IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUTSE PEPION COBELL, al., a Plaintiffs, V. 1 ) ) 1 1 1 GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Lnterior, al.,) & Defendants. 1 1 INTERIOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF IMPROPER SPECIAL MASTER FEES Interior Defendants respectfully request reimbursement of certain fees paid to Alan L. Balaran in his capacity as Special Master on the ground that those fees were improperly billed to Defendants. Defendants were afforded no opportunity to object to the Special Master’s compensation requests before the Court ordered that they be paid. As ordered by the Court, Defendants have already paid the full amount of each of the Special Master’s invoices received to date and, therefore, request that the Court direct the Special Master to reimburse a11 improperly billed amounts.’ As discussed in more detail below, Interior Defendants object to paying for (1) what appears to be the Special Master’s research of issues and drafting of memoranda or opinions regarding matters directed to and properly resolved by the Court; (2) unauthorized IT security- related work performed by the Special Master; (3) work performed by unidentified assistants employed by the Special Master; (4) the Special Master’s review of transcripts, briefs, ’ In accordance with Local Rule 7.1 (m), counsel for Defendants consulted with counsel for Plaintiffs regarding this motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that they oppose this motion. Case No. 1:96CV01285 (RCL) (Judge Lamberth) correspondence, and other documents relating to matters not referred to him; and (5) time billed for reviewing briefs not yet filed. 159 (D.D.C. 2002). Neither the February 24, 1999 BACKGROUND The Court appointed Special Master Balaran pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 to “oversee the discovery process and administer document production, compliance with court orders, and related matters.’’ Order of February 24, 1999 at 1. The February 24 Order identifies specific tasks that the Special Master is to perform and makes clear that “[alny information reported to the court by the special master shall also be reported to counsel for the parties.” Id. at 11 8. On September 17, 2002, the Court confined Special Master Balaran’s authority to oversee the discovery process to “issues related to IT security, records preservation and retention, the Department o f the Treasury, and Paragraph 19 documents.” Cobell v. Norton, 226 F. Supp. 2d 1, The Court’s February 24, 1999 appointment order requires the Defendants to compensate the Special Master “for all expenses incurred in connection with the appointment.” Id. at 71 1 Special Master Balaran’s practice has been to submit a monthly invoice to this Court in connection with his monthly report, and this Court has typically issued an order a few days later ordering Defendants to pay the full amount shown on the appointment order nor any of the orders requiring Defendants to pay the Special Master provides any mechanism for challenging the Special Master’s invoices. ’ During the twelve-month period ending September 30, 2003, Defendants paid the Special Master and his experts a total of $1,934,309.35 ($557,194.65 for professional fees; $19,174.57 for expenses; and $1,357,940.13 for retained experts). - 2 - On August 12, 1999, the Court authorized the Special Master to “oversee the Interior Department’s retention and protection from destruction of mM records,” to “recommend to the Department that it take reasonable steps to protect LLM records found to be in jeopardy of destruction” and to ‘‘recommend to the Court such remedial action as he deems appropriate pursuant to Rule 53.” Order Regarding Interior Department I1M Records Retention at 2 (Aug. 12, 1999). The Court also provided the Special Master with similar authority to oversee the Department of the Treasury’s “retention and protection from destruction of JIM records,” while recognizing that Treasury’s July 6, 1999 stipulation and its interactions with the Archivist of the United States provided Treasury with additional flexibility regarding the handling of its records. Order Regarding Treasury Department EM Records Retention at 2 (Aug. 12, 1999). Neither of the August 12, 1999 orders purported to extinguish the Special Master’s obligations under the February 24, 1999 Order or Rule 53.’ On December 17, 2001, the Court entered its Consent Order Regarding Information Technology Security, which directed the Special Master to review certain plans and conduct certain inquiries with regard to security of individual Indian trust data in computer systems. The Court stayed its December 17, 2001 Order on July 28, 2003. Preliminary Injunction at 5 (July 28,2003). On September 17,2002, the Court referred to the Special Master, for reports and recommendations, two of Plaintiffs’ motions seeking to hold “37 non-party individuals” in Based on serious concerns arising from the Special Master’s conduct under these grants of authority, Interior Defendants filed a Motion For An Order Directing The Special Master To Conform His Conduct To Limits Stated By The Court Of Appeals; To Vacate Or Clarify Existing Orders As Appropriate; And To Act On This Motion On An Expedited Basis on September 24, 2003. - 5 - contempt and to hold Interior Defendants and their counsel in contempt for allegedly destroying e-mail. See Cobell v. Norton, 226 F. Supp. 2d at 162-63. Petitions to recuse the Special Master in the contempt-related proceedings, filed by certain of these non-party individuals, are pending before the Court of Appeals. On November 5 , 2002, the Court directed the Special Master to investigate allegations by Native American Industrial Distributors, Inc. (“NAID”) that Interior concealed certain information from the Court. The Special Master’s extraordinary conduct in that investigation is Interior Defendants’ the subject of Interior Defendants’ pending disqualification motion. Motion To Disqualify Special Master Balaran (May 29, 2003). In its decision of July 18, 2003, the Court of Appeals clarified the limits on the role of a Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2003). As the Special Master in this litigation. court explained, a master is not a “roving federal district court, ” id. at 1 143, empowered to initiate inquiries into matters that he perceives to be of concern, assemble evidence outside the structure of adversary litigation, and present findings and conclusions of law arrived at by proccdurcs unknown to our judicial system. ARGUMENT I. Interior Defendants Should Be Reimbursed For Payments Made To The Special Master For Substantive Work On Matters Not Referred To Him, Including Research And Drafting Of Memoranda, Reports, Or Opinions Regarding Matters Directed To And Properly Resolved By The Court. The Special Master’s compensation should be limited to work on matters that have been properly referred to him; he should not be compensated for work he undertakes on matters that are not before him. The Special Master’s invoices demonstrate that he has billed Defendants significant sums for work performed on at least four matters that were not referred to him, but - 4 - were directed to, and properly resolved by, the Court. Defendants should not have been required to pay for such work. Under Rule 53, “[a] reference to a master shall be the exception and not the rule,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b), and the master’s power is “[slubject to the specifications and limitations stated in the order,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c). Interior Defendants are not aware of any order referring the four matters discussed below to the Special Master. Nor does Rule 53 support the proposition that the Special Master can perform substantive work on issues that have not been referred to him and expect to be reimbursed by Defendants for such work.4 Moreover, as reflected in the invoices excerpted below, it appears that the Special Master has billed Defendants substantial sums for drafting opinions and performing legal research for the Court. In our judicial system, these functions are funded by legislative appropriations; the costs are not borne by the litigants. Even if the Special Master could properly perform the work of the Court - which he cannot - Defendants should not be compelled to pay for it. Furthermore, to the extent the Special Master assisted the Court by providing information or drafting memoranda or opinions related to the matters discussed below, Defendants did not receive copies of the materials provided to the Court in violation of both the February 24, 1999 Order appointing the Special Master, which mandates that “[alny infomiation reported to the court by the special master shall also be reported to counsel for the parties,” Order at 7 8 (Feb. 24, 19991, and the requirement in Rule 53(e) that “[tlhe master shall prepare a report upon the matters submitted to the master by the order of reference” and that “[u]nless otherwise directed by the 4 lnasmuch as these matters were never referred to the Special Master, Interior Defendants do not here address whether such issues properly could be so referred. - 5 - order of reference, the master shall serve a copy of the report on each party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e)(l). None of the subsequent orders concerning the Special Master’s authority exempts him from providing copies to the parties of all information provided to the Court. To the extent that the Special Master provided materials to the Court on these matters, the parties had no opportunity to address or respond to any of those materials and thus had no way to guard against the risk that the materials contained substantive extra-record material that may have influenced the ultimate decisions of the Court. 1. Six Documents Attached To Seventh Report of the Court Monitor On May 2,2002, former Court Monitor Joseph Kieffer filed the Seventh Report of the Court Monitor (“Seventh Report”). Attached to the Seventh Report were six documents apparently acquired directly fi-om the Department of the Interior that Interior Defendants believed to be privileged (“Six Documents”). On May 16, 2002, Interior Defendants filed their response to the Seventh Report and moved to file under seal a portion of their response that discussed the Six Documents on the ground that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. See Motion To File Under Seal Portion Of Response To Scvcnth Report Of Court Monitor That Discuss [sic] Privileged Materials (filed May 16, 2002). On May 3 1, 2002, Interior Defendants moved for a protective order regarding the Six Documents. Interior Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order Regarding Privileged Documents Referenced In The Seventh Report Of The Court Monitor (filed May 3 1,2002). The Court granted these motions on March 3, 2003. Although the Court did not refer these motions to the Special Master or otherwise advise the parties that the Special Master would be involved in the Court’s consideration of the motions, - 6 - the Special Master charged Defendants twice for reviewing Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (once in June 2002 and again in July 2002), and then began to bill Defendants for substantive work on these motions in October 2002. The Special Master sought and received compensation in the amount of $7,240 for his work (“ALB”) and that of his assistant (“SEC”) on this matter: Invoice 5 June 4,2002 61312002 Invoice 11 July 31,2002 71312002 ALB ALB ALB ALB SEG ALB SEG ALB Draft Opinion regarding Court Monitor’s seventh report documents and plaintiffs’ Motion for sanctions, motion for SEG Research Attorney-Client Privilege issues Invoice 18 Nov. 1, 2002 10l2412002 10/2512002 10!2512002 1012712002 1012812002 1012912002 1012912002 Amount 60.00 Hours Rate 0.30 2 