO MSJ. 0.1 $35.00 -17 10/07/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 3.8 $1,330.00 -18 10/07/00 Telcoms. and voice mail exchange Harper re. same. 0.9 $315.00 _ 19 10/07/00 Voice mail exchanges Holt re. same. 0.3 $105.00 38 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 62 of 122 Attachment B DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT 10/08/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. Telcom. Holt 3.9 $1,365.00 -20 re. same. 10/28/00 Work on GAO MSJ issues re. evidence of additional 4.5 $I,575.00 -11 defs' material misreps, to Court. 10/28/00 Voice mail Holt re. same. 0.1 $35.00 10/28/00 Telcom. and voice mail exchange Harper re. same. 0.6 $2.10.00 -22 10/29/00 Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same. 4 $1,400.00 -23 10/29/00 Voice mail Harper re. same. 0.1 $35.00 -24 10/30/00 Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same and objections 4.6 $1,610.00-25 raised by defs re. same. 10/30/00 Conf. call Harper and Brown re. same. 0.5 $175.00 10/31/00 Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same. 6.9 $2,415.00 -26 11/01/00 Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same. 6.1 $2,135.00 -27 l 1/02/00 Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same. 4.4 $1,540.00 -28 11/03/00 Work on dAO MSJ issues re. same. 11 $3,850.00 -29 11/03/00 Voice mail Ferrell re. same. 0.1 $35.00 -31 11/03/00 Telcoms. and voice mail exchange Harper re. same. 0.5 $175.00 -30 11/03/00 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.3 $105.00 -32 11/06/00 Telcom. Brown re. sanctions for defs' materially false 0.5 $175.00 GAO MSJ. 11/15/00 Begin preparation of Motion to Reopen Trial I 7.6 $2,660.00 ("MTRO") re. fraud etc. perpetrated on Court. 11 / 16/00 Work on MTRO. 6.1 $2,135.00 11/16/00 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.3 $105.00 11/16/00 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.3 $105.00 11/17/00 Workon MTRO. 5.9 $2,065.00 11/17/00 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $140.00 11/18/00 Work on MTRO. 5.7 $1,995.00 11/18/00 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.6 $210.00 11/18/00 Telcom. Holtre. same. 0.2 $70.00 11/19/00 Work on MTRO. 4.6 $1,610.00 11/19/00 Telcom. and voice mail Harper re. same. 0.3 $105.00 11/19/00 Voice mail and telcom. Holt re. same. 0.4 $140.00 39 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 63 of 122 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., on ) their own behalf and on behalf of ) all persons similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action v. ) No. 96-1285 (RCL) ) (Hon. Alan Balaran, Special Master) GALE NORTON, Secretary of the ) Interior, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS M. GINGOLD 1. My name is Dennis M. Gingold. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and am lead attorney for plaintiffs in this action. I make this affidavit in support of (a) plaintiffs' statement of fees and expenses in partial settlement of claims related to the order to show cause entered by the Court for defendants' violation of the Anti-Retaliation Order and (b) Mona Infield's statement of fees and expenses in partial settlement of the complaint filed with the Office of Special Counsel, OSC File No. MA-00-1024 (collectively "Statement of Fees"). 2. I maintain my time records first in a diary dedicated to this purpose. Contemporaneous with the completion of a particular task or activity, I enter in this diary the time charged on the date the service was rendered; identify the relevant client; the matter; the 1 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 64 of 122 Attachment A DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT 6 $2,550.00 Work on Infield draft contempt time per discussion 04/21/02 with Scott Harris re. potential settlement. 04/22/02 No relevant time. 0 $0.00 04/23/02 Voice mail Scott Harris re. above. 0.1 $42.50 04/24/02 Voice mail exchanges Scott Harris re. above. 0.3 $127.50 Telcom Cobell re. same. 0.5 $212.50 04/25/02 No relevant time. 0 $0.00 04/26/02 Telcom. Scott Harris re. above. 0.5 $212.50 04/27/02 No time. 0 $0.00 04/28/02 No relevant time. 0 $0.00 04/29/02 No relevant time. 0 $0.00 04/30/02 Voice mail Scott Harris re. above. 0.1 $42.50 Telcom. Infield re. above. 0.3 $127.50 05/01/02 4.2 $1,785.00 Prepare Infield draft time for U.S. Attorney's Office. Telcoms. and voice mail exchange Scott Harris re. 0.6 $255.00 -34 settlement issues. Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $42.50 -33 05/02/02 Telcom. Infield re. status and settlement options re. 0.6 $255.00 U.S. Attorney's Office. 4.3 $1,827.50 Prepare Infield draft time for U.S. Attorney's Office. 05/03/02 1.9 $807.50 Prepare Infield draft time for U.S. Attorney's Office. 05/04/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 05/05/02 Telcom. and voice mail Infield re. status and settlement 0.4 $170.00 options re. U.S. Attorney's Office. 05/06/02 0.6 $255.00 Telcoms. and voice mail Harper re. Infield issues. Review l_hl-,,, _i,_,, ,-e. Infield. 0.5 $212.50 Telcom. ,,,d voice mail exchange Scott Harris re. 0.4 $170.00 Infield issues. 05/07/02 0.9 $382.50 Telcoms. and voice mail exchange Harper re. same. Privileged and Confidential EXHIBIT B 65 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 65 of 122 Attachment A DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT 06/16/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 06/17/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 06/18/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 06/19/02 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 0.1 $42.50 06/20/02 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 0.1 $42.50-35 06/21/02 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 0.1 $42.50-36 06/22/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 06/23/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 06/24/02 Voice mail exchange Lawrence re. above. 0.2 $85.00 -37 06/25/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.4 $170.00-38 06/26/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 06/27/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 06/28/02 0.4 $170.00 Voice mail exchange and telcom. Infield re. above. 06/29/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 06/30/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/01/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/02/02 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 0.0 $0.00 07/03/02 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 0.1 $42.50 07/04/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/05/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.2 $85.00-39 07/06/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/07/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/08/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/09/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.5 $212.50-40 07/10/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/11/02 0.4 $170.00 Telcom. and voice mail exchange Lawrence re. above. 0.5 $212.50"41 Telcom. and voice mail exchange Infield re. same. 07/12/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. - 0.2 $85.00 07/13/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/14/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/15/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/16/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 Privileged and Confidential EXHIBIT B 68 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 66 of 122 Attachment A DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT 07/17/02 No relevant time. 6.0 $(5.00 07/18/02 Norelevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/19/02 Prepare letter to Lawrence re. defs' failure to resolve 2.5 $1,062.50 Infield matter and request return of materials provided to defs. in accordance with agreement with U.S. Attorney's Office. Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $127.50 07/20/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/21/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/22/02 Review defs' motion re. Infield. 0.8 $340.00 07/23/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 07/24/02 Norelevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 07/25/02 No relevant rime. 0.0 $0.00 07/26/02 No relevant nme. 0.0 $0.00 07/27/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 07/28/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 07/29/02 Voice mail and telcorn. Lawrence re. above. 0.4 $170.00 -42 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.1 $42.50 07/30/02 Work on Infield response to Lawrence. 0.6 $255.00-43 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.2 $85.00 07/31/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 08/01/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 08/02/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 08/03/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 08/04/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 08/05/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 08/06/02 Telcoms. and voice mail Lawrence re. above. 0.4 $170.00 -44 08/07/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $42.50 -45 Telcom. Infield re. same. 0.2 $85.00 08/08/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 ?9/99/02 No relevant rime. 0.0 $0.00 08/3.0/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 08/11/02 No relevant nine. 0.0 $0.00 08/12/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 08/13/02 No relevant time. 0.0 $0.00 Privileged and Confidential EXHIBIT B 69 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Pact of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 67 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 06/21/04 & Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Adjusted 11 / 18/02 Amount Amount Affidavits Items # 1 9/23/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ 1.7 $382.50 Previously $0.00 and exhibits re: GAO Billed/Denied settlement of accounts. 2 9/25/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ 5.5 $1,237.50 Previously $0.00 and exhibits re: GAO Billed/Denied settlement of accounts; begin drafting and preparing response. 3 9/26/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ 9.5 $2,137.50 Previously $0.00 and exhibits re: GAO Billed/Denied settlement of accounts; begin drafting and preparing response. 4 9/27/00 Review Mildred Cleghom 4.2 $945.00 Previously $0.00 documentation for settled Billed/Denied accounts as it relates to Defs' 3rd MSJ (settlement of accounts process). 5 9/28/00 CC w/Rick Fasold re : BIA 0.1 $22.50 Previously $0.00 documentation reviewed. Billed/Denied Conference call in context of Defs' 3rd MSJ and availability of information to refute defendants' contention that the GAO settled the IIM accounts. 6 9/28/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ 7.2 $1,620.00 Previously $0.00 and exhibits re: GAO Billed/Denied settlement of accounts; begin drafting and preparing response. 7 9/29/00 Draft, edit response to 1.9 $427.50 Previously $0.00 Defendants' 3rd MSJ (re. Billed/Denied settlement of accounts process). 8 9/29/00 Draft preliminary statement of 3.5 $787.50 Previously $0.00 facts for opposition to Defs' Billed/Denied MSJ (re. settlement of accounts process). 9 10/5/00 Draft statement of facts for 1.8 $405.00 Previously $0.00 Response to Defs' MSJ III (re. Billed/Denied settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent Irial 1 exhibits and testimony for purposes of dral_ing the opposition. EXHIBIT B-2 (REMPEL) EXHIB_l]ii_iffs' Statement of Fees and Expenses in Defendants' Motio_C_Srl_6_|_lLPre 1_1_'s March 11, 2003 Ord Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 68 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 06/21/04 & Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Adjusted 11/18/02 Amount Amount Affidavits Items # 10 10/6/00 Draft statement of facts for 7.4 $1,665.00 Previously $0.00 Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. Billed/Denied settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent trial I exhibits and testimony for purposes of drafting the opposition. 11 10/25/00 Draft statement of facts for 2.5 $562.50 Previously $0.00 Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. Billed/Denied settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' documentation (exhibits) and drafting response in light of uncontested facts. 12 10/26/00 Draft Response and statement 8.5 $1,912.50 _ Previously. $0.00 of facts to Defs' MSJ Ill Billed/Denied (settlement of accounts process). 13 10/27/00 Draft Response and statement 3.3 $742.50 Previously $0.00 of facts to Defs' MSJ III Billed/Denied (settlement of accounts process). 14 10/28/00 Draft Response and statement 3.0 $675.00 Previously $0.00 of facts to Defs' MSJ 1II Billed/Denied (settlement of accounts process). 15 10/28/00 Discussion w/Dermis Gingold 1.2 $270.00 I Previously $0.00 i re: Defs' MSJ III and edits to Billed/Denied draft. I 16 10/29/00 CC with Dennis Gingold re: 0.2 $45.00 Previously $0.00 Defs' MSJ III and edits. Billed/Denied 17 10/30/00 CC w/Dennis Gingold, Mark 1.0 $225.00 Previously $0.00 Brown, Keith Harper re: Billed/Denied Response to Defs' MSJ III and tasks. 18 10/30/00 Draft Response and statement 7.0 $1,575.00 Previously $0.00 of facts to Defs' MSJ III ;Billed/Denied (settlement of accounts process). Begin drafting Rempel affidavit in support of response. EXHIBIT 13 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 69 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 06/21/04 & Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Adjusted 11 / 18/02 Amount Amount Affidavits Items # 19 11/1/00 Draft Response and statement 9.5 $2,137.50 Previously $0.00 of facts to Defs' MSJ III Billed/Denied (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel affidavit in support of response. 