This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
IN THE UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, gt al., 
Plaintiffs, 
) 
V. ) Case No. 1 :96CV01285 
) (Judge Lamberth) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, ) 
g al., 1 
) 
Defendants. ) 
INTERIOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 
AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF INTERIOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE 
PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PERSONAL SANCTIONS IN PLAINTIFFS' 
COMMENTS TO THE JANUARY 27,2003 CORRECTED REPORT AND 
RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER (MAR. 4,2003) 
hterior Defendants hereby move for leave to file supplemental authority in support of 
their Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Request for Personal Sanctions in Plaintiffs' Comments to the 
January 27, 2003 Corrected Report and Recommendation of the Special Master.' Interior 
Dcfendants filed their Motion to Strike on March 4,2003. 
On April 14,2003, Judge Friedman issued the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order 
in Pigford v. Veneman, Nos. CIV.A.97-I978,98- 1693,2003 WI, I 870520 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 
2003). In that Opinion and Order, the Court granted the Department of Agriculture's motion to 
strike comments by class counsel accusing the government's lead counsel of racist conduct. at 
* 1 . As in the motion at issue in this case, Pigford Plaintiffs accused government counsel of 
serious misconduct without providing facts to support those accusations. Though Cobell 
I In accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.1(ni), courisel for Interior Defendants consulted 
with counsel for Plaintiffs, who stated that Plaintiffs oppose this motion. 
- 1 -
This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
Plaintiffs have not accused government counsel of racism, they have nonetheless accused two 
government attorneys, two private attorneys, and one high-level government official of serious 
misconduct without any factual basis for their allegations. Therefore, the attached Pinford 
opinion is additional authority for this Court to strike Plaintiffs' request for personal sanctions 
against Ms. McCarthy, Mr. Miller, Mr. Rauh, Ms. Campbell, and Mr. Cason, or to strike all but 
the first and last paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Comments to the January 27,2003 Corrected Report 
and Recommendation of the Special Master.* Interior Defendants therefore respectfully move for 
leave to file the attached supplemental authority. 
Dated: April 30,2003 
A 
* -See Interior Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Interior Defendants' Motion 
Respectfully subinitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
S A e P . SPOONEK 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWTCZ 
Senior Trial Attorney 
JOHN J. SIEMIETKOWSKI 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 5 14-3368 
(202) 5 1 4-9 163 (fax) 
to Strike Plaintiffs' Request for Personal Sanctions in Plaintiffs' Comments to the January 27, 
2003 Corrected Report and Reconmendation of the Special Master (Mar. 14,2003). 
- L - This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
2003 WL 1870520 
F.Supp.2d 
(Cite as: 2003 WL 1870520 (D.DE.)} 
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. 
IJnited States District Couit, 
District of Columbia. 
Titnothy PIGFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, 
V. 
Ann VENERZAN, Secretary, United States 
Department of Agriculture, Defendant. 
Cecil BREWINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs, 
V. 
Ann VENEMAN, Secretary, United States 
Dcpartment of Agriculture, Defendant. 
NO.CIV.A.97-1978 (PIAF), ClV.A.98-1693 (PLF). 
April 14, 2003. 
MEMORANDUM OPWION AM) ORDER 
FKIEDMAN, District J 
*I The Court has before it defendant's motion to 
strike plaintiffs' response to defendant's response to 
the motion to reopen all late clainls due to mail 
delays, as well as plaintiffs' opposition to the motion 
to strike and defendant's reply. Upon consideration of 
the parties' arguments, Rule I 1 and Rule 12(f) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the challenged 
document itself, thc Court will grant defendant's 
motion to strlke. 
In a recent filing pertaining to its motion to reopen 
all late claim? due to mail delays, class counsel 
Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders, Pettaway, Campbell & 
Albright made the following statement: "Throughout 
this litigation, Michael Sitcov has persistently 
demonstrated the same racist attitude of U.S.D.A. 
workers who systematically destroyed the fanns and 
lives of thousands of farmers, simply because they 
were black." Response to Defendant's Response to 
Motion to Reopen All Late Claims Due to Mail 
Delays at 1-2 ("PI. Response Regarding Mail 
Delays"). In a subsequent filing, Chestnut, Sanders 
wrote: "We believe Mr. Sitcov's dishonesty or 
wreckless [sic] disregard for the truth is inspired by 
his contempt for 'lawyers of color' who dare to 
challenge his unequal concern for black and white 
farnms." Response to Motion to Strike at 3. Despite 
the enormity of these accusations, Chestnut, Sanders 
has provided no factual basis or evidence in support 
of its charges. Nor has the fm explained how such 
accusations could be relevant to plaintiffs pending 
Page 1 
motion to reopen late claims. Instead, Chestnut, 
Sanders simply accused defendant's lead counsel, 
Michael Sitcov--an expericnced and dedicated 
Department of Justice attorney and public servant of 
many years who has devoted nearly six years of his 
professional life to this important case--of engaging 
in conduct of the most deplorable kind. 'I'he Court 
cannot abide this type of groundless accusation. 