00. OOIhr . Review Interior Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order regarding Privileged Documents Referenced in the Sevent[h] Report of the Court Monitor Amount 60.00 Hours Rate 0.30 200.0Oihr. Review Interior Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order regarding Privileged Documents referenced in the Seventh Report of the Court Monitor; Memorandum in support thereof Review Arguments relating to protective order for documents attached to Court Monitor’s Report Draft Report regarding privileged documents in Court Monitor Seventh Report; review case law concerning privileges Review documents related to Seventh Report of the Court Monitor/Research waiver of privilege Draft Opinion regarding Motion for Protective Order regarding documents attached to Seventh Report of Court Monitor Review attachments to Court Monitor Reports for privileged documents; research waiver of attorney-client privilege leave to file under seal 1 1 Rate Hours Amount 200.00ihr. 960.00 4.80 200.00lhr. 500.00 200.00lhr. 760.00 580.00 2.90 200.001hr. 1 4.00 I 400.00 100.001hr. - 7 - I 10/31/2002 I SEG Research Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege and draft file 5.00 100.00ihr. Invoice 20 Dec. 2,2002 11/1/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/13/2002 11/13/2002 1 1 il812002 11/20/2002 1112112002 11/22/2002 TOTAL 2. Beginning on October 29, 2002, private counsel for several individual government employees filed motions with this Court seeking recusal of the Court, the Special Master, and/or the Special Master-Monitor from further participation in the contempt-related proceedings pending before the Special Master as a result of the Court’s September 17,2002 Order (collectively “Recusal Motions”). On January 17,2003, this Court issued an order denying the memo regarding same Draft memo on attorney-client privilege SEG SEG Research government waiver of attorney-client privilege ALB Draft Opinion regarding Interior’s Motion for Protective Order concerning attachments to Court Monitor’s Seventh Report ALB Draft Opinion regarding Motion for Protective Order for attachments to C.M.’s 7th Report I SEG Research Government attorney-client privilege SEG Edit opinion regarding six documents in Seventh Report of Court Monitor; draft opinions regarding sealing response to Seventh Report of Court Monitor SEG Edit Opinion regarding six documents in Seventh Report of Court Monitor; draft opinions regarding motions to seal response to Seventh Report of Court Monitor Hours Rate 0.50 1 oo.oo/hr. 0.80 1oo.oo/hr. 5.40 200.00/hr. 2.00 200.00ihr. 1.80 1 ALB 1 Report Draft Report for Court concerning attachments to C.M. 200.00/hr. 1.60 320.00 1oo.ooihr. 2.50 1 oo.oo/hr. 1 S O 1oo.oo/hr. 0.50 100.00ihr. SEG Review Opinion regarding Six Documents in Seventh Report of Court Monitor Recusal Motions - 8 - 500.00 Amount 50.00 80.00 1,080.00 400.00 180.00 250.00 150.00 50.00 7,240.00 Recusal Motions. Many of the individuals subsequently filed petitions for mandamus in the Court of Appeals, which are pending. Although the Court did not refer any aspect of the Recusal Motions to the Special Master, or otherwise advise the parties that the Special Master would be involved in the Court’s consideration of the motions, and although the Recusal Motions were filed by non-parties, the Special Master began to bill Defendants for substantive work apparently relating to the Recusal Motions in November 2002. The Special Master sought and received compensation from Defendants in the amount of $8,170 for his work (,‘ALB”) and that of his assistant (“SEG’) on this matter:5 SEG SEG Invoice 20 Dee. 2,2002 11/18/2002 1 1 / 1912002 Because the Court did refer to Special Master Balaran the Plaintiffs’ show cause motion as to these individuals, and because some of the motions sought his recusal, Defendants do not at this time object to the Special Master’s charges for “reviewing” recusal motions on December 9, 2002 ($140 to “Review Babbitt, Leshy, Cohen and Blackwell’s Reply in support of Motion for Recusal” and $500 to, among other things, “Review . . . Michael Carr Reply Brief to the Plaintiffs’ Consolidate [sic] Motion for Recusal; Phillip Brooks Reply to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Recusal Motions”), December 12, 2002 ($280 to “Review Phillip Brooks’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ consolidated Opposition to Recusal Motions”), December 19, 2002 ($60 to “Review Anne Shields’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to the Various Motions to Recuse”), December 27, 2002 ($40 to “Review Motion for recusal and disqualification or, in the alternative, to take discovery regarding ex parte communications by S. McCarthy” and $20 to “Review Motion for Recusal by K. Rossman”), or December 30, 2002 ($20 to “Review Swanson’s motion for disqualification of Special Master et a1 and/or to take discovery regarding ex-parte communications). I 1 I Review Recusal Memos; draft file memo Amount 140.00 50.00 Review Recusal Memos; draft file memo Hours Rate 1.40 100.00/hr. .50 100.00/hr. - 9 - ALB ALB ~ ~ Invoice 22 Jan. 3,2002 12/1/2002 I 1211/2002 ALB Draft Memo regarding recusal of court officers; ex parte 12/3/2002 I 121412002 121512002 12/7/2002 1211012002 1211 112002 12113/2002 12/14/2002 12/15/2002 12/1512002 ALB ALB ALB ALB SEG SEG SEG SEG ALB Privilege Motions TOTAL 3. The Special Master issued a recommended Opinion and Order (filed May 12, 1999) concerning the application of the attomey-client privilege, work product doctrine, and the deliberativc process privilege in this case. The Court neither acted upon nor addressed the Draft Memo regarding recusal of court officers; ex parte contacts contacts Draft memorandum of points and authorities regarding recusal of Special Master et al. Review proposed amendments to federal rules regarding Special Masters and ex-parte contacts Draft memorandum of points and authorities regarding recusal of Special Master et al.; review proposed federal rules and advisory committee notes; case law and law reviews Draft memorandum of points and authorities regarding recusal of Special Master et al. - consult with M. Ferrell regarding outstanding law reviews Draft Opinion regarding Recusal of Court Officers; PriviIege questions Assist with drafting of recusal motion opinion ~ Draft Recusal motion sections Research recusal order issues Research Recusal Ordcr Issues ~ ~ Draft Opinion regarding Recusal - 10- 1 1 Amount 900.00 600.00 980.00 660.00 1,340.00 800.00 160.00 340.00 300.00 560.00 8.170.00 Hours Rate 4.50 200.00/hr. 3.00 200.00ihr. 4.90 200.00/hr. 3.30 200.00/hr. 6.70 200.00/hr. 1 oo.oo/hr. 3.40 1 OO.OO/hr. 3.00 100.00hr. 2.80 2 00. OOIhr. Special Master’s ruling until it issued its February 5 , 2003 ruling on the deliberative process privilege, which adopted one part of the Special Master’s May 12, 1999 opinion. On November 5,2002, Defendants filed their Motion And Memorandum For Protective Order Regarding Application Of Attorney-Client Privilege And Work-Product Doctrine. The Court ruled on this motion on December 23,2002. In its Memorandum and Order, the Court stated that “[blecause neither party has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 53(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the issue of the binding effect of the May 12, 1999 Opinion of Special Master Balaran regarding attorney-client privilege, work product, and the deliberative process privilege is not properly before the Court.” Memorandum and Order at 15 n. 10 (Dec. 23,2003). Plaintiffs promptly filed a consolidated motion to adopt the Special Master’s May 12, 1999 Opinion, to compel the testimony of certain deponents, and for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4)(A).6 In a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered February 5 , 2003, the Court adopted the conclusions in the Special Master’s May 12, 1999 Opinion regarding the work product doctrine, but did not adopt the Special Master’s conclusions regarding the attorney-client privilege (which the Court determined were superseded by its December 23,2002 Memorandum and Order) or the Special Master’s conclusions regarding the deliberative process privilege (which the Court determined were superseded by the February 5 , 2003 Memorandum Opinion). ‘ See Plaintiffs’ Consolidated (1) Motion For Order Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(A)(2) Adoptingsecial Master Balaran’s May 1 1, 1999 [sic] Opinion And Order Holding That The Deliberative Process Privilege And Work Product Doctrine Will Not Shield From Disclosure Material Related To The Administration Of The IIM Trust, (2) Motion To Compel Testimony Of Deponents Defendants Directed Not To Answer Questions On The Basis Of Deliberative Process Privilege, (3) Motion For Sanctions Pursuant To Rule 37(4)(A), And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Said Motions (filed Dec. 30,2002). - 11 - Although the Special Master’s role with regard to this matter should have concluded with the filing of his recommended opinion on May 12, 1999, and the Court did not advise the parties that the Special Master would be further involved in the Court’s own consideration of the matter, the Special Master began to bill Defendants for substantive work apparently regarding the privilege issues pending before the Court shortly after Defendants filed their November 5 , 2002 Motion And Memorandum For Protective Order Regarding Application Of Attorney-Client Privilege And Work-Product Doctrine. The Special Master sought and received compensation in the amount of $7,420 for his work (“ALB”) and that of his assistant (“SEG”) on this matter: ~ ALB ALB - privileges - memo to file Invoice 20 Dec. 2,2002 1 11812002 11/11/2002 11/1512002 11/2212002 11/26/2002 11/27/2002 ALB ALB D. 1 Research Brown to and Gottesman draft paper regarding for court production regarding attorney-client of documents 5.50 privileges in the context of fiduciaryhst relationship ALB Review Defendants’ Rep[]ly regarding Protective Order SEG I Edit privilege opinion ALB Invoice 22 Jan. 3,2003 12/12/2002 121 1312002 Research attorney-client privilege in fiduciary capacity Review defendants’ Motion regarding privilege; draft opinion regarding same Review Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum for protective order regarding attorney-client and work-product Review Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order regarding application of attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine and letters from M. Amount 400.00 500.00 60.00 60.00 1,100.00 120.00 Hours Rate 4.00 1 oo.oo/hr. 2.50 200.001hr. 0.30 2 oo.oo/hr. 0.30 200.00/1lr. 200.00/hr. 0.60 200.00ihr. regarding application of Attorney-Client Privilege and work product doctrine; reply to opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike comments on S.M.