20 11/2/00 Draft Response and statement 13.0 $2,925.00 Previously $0.00 of facts to Defs' MSJ III Billed/Denied (settlement of accounts 9rocess). Includes drafting Rempel affidavit in support of response. 21 11/3/00 Draft Response and statement 11.5 $2,587.50 Previously $0.00 of facts to Defs' MSJ III Billed/Denied (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel affidavit in support of response. File and serve response. 22 5/6/02 Notice of Supplemental 2.6 $585.00 Previously $0.00 Authority - Draft, prepare, file Billed/Denied and serve notice regarding GAO letter from GAO General Counsel to Bert Edwards, Director of OHTA re settlement of accounts process. Total 106.1 $23,872.50 $0.00 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 70 of 122 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action v. ) No. I:96 CV 01285 RCL ) GALE NORTON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) .) ) AFFIDAVIT OF GEOFFREY REMPEL 1. My name is Geoffrey Rempel. I am a Certified Public Accountant (inactive) and I am engaged as a member of plaintiffs' litigation team. I have been involved in this matter for almost eight years, including almost three-and-one-half years at PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. I make this affidavit in support of plaintiffs' submission of reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, as ordered in the Court's March 11,2003 Memorandum and Order and the Court's May 25, 2004 Order (collectively "Orders"). 2. Defendants' Third Phase 11Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Re: Settlement ofAccounts by Treasury and GAO ("Defendants' MSJ") was served on plaintiffs and filed withthe Court on September 19, 2000. In support of Defendants' MS J, defendants attached the Affidavit of Frank Sapienza. This affidavit (and the motion for summary judgment based upon that affidavit) were EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 71 of 122 IIM TRUST LITIGATION Rempel Schedule: GAO Settlement of Accounts Sanctions "Subtotal" Corresponds to Timeframe set forth in Affidavit BiUing Rate $225.00 DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT SUBTOTAL Meet ancl L_onter w/ DU i anO Dtdi counsel be_ore Special Master re: various motions. Includes discussion w/Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown between meetings and 06/02/00 preparation and review of the existing status of discovery. 6.5 $ ] ,462.50 During the course of this meeting Assistant Secretary Don Hammond confirmed that the settlement of accounts process did not constitute an accounting of the individual ]r_di_n trll_t _rrn_mt_ CC w/Rick Fasold re: Defs' Third Motion for Summary 09/22/00 Judgment (GAO settlement of accounts) and available 0.3 $67.50 material available to refute; compile information for ol_position. Discussion w/Dennis Gingold re: DOT and GAO 09/22/00 settlement of accounts and defendants' 3rd Motion for 0.6 $135.00 Summary JudRment. 09/23/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO 1.7 $382.50 -1 settlement of accounts. Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO 09/25/00 settlement of accounts; begin drafting and preparing 5.5 $1,237.50 -2 response. Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO 09/26/00 settlement of accounts: begin drafting and preparing 9.5 $2,137.50 -3 response. Review Mildred Cleghorn documentation for settled 09/27/00 accounts as it relates to Defs' 3rd MSJ (settlement of 4.2 $945.00 -4 accounts process). CC w/Rick Fasold re: BIA documentation reviewed. 09/28/00 Conference call in context of Defs' 3rd MSJ and 0.1 $22.50 -5 availability of information to refute defendants' contention that the GAO settled the IIM accounts. Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO 09/28/00 settlement of accounts; begin drafting and preparing 7.2 $1,620.00 -6 response. 09/29/00 Draft, edit response to Defendants' 3rd MSJ (re. 1.9 $427.50 -7 settlement of accounts process). Draft preliminary statement of facts for opposition to 09/29/00 Defs' MSJ (re. settlement of accounts process). 3.5 $787.50 -8 1 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 72 of 122 DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT SUBTOTAL CC w/Lorna Babby re: production of policy and procedure boxes. This conference call was initiated for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was an 10/05/00 information contained in prior discovery (policy and 0.3 $67.50 procedures boxes) that might assist in drafting the opposition to Defs' 3rd MSJ (settlement of accounts Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MS] III (re. settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' 10/05/00 documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent trial 1 1.8 $406.00 -9 exhibits and testimony for purposes of drafting the ODDOsition. Discuss w/DG re: BIA regulations and Defs' 3rd MSJ (re. 10/06/00 settlement of accounts process). Includes discussion of 0.2 $45.00 drafting opposition and research on historical regulations at DOI/DOT/GAO. Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' 10/06/00 documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent trial 1 7.4 $1,665.00 -10 exhibits and testimony for purposes of drafting the ODDOsition. Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. 10/25/00 settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' 2.5 $562.50 -1 ] documentation (exhibits) and drafting response in light of uncontested facts. Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ ItI 10/26/00 (settlement of accounts process). 8.5 $1,912.50 - 12 10/27/00 Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 3.3 $742.50 -13 (settlement of accounts process). Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 10/28/00 (settlement of accounts process). 3.0 $675.00 -14 Discussion w/Dennis Gingold re: Response to Defs' MSJ 1.2 $270.00 -15 10/28/00 III and edits to draft. 10/29/00 CC w/Dennis Gingold re: Defs' MSJ III and edits. 0.2 $45.00 "16 10/30/00 CC w/Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown, Keith Harper re: 1.0 $225.00 -17 Response to Defs' MS] III and tasks. Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 10/30/00 (settlement of accounts process). Begin drafting Rempel 7.0 $1,575.00 -18 affidavit in support of response. Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 11/01/00 (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel 9.5 $2,137.50_19 affidavit in support of response. Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 11/02/00 (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel 13.0 $2,925.00 -20 affidavit in support of response. 11/02/00 CC w/DG, MB, KH re Rempel GAO affidavit. 0.2 $45.00 EXHIBIT B 2 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 73 of 122 DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT SUBTOTAL Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 11/03/00 (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel 11.5 $2,587.50 -2 1 $25,110.00 affidavit in support of response. File and serve response. Review material, including facsimiles from the' 12/15/01 Department of Justice and discovery material and prepare 4.0 $90(].00 for contempt trial. Review material, including facsimiles from the 12/16/01 Department of Justice and discovery material and prepare 2.5 $562.50 $I,462.50 for contempt trial. Review Defs' Motion to Withdrawal Motions for 02/04/02 Summary Judgment. Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' 2.8 $630.00 Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal 02/10/02 MSJ. Includes review of trial testimony and exhibits 5.9 $1,327.50 attached to original MSJ. 02/11/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawai 5.5 $1,237.50 MSJ. 02/12/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal 9.5 $2,137.50 MSJ. 02/14/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 0.4 $90.00 and motion to withdrawal. Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSJ's and 02/14/02 cross-motions for summary judgment and sanctions for 8.4 $1,890.00 seekin_ to mislead the Court. 02/15/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 0.5 $112.50 and motion to withdrawal. Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSJ's and 02/15/02 cross-motions for summaryjudgment and sanctions for 6.8 $1,530.00 $8,955.00 seeking to mislead the Court. File and service opposition. 03/05/02 Review defendants' opposition to plaintiffs MSJ (incl. 5.0 $1,125.00 settlement of accounts) and prepare to draft reply. CC w/Elouise Cobell re Defendants' 3rd MS] and 03/05/02 0.3 $67.50 subsequent withdrawal. 03/06/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 7.2 $1,620.00 plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 03/07/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 8.0 $1,800.00 plaintiffs' MS] (incl. settlement of accounts). 03/08/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 6.5 $1,462.50 plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 03/09/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 2.5 $562.50 plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 3 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 74 of 122 DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT SUBTOTAL 03/10/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 1.5 $337.50 plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 03/11/02 and drafting of reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ re 1.2 $270.00 settlement of accounts. 03/11/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 1.5 $33'7.50 plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and 03/11/02 drafting of reply in support of Plfs' MSJ re settlement of 0.8 $180.00 accounts. Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and 03/12/02 drafting of reply in support of Plfs' MSJ re settlement of 0.6 $135.00 accounts. 03/12/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 6.0 $1,350.00 plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 03/13/02 and drafting of reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ re 0.4 $90.00 settlement of accounts. Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 03/13/02 plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). File and 11.2 $2,520.00 $11,857.50 serve reply. Notice of Supplemental Authority- Draft, prepare, file 05/06/02 and serve notice regarding GAO letter from GAO- 2.6 $585.00 -22 General Counsel to Bert Edwards, Director of OHTA re settlement of accounts process. Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a 05/09/02 Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(0 in 4.5 $1,012.50 Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the Aprill 9, 2002 Letter of Gao General Counsel Anthony _amboa to OHTA Dire, ctor Bert Edwards. raft and edit Plaintiffs Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a 05/14/02 Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(0 in 3.8 $855.00 Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of Gao General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 05/14/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re motion to amend GAO 0.1 $22.50 Motion for Summary Judgment. Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a 05/15/02 Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(0 in 4.8 $1,080.00 Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the Aprill9, 2002 Letter of Gao General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 4 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 75 of 122 IN THE UNITED S rATES DISTRICT COURT VILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Nr _._ _ 8 2002-" ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action v. ) No. I:96 CV 01285 RCI_. ) GALE NORTON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) , ) AFFIDAVIT OF GEOFFREY REMPEL 1. My name is Geoffrey Rempel. I am a Certified Public Accountant (inactive) and a full time member of plaintiffs' litigation team. I have been involved in this matter for almost six years, including almost three-and-one-half years at PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.F-'. CPwC'). I make this affidavit in support of plaintiffs' fee application flied in accordance with this Court's September 17, 2002 opinion and order. Record Keeping: Time and Expense 2. I maintain my time records on a electronic spreadsheet application that is dedicated solely to recording my time. This spreadsheet is updated monthly based upon contemporaneous journal entries made in my daily planner. These entries reflect the day a particular task or service was EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 76 of 122 Attachment B DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT i 09/20/00 Prepare and draft TAAMS review based on GAO 3.1 $697.50 report: compiled in preparation of contempt motion. 09/21/00 Prepare and draft TAAMS review based on GAO 6.0 $1,350.00 report: compiled in preparation of contempt motion. 09/22/00 CC w/Rick Fasold re: Defs' Third Motion for 0.3 $67,50 Summary Judgment (GAO settlement of accounts) and material available to refute; compile information for contempt motion. 09/22/00 Prepare and draft TAAMS review based on GAO 2.2 $495.00 report; compiled in preparation of contempt motion. 09/23/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ re: GAO settled accounts 1.7 $382.50 -1 for contempt motion, 09/25/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ including exhibits re: 5.5 $1,237.50 -2 settled accounts in preparation of response. 09/26/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ including exhibits re: 9.5 $2,137.50 -3 settled accounts in preparation of response. 09/27/00 Review Mildred Cleghorn documentation for settled 4.2 $945.00 -4 accounts as it relates to Defs' 3rd MSJ. 09/28/00 Conference call with Interior witnesses regarding e- 0.3 $67.50 mail videotape. DOI preservation of e-mail. 09128/00 CC w/Rick Fasold re: BIA documentation in context 0.i $22.50 -5 of Defs' 3rd MSJ. 09/28/00 Review Defs' Motion for MS] including exhibits re: 7.2 $1,620.00 -6 settled accounts in preparation of response. 