IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
____________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., )
) No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) Plaintiffs, 
v. 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of 
the Interior, et al., 
) 
) 
)
)
)
) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN 
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE COMMENTS TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST 
SUBMISSION IN COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 28, 2004 MEMORANDUM 
AND ORDER REGARDING HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT 
In its Memorandum and Order dated May 28, 2004, the Court required Defendants, 
before sending any historical statements of account to Individual Indian Money ("IIM") 
account holders, to submit to the Court "(1) a sample of the actual letter to be mailed with the 
[prescribed] language inserted; (2) a sample of one of the historical statements of account; 
and (3) the exact number of historical statements of account and transmittal letters 
[Defendants] plan to send out." Memorandum and Order at 4. The Court required that 
"[a]ny sample documents should be redacted to remove all personally identifying information 
regarding the recipient." Id. at 4 n.2. On June 22, 2004, in compliance with the Court's 
Order, Defendants submitted, among other documents, a redacted sample transmittal letter 
and a redacted sample historical statement of account. See Defendants' First Submission In
Compliance With May 28, 2004 Memorandum And Order Regarding Historical Statements 
Of Account (filed June 22, 2004). The only information redacted from these documents is 
the name and address of the account holder, the account number, the account balance and 
transaction amounts,1 and journal voucher numbers. 
The Court's Order permitted Plaintiffs to "within 5 days of receipt of defendants' 
submission, submit to the Court brief comments or substitute language." Memorandum and 
Order at 4. Plaintiffs elected not to do so. Instead, on June 25, 2004, they moved for an 
enlargement of time of "five business days after receipt of the unredacted sample letter and 
historical statement to file their comments." Plaintiffs' Motion For An Enlargement Of Time 
To File Comments To Defendants' First Submission In Compliance With May 28, 2004 
Memorandum And Order Regarding Historical Statements Of Account ("Motion for 
Enlargement") (filed June 25, 2004) at 1. 
Plaintiffs make no effort whatsoever to explain why they need unredacted copies of 
the sample historical statement of account and transmittal letter in order to provide "brief 
comments or substitute language" regarding these sample documents; indeed, it is difficult to 
fathom how the identity of the account holder (whose account, incidentally, was opened after 
the class was certified, and who does not appear to have any account created before class 
certification, and therefore does not fall within the class definition) or the amounts credited to 
1/ The account balance and transaction amounts were redacted because these numbers are 
ordinarily identical for all recipients of a particular tribal judgment or per capita payment. 
2
the account holder's IIM account, could conceivably be relevant to the acceptability of the 
language related to the account holder's rights in this litigation.2 Thus, Plaintiffs offer 
nothing more than the conclusory statements that they "cannot provide fully informed 
comments," Motion for Enlargement at 1, and that they are "unable to comment with 
specificity on the proposed transmission," id. at 4. Such statements do not suffice to justify 
an enlargement of the five-day period within which Plaintiffs were required to submit 
comments.3 
As Plaintiffs have failed to offer any justification for an enlargement of time to file 
comments, the Court should deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement. As the deadline for 
filing such comments has passed, the Court should proceed to "conduct [its] final review of 
2/ Even if Plaintiffs could devise an argument for requiring such information, similar 
information is readily available to them in the unredacted copies of the historical statements 
of account and transmittal letters provided to them on November 6, 2002, as government 
counsel advised Plaintiffs in the June 24, 2004 letter appended to Plaintiffs' Motion For 
Enlargement. 
3/ Moreover, Plaintiffs' Motion For Enlargement contains several misrepresentations. 
Defendants never "claimed that plaintiffs' counsel were no longer entitled to review their own 
clients' confidential information," or "concealed this information from plaintiffs' counsel" or 
"refuse[d] to provide . . . historical statements of account to plaintiffs['] counsel," as Plaintiffs 
now assert. Motion For Enlargement at 2-3. To the contrary, the Court's November 1, 2002 
Order permitting Defendants "pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), to provide plaintiffs' 
counsel with a copy of any historical statements of account provided to any Individual Indian 
Money account holder," Order at 1 (Nov. 1, 2002), resulted from Interior Defendants' motion 
seeking an order permitting them to provide copies of the historical statements of account to 
Plaintiffs' counsel. See Interior Defendants' Motion And Supporting Memorandum For 
Order Permitting The Provision Of Copies Of Historical Statements Of Account To Class 
Counsel (filed Sept. 10, 2004). Plaintiffs opposed that motion. 
3
[Defendants' submission]," as contemplated in its May 28, 2004 Memorandum and Order. 
Memorandum and Order at 4. 
Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 9, 2004 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ Cynthia L. Alexander 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
CYNTHIA L. ALEXANDER 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on July 9, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' 
Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Comments to Defendants' First Submission in 
Compliance with May 28, 2004 Memorandum and Order Regarding Historical Statements of 
Account was served by Electronic Case Filing, and on the following who is not registered for 
Electronic Case Filing, by facsimile: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
Fax (406) 338-7530 
/s/ Kevin P. Kingston 
Kevin P. Kingston
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________ 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
)
)
)
) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al.,) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
ORDER 
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion For An Enlargement Of Time To File Comments 
To Defendants' First Submission In Compliance With May 28, 2004 Memorandum And Order 
Regarding Historical Statements Of Account, Dkt. 2602, Defendants' opposition thereto, and the 
record in this case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. 
SO ORDERED this _____ day of ______________, 2003. 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge
cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner 
John T. Stemplewicz 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Fax (202) 514-9163 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Fax (202) 318-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
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