-M’s 1012/02 report and recommendation Amount 240.00 580.00 Draft opinion regarding applicability of privileges Hours Rate 2.40 100.00lhr. 2.90 200.00/hr. - 12- 121 1612002 12/19/2002 Invoice 24 Feb. 2,2003 1/9/2003 11 1012003 ~ TOTAL 4. On April 9,2001, Plaintiffs filed their Motion For Order To Show Cause Why Secretary Norton And Her Counsel Should Not Be Held In Contempt And For Sanctions For Violating The Special Master’s February 8,2001 Order And The Court’s Orders Of February 24, 1999 And August 12, 1999 (“Plaintiffs’ Show Cause Motion”). The Special Master issued two opinions (an “Opinion” dated October 1,2001 , and a “Supplemental Opinion” dated October 28,2001) recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Show Cause Motion. On October 15, 2001, Interior Defendants urged the Court not to adopt the Special Master’s recommendation in their Response Of Department Of The Interior To Special Master’s Recommendation Dated October 1,2001, Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion For Order To Show Cause. On November 12, 2002, the Court rejected the Special Master’s recommendation and denied Plaintiffs’ Show Cause Motion. - See Memorandum and Order (Nov. 12,2002). Although the Special Master’s role with regard to Plaintiffs’ Show Cause Motion should have concluded with the filing of his recommendations in October 2001, and the Court did not Draft memorandum of points and authorities regarding application of privileges in the context of fiduciary relationships ~ ~~ Draft memorandum of points and authorities regarding application of privileges in the context of fiduciary relationships ALB 1 ALB Prepare additional memoranda regarding attorney clientfwork product and deliberative process privileges 1 attorney regarding ALE3 Prepare clientfwork additional product memoranda and deliberative process privileges 7 200.00/hr. .OO 1,400.00 200.00/hr. Court’s Consideration of Special Master’s Anti-Reprisal Opinion Hours Rate 6.50 - 13- 2.50 200.00/hr. ~ 5.80 200.00/hr. 1 500.00 I 1,160.00 Amount 1,300.00 7,420.00 advise the parties that the Special Master would be further involved in the Court’s own consideration of the matter, the Special Master began to bill Defendants for substantive work on an “Anti-Reprisal Opinion” in October 2002, shortly before the Court issued its November 12, 2002 Memorandum and Order. The Special Master sought and received compensation in the amount of $4,000 for his work (“MB”) and that of his assistant (“SEG’) on this matter: SEG SEG SEG Draft Anti-Reprisal Order Opinion SEG SEG Draft Anti-Reprisal Order Opinion SEG SEG ALB Draft Report to Assist Court regarding Anti-Reprisal Order SEG SEG SEG Invoice 18 Nov. 1,2002 101412002 101512002 101712002 101812002 101912002 10/1012002 1011 112002 10/1112002 1 o/ 1412002 1 O/ 1612002 1011712002 1011712002 1011812002 ALB SEG Begin review of documents related to show cause motion for violating anti-reprisal order Draft opinion regarding show cause order for anti-reprisal order Research contempt issues in Anti-Reprisal Order opinion Draft Anti-Reprisal Order Opinion Research issues for Anti-Reprisal Order opinion Draft Anti-Reprisal Order Opinion Review Anti-Reprisal Order opinion Edit Anti-Reprisal Order Opinion Finalize draft for court’s review of Anti-Reprisal Order Amount 60.00 240.00 600.00 450.00 520.00 220.00 70.00 80.00 200.00 20.00 Review response to Anti-Keprisal Order opinion Hours 0.60 100.001hr 2.40 100.00lhr 6.00 1oo.oo/hr 4.50 I 1.30 100.OO/llr 130.00 100.00/hr 5.20 1 2.50 1oo.ooihr 500.00 200.00lhr 2.20 1 oo.oo/hr 0.70 1oo.oohr 0.80 1oo.oo/hr 1 .oo 2 00. oo/hr 0.20 1 00. OOIhr - 14- 1012012002 I ALB I Draft memorandum relating to Anti-Reprisal Order I 500.00 130.00 I 1.30 10/21/2002 I SEG I Edit Anti-Reprisal Order Opinion 10/22/2002 I SEG I Edit Anti-Reprisal Order Opinion 1oo.oo/hx I 0.30 lOO.OO/hr I 30.00 I 4,000.00 TOTAL 5. I Interior Defendants are not aware of any order referring the matters described above to the Special Master, and should not be required to pay the Special Master for work he undertakes (or his assistants undertake) on matters that are not referred to him, but directed to, and properly resolved by, the Court itself. Interior Defendants specifically request that the Court direct the Special Master to reimburse them $7,240 for amounts improperly billed for work on motions related to the Six Documents attached to the Seventh Report of the Court Monitor, $8,170 for amounts improperly billed for work on the Recusal Motions, $7,420 for amounts improperly billed for work on the privilege motions filed in late 2002, and $4,000 for amounts improperly billed for work on an “Anti-Reprisal Opinion.” In addition, Interior Defendants request that the Court direct the Special Master to reimburse them for amounts paid for work on any other matter I 1 Relief Required not expressly referred to the Special Master. 11. Interior Defendants Should Be Reimbursed For Payments Made To The Special Master For Unauthorized IT Security-Related Work. The Court’s December 17, 2001 Consent Order Regarding Information Technology Security authorized the Special Master to review certain plans and conduct certain inquiries with regard to security of individual Indian trust data in computer systems. The Court stayed this - 1 5 - Order on July 28,2003. Preliminary Injunction at 5 (July 28, 2003). In its accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court made clear that “[hlenceforth, instead of relying upon the Special Master to determine whether the Interior Department’s systems either are secure from unauthorized Internet access or do not house or afford access to trust data, the Court will make such determinations directly,’’ Memorandum Opinion at 33 (July 28, 2003). Thus, as of July 28, 2003, the Special Master was without authority to perform IT security-related work. Nonetheless, the Special Master continued to seek compensation from Defendants for such work, and has been paid $4,700 for IT security-related work performed after July 28, 2003: Invoice 45 Sept. 17,2003 81412003 81612003 8/13/2003 811 812003 Xl20l2003 I certifications ALB Review Motion for Protective Order regarding IT ALB Review Interior Defendants’ Office of the Inspector General’s Submissions in Compliance with Preliminary I ALB I and Martin’s Motion for Protective Order ALB Review Interior Defendants’ Submissions in Conlpliance 1 1 Rate Hours Amount I Motion ALB I Review regarding Interior IT materials Defendants’ - memo to file for Protective Order I 0.30 200.00ihr. I 60.00 200.00 1 .oo 200.00lhr. Review Injunction Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Interior Secretary Norton 1 0.50 1 100.00 Review Preliminary Injunction Justification for Bureau of 1 3.50 200. OOlhr . 1 700.00 Land Management; National Business Center - draft memo 200.00/hr. 1,300.00 6.50 200.00lhr. with Preliminary Injunction including Declaration of Associate Deputy Secretary Cason; Tipton memo and attachments; Declaration of SAIC representative Hart Rossman; OIG’s Mary Adler & CIO; BOR Deputy Commissioner and Prellilminary Justification; Trust Enterprise Architecture - Trust Systems Internet Connectivity Report (811 1/03) - 16- 8/25/2003 8/26/2003 812812003 rOTAL hterior Defendants cannot be required to compensate the Special Master for work he is no longer authorized to perform. Accordingly, Interior Defendants request that the Court direct the Special Master to reimburse them $4,700 for amounts improperly billed for IT security- related work after July 28,2003, and direct the Special Master to cease such unauthorized work. 4,700.00 111. Interior Defendants Should Be Reimbursed For Payments Made To The Special Master For Work Performed By Unidentified Assistants. The Special Master has ignored requests by Defendants that he disclose the names, backgrounds, and professional affiliations of assistants who, as indicated by his own invoices, assist him in drafting his reports and recommendations. See Letter from Tracy L. Hilmer, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, to Alan L. Balaran, Special Master (June 6, 2003) (Exhibit 1); Letter from Tracy L. Hilmer, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, to Alan L. Balaran, Special Master (July 9, 2003) (Exhibit 2). The Special Master’s unwillingness to disclose such - 17- ALB Review Interior Defendants’ Submissions in Compliance with Preliminary Injunction including Declaration of Associate Deputy Secretary Cason; Tipton memo and attachments; Declaration of SAIC representative Hart Rossman; OIG’s Mary Adler & CIO; BOR Deputy Commissioner and PreQiIminary Justification; Trust Enterprise Architecture - Trust Systems Internet Connectivity Report (8/11/03); Preliminary Injunctions Justification for BIA (OIEP and 11 PC Workstations); Prel[i]min[]ary Injunction Justification for NPS; Preliminary Injunction Justification and certifications for OSM; Preliminary Injunction Justification rega[r]ding Office of Planning and Performance Management; Draft Memo setting out comments and findings. Review Preliminary Injunction Justification for OST (including Swimmer declarat[i]on); U.S. Fish and Wildlife; U.S. Geological Survey; Minerals Management Service ALB ALB Review Plaintiffs’ Comments On Norton and Martin’s violation of Pi 1.100.00 5.50 I 1,060.00 140.00 200.00ihr. 5.30 200.001hr. 0.70 200.00hr. information is of particular concern in light of his conduct in failing to disclose his employment of a former NAID official to assist with his investigation of allegations made by NAID. See Interior Defendants’ Motion To Disqualify Special Master Balaran (May 29, 2003). Defendants are entitled to make an informed determination as to whether the employment of any of the Special Master’s assistants raises any conflict of interest or is otherwise objectionable, and whether the hourly fees charged are appropriate in light of an individual’s experience and training. Interior Defendants should not be required to compensate the Special Master for the work of unidentified assistants. In addition, Interior Defendants object to paying $60 an hour for the Special Master’s assistants - regardless of their background, training, or experience - to “input data.” As reflected in the tables below, the Special Master has billed Defendants over $28,000 for more than 470 hours of time his assistants have apparently spent “inputting data” from boxes of documents produced to the Special Master pursuant to his NAD investigation. A search of the employment listings at www.washingtonpost.com reveals that the prevailing market rate for performing this type of work is between $9 and $1 1 per hour. See Exhibit 3 (containing sample listings for data entry jobs). 1. “AW’ The Special Master has billed Defendants $22,552 for work performed by an individual identified only as “AW,” who has apparently been assisting the Special Master with contempt matters. Although Defendants specifically requested on June 6, 2003, and July 9,2003, that the Special Master provide the identity of “AW,” as well as his or her legal qualifications and other - 18- affiliations, the Special Master has provided no information. Nonetheless, the Special Master has sought and received compensation for the following work performed by “AW’: AW Invoice 39 June 2,2003 5/14/2003 5/16/2003 5/19/2003 5/20/2003 512 112003 Y2212003 5/23/2003 5/27/2003 5/28/2003 5/29/2003 AW I contempt - Individuals AW I Review contempt e-mail motions and transcripts regarding Named 2.50 175.00/hr. 437.50 I AW I Draft summary of claims and defenses AW I law AW I Review of contempt more pleadings of parties; draft summary of claims 6.80 175.00hr. 1,190.00 1 defenses AW 1 and Draft summary of claims and defenses; review pleadings of 4.00 175.00ihr. 700.00 1 AW I the Review parties more pleadings of parties; draft summary of claims 4.50 175.00/hr. 787.50 1 and AW I Draft defenses summary of claims and defenses I AW I Draft summary of claims and defenses AW lAW transcript, argument I Review arguments oral for use in draft opinion draft summary of IAW I IAW I I AW I Research - criminal contempt Invoice 42 July 1,2003 6/2/2003 6/3/2003 61412003 6/11/2003 6/12/2003 Review contempt motions and transcripts regarding Named Individuals - e-mail contempt Review contempt motions and transcripts regarding Named Individuals - e-mail contempt Draft summary of claims and defenses; legal research of the Amount 647.50 210.00 350.00 1,172.50 752.50 700.00 Review transcript of oral argument; summarize arguments in draft Review briefs for Named Individual Cohen Research - criminal contempt Hours Rate 3.70 I75.00/hr. 1.20 175.00hr. 2.00 175.00/hr. 6.70 1 75 .oo/hr. 4.30 175.OOihr. 4.00 175.OOihr. Hours Rate 2.50 15O.OO/hr. 3.70 1 50.OOlhr. 