09/29/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ including exhibits re: 1.9 $427.50 -7 settled accounts in preparation of response. 09/29/00 Draft preliminary statement of facts for MSJ. 3.5 $787.50 -8 10/05/00 Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSj III. 1.8 $405.00 -9 Includes review Defs' documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent trial exhibits and testimony. 19 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 77 of 122 Attachment B DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT i i ii 10/06/00 Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ III. 7.4 $1,665.00 -10 Includes review Defs' documentation as welt as plaintiffs' pertinent trial exhibits and testimony. 10/12/00 Discuss w/DG re: contempt motion and scheduling 1.5 $337,50 going forward. 10/12/00 CC w/Mona Infield re: TAAMS deployment and 1.2 $270.00 GAO report (3 calls). Discussion in context of misreporting and pending contempt motion. 10/13/00 Conference call with Interior witnesses regarding 0.8 $180.00 electronic information (e-mail) preservation arid security. Context of conversation was in Defs' false representations and pending contempt motion. 10/13/00 Conference call with Gingold regarding update of my 0.3 $67.50 conversation with Interior witnesses (see above CC). 10/25/00 Review Defs' MSJ (GAO acc'ts) and update contempt 2.5 $562.50 -11 notes and facts. 10/26/00 Draft Response, statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III. 8.5 $1,912.50 -12 ]0/27/00 Draft Response, statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III. 3.3 $742.50 -13 10/28/00 Draft Response, statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III. 3.0 $675.00 -14 10/28/00 Discussion w/ DG re: Response to Defs' MSJ III. 1.2 $270.00 -15 10/29/00 CC w/DO re: Defs' MSJ IlI. 0.2 $45.00 -16 10/30/00 CC w/DG, MB, KH re: Response to Defs' MSJ III. 1.0 $225.00 -17 10/30/00 Review Defs' MSJ III and draft response and affidavit. 7.0 $1,575.00 -18 10/31/00 CC w/EC re: update on MSJ III and settlement 0.4 $90.00 negotiations. 10/31/00 Draft Response to Defs' MSJ III and affidavit -- 12,5 $2,812.50 includes statement of facts. I 20 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 78 of 122 Attachment B DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT l 1/01/00 Draft Response to Defs' MSJ III and affidavit -- 9.5 $2,137.50 -19 includes statement of facts. 11/02/00 Draft Response to Defs' MSJ III and affidavit -- 13.0 $2,925.00 -20 includes statement of facts. 11/03/00 Draft Response to Defs' MSJ III and affidavit -- 11.5 $2,587.50 -21 includes statement of facts. 11/06/00 Serve Court and Department of Justice with corrected 1.2 $270.00 Motion for Summary Judgment. 11/07/00 Pick up transcripts and material for motion to reopen 0.7 $157.50 Trial I. 11/08/00 CC w/DG re: status reports of Reopen research (3 0.6 $135.00 calls) 11/12/00 Begin research, review and compile materials for 3.5 $787.50 motion to reopen T I. 11/13/00 Discuss w/DG re: reopening of T I. 0.8 $180.00 l 1 / 13/00 Draft Statement of Facts for Reopening T 1. Includes 5.0 $1,125.00 researching materials and trial transcripts as well as compiling facts. 1 i/i3/00 CC w/TH, EL, DG re: reopening T I. 1.7 $382.50 11/13/00 CC w/EC re: status and moving to reopen T 1. 0.4 $90.00 11/14/00 CC w/TH re: MSJ III Response. 0.1 $22.50 11/14/00 Draft Statement of Facts for Reopening T l. Includes 7.0 $1,575.00 researching materials and trial transcripts as well as compiling facts. 11/14/00 Discuss w/DG. MB, EL re: reopening. 1.3 $292.50 11/14/00 CC w/EC, EL, DG, MB re: reopening. 0.4 $90.00 i1/15/00 CC w/TH re: motion to reopen (2 calls). 0.2 $45.00 11/15/00 Draft Statement of Facts for Reopening T I. Includes 8.0 $1,800.00 researching materials and trial transcripts as well as compiling facts. 11/16/00 Discuss w/EL re: reopening of T I. 2.5 $562.50 11 / 16/00 Draft Statement of Facts for Reopening T I. Includes 2.2 $495.00 researching materials and trial transcripts as well as compiling facts. 11/16/00 CC w/TH re: Statement of Facts and reopening. 0.2 $45.00 2_ EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 79 of 122 Attachment B DATE TASK TIME AMOUNT i i 11/27/01 Review individuals oppositions to MSC: compile 0.8 $180.00 information and representations for pending contempt trial. 05/06/02 Notice of Supplemental Authority - Draft, prepare, file 2.6 $585.00 -22 and serve (deputy special trustee drafted a memo that was filed with the Court in support of plaintiffs motion to show cause for the completed contempt trial. 06/19/02 Draft, edit Notice of Supplemental Authority (Def's 2.5 $562.50 filed a motion to recuse the Court Monitor, therein they admitted that the 12/21/99 order regarding an accounting was in fact an order contrary to their assertions during the contempt trial - filed in support of p]aintiffs' findings and conclusions). i 07/31/02 Draft, edit and file notices to the Court (notice filed in 4.2 $945.00 support of OST resignation: relevant to contempt trial in light of suppression of testimony damaging to defendants' contempt trial defense). 08/0]/02 Draft, edit and file notices to the Court (notice filed in 3,0 $675.00 support of OST resignation; relevant to contempt trial in light of suppression of testimony damaging to defendants' contempt trial defense). 09/05/02 Draft, edit notice of supplemental authority - findings 2.1 $472.50 and conclusions (NAID quarterly report contractor provides this Court information with respect to ongoing false quarterly reporting). 09/17/02 Retrieve and review opinion from Courthouse. 2.2 $495.00 09/17/02 CC w/reporters re contempt opinion. 2.5 $562.50 09/17/02 Discuss opinion w/DG, MB. 4.2 $945.00 09/18/02 Review Opinion. 6.5 $],462.50 09/18/02 Discuss w/DG, MB re Contempt Opinion. 2.1 $472.50 09/18/02 CC w/EC, DG re contempt opinion (2 calls). 0.5 $112.50 5O EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 80 of 122 Brown Internally Inconsistent Entries Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 10/4/00 Telephone Conversations with Keith Harper re 0.416 $145.60 Inconsistent MSJ strategy with Harper bill 10/30/00 Revise Objections Memorandum; Telephone 1.333 $466.55 Inconsistent Conference with Keith Harper/Dennis Gingold re with Harper & Strategy Gingold bills ['oral 1.749 $612.15 EXHIBIT C (Corrected) Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' St_c_f Fees and Expenses Filed Defendants' Motion to R_t_i_},T_04 Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 81 of 122 Gingold Internally Inconsistent Entries Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Pu'notmt 10/28/00 Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status of MSJ III 0.4 $140.00 Inconsistent and issues that need to be flushed out. with Harper & Brown bills [0/29/00 Telcom. Harper re. defendants' misrepresentations regarding 0.1 $35.00 Previously settlement of accounts v. accounting. Billed/Denied; Inconsistent with Harper bill 10/30/00 Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ III draft and necessary edits. 0.2 $70.00 Inconsistent with Rempel bill 10/30/00 Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status ofMSJ III. 0.5 $175.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 10/30/00 Conference call with Rempel, Harper and Brown re. status of 1 $350.00 Inconsistent remaining tasks re. MSJ III response including need for Rempel with Rempel, supporting affidavit vis-a-vis admissions of Don Hammond, etc. Harper, & Brown bills 11/6/00 Telcom. Brown re. Sanctions for defs' materially false GAO 0.5 $175.00 Inconsistent MSJ III. with Brown bill 2/1/02 Telcom. Harperre. same. 0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of scope 3/5/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; i Outside of scope 3/11/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 1.3 $468.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of scope 3/12/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 1.1 $396.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of scope 3/12/02 Conference call Brown and Harper re. same. 0.8 $288.00 Inconsistent with Harper & Brown bills; Outside of scope 3/13/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 2.3 $828.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of scope 3/13/03 Conference call Cobell and Rempel re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Rempel bill; Outside of scope EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 82 of 122 Gingold Intemally Inconsistent Entries Date Matter Claimed Objection rime Amount 4/22/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same and implications of knowingly false 0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent representations to Court and pltffs' and plaintiffs' counsel, with Harper bill 4/23/02 Telcoms. with Harper re. same. 0.4 ;144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of scope 4/24/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.7 , $252.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 4/24/02 Telcom. Harperre. same. 0.6 $216.00 :Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 4/25/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; i Outside of Scope/Denied 4/25/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/5/02 Telcom. Harper re. issues and implications re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/6/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Inonsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/9/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.3 [5108.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied _/10/02 Telcom. Harperre. same. 0.1 $36.00 inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/12/02 Telcom. Harper re. same 0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/13/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/13/02 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Outside of Scope EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 83 of 122 Gingold Intemally Inconsistent Entries Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 5/14/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.5 $180.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/15/02 Telcoms. Harper re. comments to same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/25/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/30/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope 6/3/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/7/02 Conference call Rempel, Harper, Brown concerning 1.1 $407.00 Inconsistent appealability of contempt re. MSJ III contemnors, officially and with Harper & individually, including DOJ attorneys. Brown bills; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/8/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 1.5 ;555.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/20/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.1 $37.00 'Outside of Scope/Denied; Inconsistent with Harper bil; 6/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/28/02 Telcom. Harper re, same. 0.4 $148.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 84 of 122 Gingold Intemaliy Inconsistent Entries Date Matter Claimed Objection Firne Amount 1/28/03 Conference call Harper and Brown re. need to file MSJ 0.4 $148.00 Outside of declaring settlement of disbursing officer accounts does not Scope; settle or constitute accounting oflIM Trust accounts, inconsistent with Brown & Harper bills 1/31/03 Telcom. Harperre. same. 0.3 $111.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/15/03 Telcom. Harper re. same and opp. to defs' motion to strike GAO 0.4 $148.00 Outside of MSJ. Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/21/03 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/21/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.2 $74.00 Outside of Scope; 2/24/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/24/03 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 0.5 $185.00 Outside of Scope; 2/26/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.1 $37.00 Outside of Scope 6/9/04 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.7 $273.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of scope 6/14/04 Telcom. Harper re. GAO time and scope ofroders 0.2 $78.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of scope 6/16/04 Conference call Rempel and Harper to confirm accuracy of time 2 $780.00 Inconsistent entries and scope of action taken in connection with protection with Harper of class re. clefs' repeated filing of false Sapienza declaration, bill; Outside of scope 6/16/04 Conference call Rempel, Harper, and Brown re. same. 1 $390.00 Inconsistent !with Harper & Brown bills; Outside of scope 6/19/04 Telcoms. Harper re. same and comments re. affidavits. 0.5 $195.