Almost tioni the beginning of this lawsuit, virtually 
every party and lawyer has endured sometin1es harsh 
criticism--from other parties to the case, from 
segments of the public and the me.dia, and 
occasionally from this Court. The Court is well aware 
that attorneys both for plaintiffs and for the 
govemrient have experienced frustration in their 
efforts throughout ths difficult and often contentious 
matter. Despite the disputes between counsel over a 
variety of issues in irnplernenting the procedures 
agreed to in the settlement, however, it has been 
apparent to the Court from the very beginning that 
every attorney of record--no matter who the client-­consistently 
has honored the fundamental rights of the 
African-American farmers on whose behalf the case 
was brought. Although Mr. Sitcov's role necessarily 
has been to protect and defend the interests of his 
client, the LJnited States Department of Agriculture, 
the Court has no doubt that Mr. Sitcov always has 
recognized and respected the basic rights of plaintiffs 
and their l a y w s , without regard to their race. 
Indeed, the Court has expressed its respect and 
appreciation for hir. Sitcov's hard work and 
dedication repeatedly in open court, as early as March 
2, 1999, at the Court's fairness hearing on the Consent 
Decree, and as recently as the December 11, 2002 
status conference. See 'I'ranscript of Fairness Hearing, 
March 2, 1997 at 192-95; 'transcript of Status 
Conference, December~ 11, 2002 at 31-43. Yet 
Chestnut, Sanders unfairly likens hlr. Sitcov to those 
within the Department o f Agriculture and on the state 
level who unlawfully discriminated against African- 
American farmers for many years before this case was 
settled. See PI. Response Regarding Mail Delays at 
1-2. 
*2 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
provides, in relevant part, that by presenting to the 
court any "pleading, written motion, or other paper," 
an attorney "is certifying that to the best of the 
person's knowledge, infornution, and belief, formed 
after an inquiry reasonable under the circunstances," 
the pleading "is riot being filed for an improper 
purpose, such as to harass ___ and [that] the allegations 
(bpr. 8West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 
Attachment 
Inter Dets' Motion for Leave to File Supp 
Autb to Strike I'ltfs' Request for Sanctions This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
2003 WL 1870520 
(Cite as: 2003 WL 1870520, *2 (D.D.C.)) 
and other factual contentions have evidentiary 
support ._..I' Fed.R.Civ.P. ll(b). Here, not only did 
Chestnut, Sanders fail to offer any evidence of Mr. 
Sitcov's alleged "racist attitude," but the Court can 
fmd n o t h g in the entire record of this case-­ 
spanning many years, many hearings and many 
pages--that would support such a charge. The Court 
has observed Mr. Sitcov and listened to hls arguments 
and representations in court on scores of occasions, 
has met with him and opposing counsel in Chambers 
a number of times, and has read thousands of pages 
that he has either written or whose preparation he has 
supervised. While hs frustration level may have risen 
over the years (and his choice of language in certain 
recent filings has reflected that frustration), Mr. 
Sitcov has appeared always to have acted 
professionally, honorably and ethically. There is no 
basis in fact and no evidentiary support for the 
charges that he has exhibited a racist attitude or that 
he has contempt for "lawyers of color." Such 
"[albusive language toward opposing counsel has no 
place in documents filed with our courts; the filing of 
a document containing such language is one form of 
harassment prohibited by Rule 11." Cuats v. Pierre, 
890 F.2d 728, 734 (5th Cir. 1989). 
In addition, Rule 12(Q of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure provides that a court may strike any matter 
that is "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 
scandalous." Fed.R.Civ.P. l2(Q. [FNI] Although a 
motion to strike generally is disfavored because it 
seeks an extreme remedy, a court has "liberal 
discretion" to strike such filings as it deems 
appropriate under Rule 12(f). Stanbuiy Law Firm v. 
IRS, 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir.2000); see 2 
MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE 9 12.37[1] at 
12-93 to 12-94 (3d ed.2002). The word "scandalous" 
in Rule 12(f) "generally refers to any allegation that 
unnecessarily reflects on the moral character of an 
individual or states anything in repulsive language 
that detracts fiom the dignity of the court." 2 
MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE 0 12.37[3] at 
12-97; see nlso In re 2TheMurt.cont Inc. Securities 
Litigation, 1 14 F.Supp.2d 955, 965 (C.D.Ca1.2000) 
("scandalous" includes allegations that cast "a cruelly 
derogatory light on a party or other person"). 