5.20 150.00lhr. 2.00 150.00/hr. 3.00 150.00/hr. Amount 375.00 555.00 780.00 300.00 450.00 - 19- AW 611412003 AW 611512003 AW 61 1612003 AW 61 1812003 AW 61 1912003 AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW A W AW AW AW Invoice 44 Aug. 4,2003 71 112003 7/2/2003 71312003 71312003 71412003 71412003 71512003 71612003 7/6/2003 71712003 711412003 71 1412003 71 1412003 AW Legal Research - criminal contempt Legal Research - civil contempt Legal Research - civil contempt Legal Research - civil contempt Legal Research - fraud on court; orders Legal Research ~ Draft report on motion for contempt Legal Research Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt motion Legal Research Draft report on contempt motion Legal Research Draft Conference with Special Master on draft Legal Research Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt motion - 20 - 405.00 150.001hr. 450.00 345.00 270.00 375.00 150.00k. 2.30 150.00k. 1.80 15O.OOlhr. 2.50 150.00lhr. Amount 450.00 360.00 375.00 660.00 600.00 574.50 1,305.00 525.00 495.00 120.00 450.00 255.00 375.00 Hours Rate 3.00 15O.OOlhr. 2.40 150.00ihr. 2.50 150.001hr. 4.40 1 SO.OO/hr. 4.00 1 50.00lhr. 3.83 150.00lhr. 8.70 150.00/hr. 3.50 1 SO.OO/hr. 3.30 150.00lhr. 150.00lhr. 150.001hr. 150.00ihr. 2.50 150.00ihr. 7/18/2003 711 Xi2003 7/2 112003 712212003 7f2312003 7/26/2003 7/27/2003 7/2812003 712912003 713 112003 TOTAL 2. qualifications and other affiliations, the Special Master has provided no information. The Special Master has billed Defendants $16,429.50 for work performed by an individual identified only as “JW,” who has apparently been assisting the Special Master with contempt and other matters. Although Defendants specifically requested on June 6, 2003, and July 9, 2003, that the Special Master provide the identity of “JW,” as well as his or her legal Nonetheless, the Special master has sought and received compensation as reflected in the following table for the work of “JW.” Furthermore, it appears that on at least one occasion the Special Master double-billed Defendants for work performed by “J W.” The Special Master’s 22,552.00 AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW “JW’ Legal Research Draft report on contempt Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt motion Draft report on contempt -21 - 345.00 2.30 870.00 570.00 150.00h. 5.80 15O.OOlhr. 3.80 150.00/hr. 1.60 240.00 300.00 300.00 675.00 150.00lhr. 2.00 150.00hr. 2.00 150.00ihr. 4.50 150.00lhr. 4.20 630.00 450.00 375.00 150.OOihr. 3.00 150.0Oihr. 2.50 150.00ihr. August 4, 2003 invoice contains two identical line items, each billing Defendants $525 for 8.75 JW An[a]lysis of Contract OST02CT0010 and Binder Review t hours of work performed by “JW’ on July 14,2003. JW JW JW - JW Review case law related to weight associated with Special Master Orders and contempt Invoice 39 June 2,2003 4/23/2003 511212003 511 312003 51 1412003 51 1512003 I I 512612003 512812003 JW I 512712003 JW JW k Assist with drafting of Contempt opinion JW t Assist with editing of first draft of contempt opinion JW Continue inputting data from Box 1 of NAID Production JW - JW Inputting information of NAID Production from Word document into Excel spreadsheet - JW Input data from Box 1 of NAID Production - JW Input data from Box 1 of NAID Production Invoice 44 Aug. 4,2003 7/9/2003 711 012003 711 012003 711 112003 711412003 71 1512003 - JW Input data from Box 1 of NAID production into Excel Spreadsheet Research Case law related to contempt individuallofficial capacity - draft section for e-mail opinion Research Case law related to contempt individuaUofficia1 capacitylnecessity for specificity in pleadings - draft section for e-mail opinion Draft portion of contempt opinion related to sovereign immunity ~ ~~ ~~ Assist with drafting of Contempt opinion Hours Rate 1 .oo 135,OOlhr. 6.00 135.00h. 4.08 135 .00lhr. 3.50 135.00h. 6.40 135.00,h. 8.00 135.00ihr. 6.70 135.00h. 3.50 135 .OOlhr. Hours Rate 9 .00 60.0Oihr. 5 .OO 6O.OOJhr. 3 .OO 60.0011rr. 2.00 60.00h. 8.75 60.00hr. 8.75 60.0O/hr. 2.25 60.001hr. Began inputting data from Box 1 of NAID Production Inputting information of NAID Production from Word document into Excel spreadsheet ~ ~~ ~~ Amount 135.00 810.00 550.80 472.50 864.00 1,080.00 904.50 472.50 ~~ Amount 540.00 300.00 180.00 120.00 525.00 525.00 135.00 - 22 - Reviewed spreadsheet with Box 2 inventory of NAID Production Researched issues related to San Juan Basin pipelines’ Continued researching issues related to San Juan Basin pipelines Input data from Box 1 of NAID Production Continue researching issues relating to San Jaun [sic] Basin pipelines Completed inputting data from box 1 of NAID production Began inputting data from Box 3 of NAID Production Continue inputting data from Box 3 of NAID Production Input data from Box 3 of NAID production Input data from Box 3 of NAID production Continue inputting data from Box 3 of NAID production Continue inputting data from Box 3 of NAID Production Edit Site Visit Report to the Eastern Region Navajo Office Make corrections to Site Visit Report Input data from Box 3 of NAID production Completed inputting data from Box 3 of NAID production Begin inputting data from Box 5 of NAID production Interior Defendants are unaware of any “issues related to San Juan Basin pipelines” referred to the Special Master. 8.00 60.0Olhr. - 23 - 15.00 0.25 60.00h. 150.00 2.50 60.00h. 75.00 1.25 60.00ihr. 105.00 60.00 1.75 60.00h. 1 .00 60.00ihr. 420.00 510.00 7.00 60. O O h . 8.50 60.00h. 420.00 7.00 60.00lhr. 8.00 60.00h. 8.50 60.00h. 8.50 60.00ihr. 6.50 60.00hr. 2.00 60.00h. 1 .00 60.00ih. 7.00 60.00hr. 8.50 60.00h. 480.00 5 10.00 5 10.00 390.00 120.00 60.00 420.00 5 10.00 480.00 JW 7/30/2003 713 1 J2003 JW 81 1 I2003 JW JW Review and site [sic] check Site Visit Report of the Special Master JW I Site [sic] check Site Visit Report of the Special Master I l y I Jw I Complete inputting data from Box 5 of NAID Production 8.50 60.00h. 5.50 60.00lhr. 60.00ihr. Invoice 46 Sept. 17,2003 81412003 I 81412003 8/5/2003 81512003 I ~ 81612003 I 81712003 TOTAL “GB” 3. With his invoice dated August 4, 2003, the Special Master began to bill Defendants for work performed by an individual identified only as “GB.” The SpeciaI Master’s invoices do not reveal the identify, qualifications, or other affiliations of “GB.” To date, the Special Master has sought and received compensation in the amount of $13,935 for the following work performed by “GB”: Invoice 44 Aug. 4,2003 7l1012003 GB Continue inputting data from Box 5 of NAID production ~~ ~~ ~~ 8.00 Continue inputting data from Box 5 of NAID production 60.00lhr. ~ ~ Continue inputting data from Box 5 of NAID production 60.00lhr. I 480.00 1 480.00 1 5 10.00 8.50 60.00h. Hours Rate 60.00h. Continue inputting data from Box 5 of NAID Production 60.00h. 3.00 60.00ihr. Continue inputting data from Box 5 of NAID Production Amount 445.20 150.00 1 180.00 1 330.00 1 5 10.00 495.00 Began inputting data from Box 6 of NAID Production, and trained new employee on how to enter data I 16,429.50 I I I Amount 360.00 Input Data from Box 2 of NAID production. Hours Rate 6.00 60.00h - 24 - GB I 71 1 1 I2003 71 1412003 GB 71 1512003 GB 71 1612003 GB 711 712003 GB 7l1812003 712 112003 GB GB I Input Data from Box 2 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 2 of NAID production. 7/22/2003 GB 712312003 7/24/2003 GB 7/25/2003 712812003 712912003 713 012003 GB I GB Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. I GB Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. 60.00,hr 6.50 I GB Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. 60.00h 7.50 I 3.50 60.0Olhr ~~~~~ 1 60.00ihr 7.50 5.00 60.00lhr - GB Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. 713 112003 - GB Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. 81i12003 - Invoice 46 Sept. 17,2003 - GB 8/5/2003 8/6/2003 - GB Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. Input Data from Box 2 of NAID production. Input Data from Box 2 of NAID production. Input Data from Box 2 of NAID production. Input Data from Box 2 of NAID production. Input Data from Box 2 of NAID production. ~ Continue inputting Data from Box 2 of NAID production. ~~~ ~ Continue inputting Data from Box 2 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. ~~ - 25 - 7.50 60. OO/hr . 450.00 360.00 6.00 60.OOihr 390.00 6.50 60.00lhr. 435.00 7.25 60.00lhr. 480.00 8.00 60.00kr. 390.00 420.00 7.00 60.00kr. 7.00 60.00h. 7.50 60.00kr. 420.00 450.00 2 10.00 390.00 450.00 7.50 60.00lhr 450.00 300.00 450.00 450.00 7.50 60.00Ihr 4mount 330.00 330.00 Hours Rate 5.50 60.00kr 5.50 60.0Ohr 8/7/2003 8/8/2003 811 112003 8/12/2003 - 81 1312003 81 1412003 -IGB 1 IGB I 8/15/2003 81 18i2003 81 1912003 8/19/2003 812012003 8!2012003 812 1 E003 812212003 812512003 8/26/2003 8/27/2003 8/28/2003 812912003 rOTAL Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. GB Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAID production. GB Input Data from Box 7 of NAID Production. GB Input Data from Box 7 of NAID Production. GB ~~ ~ ~ Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID production. ~ Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID production. lGB I lGB I Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID production. GB Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID production. GB Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID Production. GB Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID Production. GB GB Finish inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID Production. Begin inputting Data from Box 9 of NAID Production. Continue inputting Data from Box 9 of NAID Production. GB Continue inputting Data from Box 9 of NAID Production. IGB I Continue inputting Data from Box 9 of NAID Production. IGB I I - 26 - 390.00 6.50 ~ 390.00 60.00ihr 6.50 60.00lhr 6.50 390.00 60.00h ~- 5.50 330.00 330.00 390.00 60.00ihr 7.50 60.00h -IGB I Assist for filing wipreparation d t h e Court. of site visit report of the special master 60.00lhr 60.00h 5.50 330.00 I GB 1 Continue inputting Data from Box 7 of NAID Production. 1 .00 IGB I Master. Assist wipreparation of site visit report of the Special 60.00ihr 60. 3.50 001h 3.50 7.50 60.00lhr 5.50 60.00ihr 6.50 450.00 450.00 60.00 210.00 2 10.00 270.00 270.00 390.00 390.00 60.00ihr 4.50 60.00hr 4.50 60.00ihr 6.50 60.001hr 6.50 60.00hr 6.50 390.00 60.00ihr 6.50 390.00 60.00ihr 6.50 390.00 60.00ihr 13,935.00 “MK” MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK 4. With his invoice dated September 17, 2003, the Special Master began to bill Defendants for work performed by an individual identified only as “MK.” The Special Master’s invoices do not reveal the identify, qualifications, or other affiliations of “MK.” To date, the Special Master has sought and received compensation in the amount of $5,625 for the following work performed by “MK”: Invoice 46 Sep. 17,2003 811 112003 81 1212003 811312003 81 1412003 81 1512003 811 812003 811 912003 811912003 812012003 812012003 812 112003 812212003 812612003 MK Input Data from Box 6 of NAID production. Input Data from Box 6 of NAID Production. Finish inputting Data from Box 6 of NAID production. Begin inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID production. Assist wlpreparation of site visit report of the Special Master. Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID production. Assist wipreparation of site visit report of the Special Master. Hand deliver same to Judge’s chambers (NIC) Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID production. Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID Production. Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID Production. Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID Production. - 27 - Amount 330.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 300.00 150.00 240.00 240.00 375.00 1 390.00 I 450.00 Hours Rate 5.50 60.001hr 7.50 60.00h. 7.50 60.00/hr. 7.50 60.001hr. 7.50 60.001hr. 7.50 60.00/hr. 5 .oo 60.00hr. 2.50 60.00ihr. 4.00 60.001hr. 60.001hr. 60.001hr 6.50 60.0Oilu 7.50 6O.OOihr a12712003 450.00 MK Continue inputting Data from Box 8 of NAID Production. Begin inputting Data from Box 10 of NAID Production. MK 450.00 8/28/2003 7.50 60.00/hr Continue inputting Data from Box 10 of NAID production. 