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of scope EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 85 of 122 Gingold InternaUy Inconsistent Entries Date Matter Claimed Objection Fime Amount 6/21/04 Telcoms. Harper re. clarification of affidavits and time entries in 0.5 $195.00 Inconsistent conformity with order, with Harper bill; Outside of scope Total 26.4 $9,686.00 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 86 of 122 Rempel Internally Inconsistent Entries 6/17/04 CC w/Keith Harper, Dermis Gingold (Mark Brown some) 2.0 $450.00 Inconsistent ;0.00 re GAO application, with Harper bill; Outside of scope Total 2 $450.00 $0.00 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 87 of 122 Harper Internally Inconsistent Entries Date Matter Claimed Objection ['i_me Amount 9/21/00 Conference with DG re: Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement 0.6 $123.00 Inconsistent on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre- 1951 with Gingold bill 10/9/00 Telephone call from and to DG (2 calls) re: settlement 0.4 $82.00 Inconsistent possibilities; discussions with Interior; SMJ III; extension of with time; Gingold's bill 10/27/00 Telephone call to DG and or GR (4 calls) to discuss 1 $205.00 Inconsistent Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on the with Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 Cringold's & i Rempers bill 3/6/02 Telephone call from DG re: MSJ withdrawal and sanctions 0.4 $104.00 Inconsistent request with Gingold's bill; Outside of scope 6/17/04 Conference call to DG and GR to discuss scope of courts May 2 $670.00 inconsistent 1 lth order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza bad faith with affidavit and review time jointly to ensure accuracy Gingold's & Rempel's bill; Outside of scope Total 4.4 $1,184.00 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 88 of 122 REVIEW OF BROWN SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount )/25/00 Review Transcripts re Opposition to MS J3 3.833 $1,341.55 9/27/00 Legal Research re Evidenliary Objections re Sapienza 0.833 $291.55 Affidavit (Sapienza Table) )/29/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit; Legal Research re 1.25 $437.50 Ancient Documents (Sapienza Table) )/30/00 Prepare Memorandum re Evidentiary Objections re MSJ 3.25 $1,137.50 (Sapienza Table) 10/3/00 _eview and Analyze Sapienza Affidavit re objections 2.166 $758.10 (Sapienza Table) 10/4/00 Telephone Conversations with Keith Harper re MSJ strategy 0.416 $145.60 Inconsistent with Harper bill 10/5/00 Legal Research re Evidentiary Issues; Revise Memorandum re 0.333 $116.55 Same re MSJ 10/5/00 Legal Research re Best Evidence Rule; Prepare Objections re 4.083 $1,429.05 Same 10/6/00 Revise Best Evidence Rule Memorandum re MSJ 1.25 ?437.50 10/6/00 Legal Research re Authentication Issues re MSJ 1.166 $408.10 10/7/00 Legal Research atNARF re Authentication; Prepare 3.5 $1,225.00 Memorandum re Same re MSJ 10/7/00 Legal Research at NARF re Authentication; Prepare 2.666 $933.10 Memorandum re Same re MSJ 10/8/00 Revise Memorandum re Authentications Issues; 3.833 $1,341.55 10/8/00 Legal Research re Expert Witness Deficiencies of Sapienza 1.166 $408.10 Affidavit (Part IV) 10/10/00 Review Arthur Andersen 1992 Trim Trust Report re MSJ 2.666 $933.10 10/10/00 Revise Objection to Sapienza Affidavit re MSJ (Sapienza 2.416 $845.60 Table) 10/11/00 Revise Memorandum re Expert Testimony (Part IV) 2.833 $991.55 10/12/00 Legal Research re Expert's Need for Personal Knowledge 3.333 $1,166.55 (Part IV) 10/12/00 Prepare Chart of Objections to Exhibits re MSJ 4.583 $1,604.05 10/13/00 Legal Research re Expert's Ability to Opine on 4.583 $1,604.05 Regulations; Review Fed Evid Digest for Cases Fitting Fact Pattern (Part IV) Page 1 of 34 EXHIBIT D Defendnats' Objections to Plaintiffs' Statements of Fees and Expenses Filed EXffm_n_g21, 2004 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 89 of 122 10/13/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit (Sapienza Table) 3.916 $1,370.60 10/14/00 Revise EvidentiaryMemorandum 3.166 $1,108.10 10/15/00 Revise Evidentiary Memorandum 2.333 $816.55 10/15/00 Legal Research re Form of Objections (Sapienza Table) 0.25 $87.50 10/16/00 Further Legal Research re Interplay of Expert's Use of 2.5 $875.00 Hearsay Evidence That Has Not Been Authenticated (Part IV) 0/16/00 Revise Evidentiary Memorandum re MS J; Further 5.25 $1,837.50 Legal Research as noted above (Part IV) 0/17/00 Legal Research re additional Hearsay cases; Revise 3.083 $1,079.05 Obj ections Memorandum 10/17/00 Revise Objections Memorandum 3.833 $1,341.55 10/18/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit (Sapienza Table) 2.25 $787.50 t0/18/00 Legal Research re 'Implicit Hearsay' 0.583 $204.05 [0/18/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit (Sapienza Table) 2.416 $845.60 10/19/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit (Sapienza Table) 1.75 $612.50 10/19/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit (Sapienza Table) 1.083 $379.05 t0/20/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit (Sapienza Table) 1.166 $408.10 0/23/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit (Sapienza Table) 1.5 $525.00 10/23/00 Prepare Objections to Sapienza Affidavit (Sapienza Table) 1 $350.00 10/24/00 Legal Research re Expert Opinion re Legal Issues; Revise 1.166 $408.10 Memorandum (Part IV) 10/25/00 Revise Objections to MSJ with Cites to Exhibits (Sapienza 1.25 $437.50 Table) 10/25/00 iRevise Memorandum of Points and Authorities re Evidentiary 2.916 $1,020.60 !Issues re MSJ (Part IV) 10/26/00 Revise Objections; Convert for Transmission to Counsel 1.166 $408.10 (Sapienza Table) 10/28/00 Revise Objections to Evidence (Sapienza Table) 1.416 ;495.60 10/29/00 Revise Keith Harper Introduction to MSJ Opposition 1 15350.00 10/30/00 Revise Objections Memorandum; Telephone 1.333 $466.55 Inconsistent with Conference with Keith Harper/Dennis Gingold re Harper & Gingold Strategy bills 10/30/00 Revise Objections Memorandum 2.25 $787.50 10/30/00 Telephone Conference withTeam/Keith Harper re MSJ 1 $350.00 Opposition 10/30/00 Revise Objections Memorandum 1.083 $379.05 Page 2 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 90 of 122 10/31/00 Revise Rempel Declaration re MSJ 0.25 $87.50 10/31/00 Review Database re Proving Government Admissions re 1.75 $612.50 Jnability to Account 0/31/00 Review Database re Proving Government Admissions re 2.416 $845.60 Inability to Account 10/31/00 Revise Keith Harper MSJ Insert 2.5 $875.00 11/1/00 Revise Keith Harper MSJ Insert 2.75 $962.50 11/1/00 Revise Keith Harper MSJ Insert 1.583 $554.05 11/1/00 Revise Opposition to MSJ (Part IV) 3.833 $1,341.55 11/1/00 Legal Research re Expert 1.25 $437.50 Testimony as Basis for MSJ (Part IV) 11/1/00 Further Legal Research re 1.75 $612.50 Expert Testimony as Basis for MSJ (Part IV) 11/2/00 Telephone Conference with Mr. Levitas re Evidentiary 0.166 $58.10 Memorandum of Points and Authorities 11/2/00 Prepare Memorandum re 0.75 $262.50 Expert Issues in MSJ Context (Part IV) 1 I/2/00 Revise Keith Harper Legal 0.666 $233.10 Argument re MSJ 1 I/2/00 Prepare Memorandum re 1.333 $466.55 Expert Issues in MSJ Context (Part IV) 11/2/00 Telephone Conference with S. 1.333 $466.55 Philippi re Expert Witnesses Evidentiary Issues (Part IV) 11/2/00 Prepare Memorandum re 1.666 $583.10 Expert Issues in MSJ Context (Part IV) 11/2/00 IPrepare Memorandum re 4.083 $1,429.05 Expert Issues in MSJ Context; Revise MSJ Opposition (Part IV) 11/2/00 Revise MSJ Opposition 3.333 $1,166.55 11/3/00 Revise MSJ Opposition (cont. 2.166 $758.10 after midnight) 11/3/00 Prepare MSJ Opposition 3.666 $1,283.10 Page 3 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 91 of 122 L1/3/00 Prepare MSJ Opposition; Legal Research re Right to Confront 6.25 $2,187.50 Witnesses (Part IV) 11/3/00 Finalize/proofread MSJ 1.916 $670.60 Opposition TOTALS for Opposition to MSJ 146.228 $51,179.80 2/7/02 Research/Review GAO Report 2.5 $900.00 2/9/02 Legal Research re Cross-motion for MSJ 3.166 $1,139.76 Outside of Scope 2/11/02 Legal Research re Withdrawing MSJ; Prepare Memorandum of 3.25 $1,170.00 Outside of Scope Points and Authorities 2/12/02 Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 1.583 $569.88 Outside of Scope 2/12/02 Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 0.333 $119.88 Outside of Scope 2/13/02 Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 0.333 $119.88 Outside of Scope 2/13/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 0.666 $239.76 Outside of Scope 2/14/02 [Revise Memorandum of Points and Authorities re Cross-Motion 2.92 $1,051.20 Outside of Scope Ifor Summary Judgment 2/14/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 4.916 $1,769.76 Outside of Scope 2/15/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 0.75 $270.00 Outside of Scope 2/15/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 3 $1,080.00 Outside of Scope 2/15/02 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition/miscellaneous re 1.333 $479.88 Partial Award service & filing Subtotal (l_tme re Rule 56@) Motion) 24.75 $8,910.00 3/10/02 Review Opposition to Rule 56(g) Motion 1.666 $599.76 3/13/02 Prepare Replyre Cross-Motion for Summary 2.75 $990.00 Outside of Scope Judgment 3/13/02 Prepare Reply re Cross-Motion for Summary 6.916 $2,489.76 Outside of Scope Judgment Subtotal (Time re Rule 56(g) Reply) 11.332 $4,079.52 TOTAL 36.082 $12,989.52 5/26/04 Review Court Orders re Sapienza Sanctions; Review File re 1.166 $443.08 Same 6/8/04 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee Application 4.916 $1,868.08 6/9/04 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee Application 1.916 $728.08 Page 4 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 92 of 122 6/9/04 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee Application; 3.666 $1,393.08 Prepare MKB A_davit re fees; Legal Research re Laffey rates 6/10/04 Prepare MKB Affidavit re fees 1.916 $728.08 6/10/04 Legal Research re adjusted Laffey rates/McDowell 1.25 $475.00 decision 6/10/04 Prepare MKB Affidavit re fees 3.166 $1,203.08 6/11/04 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee Application 0.583 $221.54 6/11/04 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees 2.916 $1,108.08 6/11/04 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees 1.833 $696.54 6/11/04 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees/Prepare Application and 3.75 $1,425.00 Order 6/14/04 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees/Prepare Application and 4.166 $1,583.08 Order 6/14/04 Finalize MKB Affidavit re fees/Application and Order 1.666 $633.08 6/17/04 Telephone Conference with team re time entries re GAO 1.25 $475.00 fee application TOTAL Proof fees 34.16 $12,980.80 Page 5 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 93 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/2/00 Accompanied by Rempel, met with Master, DO J, DOI, & DOT 2.1 $735.00 Previously re. production of accounting does. relevant to Cobell litigation, Billed/Denied including all documentation that purports to represent the Outside of Scope settlement oflIM accounts in the custody or control of tisbursement officers. Brooks represented that the settlement of Disbursing officer accounts also settled IIM accounts. Asst. Secretary of the Treasury Don Hammond confirmed that the settlement of disbursing officer accounts did not result in an accounting of IIM trust accounts. 6/2/00 Prepare for Special Master meeting re. Defendants 0.8 $280.00 Previously misrepresentation re. settlement of Indian disbursing officer Billed/Denied accounts as accounting IIM trust accounts ! Outside of Scope 6/5/00 Telcom. with Brian Fen'ell, DO J, requesting production of all 0.3 $105.00 Outside of Scope documents relevant to settlement oflIM accounts in the custody or control of disbursement officers, at least with respect to the named plaintiffs and their predeeessors-in-interes ? in conformity with the representations of Brooks at the 6.2.00 meeting at the Master's office. 6/6/00 Telcoms. with Ferrell re. same. (Document Production & 0.3 $105.00 Outside of Scope Account Settlement) 7/5/00 Telcoms. Holt re. GAO summary judgment/accounting 0.7 $245.00 Previously Billed/Denied Outside of Scope 7/25/00 Draft MSJ surreply re. Defs' material misrepresentations re. 1.7 $595.00 Previously GAO Billed/Denied Outside of Scope 9/19/00 Telcom. Harper re. GAO settlement issues and action to take 0.2 $70.00 regarding Brooks delivery of threat to file motion for summary iudgment claiming falsely that the settlement of disbursing officers' accounts for 30 years discharges defs' accounting duty from 1921-1950. 9/20/00 Telcom. with Harper re. same. 0.3 $105.00 9/22/00 Telcoms. with Fen'ell re. GAO settlements of account issues and 0.8 $280.00 conflicting representations Brooks and Hammond. 9/22/00 Meet with Rempel re. Defendants Third Phase II Motion for 0.6 $210.00 Partial Summary Judgment (Re: Settlement of Accounts by Treasury and GAO) ("MSJ III") and in response collect documents in create factual appendix to explicitly refute misrepresentations, including opinion of Don Hammond. Page 6 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 94 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Chimed Objection Amount 9/24/00 Review MS J, note defs' claims, identify responses, and assess 0.7 ;245.00 Previously authorities in opposition to such claims. Billed/Denied 9/24/00 Review relevant documents and prepare letters to Brooks and 2.2 $770.00 Previously Ferrell concerning same and in response to letters defending Billed/Denied MSJ claims. 9/25/00 Work on MSJ III response; begin review legal authorities, e.g., 8 $2,800.00 Previously "Law of Appropriations" and cases and Comptroller General Billed/Denied discussion of nature and scope of settlement of accounts process and legal impact; begin review of documents related thereto. 9/26/00 Telcoms. Harper re. nature and scope of settlements-of-account 0.3 $105.00 Previously process per Comptroller General. Billed/Denied 9/26/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 4.5 $1,575.00 Previously response. Billed/Denied 9/26/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ Ill draft. 0.2 $70.00 Previously Billed/Denied 9/26/00 Telcom. Holt re. same. 0.3 $105.00 Previously Billed/Denied 9/27/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 5 $1,750.00 response. 9/28/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 6.2 $2,170.00 Previously response Billed/Denied 9/28/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III draft. 0.4 $140.00 Previously Billed/Denied 9/30/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 5 $1,750.00 Previously response Billed/Denied 10/1/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 1 $350.00 Previously response Billed/Denied 10/4/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III response. 1.4 $490.00 Previously Billed/Denied 10/4/00 Telcom. Holt re. MSJ III issues. 0.1 ;35.00 10/4/00 Review relevant authorities; documentation. 0.8 $280.00 10/5/00 Continue work on MSJ III response; continue review of legal 4.9 $1,715.00 authorities; documents. 10/5/00 Telcom. Interior witness confirming false GAO MSJ. 0.1 $35.00 Previously Billed/Denied 10/6/00 Discussion with Rempel re. relevance ofBIA regs. to MSJ III 0.2 $70.00 and Trial 1 testimony and exhibits related thereto for reference in opposition to MSJ III. Page 7 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 95 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 10/7/00 Continue work on MSJ III response; continue review of legal 9.1 $3,185.00 Previously authorities; documents, including data reports, oil & gas reports, Billed/Denied and assessments of nature and scope of settlements process re. the class. 10/7/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III documentation issues given 0.9 $315.00 Previously the refusal of Interior and Treasury to produce documents to Billed/Denied support their settlement of account claims. 10/8/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 3.9 $1,365.00 Previously response. Includes review of data reports, oil & gas reports, and Billed/Denied assessments of nature and scope of settlements process re. the class; compare "accounting" to desk audits by GAO and Treasury of disbursing officer reports. 10/28/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ III. 4.5 $1,575.00 Previously Billed/Denied 10/28/00 Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status of MSJ III 0.4 $140.00 Inconsistent with and issues that need to be flushed out. Harper & Brown bills 10/28/00 Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ III draft and necessary edits. 1.2 $420.00 10/28/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III issues. 0.5 $175.00 Previously Billed/Denied 10/29/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ III. 4 $1,400.00 Previously Billed/Denied 10/29/00 Telcom. Harper re. defendants' misrepresentations regarding 0.1 $35.00 Previously settlement of accounts v. accounting. Billed/Denied; Inconsistent with Harper bill 0/30/00 Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ II1 draft and necessary edits. 0.2 i$70.00 Inconsistent with Rempel bill 10/30/00 Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status of MSJ III. 0.5 $175.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 10/30/00 Conference call with Rempel, Harper and Brown re. status of 1 $350.00 Inconsistent with remaining tasks re. MSJ III response including need for Rempel Rempel, Harper, supporting affidavit vis-a-vis admissions of Don Hammond, etc. & Brown bills 10/30/00 Continue revisions of MSJ III draft response. 4.6 $1,610.00 Previously Billed/Denied 10/31/00 Revise and redraft opposition to MSJ Ill. 6.9 $2,415.00 Previously Billed/Denied 11/1/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ III based on Rempel 6.1 $2,135.00 Previously additions. Billed/Denied Page 8 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 96 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Chimed Objection Amount 11/2/00 Continue revisions of Rempel additions to MSJ III draft 4.4 $1,540.00 Previously response and review and comment on Rempel affidavit in Billed/Denied support of certain factual statements including admissions of Hammond. 11/2/00 Conference call with Rempel, Harper and Brown re. status of 0.4 $140.00 remaining tasks and text of Rempel affidavit. 11/3/00 Finalize Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Third Phase II 11.6 $4,060.00 Previously Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (Re: Settlement of Billed/Denied Accounts by Treasury and GAO). 11/3/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. finalization ofMSJ III opposition. 0.4 $140.00 Previously Billed/Denied 11/3/00 Telcom. Ferrell re. service ofMSJ III opposition. 0.1 $35.00 Previously Billed/Denied 11/3/00 Telcom. Cobell re. MSJ III issues. 0.3 $105.00 Previously Billed/Denied 11/6/00 Telcom. Brown re. Sanctions for defs' materially false GAO 0.5 $175.00 Inconsistent with MSJ III. Brown bill 2/1/02 Meet and confer with Cynthia Alexander and Matt Fader, DO J, 0.1 $36.00 and object to defendants' motion to withdraw pending motion for partial summary judgement regarding GAO Settlement of Accounts of disbursing officers as discharging the accounting of IIM Trust beneficiaries ("MSJ III"). 2/1/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/1/02 Telcoms. Cobell re. same. 0.3 $108.00 2/4/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same, particularly impact false MSJ III was 0.2 $72.00 ntended to have on class. 2/12/02 Telcoms. Ferrell re. MSJ III issues, intended impact, etc. 0.2 $72.00 2/14/02 Review and revise Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 8.5 $3,060.00 Partial Recovery Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs' Cross- Motions for Summary Judgment as to (B) The Non-Settlement of accounts to reinforce such settlement of Indian disbursing officer accounts does not constitute an accounting of IIM trust tecounts. 2/14/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Partial Recovery 2/14/02 Conference call with Cobell and Rempel re. defs' motion to 0.4 $144.00 IPartial Recovery withdraw MSJ III, the intended affect of the motion, the deception practiced on the district court, and reasons for the opposition. Page 9 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 97 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 2/15/02 Finalize revisions and refinement ofopp, to defs' motion and 6.2 $2,232.00 Partial Recovery cross motion re. MSJ IlL 2/15/02 Conference call with Cobell and Rempel re opp. to motion to 0.5 $180.00 Partial Recovery withdraw MSJ III and crossmotion for summary judgment. 3/5/02 Review, revise, and redraft reply to consolidated MSJ III cross 11 $3,960.00 Partial Recovery motion and show cause motion. 3/5/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/8/02 Review, revise, and modify current draft of consolidated MSJ 1.2 $4,320.00 Partial Recovery III crossmotion. 3/I 1/02 Conference call with Cobell and Rempel re. consolidated MSJ 1.2 $432.00 Partial Recovery III crossmotion, accounting implica bad faith, irreparable harm. 3/11/02 Continue revisions and refinement of MSJ III draft in 6.6 $2,376.00 i Partial Recovery accordance with discussion with Cobell and Rempel, and Harper. 3/11/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 1.3 $468.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/11/02 Telcoms. Cobell re. same. 1.1 $396.00 Partial Recovery 3/11/02 Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ III reply draft and necessary 0.8 $288.00 Partial Recovery revisions, additional supporting documents. 3/12/02 Continue revisions and refinement ofMSJ III reply draft, 14.5 $5,222.00 Partial Recovery including factual appendix. 3/12/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 1.1 $396.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/12/02 Conference call Brown and Harper re. same. 0.8 $288.00 Inconsistent with Harper & Brown bills 3/12/02 Discussion with Rempel re. same. 0.6 $216.00 Partial Recovery 3/13/02 Finalize revisions and refinement ofMSJ III reply draft, 13.2 $4,752.00 Partial Recovery including factual appendix; confirm supporting documentation. 3/13/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 2.3 $828.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 3/13/02 Telcoms. Cobell re. same. 0.5 $180.00 Partial Recovery 3/13/03 Conference call Cobell and Rempel re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Rempel bill 4/22/00 Review GAO Gamboa April 19, 2002 letter that confirms 0.5 $180.00 Partial Recovery knowingly false representations made re. settlement oflIM accounts. Page 10 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 98 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 4/22/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same and implications of knowingly false 0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent with representations to Court and pltffs' and plaintiffs' counsel. Harper bill 4/23/02 Telcoms. with Cobell re. same. 0.5 $180.00 Partial Recovery 4/23/02 Telcoms. with Harper re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 4/24/02 Review implications of Gamboa admissions and willful 2.9 $1,044.00 Outside of Scope misrepresentations to Court and plfffs' counsel; review all filings by government and plaintiffs related thereto and consider options to rectify consequences of deception. 4/24/03 Telcom. Holt re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 4/24/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.7 ;252.00 Inconsistent with Levitas bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 4/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.5 $180.00 Outsideof Scope/Denied 4/24/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; !Outside of Scope/Denied 4/24/02 Telcom. Fasold re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Ouside of Scope/Denied 4/25/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 4/25/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent with Levitas bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/1/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office re. Gamboa 0.2 $72.00 Previously letter and its implications. Billed/Denied; Outside of Scope 5/1/02 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Previously Billed/Denied; Outside of Scope 5/2/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, re same. 0.4 $144.00 Previously Billed/Denied; Outside of Scope Pagellof 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 99 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 5/2/02 Work on notice of supplemental authority re. Gamboa letter. 0.6 $216.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/2/02 Telcoms. Harper re. discussions with U.S. Attorney's orifice and 0.9 ;324.00 Inconsistent with notice of supplemental authority re. Gamboa letter. Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/3/02 Review and revise consolidated motion for leave to amend 5.6 152,016.00 Outside of 31aintiffs' 2.15.02 MSJ Ill contempt motion and finding Scope/Denied _ursuant to R 56(g) per newly discovered evidence, i.e., the Gamboa letter. 5/3/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, re same. 0.1 $36.00 Previously Billed/Denied 5/4/02 Work on notice ofsupp, authority, leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ 3.9 $1,404.00 Outside of III contempt motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion Scope/Denied per newly discovered evidence. 5/5/02 Continue to draft and revise same. 6.3 $2,268.00 Outside of Scope/Denied I . . 5/5/02 Telcom. Harper re. issues and implications re. same. 0.1 $36.00 i Inconsistent with I :Harper ball; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/6/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Previously Billed/Denied 5/6/02 Work on notice of supp. authority, leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ 5.3 $1,908.00 Outside of III contempt motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion Scope/Denied per newly discovered evidence. 5/6/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Inonsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/7/02 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 3.7 $1,332.00 Outside of motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly Scope/Denied discovered evidence. 5/7/02 Teleoms. Lawrence re. same. 1.2 $432.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 5/9/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/9/02 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 5.4 $1,944.00 Outside of Scope/ motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly Denied discovered evidence. Page 12 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 100 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 5/10/02 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 0.2 $72.00 Outside of Scope/ motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly Denied discovered evidence. 5/10/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/10/02 !Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.1 136.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 5/12/02 Telcom. Harper re. same 0.2 _72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/13/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2.7 $972.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/13/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.4 $144.00 i Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/13/02 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent with Levitas bill; Outside of Scope 5/14/02 Telcom with Lawrence re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/14/02 Discussion with Rempel re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/14/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/14/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.5 $180.00 Inconsistent with Levitas bill; Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/15/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 1.8 $648.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied widence. 5/15/02 Telcoms. Harper re. comments to same. 0.4 _$144.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/16/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied Page 13 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 101 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 5/16/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 7.4 $2,664.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/16/02 Telcom. Scott Harris re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/17/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ Ill contempt motion, 7 '$2,520.