7.50 60.00i’hr 5,625.00 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Relief Required TOTAL ~ 5. Interior Defendants should not be required to compensate the Special Master for the work of unidentified assistants. Interior Defendants are unable to determine whether the employment of the individuals identified only as “AW,” “JW,” “GB,” and “MK’ raises any conflict of interest or is otherwise objectionable, or whether the rates charged are reasonable in light of these individuals’ experience and training. The rate charged for “inputting data” - $60 per hour - appears grossly excessive under any standard. See Exhibit 3. On at least one occasion, as noted above, it appears that the Special Master double-billed Defendants for the work of an assistant. Interior Defendants request that the Court direct the Special Master to reimburse them $22,552 for amounts improperly billed for the work of “AW,” $16,429.50 for amounts improperly billed for the work of “JW,” $1 3,935 for amounts improperly billed for the work of “GB,” and $5,625 for amounts improperly billed for the work of “MK.” In addition, Interior Defendants request that the Court direct the Special Master to immediately inform the parties of the identities, qualifications, and current and prior affiliations of “AW,” “JW,” “GB,” and “MK,” as well as any individuals he has employed in the past or employs in the future to assist him. - 28 - IV. Interior Defendants Should Be Reimbursed For Payments Made To The Special Master For Reviewing Trial Transcripts, Briefs, Correspondence Or Other Hours Rate 0.20 200.00/hr. 0.40 200.OOhr. Amount 40.00 80.00 520.00 60.00 100.00 40.00 60.00 t- Documents Relating To Matters Not Referred To Him. The Special Master has repeatedly billed Defendants for time spent reviewing transcripts, briefs, correspondence, and other documents concerning ‘matters that have not been referred to him. For example, as documented in the table below, although the Special Master had no role in the Phase 1.5 trial, he billed Defendants in excess of $14,000 for reviewing the Phase 1.5 trial testimony. In the last twelve months alone, Defendants have paid at least $35,860 for the Special Master’s review of documents relating to matters outside the scope of his reference? ALB Review consolidated Reply to Interior’s Opposition to Unseal Document filed by Court Monitor ALB ALB ALB ALB I Review Notice to the Court ALB ALB Invoice 15 Oct. 4,2002 9/2/2002 9/2/2002 913 12 002 9/5/2002 9/13/2002 91 1612002 912312002 9/23/2002 ALB * This table excludes entries to which Defendants object in Sections I and II, above. Review Plaintiffs’ Fourth Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of Plaintiffs’ Findings and Conclusions of Law Submitted With Respect to the Second Contempt Trial Review Plaintiffs’ Fourth Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Submitted With Respect to Second Contempt Trial Review Plaintiffs’ Fifth Notice of Supplenie[n]tal Authority in Support of Plaintiffs’ Findings and Conclusions of Law Submitted with Respect to the Second Contempt Trial ~ Review Interior Defendants’ Motion and Supporting Review Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Surreply Review Interior Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Iniunction - 29 - ’ Memorandum of Historical Statements for Order of Permitting Account the to Class Provision Counsel of Copies 200.00ilir. 0.30 200.00lhr. 0.50 0.20 200.00h. 0.30 200.00lhr. 2.60 200.00lhr. ~ ALB 9/25/2002 ALB 9/25/2002 ALB Review Interior’s Statement regarding discovery ALB ALB ALB Invoice 20 Dec. 2,2002 11/1/2002 11/1/2002 11/6/2002 11/13/2002 1 1 /I 512002 11/18/2002 11/21/2002 11/21/2002 ALB A1.B ALB Review Plaintiffs’ consolidated opposition to defendants’ motion to strike comments regarding references to ALB Review Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to strike comments re: SM-M’s 1012102 pleading Although some of the documents the Special Master billed Defendants for reviewing on November 13, 2002 may be related to matters within the scope of his reference, the Special Master’s invoice does not indicate the amount of time apportioned to reviewing individual documents. 0.20 200. 00lhr. 0.10 200.00ihr. Review Motion of Intertribal Monitoring Association for Indian Trust Funds For Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Regarding Appointment of a Receiver Review Interior Defendants’ Motion for Adjustment of the Court Monitor’s August 2002 Compensation Request Review In[t]erior defendants’ comments and objections to 10/18/02 report and recommendation of the SM-M regarding motions to compel and Motions to stay discovery and rule 11 proceedings; motion for modification of protective order Review Defendants’ Motion to Strdce Plaintiffs’ Comments on SM-M’s 10/2102 Report and Recommendation Review Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for enlargement of time; Warshawsky letter regarding scans; Plaintiffs’ Second R[e]ply in support of public disclosure of attachment C; time sheets of senior OST personnel; defendants’ unopposed motion to file Interior’s response under seal; Court’s opinion concerning plaintiffs’ requests for fees; review Sessions documents produced in response to request’ Review Interior Defendants’ Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction regarding Historical Statements of Account Review Interior defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to motion for reconsideration concerning order granting attorneys’ fees Attachment C - 30 - 240.00 1.20 200 .OO/hr. 100.00 0.50 200.00ihr. Hours Rate 0.30 200.00ihr. 0.50 200. OOlhlr . 0.20 200.00ihr. ~ 5.80 200.00hr. ~ 0.30 200 .00/hr. 0.20 200.00lhr. Amount 60.00 100.00 40.00 1,160.00 60.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 11l25l2002 1 1/26/2002 11/27/2002 11/27/2002 1 112712002 1 112712002 ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB Invoice 22 Jan. 3,2003 121412002 121912002 121 1212002 1211212002 1211412002 documents. lo Although some of the documents the Special Master billed Defendants for reviewing on December 9,2002 may be related to matters within the scope of his reference, the Special Master’s invoice does not indicate the amount of time apportioned to reviewing individual 0.10 2 0o.oohr. 1 S O 200.001hr. 0.30 200.00lhr. ~~ Review correspondence between Gingold and Lawrence regarding appeal and Si[e]mietkowski regarding “undue delay in compliance” Review Interior Defendants’ Motion to Adjust C.M[.]’s 10102 compensation Review Interior’s Motion and memorandum for expedited consideration of Motion for Order adopting SMM’s recommendations regarding named plaintiffs Review letter regarding proposed dates for named-plaintiff depositions Review correspondence between Harper and DOJ regarding 0.10 deposition schedule for named plaintiffs 0.40 200. OOIhr . 200.00/hr. 0.20 200.00lhr. 0.30 200.00lhr. 0.10 200.00/hr. 0.20 200.00ihr. Review Interior’s reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to motion for expedited consideration regarding SMM’s recommendation concerning production of documents Review Interior’s Brief in Opposition to Restrictions on Deposition Witnesses Review Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Sequestration Brief; review DO1 Internet Reconnection Status Report; Status of Estimated Oil and Gas Recoupment; Michael Carr Reply Brief to the Plaintiffs’ Consolidate[d] Motion for Recusal; Phillip Brooks Reply to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Recusal Motions; DO1 OTR Labatt Work Plan; Interior’[s] Response and Objections to SM-M Recommendation regarding Production of Documents” Review Interior Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ consolidated Supplemental Reply in Support of a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Regarding Historical Statement 3 f Account Review Interior Defendants’ Response and Objections to he Report and Recommendation of the Special Master- Monitor ieview Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order regarding ieposition of Erwin and Edwards - 3 1 - I Hours 200.00lhr. 200.00lhs. 8O.OC 20.00 40.00 60.00 20.00 40.00 Amount 60.00 500.00 60.00 20.00 300.00 1211 812002 ALB 1212012002 ALB 12/23/2002 ALB ALB 1212612002 ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB Review Reply Brief in Support of Consolidated Motion to Modify or Stay Production of 12/23/02; Reply in Support ALB ALB ALB ALB Invoice 24 Feb. 2,2003 1/8/2003 1l1512003 1/ 1612003 11 1812003 1/29/2003 112912003 1 /30/2003 1 /30/2003 113 1 I2003 113 112003 ALB Review Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Related to the Second Contempt Trial Review Defendants’ Objecti[]ons to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Electronic Data Systems Corp. Review Court’s Opinion regarding referral to grievance committee ~~~ _ _ ~ Review Notice of Supplemental Information in Sup[p]ort of this Court’s December 23,2002 referral Review Interior’s Motion for reconsideration of order prohibiting communications with class members; response and objections to report and recommendation regarding sequestration Review Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs’ Compliance Action Plan Together with Applicable Trust Standards (1/6/03) Review Interior’s Opposition to Consolidated Motions regarding Old Person and to Protective Order; opposition to remove Old Person as class member and for expedited consideration of the above Review Response to Interior’s request for Production of documents of Named Class Plaintiffs to Withdraw Review Response to Interior’s Motion for Expedited Consideration; Motion to Compel Earl Oldperson Review Notice of Errata regarding Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Interior Defendants’ Motion for reconsideration of Order prohibiting Communications with Class Members Review Interior Defendants’ Motion to Strike Untimely Motions Review Interior Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Supplement Their Motion and Supplement to Motion for a Protective Order as to Discovery by the Special Master- Monitor Review Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the “Fiduciary Obligations 0.40 Comdiance Plan” 0.60 200.001hr. ~ I200.00/hr. - 3 2 - ~ 0.50 200.00/hr. 100.00 40.00 0.20 200.00kr. I I 240.00 1.20 200.00/hr. 20.00 0.10 1 Rate Hours 200.00h. Amount 340.00 1.70 200.00/hr. 40.00 0.20 200.00h. 200.00 720.00 1 .oo 200.00/hr. 0.70 200.001hr. 140.00 ~~ 0.20 200.001hr. 0.20 200.00/hr. 20.00 40.00 40.00 120.00 80.00 ALB Review Defendants’ Corrected Memorandum in Support of ALB I Review Motion for Amicus and to Appear pro hac vice ALB Review Defendants’ Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Partial Summary ALB Notice I Support Review Plaintiffs’ of Plaintiffs’ Compliance of Supplemental Action Plan Authority in 200.00/hr. 200.00/hr. 0.30 3.50 200.001hr. 1.60 1.60 200 .ooihr . Hours Rate 0.20 200.00hr. ALB Review Defendants’ R[e]ply in Support of Motion for Expedited Consideration and Motion to Compel Plaintiff ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALE Review Defendants’ Motion to file documents under seal (Iudicello and Sapi[e]nza Declarations and attachments Invoice 29 Mar. 2,2003 2/2/2003 21212003 2/412003 2/412003 21 1212003 21 1312003 211 312003 21 1312003 21 1412003 21 1412003 2/1512003 211 612003 ALB Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Statute of Limitations and Laches; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Interior’s Historical Accounting Plan Comports with Their Obligation to Perform an Accounting Judgment Earl Old Person Review Plaintiffs’ Reply and Opposition to Reply regarding Motion for order directing defendants to rescind notice sent to 1200 juvenile trust beneficiaries; opposition to defendants’ motion for authority to communicate with class members regarding the historical statements of account Review Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Authority to communicate with class members regarding historical accounting Review Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Interior’s Accounting Plan Comports with Their Obligation to Perform an Accounting and Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities Review Defendants’ Opposition to NCAI Motion to file Amicus Review Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time reg[]arding Opposition to NCAI amicus; and opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions for enlargements of time to respond to Defendants’ Motions for Partial Summary Judgment thereto) ~ Review Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Non-Settlement of Accounts - 33 - Amount 700.00 320.00 60.00 320.00 40.00 60.00 0.30 200.00/hr. 0.20 200.00hr. 40.00 700.00 3.50 200.00ihr. 60.00 40.00 320.00 160.00 0.30 200.00lhr. 0.20 200.00lllr. 1.60 200.00lhr. 0.80 200.00/hr. Review Plaintiffs’ Statement of Need pursuant to Memorandum and Order dated February 5,2003 and attachments thereto Review Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Interior’s Trust Plan Comports with its Obligation to Perform Accounting Review Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for protective order directing defendants to rescind notice sent to 1200 trust beneficiaries Review Defendants’ Reply in support of Motion for expedited consideration and motion to compel testimony ~~ Review Motion for leave to supplement motion and supplement to motion for protective order as to discovery by SM-M concerning deposition questioning Review Defendants’ Notice of Appeal Review Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents dated 212 1 I03 ~~ Review Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Bernhardt Review Court’s Memorandum Opinion dated February 5 , 2003 regarding plaintiffs’ consolidated motion regarding privilege, to compel testimony and for sanctions Review Reply to Government’s Opposition to Amicus Brief 0.20 2.00 200.00/hr. Review Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Scandalous Material pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(Q Review Defendants’ Reply Brief regarding 12(Q filing Review Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Gale Norton’s and Aween Martin’s Motion to File Under Seal Bernhardt Declaration Review Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgement -egarding Statute of Limitations and Laches ieview Defendants’ Notice of Filing of Amended Zertificates of Service of Papers Related to Partial hnmary Judgment concerning Statute of Limitations and ,aches teview Interior’s Motion and Memorandum for 3nlargement regarding Bert Edwards - 34 - 200.0c 1 .oo 200.00/hr. 300.0C 8O.OC 1 S O 200.00/hr. 0.40 200.00/hr. 0.30 200.00/hr. 60.0C 120.0c 0.60 200.00ihr. 0.10 200.00rhr. 0.20 200.00h. 0.20 200.00/hr. 200.00/hr. 0.40 200.00ihr. 0.20 200.001hr. 0.20 200.00/hr. 20.00 40.00 40.00 400.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 0.20 200.00/hr. 20.00 120.00 0.10 200.00ihr. 0.60 200.00h. 212712003 ALB Review Interior’s Motion for Enlargement to File[] Detaile[d] Summary of Responses of Witnesses had Privilege not been asserted 212712003 ALB Review Interior’s Notice of Filing of Declarations of Erwin, Griles, and Cason 212712003 ALB Review Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order as to Discovery by SM-M and as to Rule announced by SM-M concerning deposition questioning 212812003 ALB Review Defendants’ Motion to Substitute Declaration of Donna Erwin 212812003 ALB Review Interior’s Motion to substitute Declaration of Griles, Cason and Swimmer 212812003 ALB Review Mark Brown letter to Stemplewicz (DOJ) regarding Defendants’ Rule 26 filing Cnvoice 35 April 1, 2003 31312003 ALB Review Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Interior and Edwards should not be held in contempt 31512003 ALB 3 15 12 003 ALB 311 112003 ALB ALB 311 112003 ~ 311 112003 311 112003 ALB Review Defendants’ Expert Reports provided by J.S. (DOJ) 1.50 200.001hr. Review Plaintiffs’ Expert Reports ALB Review appellate brieflopposition and reply Review Opposition to Motion to Assign Mandamus to Appellate Panel ~~ Review Angel and Lasater Reports (wlout attachments) Review Defendants’ reply regarding Attachment C (3) Motion to file (.2); M[]otion for enlargement regarding B. Edwards (.2); Motion for Protective Order rega[r]ding Mineral Act (.3); and Motion regarding E&Y report (.6) 2.00 200.00ihr. 2.20 200.001hr. 0.30 200.00/hr. 1.80 200.00/hr. 1.30“ 200.00lhr. Hours Rate 0.30 200.00hr. 360.00 260.00 ” The Special Master billed $320 for 1.6 hours to review the documents listed in this line item, but Interior Defendants do not object to the .3 hours ($60) the Special Master billed for reviewing the “Motion for Protective Order rega[r]ding Mineral Act,” as this motion was pending before him. Amount 60.00 300.00 400.00 440.00 60.00 - 35 - 20.00 0.10 200 . 0 0 h . 260.00 80.00 1.30 200.00h. 0.40 200.00/hr. 100.00 0.50 200. 0 0 h . 1 .50 300.00 200.00/1lr. 20.00 0.10 200.00/hr. 3/13/2003 ALB ALB 3/13/2003 31 1412003 31 1412003 3/14/2003 3/15/2003 3/17/2003 311 712003 312012003 312012003 ALB ALB I Review Blelrt Edwards Interior’s Notice of Filing of Newell’s expert report 2.00 ALB Review Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to File Expert Report of Joseph R. Rosenbaum under seal and attachments ALB ALB ALB ALB 312012003 l 2 Defendants note that their Motion For Expedited Consideration Of Interior Defendants’ Motion For Leave To Provide Congress A Summary Version Of The Ernst & Young Report is two paragraphs in length. Even if the Special Master also reviewed Interior Defendants’ concurrently filed motion for leave (also two paragraphs in length) and the attached summary version of the Ernst & Young Report (four pages in length), charging Defendants $400 for that review is grossly excessive, even if such billing was otherwise appropriate. This is particularly egregious when the Special Master billed Defendants $120 for reviewing the same document(s) two days earlier, on March 1 1, 2003. 0.30 200.00lhr. 0.40 2 00. 00lhr . 0.10 200.00lhr. Review Motion for Expedited Consideration of Interior Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Provide [Clongress a Summary Version of the Ernst and Young Report” Review Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs’ Plan for Determining Accurate Balances in the Individual Indian trust Review Motion by Gale Norton for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding I I thereto Review Interior Defendants’ Response to NAIC [sic] Amicus Brief Review Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Information in support of opposition to motion to adjust SM-M fee Review Motion to Continue Motions for summary Judgment and affidavit i[n] support thereof; notice of filing of amended certificate of service; opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions to treat as conceded and strike as untimely motion for partial summary judgment Review Defendants’ Motion for reconsideration of sanctions in light of CM-M decision to release privileged documents Review Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Bentzen’s Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoena and other relief and attachments Review Brown-Quinn correspondence regarding expert opiniodproduction of documents - 36 - 2.00 200.00lhr. 20.00 0.10 200.00lhr. 400.00 -A 40.00 0.20 200.00/hr. 400.00 120.00 2 00 . OO/hr. 0.60 200.00/kr. 0.30 200.00ihr. 40.00 0.20 200.00ihr. 1 S O 200.00hr. 300.00 60.00 80.00 20.00 3/2012003 ~ 3/2012003 ~~ 312012003 ~~ 312012003 L B 1 Review Motion for expedited consideration and clarification regarding contact of Plaintiff Old Person ALB 312 112003 - 3/2512003 312612003 312712003 312712003 3/27/2003 312912003 ALB ALB ALB Review Interior Defendants’ Opposition to Show Cause ALR ALB Review Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs’ Plan for Determining Accurate ALB 1 Balances Review Motion to Substitute Declaration of D. Erwin and 0.50 ALB 1 Review attachments Motion thereto for Enlargement regarding Bert Edwards 0.60 200.00/hr. 120.00 and attachments thereto ALB Review Motion to substitute declarations of Griles, Cason and Swimmer in support of assertions of deliberative ALB privileges I process Review Filings regarding statute of limitations and laches 0.30 ALB Review Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Con[s]olidated Motions regarding concession as to summary judgment, untimely opposition to P’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for enlargement of time to reply to opposition brief (+ attached affidavits); consolidated opposition to Norton’s Motion for enlargement of time to respond to Ps’ Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding contempt for Edwards and request for expedited consideration; Ds’ Reply Memorandum in further support of Motion for Leave to provide Congress with Summary Versions of E&Y Report Review Interior Defendants’ Motion and Supporting Memorandum for Reconsideration of 3/11103 Memo granting plaintiffs’ request for sanctions pursuant to 56(g) Review Interior Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal Memo to Strike Plaintiffs’ References to and Quotation of the Content of Attachment “C”; and Motion to Strike Order to Show Cause regarding Bert Edwards, Historical Accounting Plan and Notice of Violation Review Plaintiffs’ Notice of Filing Exhibit 1 in support of opposition to Secretary Norton’s Memorandum Begin Review of Interior’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause why Edwards Should not be held in Civil and Criminal Contempt; and Motion by Secretary Norton (in her individual capacity) regarding same I Motion regarding B. Edwards and attachments; Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Ds’ Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) and to Enlarge (wlout attachments[)] - 3 7 - 60.00 0.30 200.00/hr. 100.00 200 .oo/hr. 120.00 0.60 200.00ihr. 60.00 200.00/hr. 80.00 0.40 200.00/hr. 320.00 140.00 100.00 40.00 1.60 200.00/hr. 0.70 200.00/hr. 0.50 200.00/hr. 0.20 200.00/hr. 1 .so 360.00 520.00 2 00 .oolhr. 2.60 2 00 . O O h . Invoice 37 ALB May 6,2003 41 1 I2003 Invoice 39 June 2,2003 5/5/2003 ALB 5/5/2003 ALB ALB 5/6/2003 ~ 5/7/2003 ALB 5/7/2003 ALR ALR ALB 5/7/2003 5/8/2003 51912003 ALB Review Interior’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Substitute Original Expert Rebuttal Report of Lasater; to file under seal Defendants’ Objections to report and recommendat[io]n of Special Master Monitor on Motion to Unseal Document Filed Under Seal by Court Monitor Review Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Motion to Modify Stay Review Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Appeals Review Defendants’ Rebuttal to Plaintiffs’ Review of Facts and Further Statement of Facts Review Plaintiffs’ -Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Appeals Review Plaintiffs’ Opposition to D’s Motion in Limine with Regard to Expert Testimony and Report in Support of Plaintiffs’ Plan for Determining Accurate Balances in the Individual Indian Trust Review Interior Defendants’ Objections to and Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Subpoena of May 1,2003 Review Interior’s Motion to require compliance with Court’s Orders Concerning Attachment C Review Interior Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of Certain Pre-Trial Motions; Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgement that Trust Plan Comports with Obligation to Perform Accounting; that Historical Accounting Plan comports with obligations; to File Under Seal Papers Related to Partial Summary Judgment regarding SOL and Laches; opposition and Reply thereto; Rebuttal to Plaintiffs’ Review of Defendants’ Facts regarding SOL and Laches; Notice of Filing of Redacted version in support of Partial Summary Judgment; Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of 311 1/03 M&O regarding Sanctions; Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Trust Management Plan Co[]nlports with Obligations and Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Historical Accounting Plan; Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion to Strike request for Personal Sanctions - 38 - Amount Hours Rate 1.60 200.00Ihr. Hours Rate 0.20 200.00/hr. 0.20 2 0 0 . 