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/18/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 1.9 $684.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/20/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2.2 $792.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. _/24/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 4.7 $1,692.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered 3enied evidence. 5/24/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.4 $144.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 0.1 $36.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/25/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 4 $1,440.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/25/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/26/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 7.1 $2,556.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/27/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 8.8 $3,168.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/ Denied Page 14 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 102 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 5/28/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2.6 $936.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/28/02 Teleom. Lawrence re. same. 0.2 $72.00 Outside of Scope/ Denied 5/30/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2.5 $900.00 Outside of Scope/ amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Denied evidence. 5/30/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope 5/31/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 :$36.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/1/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 3.4 $1,258.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 6/3/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. meet and confer re filing of MSJ III 0.4 ;148.00 Outside of contempt motion. Scope/Denied 6/3/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 2 $740.00 Outside of amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 6/3/02 Discussion with Rempel re. same. 0.5 $185.00 J Outside of Scope/Denied 6/3/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/4/02 Continued teleoms. Lawrence re. meet and confer on MSJ III 0.7 $259.00 Outside of contempt motion. Scope/Denied 6/4/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/4/02 Finalize motion to amend 2.15 02 MSJ III contempt motion, 8.6 $3,182.00 Outside of amendment fo MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered Scope/Denied evidence. 6/6/02 Research and analyze complex personal service issues re. 4 $1,480.00 Outside of nonparties as to same. Scope/Denied 6/6/02 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Oftice, re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/6/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 0.6 $222.00 Outside of Scope/Denied Page 15 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 103 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/6/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.6 $222.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/7/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in 0.1 $37.00 Outside of connection with MSJ III contempt. Scope/Denied 6/7/02 Conference call Rempel, Harper, Brown concerning 1.1 $407.00 Inconsistent with appealability of contempt re. MSJ III contemnors, officially and Harper & Brown individually, including DOJ attorneys, bills; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/8/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. MSJ III personal service logistical 0.5 ;185.00 Outside of issues. Scope/Denied 6/8/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 1.5 $555.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; i Outside of Scope/Denied 6/9/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in 0.1 $37.00 Outside of connection with MSJ III contempt. Scope/Denied 6/19/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced 0.5 $185.00 Outside of in Garnboa letter but withheld by defendants. Scope/Denied 6/20/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Previously Billed/Denied 6/20/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.I $37.00 Outside of Scope/Denied; Inconsistent with Harper bil; 6/21/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/24/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/24/02 Vleet with Cobell concerning Gamboa letter and MSJ III. 1 ;370.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/25/02 Work on reply to MSJ III, including review orders' cases and 5 $1,850.00 Outside of authorities and begin preparation of draft. Scope/Denied 6/25/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced 0.4 $148.00 Previously Billed; in Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. Outside of Scope/Denied 6/26/02 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and 2.2 $814.00 Outside of draft revisions. Scope/Denied Page 16 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 104 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/27/02 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and 1.3 $481.00 Outside of draft revisions. Scope/Denied 6/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope/Denied 6/27/02 Meet with Cobell re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 6/28/02 Continue work on GamboaJMSJ III reply, includes research and 3.7 $1,369.00 Outside of draft revisions. Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend and Scope/Denied Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: The April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards). 6/28/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill; Outside of Scope 7/1/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced 0.1 ;37.00 Outside of m Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. Scope/Denied 7/5/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 0.2 $74.00 Previously Billed; documents referenced, and in connection, with Gamboa letter. I Outside of Scope/Denied 7/9/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 0.5 $185.00 Previously Billed; documents referenced, and in connection, with Gamboa letter. Outside of Scope/Denied 7/11/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 0.4 $148.00 Previously Billed; documents referenced, and in connection with Gamboa letter. Outside of Scope/Denied 7/19/02 Prepare letter to Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 1 $370.00 Outside of documents referenced, and in connection with, Gamboa letter, Scope/Denied particularly wi_ respect to does. created, or received, by Interior and Treasury in response to GAO general counsel's opinion that IIM accounts were not settled. 7/29/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 7/30/02 Prepare letter response to Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied Page 17 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 105 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 8/6/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 8/7/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Previously Billed; Outside of Scope/Denied 8/8/02 Review first production of does. referenced in Gamboa letter 1.3 $481.00 Outside of further demonstrating bad faih ofdefs' in filing MSJ III. Scope/Denied _/13/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. production of remaining relevant 0.2 $74.00 'Outside of Gamboa related does. Scope/Denied 9/16/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 0.1 $37.00 Outside of Scope/Denied 1/28/03 Conference call Harper and Brown re. need to file MSJ 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope; declaring settlement of disbursing officer accounts does not inconsistent with settle or constitute accounting of IIM Trust accounts. Brown & Harper bills 1/30/03 Review documents in support of statement ofundesputed 6.1 $2,257.00 Outside of Scope material facts re. MSJ settlements of Account. Review and revise Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the NonSettlement of Accounts and Defendants' Failure to Perform the Accounting, in Whole or Part, Ordered by this Court on December 21, 1999 and Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Fasts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 1/31/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 1/31/03 Review and revise motion for partial summary judgment and 5.4 $1,998.00 Outside of Scope 2/3/03 _inalize revisions and refinement of motion for partial summary 6.1 $2,257.00 Outside of Scope judgment and undisputed material facts. 2/15/03 Teleom. Harper re. same and opp. to defs' motion to strike GAO 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope; MSJ. Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/21/03 Revise and redraft Reply to defs' opp. to GAO MSJ. 3.6 $1,332.00 Outside of Scope 2/21/03 Teleoms. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/21/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.2 $74.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Levitas bill Page 18 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 106 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 2/24/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.4 $148.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Harper bill 2/24/03 Teleoms. Levitas re. same. 0.5 $185.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Levitas bill 2/26/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 0.1 $37.00 Outside of Scope; Inconsistent with Levitas bill 2/27/03 Prepare affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion 4.3 $1,591.00 Outside of Scope to Treat as Conceded Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the NonSettlement of Accounts and Defendants' Failure to Perform the Accounting, in Whole or Part, Ordered by this Court on December 21, 1999 and to Slrike as Untimely Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to NonSettlement of Accounts, or in the Alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Reply to Defendants' Opposition Brief; review and revise motion to strike as conceded Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 3/8/03 Review and Revise draft Motion to Continue and Enlargement 5.5 $2,035.00 Outside of Scope of Time re. GAO Summary Judgment. 3/12/03 _Review and revise Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Defendants' 4.3 $1,591.00 Outside of Scope Motions for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(t) and to Enlarge Plaintiffs' Time to Respond Thereto and Affidavit of Dennis Gingold in Support Thereof and drat_ affidivate which avers, among other things, that 8 requests for does. regarding the April 19, 2002 Gamboa letter remained unsatisifed, affecting plaintiffs' ability to provide fully informed opposition to defs' motion. 3/10/03 Review documents and begin draft affidavit in support of 3.8 $1,406.00 Outside of Scope Motion to Continue GAO MSJ due to failure of defendants' to produced relevant referenced docuements. 3/12/03 Continue such review and preparation of ai_davit. 0.3 $111.00 Outside of Scope 3/13/03 Finalize same and prepare affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' 7.4 $2,738.00 Outside of Scope Motion to Continue Motions for Summary Judgment due to failure of defendants to produce documents relevant to GAO Settlements issues, including evidence related to Defendants' Statment of Material Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re. April 19, 2002 Gamboa letter and document references contained therein. 3/13/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.3 $111.00 Outside of Scope Page 19 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 107 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 4/7/03 Review and revise Plaintiffs' Reply re. Motion to Continue 1.3 $481.00 Outside of Scope Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and to Enlarge Plaintiffs' Time to Respond Thereto due to defs' refusal to comply with relevant doe. production requests. 4/8/03 Review and revise Opposition to Defendants' Latest Motion for 2.9 $1,073.00 Reconsideration with Respect to this Court's March 11, 2003 Memorandum and Order and Request for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Submit Filing Detailing Amount of Reasonable Expenses and Attorneys' Fees Incurred. 4/9/03 Review and Revise Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition 4.2 $1,554.00 Outside of Scope to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the NonSettlement of Accounts. 6/7/04 Review relevant memoranda and orders and diary entries, 7 $2,730.00 allocate and begin preparation of time 6/7/04 Telcom. Harper re. scope of orders and time allocation issues. 0.4 $156.00 6/8/04 Allocate, review briefs, other filings, affidavits, related briefs, 8.3 $3,237.00 and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions decision. 6/9/04 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 0.7 $273.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 6/9/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 5.1 $1,989.00 decision. 6/10/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 8.4 $3,276.00 decision. 6/11/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 6.5 $2,535.00 decision. 6/12/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 4 $1,560.00 decision. 6/13/04 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions 4.8 $1,872.00 decision. 6/14/03 Begin preparation ofattidavit in support of fee application. 5.7 $2,223.00 Allocate and prepare time in accordance with GAO sanctions tecision. 6/14/04 Revise draft affidavit in support of GAO fee request. 1 $390.00 6/14/04 Felcom. Harper re. GAO time and scope ofroders 0.2 $78.