0 0 ~ . 0.20 200.00/hr. 0.20 200.00hr. 320.00 Amount 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 0.20 200.001hr. 0.30 200.001hr. 60.00 40.00 1.720.00 0.20 200.00/%r. 8.60 200.001hr. 5/9/2003 5l1212003 511312003 512212003 Invoice 42 July 1,2003 6/7/2003 61812003 61912003 611012003 611412003 6/14/2003 611 512003 611 612003 611 612003 611 712003 l 3 The Special Master’s invoice contains insufficient detail for Interior Defendants to identify the brief described generically as “Reply to Motion to Dismiss.” 0.20 200.00lhr. 4.00 200.00ihr. ALB Review Motion for Reconsideration of D’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Homan as Other than a Rebuttal Witness ALB Review Supplemental Appellate Authority ALB Review Interior’s Motion to Defer Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Application for Fees ALB Review Reply to Motion to Dismiss” ALB Review Interior Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Their Motion to Defer Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Application for Fees and Expenses ALB Review Transcript of first day’s opening and first second and third days of Homan testimony ALB Review Days 4 and 5 of Homan direct and cross ALB Review end of Homan testimony and Fitzgerald testimo[n]y (days 7 c!?L 8” ALB Review Hammond and Fasold (days 9- 12) ALB Review testimony of John Wright, Landy Stinnett and Alan Graham McQuillan (through day 15) ALB Review Brief regarding admissibility of depositions of defendants’ experts as party admissions ALB Review Duncan testimony (days 16, 17 and 18) ALB Review oral argument requesting judgment; and Langbein testimony (direct and cross) ALB Review Defendants’ Opposition Brief regarding admissibility of depositions of defendants’ experts as party admissions ALB Review transcript testimony of Associate Deputy Secretary Cason and Michelle Herman (days 21-24[)1 - 39 - 60.00 0.30 200.00lhr. 0.10 200.00lhr. 20.00 60.00 0.30 200.00/hr. 40.00 0.20 200.00/hr. 40.00 0.20 200.00/hr. Hours Rate 4.50 200.00/hr. Amount 900.00 740.00 3.70 200.001hr. 840.00 4.20 200.00ihr. 5.60 200.00/hr. 4.80 200.00ihr. 1,120.00 960.00 60.00 0.30 200.00il~. 3.70 200.00lhr. 3 .OO 200.001hr. 740.00 600.00 40.00 800.00 611 812003 - ALB ALB Review testimony of Brunner and Rosenbaum (through day 26 (before Angel)) Review Angel testimony (up to day 29) 612012003 6/22/2003 6/23/2003 6/23/2003 6/2512003 Invoice 44 Aug. 4,2003 7i212003 71312003 71612003 71712003 7/8/2003 71912003 71 1612003 7l1812003 712312003 712512003 invoice 46 3ept. 17,2003 I - ALB ALB 4LB - ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB Review Interior defendants’ motion to reconsider admissibility of defense exhibits 105- 1 1 1 Review testimony of Herman and Brunner Review testimony of Rosenbaum Review Newell and Lassiter testimony Review Swimmer testimony Review Swimmer testimony Review testimony of Ross Swimmer Review Swimmer testimony; extract issues related to leases and “fair market value” Review Duncan testimony Review Plaintiffs’ Counterdesignations of Deposition Testimony and Defendants’ Response thereto Review response to Court’s Inquiries During Closing Arguments Review Jacobs’ Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Pro Se and Defendants’ Opposition Thereto Review Petitioners’ Motion for Scheduling Order to Govern fur[th]er Proceedings Review Eddie Jacobs’ Reply Memorandum to opposition to Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae 4LB 1 4LB \LB 1 v412003 Review Newell testimony (days 2 1 and 22) - 40 - 920.00 1,000.00 4.60 200.00/hr. 5.00 200.00/hr. 3.50 200.00ihr. 0.20 200.00/hr. 700.00 40.00 660.00 3.30 200.00/hr. 920.00 4.60 200.00lhr. Hours Rate Amount 300.00 1 .50 2 00. OOIhr . 700.00 I 900.00 3.50 200.00lhr. 200.00ihr. 4.50 200.00lhr. 2.30 200.00lhr. 4.50 3.00 200.001hr. 0.20 200.00lhr. 0.60 2 00. 00Ihr . 0.30 200.00lhr. I 900.00 I 460.00 I 600.00 300.00 40.00 120.00 60.00 Amount 200.00 Hours Rate 1 .oo 200.00lhr. 811 312003 0.20 200.00ihr. ALB Review Federal Government’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Consolidated Claims 3.40 8/15/2003 200.00ihr. ALB Review Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following Phase 1.5 Trial 8/18/2003 ALB Review Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Interior Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum to Require Plaintiffs to Comply with Court’s Orders Concerning “Attachment C” 8/18/2003 8/24/2003 ALB Review Plaintiffs’-Appelle[e]s’ R[e]sponse for voluntary dismissal 0.20 200.00h. ALB Review Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ 0.20 Proposed Findings of Fact[] 200.00/hr. 0.20 200.00/hr. ALB Review Reply to Eddie Jacobs’ BrieUArgument in Support 0.20 8/28/2003 I I TOTAL The Special Master is, of course, free to review the briefs, trial transcripts, or any other documents filed on the public record in this case, but it is inappropriate to bill Defendants for doing so when those documents relate to matters outside the scope of his reference. Therefore, at a minimum, Lnterior Defendants request that the Court direct the Special Master to reimburse Defendants for the $35,860 that the Special Master has been paid during the last twelve months for reviewing briefs, transcripts, correspondence, and other documents regarding matters not referred to him. In addition, Defendants request that the Court direct the Special Master to immediately cease billing Defendants for reviewing transcripts, pleadings, correspondence, or other documents that relate to matters not referred to him. V. Interior Defendants Should Not Be Required To Pay The Special Master For Reviewing Briefs Not Yet Filed. The Special Master’s invoice for services performed during August, 2003 (dated September 17,2003) sought reimbursement for reviewing two briefs that had not yet been filed: -41 - 40.00 680.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 I 35.860.00 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ - ~~~ 811 112003 Review Non-Party Michae[]l Carr’s Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition and for a protective Order to prevent 200.00/hr. discovery relating to contempt charges ALB 81 1412003 ALB 300.00 200.00/hr. Review Interior Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition and request for production directed to non-party Michael Carr c- 300.00 600.00 Non-Party Michael Carr’s Motion To Quash Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Deposition And For A Protective Order To Prevent Discovery Relating To Contempt Charges was filed on September 10,2003. Interior Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order And Motion To Quash Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Deposition And Request For Production Of Documents Directed To Non-Party Michael Carr And Defendants was filed on September 1 I , 2003. Interior Defendants request that TOTAL the Court direct the Special Master to reimburse them $600 for these improper charges. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Interior Defendants respectfully request that the Court direct the Special Master to: (1) reimburse Interior Defendants $7,240 for amounts improperly billed for work on motions related to the Six Documents attached to the Seventh Report of the Court Monitor, $8,170 for amounts improperly billed for work on the Recusal Motions, $7,420 for amounts improperly billed for work on the privilege motions filed in late 2002, and $4,000 for amounts improperly billed for work on an “Anti-Reprisal Opinion,” and reimburse them for amounts paid for work on any other matter not expressly referred to the Special Master; (2) reimburse Interior Defendants $4,700 for amounts improperly billed for IT security-related work after July 28,2003 and cease such unauthorized work immediately; (3) reimburse Interior Defendants $22,552 for amounts improperly billed for the work of his unidentified assistant “AW,” $16,429.50 for amounts improperly billed for the work of his unidentified assistant “JW,” - 42 - $13,935 for amounts improperly billed for the work of his unidentified assistant “GB,” and $5,625 for amounts improperly billed for the work of his unidentified assistant “MK”; (4) immediately inform the parties of the identities, legal qualifications, and affli liations of “AW,” “JW,” “GB,” “MK,” as well as any individuals he has employed in the past or employs in the future to assist him; ( 5 ) reimburse Interior Defendants at least $35,860 for amounts improperly billed for reviewing briefs, transcripts, correspondence, and other documents regarding matters not referred to him and immediately cease billing Defendants for such review; (6) reimburse Interior Defendants $600 for amounts improperly billed in August 2003 for reviewing Non-Party Michael Carr’s Motion To Quash Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Deposition And For A Protective Order To Prevent Discovery Relating To Contempt Charges, filed September 10,2003, or Interior Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order And Motion To Quash Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Deposition And Request For Production of Documents Directed To Non-Party Michael Carr And Defendants, filed September 1 1,2003 Respectfully submitted, Dated: October 3,2003 ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Associate Attorney General PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General STUART E. SCHIFFER Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. CHRISTOPHER KOI3N Director h Depu Director p- SPooNER D.C. Bar No. 261495 JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ Senior Trial Counsel CYNTHIA L. ALEXANDER Trial Attorney - 43 - Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 (202) 514-7194 - 44 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, al., a Plaintiffs , V. ) 1 ) 1 ) ) Case No. 1:96CV01285 (Judge Lamberth) GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, al.,) gt ) ) Defendants. by the Court; immediately; ORDER Upon consideration of Interior Defendants’ Motion For Reimbursement Of Improper Special Master Fees and any responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Interior Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Special Master shall: (1) reimburse Interior Defendants in the amount of $26,830 for fees billed by the Special Master for substantive work on matters not referred to the Special Master, including research and drafting of memoranda, reports, or opinions regarding matters directed to and properly resolved (2) reimburse Interior Defendants in the amount of $4,700 for fees billed by the Special Master for IT security-related work after July 28, 2003, and cease work on IT security matters (3) reimburse Interior Defendants in the amount of $58,541 S O for fees billed by the Special Master for work performed by assistants whose identities, qualifications, and current and prior affiliations have not been disclosed to the parties; (4) immediately inforni the parties of the identities, qualifications, and current and prior affiliations of assistants referred to as “AW,” “JW,” “GB,” and “MK” in the Special Master’s invoices and any other individuals the Special Master has employed in the past or employs in the future to assist him; ( 5 ) reimburse Interior Defendants in the amount of $35,860 for fees billed by the Special Master for reviewing briefs, transcripts, correspondence, and other documents regarding matters not referred to him and immediately cease billing for such work; (6) reimburse Interior Defendants in the amount of $600 for fees billed by the Special Master for reviewing briefs not yet filed. ,2003. day of SO ORDERED this ROYCE C. LAMBERTH United States District Judge MFHTHilIlUX DJ: 145-7-1468 - By Facsimik (2021986-8477 Alan L. Balaran, Esq. Special Master 17 17 Pennsylvania Ave., N W 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Balaran: Re: . Cobell v. NoHun, Civ, Action No. 96-1285 (RCL) @.D.C.) In reviewing the compensation request attached as Exhibit 5 to your May 2003 Report, we noted that you seek payment for work performed by individuals identified ody as “JW’ and “AW.” These individuals are apparently assisting you with the backup tape contempt matter that was argued before you on April 23 and 25,2003. As you know, the government has in the past raked objections to proposals to “subcontract” work on the contempt matters that the Court has referrcd to you as the Special Master. In order that we may determine whether the employment of “JW” and “AW raises any conflict of interest issues or is otherwise objectionable, we request that you inform us of the identities of these individuals, their legal qualifications and any affiliations they may have other than their emp1o:mcnf hy w-- i q tbk patter -. Thank you far your attention to ttus matter. Attached service list cc: Cor~iercial Litigation Branch U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Any: Tracy L. Hilma Tcl: (202) 307-0474 Posr O f l Box 261 Washingron. D C. 20044 Benjamin F m d h Srdon June 6,2003 EXHIBIT 1 Defs’ Motion for Keirnhursciiieiit of Improper Special Master Fees ~ 0 0 1 COBELL VERMONT TRANSMISSION OK 99868477 1640 ALAN BALARAN TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID 06/06 14:11 01’34 6 OK 06/06/2003 14:12 FAX 2023533303 FROM: ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT Department o f Justice Civil Division Cobell Litigation Support Fax No. Voice No. (202)353-3303 (202)307-3013 SENT BY: John O’Connor Alan Bdaran TO: FAX No. 202-986.8477 NUMBER OF PAGES SENT (‘NCLUDTNG COVER PAGE): 6 SPECIAX INSTRUCTHONS: Tracy Hiher letter o f 06/06/03 re: May report U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division MFH:'rHilrner DJ 145-7-1468 Atty: Twy L. HlhneT Tel: (202) 307-0474 Po$/ UjJce Bar 261 Benjumin Franklm Stdron N'urhington, U C 20044 July 9, 2003 Bv Facsimile (2021986-8477 Alan L. Balaran, Esq. Special Master 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Balaran: cc: Re: Cubelf v. Norton, Civ. Action No. 96-1285 (RCL) @.D.C.) On June 6, 2003, I sent you a letter requesting infomation about two individuals identified only by the initials "JW" and "AW" who were listed in the invoice included in your May 2003 Report as hzving assisted you with the backup tape contempt matter. Possibly, my letter went astray in the press of other business. 1 am attaching a copy of it to !his letter. We noted that "AW" was listed again in the invoice included in your June 2003 Report. At this time, we again request the information sought in my June 6,2003 letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. . Trial Attrmey Commercial Litigation Branch Attached service list EXHIBIT 2 Defs' Motion for Reimbursement of' Improper Special Master Fees MFH:THilma DJ: 145-7-1468 - By Facsimile (202)986-8477 Alan L. Balaran, Esq. Specid Master 17 17 Pennsylvania Ave., N W 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Balaran: Re: . Cobell v. Norton, Civ. Action No. 96-1285 (RCL) (D.D.C.) In reviewing the compensation reguest attached as Exhibit 5 to your May 2003 Report, we noted that you seek payment for work performed by individuals identified only as “JW’ and “AW.” These individuals are apparently assisting you With the backup tape contempt matter that was argued before you on April 23 and 25,2003. As you know, the government has in the past raked objections to proposals to “subcontract” work on the contempt matters that the Court has referrcd to you as the Special Master. In order that we may determine whether the employment of “JW” and “ A W raises any conflict of interest issues or is othenvise objectiunablr, we request thal yuu inform us of the identities of these individuals, their legal qualifications and any affiliations they may have other than their ernp1o:mmf hy vc- i i tbh matter .. Thank you for your attention to this matter. cc: Attached service list Tracy L. Hi Cornniercial Litigation Branch U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Any Tracy L Hiher Tcl: (202) 307474 Post Bar 261 BcnJamln F r d t n SIanon Wmhingron. D.C. 20044 June 6,2003 Tnal Attome 7 07/09/2003 16:44 FAX 2029533303 TRANSIISSLON OK TXIRX NO CONNECTION TEL COMCTION ID ST. TIM3 USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT Bv Facsimile (202198618477 Alan L. Bdaran, Esq. Spocial Mastex 17 17 Pennsylvania Ava.. N W 12th Floor washington,Dc 20006 Re: (%bell v. Norton, Civ. Action No. 961285 (RCL) (D.D.C) D m Mr, B d a a ~ ~ On June 6,2003, I sent you a letter requesting information about two individuais ihtifiki only by the hitids "m' arid "AW who w e listed in the invoice included in your May 2003 Report as having assisted YOU with the backup tape contempt maltcr. Possibly, my letter went astray in the pqis of other busincss. I am @a&g a copy of it to this Ictkr. We noted that "AW" was listed again in the invoice includcd in your h e 2003 Report. At this timc, we agah request the information sought in my Jme 6,2003 letter. . . Thank you'for your attei&m.to tfiis matter. COBELL WRMONT la 001 Y** TX REPORT * * * t O * * * * * Y * * * * t * * * * * 99868477 ************+******** 1720 ALAN B A W 07/09 16:42 01'35 6 U.S. Department of Justice OK . CivilDivisim July 9,2003 washingtonpost.com: Jobs SERVICES @Job Search Comuanv Profiles LIVE DISCUSSION CAREER ADVICE: Talk to Post columnist M a r E l l e n Slavter, Thurs. at 2 pm ET. TOP JOBS Tec hn i c i a n s l Installer Myer-Emco Supervisor City Of College Park Md ~- Human resources ~______ specialist Natl Drug Intelligence Ctr Consultant AM1 International Geolosist 1 Technician 1 Environmental scient Applied Environmental, Inc. View All Top .lobs FEATURED EMPLOYERS I Raytheon STX 1 COMPANY PROFILES Special Advertising Section From Local Employers Summary Company Name: Job Title: Job Status: Job Code: Industry: Job Function: Job Division: Education: Years Experience Desired: Salary: Location: Contact E-Mail: Contact Information: Date Posted: Full Text DATA ENTRY SPECIALISTS Contract Position Job code: TMDEOl Washington, DC -1llhr Please email: jobs@ardelle.com Association located in Washington , DC has several immediate openings for data entry specialists. Ideal candidates will have minimum 1 year prior experience performing data entry functions in one of t h e following databases: MS Access, IMiS o r Filemaker Pro. Duties include reviewing records and keying in customer information quickly and accurately during our clients conversion process.Strong attention t o detail a MUST. This is a full time position for approximately six (6) months. Previous Association experience helpful but not required.EmaiI resume to jobs@ardelIe.cm(EOE) Page 1 of2 AA Temps/Ardelle Technical DATA ENTRY SPECIALISTS Full-time Contract TMDEOl Accounting /'Auditing, Employment Services, High Tech / IT, . . Legal Administrative / Gen Office Not Listed Bachelor's 1 year $9 to $11 per hour Washington, DC Not Listed 7002-N Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: 703-642-9050 Fax: 703-642-2928 1 Of 2/03 EXHIBIT 3 Dcfs' Motion for Reimbursement of Improper Special Master Fees Page 2 of 2 washingtonpost.com: Jobs View Original Listing . Return to Search Results Featured Employer Information AA Temps/Ardelle Technical Homepage Ardelle Associates, also doing business as AA Temps and Ardelle Technical, is a leading provider of diversified staffing services to businesses, professional organizations and government agencies. Our services include: temporary placement, temp-to-hire conversions, permanent placements, contract technical services, subcontracting and outsourcing services. Rely on our qualified team of professionals to provide you with skilled, personable, professionals available to start working for you immediately. 0 Cowriaht 2000 - 2003 The Washington Post Company httn.//www washin~tonnost.com/wl/iobs/JS JobSearchDetail?value= 13 89746 1 &TS= 106 ... 10/02/2003 washingtonpost. corn: Jobs ADVANCED SEARCH 3 0 SERVICES )Job Search Compa-n y Profiles LIVE DISCUSSION CAREER ADVICE: Talk to Post columnist Marv Ellen Slavter, Thurs. at 2 pm ET. TOP JOBS SafeQ director 1 Human resources director 1 Quarles Petroleum, Inc. Human resources generalist I Hr generalist American Assn Ofmuseums Education specialists Smithsonian Institute Data manaqemena Djrector Emmes Corp. Marketing representative 1 Project administra Cherry Engineering ss, Inc. View All Top Jobs FEATURED LOCAL EVENTS COMPANY PROFILES Sum ma ry Company Name: Job Title: Job Status: Job Code: Industry: Job Function: Job Division: Education: Years Experience Desired: general exp Salary: Location: Contact E-Mail: Contact Information: Date Posted: SEI Inc. Attn: Cory Wessel 220 University Blvd Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Fax: 540-432-9430 E-mail: resume@sei-inc.com http://www.sei-inc.com EOE/AA 9/9/03 Full Text Two Data Entry Clerks Needed in DC SEI Technology, a subsidiary of SEI Inc., is looking to fill two Data Entry Clerk I11 positions a t our Washington D.C. office. Responsibilities include: *Inputs data from source documents into a keyboard-controlled data entry device. *Extracts, cross references, and prepares data for entry. *Compiles and summarizes data and performs ma thema ti ca 1 co m pu ta ti on s . *Develops charts, graphs, and other statistical reports. *Maintains files and records. Transcribes, deciphers, and codes alphanumeric data from source documents and verifies data for accuracy SEI Inc. Data Entry Clerk I11 Fu II -ti me Regular Not Listed Government Contractor Administrative / Gen Office Not Listed High School $10.58 per hour Washington, DC resume@sei-inc.com Please send your resume and references in confidence to: Page 1 of2 * APPLY& Special Adve-tising Section From Local Employers and completeness. *Works under the supervision of a Data Entry Clerk I. *Process incoming file requests in a timely manner. "Reconcile information in paper files against the database record to ensure accuracy and corn pleteness. "Upload Scanners into FWFACS and FIPS program successfully and accurately . Must possess a High School Diploma or GED. Candidate must also be able to successfully pass a DOJ Security Clearance and drug screen. washingtonpost.com: Jobs Return to Search Results Page 2 of 2 B APPLY lr 0 Copyriaht 2000 - 2003 The Washington Post Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I declare under penalty of perjury that, on October 3, 2003 I served the foregoing Defendants ’ Motion for Reimbursement of Improper Special Master Fees by facsimile in accordance with their written request of October 31,2001 upon: Keith Harper, Esq. Native American Rights Fund 1712 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 (202) 822-0068 By Facsimile and U.S. Mail upon: Alan L. Balaran, Esq. Special Master 1 7 1 7 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., 1 3 th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 986-8477 Per the Court’s Order of April 17, 2003, by Facsimile and by U.S. Mail upon: Earl Old Person (Pro se) Blackfeet Tribe P.O. Box 850 Browning, MT 5941 7 (406) 338-7530 By U.S. Mail upon: Elliott Levitas, Esq 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 Dennis M Gingold, Esq. Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 3 18-2372 .c--