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 6/15/04 Allocate and adjust time in accordance with GAO sanctions 7 $2,730.00 decision; revise draft affidavit; review Rempel time and affidavit to confirm accuracy and fairness; discuss issues with Rempel re same. Page 20 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 108 of 122 REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/16/04 Review and revise GAO Fee Schedule to correct errors and 1.6 $624.00 clarify per discussions with Rempel and Harper as to scope of Orders and work performed in connection with defendants' repeated filing of false Sapienza declaration. Revise affidavit to conform to such discussion. 6/16/04 Conference call Rempel and Harper to confirm accuracy of time 2 $780.00 Inconsistent with entries and scope of action taken in connection with protection Harper bill of class re. defs' repeated filing of false Sapienza declaration. 6/16/04 Conference call Rempel, Harper, and Brown re. same. 1 $390.00 Inconsistent with Harper & Brown bills 6/17/04 Continue revision of affidavit in conformity with same. 0.9 $351.00 6/17/04 Telcom. Harper re. same. 0.2 $78.00 6/19/04 Revise transmittal papers to Court in accordance with comments 0.8 $312.00 from Rempel and Harper. 6/19/04 Telcoms. Harper re. same and comments re. affidavits. 0.5 $195.00 Inconsistent with Harper bill 6/20/04 Draft memorandum to Brown re. clarification of Brown 0.4 $156.00 affidavit and time. 6/21/04 Telcoms. Harper re. clarification ofatfidavits and time entries in 0.5 $195.00 Inconsistent with conformity with order. Harper bill 6/21/04 Review Brown revisions. 0.3 $117.00 6/21/04 Provide comments to Brown on additional revision. 0.2 $78.00 6/21/04 Continuing preparation of GAO time. 0.3 $117.00 Total 455.6 $170,123.00 Page 21 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 109 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/2/00 Meet and Confer/w DOI and DOI counsel before Special 6.5 $1,462.5(I Outside of Scope Master re various motions. Includes discussion w/Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown between meetings and preparation and review of the existing status of diseovery. During the course of this meeting Assistant Secretary Don Hammond confirmed that the settlement of accounts process did not constitute an accounting of the individual Indian trust accounts. 9/22/00 CC w/Rick Fasold re : Defs' Third Motion for Summary 0.3 $67.50 Judgment (GAO settlement of accounts) and available material available to refute; compile information for opposition. 9/22/00 Discussion w/Dennis Gingold re DOT and GAO settlement of 0.6 ;135.00 Adjusted to accounts and defendants' 3rd Motion for Summary Judgment. $90/hour 9/23/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO settlement 1.7 $382.50 Previously billed of accounts. 9/25/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO settlement 5.5 $1,237.50 Previously billed of accounts; begin drafting and preparing response. 9/26/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO settlement 9.5 $2,137.50 Previously billed of accounts; begin drafting and preparing response. 9/27/00 Review Mildred Cleghom documentation for settled accounts as 4.2 $945.00 Previously billed it relates to Defs' 3rd MSJ (settlement of accounts process). 9/28/00 CC w/Rick Fasold re : BIA documentation reviewed. 0.1 $22.50 Previously billed Conference call in context ofDefs' 3rd MSJ and availability of information to refute defendants' contention that the GAO settled the IIM accounts. 9/28/00 _,eview Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO settlement 7.2 $1,620.00 Previously billed of accounts; begin drafting and preparing response. 9/29/00 Din_if, edit response to Defendants' 3rd MSJ (re. settlement of 1.9 ;427.50 Previously billed accounts process). 9/29/00 Dratt preliminary statement of facts for opposition to Defs' MSJ 3.5 $787.50 Previously billed (re. settlement of accounts process). 10/5/00 CC with Lorna Babby re: production of policy and procedure 0.3 $67.50 boxes. This conference call was initiated for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was an information contained in prior discovery (policy and procedures boxes) that might assist in drafting the opposition to Defs' 3rd MSJ (settlement of accounts process). Page 22 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 110 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 10/5/00 Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs' MSJ III (re. 1.8 $,105.00 Previously billed settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent trial 1 exhibits and testimony for purposes of drafting the opposition. 10/6/00 Discuss w/DG re: BIA regulations and Defs' 3rd MSJ (re. 0.2 !$45.00 Adjusted to settlement of accounts process). Includes discussion of drafting $90/hour opposition and research on historical regulations at DOI/DOT/GAO. 10/6/00 Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. 7.4 $1,665.00 Previously billed settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent trial 1 exhibits and testimony for purposes of drafting the opposition. 10/25/00 Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. 2.5 15562.50 Previously billed settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' documentation (exhibits) and drafting response in light of uncontested facts. 10/26/00 Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ Ill 8.5 $1,912.50 Previously billed (settlement of accounts process). 10/27/00 Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 3.3 15742.50 Previously billed (settlement of accounts process). 10/28/00 Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 3.0 $675.00 Previously billed (settlement of accounts process). 10/28/00 Discussion w/Dennis Gingold re: Defs' MSJ III and edits to 1.2 15270.00 Previously billed draft. i 10/29/00 CC with Dennis Gingold re: Defs' MSJ III and edits. 0.2 1545.00 Previously billed 10/30/00 CC w/Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown, Keith Harper re: 1.0 15225.00 Previously billed Response to Defs' MSJ III and tasks. 10/30/00 Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 7.0 $1,575.00 Previously billed (settlement of accounts process). Begin drafting Rempel attidavit in support of response. 11/1/00 Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 9.5 $2,137.50 Previously billed (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel al_davit in support of response. 11/2/00 Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 13.0 $2,925.00 I previously billed (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel attidavit in support of response. 11/2/00 CC w/DG, MB, KH re Rempel GAO affidavit. 0.2 $45.00 ]Inconsistent with Brown & Harper bills Page 23 of 34 EXHIBIT 13 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part oftlae Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 111 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 11/3/00 Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 11.5 $2,587.5(I Previously billed (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel affidavit in support of response. File and serve response. ! 12/15/01 Review material, including facsimiles from the Department of 4.0 $900.00 Outside of Scope Justice and discovery material and prepare for contempt trial. 12/16/01 Review material, including facsimiles from the Department of 2.5 $562.50 Outside of Scope Justice and discovery material and prepare for contempt trial. 2/4/02 Review Defs' Motion to Withdrawal Motions for Summary 2.8 $630.00 Pltfs did not Judgment. Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Withdraw prevail on MSJ. Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/10/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 5.9 $1,327.50 Plffs did not Includes review of Irial testimony and exhibits attached to prevail on original MSJ. Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/11/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 5.5 $1,237.50 Plffs did not _revail on Opposition to 'Motion to Withdraw 2/12/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 9.5 $2,137.50 Pltfs did not prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/14/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ and 0.4 $90.00 Plffs did not motion to withdrawal, prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/14/02 Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSJ's and cross- 8.4 $1,890.00 Pltfs did not motions for summary judgment and sanctions for seeking to prevail on mislead the Court. Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 2/15/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ and 0.5 $112.50 Pltfs did not motion to withdrawal, prevail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw Page 24 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 112 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 2/15/02 Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSJ's and cross- 6.8 151,530.00 Pltfs did not motions for summary judgment and sanctions for seeking to prevail on nislead the Court. File and service opposition. Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 3/5/02 Review defendants' opposition to plaintiffs MSJ (incl. 5.0 $1,125.00 Adjusted to settlement of accounts) and prepare to draft reply. $95/hour 3/5/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and subsequent 0.3 $67.50 Plffs did not withdrawal. 3revail on Opposition to Motion to Withdraw 3/6/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 7.2 $1,620.00 Adjusted to (incl. settlement of accounts). $95/hour 3/7/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 8.0 $1,800.00 Adjusted to (incl. settlement of accounts). $95/hour 3/8/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 6.5 $1,462.50 Adjusted to (incl. settlement of accounts). $95/hour 3/9/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 2.5 15562.50 Adjusted to (incl. settlement of accounts). $95/hour 3/10/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 1.5 $337.50 Adjusted to (incl. settlement of accounts). $95/hour 3/11/02 CC with Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ and 1.2 $270.00 _Adjusted to draining of reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ re settlement of i$95/hour accounts. 3/11/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 1.5 $337.50 Adjusted to (incl. settlement of accounts). $95/hour 3/11/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and drafting 0.8 $180.00 Adjusted to of reply in support of Pits' MSJ re settlement of accounts. $95/hour 3/12/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and drafting 0.6 $135.00 Adjusted to of reply in support of Pits' MSJ re settlement of accounts. $95/hour 3/12/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 6.0 $1,350.00 Adjusted to (incl. settlement of accounts). $95/hour 3/13/02 CC w/Elouise Cobell, Dennis G-ingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ and 0.4 $90.00 Adjusted to drafting of reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ re settlement of $95/hour lccounts. Page 25 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 113 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 3/13/02 Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' MSJ 11.2 $2,520.00 Excessive; Time; (incl. settlement of accounts). File and serve reply. Cringold bills 13.2 hrs. for "finalizing revisions and refinement" of reply draft 5/6/02 Notice of Supplemental Authority - Draft, prepare, file and 2.6 $585.00 Previously Billed serve notice regarding GAO letter from GAO General Counsel to Bert Edwards, of OHTA re settlement of accounts process. Director 5/9/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 4.5 $1,012.50 Outside of Scope Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Garnboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards, 5/14/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 3.8 $855.00 Outside of Scope Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Garnboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 5/14/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re motion to amend GAO Motion 0.1 $22.50 Outside of Scope for Summary Judgment. 5/15/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 4.8 $1,080.00 Outside of Scope Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 5/30/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 1.5 $337.50 Outside of Scope Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. Page 26 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 114 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/3/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 0.7 $157.50 Outside of Scope Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/3/02 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re motion to amend and Defs' 3rd 0.5 $112.50 Outside of Scope MSJ (re settlement of accounts process). 6/4/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 6.5 $1,462.50 Outside of Scope Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/6/02 Discuss w/Dennis Oingold re GAO motion to amend and 0.7 $157.50 Outside of Scope sanctions. 6/6/02 CC w/investigator re service of motion to amend for 0.2 $45.00 Outside of Scope individuals personally identified in that motion. 6/7/02 CC w/Mark Brown, Keith Harper, Dennis Gingold re 1.1 $247.50 Outside of Scope appealability of contempt in the context of GAO sanctions memorandum. 6/22/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 4.5 $1,012.50 Outside of Scope Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/23/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 5.2 $1,170.00 Outside of Scope Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/24/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 2.1 $472.50 Outside of Scope Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. Page 27 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 115 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/24/02 Meet w/Elouise Cobell re Defs' 3rd MSJ and reply in support 1.2 $270.00 Outside of Scope of motion to amend. 6/25/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 5.3 $1,192.5(I Outside of Scope Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/25/02 Work with investigator to locate individuals identified in 1.5 $337.50 Outside of Scope plaintiffs reply in support of motion to amend. 6/26/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 6.4 $1,440.00 Outside of Scope Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/27/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 5.6 $1,260.00 Outside of Scope Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 6/28/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 1.9 $427.50 Outside of Scope Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 4/8/03 Draft and edit Opposition to defendants' motion to reconsider 8.5 $1,912.50 Outside of Scope the Court's GAO sanctions memorandum opinion awarding plaintiffs' sanctions for the deliberate filing of a false and misleading affidavit (Sapienza). 5/26/04 Review GAO Order, Consider order in context delay and year 1.5 $337.50 Adjusted to old motion for reconsideration. Review original 3/I 1/03 $105/hr. sanctions order. 5/26/04 Review time sheets for GAO-related material. Begin process of 1.5 $337.50 Adjusted to compiling time sheets. $105/hr. 6/4/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 5.1 $1,147.50 Adjusted to and determining whether such time should be included in $105/hr. application. Page 28 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 116 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/4/04 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold regarding GAO fees and 0.4 $90.00 Adjusted to application. $105/hr. 6/5/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 1.2 $270.00 Adjusted to and determining whether such time should be included in $105/hr. application. 6/6/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 2.5 $562.50 Adjusted to and determining whether such time should be included in $105/hr. application. 6/6/04 Discuss w/DG re GAO memorandum opinion and compiling 0.3 $67.50 Adjusted to time for application. Includes discussion of affidavits to be $105/hr. included. 6/7/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 6.1 $1,372.50 Adjusted to and determining whether such time should be included in $105/hr. application. 6/7/04 Draft affidavit in connection with GAO sanctions memorandum 1.3 $292.50 Adjusted to $292.50. $105/hr. 6/8/04 Compile GAO Sanctions time. Includes reviewing time sheets 1.5 $337.50 Adjusted to and determining whether such time should be included in $105/hr. application. 6/9/04 Discuss GAO Sanctions and compilation of hours with Dennis 1.2 $270.00 Adjusted to Gingold. $105/hr. 6/10/04 Discuss GAO Sanctions and compilation of hours with Dennis 0.4 $90.00 Adjusted to Gingold. $105/hr. 6/10/04 Discuss GAO Sanctions and compilation of hours with Dennis 3.1 $697.50 Adjusted to Gingold. $105/hr. 6/11/04 Draft affidavit in support of GAO application. 2.1 $472.50 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/11/04 Discuss with Dennis Gingold re GAO fee and expense 0.4 $90.00 Adjusted to application. $105/hr. 6/I4/04 'Compile time records in support of GAO fee and expense 4.3 $967.50 Adjusted to application; includes review ofdratt cover prepared by Mark $105/hr. I Brown. 6/15/04 Review Dennis Gingold hours, convert electronic file for 2.1 $472.50 Adjusted to editing, correct conversion errors. $105/hr. 6/15/04 Review Dennis Gingold affidavit. 0.5 $112.50 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/15/04 Review and edit Rempel affidavit. 0.7 $157.50 Adjusted to $105/hr. Page 29 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 117 of 122 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/15/04 Discuss GAO with Dennis Gingold. 1.1 $247.50 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/16/04 Compile time records in support of GAO fee and expense 1.8 $405.00 Previously Billed application; includes review of draft cover prepared by Mark Brown. 6/16/04 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re GAO application. 0.5 $112.50 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/16/04 Review, edit Gingold Time and expense application. 2.2 $495.00 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/17/04 CC w/Keith Harper, Dennis Gingold (Mark Brown some) re 2.0 $450.00 Inconsistnet with GAO application. Harper bill 6/17/04 Edit, Dennis Gingold GAO time. 1.6 $360.00 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/17/04 Edit, review Rempel time and application. 0.5 $112.50 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/17/04 Review Mark Brown time and expense. 2.4 $540.00 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/17/04 Discuss w/Dennis Gingold re GAO time. 0.8 i$180.00 Adjusted to !$105/hr. 6/18/04 CC w/Keith Harper, Dennis Gingold re GAO application and 0.2 $45.00 Adjusted to memorandum. $105/hr. 6/18/04 Review and edit Gingold Time and expense for GAO 0.3 $67.50 Adjusted to application. $105/hr. 6/18/04 Update Rempel Affidavit and supporting GAO schedule. 1.1 $247.50 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/19/04 Discuss GAO application with Dennis Gingold. 0.4 $90.00 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/21/04 Review Brown GAO time and affidavit. 0.9 $202.50 Adjusted to $105/hr. 6/21/04 Finalize edits and serve GAO application. 3.2 $720.00 Adjusted to $105/hr. Total 335 $75,375.00 Page 30 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 118 of 122 REVIEW OF HARPER SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 9/21/00 Review cases cited in Defs' motion for summary judgement on 2.0 $410.00 settle of accounts by GAO Pre-1951 9/21/00 Conference with DG re: Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement .60 $123.00 Inconsistent with on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 Gingold bill 9/21/00 Review and study Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on the 5.0 $1,025.00 Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-195; Review cases cited and attachments 9/26/00 Research case law for Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary 4.0 $820.00 Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre- 1951; Review cases cited and attachments 9/27/00 Research cases discussed Opposition to Defs' Motion for 3.4 $697.00 Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Acconnts by GAO Pre-1951 9/27/00 Telephone call to Spinner Re: Motion for Enlargement of Time .50 $102.50 to Respond to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951; meet and confer; Discuss same with DG 9/27/00 Research case law for Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary 2.2 $451.00 Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951; Review cases cited and attachments 9/28/00 Draft motion for Extension of Time for Opposition to 1.8 $369.00 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951; circulate; edit; file. 9/29/00 Review cases re: Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary 1.5 $307.50 Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/3/00 Conference with Lorna re: Opposition to Defs' Motion for .40 $82.00 Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Ire-1951 10/3/00 Review Westlaw search for Opposition to Defs' Motion for 2.50 $512.50 Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/4/00 Research for Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary 3.50 $717.50 Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/4/00 Telephone call to DG (MSG - 2 calls) to discuss Opposition to .20 $41.00 Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/5/00 Research for Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary 3.0 $615.00 Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 Page 31 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 119 of 122 REVIEW OF HARPER SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 0/5/00 Conference with EL re: Opposition to Defs' Motion for .40 $82.00 Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/5/00 I Conference with Lorna on Opposition to Defs' Motion for .20 $41.00 Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/6/00 Research case law for Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary 4.0 $820.00 Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/7/00 Telephone call from and to DG (3 calls) re: Opposition to .90 $184.50 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre- 1951 10/9/00 Telephone call from and to DG (2 calls) re: settlement .40 $82.00 Inconsistent with possibilities; discussions with Interior, SMJ III; extension of Gingold's bill time; 10/9/00 Draft motion for enlargement of time to respond to SMJ III 1.8 $339.00 10/11/00 Prepare and file motion for enlargement until Nov 3 for 1.5 $307.50 Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/11/00 Draft revise motion for enlargement to SMJ III to Nov 3 0.5 $102.50 10/25/00 Draft Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on 4.0 $820.00 the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/26/00 Draft Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on 7.0 $1,435.00 the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 10/27/00 Telephone call to DG and or GR (4 calls) to discuss 1.0 $205.00 Inconsistent with Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on the Gingold's & Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre- 1951 Rempel's bill 10/27/00 Draft Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on 9.0 $1,845.00 the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 110/29/00 Draft Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on 4.2 $861.00 the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre- 1951 10/31/00 Draft Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on 9.5 $1,947.50 the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 11/1/00 Draft Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on 12.50 $2,562.50 the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 11/2/00 Finalize Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement 4.5 $922.50 on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951; review brie[, comment and edit; discuss with counsel Page 32 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 120 of 122 , REVIEW OF HARPER SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 1 I/3/00 Finalize Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement 3.2 $656.00 on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951; comments to DG and confer with same 11/6/00 Review final and files draft response to SMJ III 1.1 $225.50 L2/lO/00 Review government filings including motion for sanctions and 2.5 $512.50 reply motion for summary judgement on the settlement of accounts by GAO Pre- 1951 U14/02 Review draft brief in opposition to motion to withdraw and 1.5 $390.00 cross motion for summary judgement and discuss same with DG 3/6/02 Telephone call from DG re: MSJ withdrawal and sanctions .40 $104.00 Inconsistent with request Gingold's bill 3/12/02 Review and edit draft MSJ waiver brief and sanctions request 2.0 $520.00 reply 6/4/02 Review and edit GAO contempt supplemental and amendment 3.5 $927.50 Outside of scope 1/29/03 Conference call with IIM team re: response to govemmenfs Jan 1.1 $291.50 Outside of scope 6 plans and need for GAO summary judgement motion 1/31/03 Draft and finalize GAO summary judgement motion; edit; 8 $2,120.00 Outside of scope review .and add additional authorities; finalize order and statement of incontraverted facts 3/12/03 Review opinion of court re: GAO "settlement of Accounts" and 1.0 $265.00 Outside of scope false affidavit; sanctions granted 4/8/03 Draft and edit opposition to motion for reconsideration for 2.5 $662.50 Outside of scope GAO sanctions award 4/12/03 3raft Plaintiffs reply in further support of MSJ on GAO failure 4.5 $1,192.50 Outside of scope to provide accounting 4/13/03 Draft and edit and discuss with co-counsel-plaintiffs reply in 5.0 $1,325.00 [Outside of scope support of MSJ on GAO failure to settle accounts 4/14/03 Finalize reply in support of MSJ re: GAO failure to settle 3.3 $874.00 Outside of scope tccounts 6/2/04 Review opinion denying motion for reconsideration for .40 $134.00 GAO/Sapienza bad faith affidavit fees and expenses 6/7/04 Review Time records for GAO/Sapenza statement of fees and 2.5 $837.50 expenses 6/7/04 Confer with DG re: GAO expenses and cover sheet for 0.5 $167.50 GAO/Sapenza bad faith affidavit Page 33 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 121 of 122 REVIEW OF HARPER SCHEDULE: GAO SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SANCTIONS Date Matter Time Claimed Objection Amount 6/16/04 geview time records to determine what claims court's May 11 2.1 $703.50 order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza bad faith attidavit 6/17/04 Review edit cover memorandum to support fee application in 3 $1,005.00 compliance with courts May 11 order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza bad faith affidavit 6/17/04 Conference call to DG and GR to discuss scope of courts May 2.0 $670.00 Inconsistent with 1 lth order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza bad faith Gingold's & affidavit and review time jointly to ensure accuracy Rempers bill 6/18/04 Draft atfidavit in support of fee application in compliance with 4.7 $1,574.50 court's May 11 order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza bad faith affidavit; finalize time record claims; review prior decisions to ensure conformity with prior judicial guidance Total 146.8 $33,988.00 Page 34 of 34 EXHIBIT B Defendants' Motion to Reconsider That Part of the Court's Order of April 20, 2007 Directing Payment of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs Page 122 of 122