Chestnut, Sanders' charges of racism are plainly 
scandalous within the meaning of the Rule, in that 
they "improperly cast[ ] a derogatory light" on a 
dedicated government attorney who has done his best 
to navigate the deep and murky waters of this 
litigation. 5A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & 
ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & 
PROCEDURE 5 1382 (2d ed.1995). The accusations 
Page 2 
are indefensible and wholly inappropriate and have 
no place in filings in this court. 
*3 Because the accusations of racism in the 
Chestnut, Sanders filings are unsupported by facts or 
evidence, constitute a form of harassment, and are 
scandalous, the Court will grant defendant's motion to 
strike Chestnut, Sanders' Response Regarding Mail 
Delays and sun Jyonte will strike Chestnut, Sanders' 
Response to the Motion to Strike, based both on Rule 
11 and on Rule 12(Q of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. See 2 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE 
0 12.37[1] at 12-94; McCorstin v. United States Dep't 
of Lnbor, 630 F.2d 242, 244 (5th Cir.1980), cert. 
denied, 450 1I.S. 999, 101 S.Ct. 1705, 68 L.Ed.2d 
201 (1981). 
Finally, counsel are reminded that Local Civil Rule 
83.8(b)(6)(v) of the Rules of this Court requires all 
counsel to familiarize themelves with the D.C. Bar 
Voluntary Standards for Civility in Professional 
Conduct, which are included as Appendix D to those 
Rules. Among other things, the Standards provide 
that 
we [attorneys] will treat all participants in the 
legal process, including counsel ... in a civil, 
professional, and courteous manner, at all times 
and in all communications, whether oral or 
written.... Except within the bounds of fair 
argument in pleadings or in formal proceedings, 
we will abstain from disparaging personal 
remarks or acrimony toward such participants ..._ 
We will not bring the profession into disrepute 
by_-makingunfounded accusations of impropriety 
or making ad hominem attacks on counsel, and, 
absent good cause, we will not attribute bad 
motives or improper conduct to other counsel.... 
We will not degrade the intelligence, ethics, 
morals, integrity or personal behavior of others, 
unless such matters are legitimately at issue in the 
proceeding. 
D.C. Bar Voluntary Standards for Civility in 
Professional Conduct fifl 1, 3, 5 , 28. Despite these 
established principles, the communications among 
counsel and some of their court filings in this case 
have grown less civil, less respectful, and less 
professional, and the language used by Chestnut, 
Sanders in its most reccnt filings is beyond the pale. 
Whatever the underlying issues in this lawsuit--and 
despite the undeniably tragic history of discrimination 
against African-American farmers in this country-­counsel 
have an obligation to their clients, to this 
Court and to the legal profession not to engage in the 
type of conduct that is the subject of this Opinion and 
Copr. Cj West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
2003WL1870520 
(Cite as: 2003 WL 1870520, *3 (D.D.C.)) 
that has begun to pervade t h s case in recent months. 
When the lawyers involved in this litigation resort to 
scurrilous accusations and inflammatory remarks 
about opposing counsel, no one wins--least of all the 
African-American farmers in whose name this case 
was brought. 
For all of these reasons, it is hereby 
ORDERED that defendant's motion to strike 
plaintiffs' response to defendant's response to 
plaintiffs' motion to reopen all late claims due to mail 
delays [763] is GRANTED; it is 
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' response to 
defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion to reopen all 
late claims due to mail delays [776] is STRICKEN 
from the record in this case; it is 
"4 FURTHER ORDERED SNU sponte that plaintiffs' 
Response to the Motion to Strike [772] is 
Page 3 
STRICKEN from the record in this case; and it is 
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 
directed to strike these two documents from the 
records of this Court. 
SO ORDERED. 
FNI. Although Rule 12(f) applies by its 
terms only to "pleadings," courts 
occasionally have applied the Rule to filings 
other than those enumerated in Rule 7(a) of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, 
e g., CohcN v. Norton. No. 96-1285, 2003 
WL. 721477 (D.D.C. March 3, 2003) 
(considering Rule I2(0 motion to strike 
plaintiffs' response to defendant's historical 
accounting plan). 
2003 WL 1870520,2003WL 1870520 (D.D.C.) 
END OF DOCUMENT 
Copr. 0West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S.Govt. Works This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
IN THE UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUlSE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
) 
Plaintiffs, )
1 
V. ) 
) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the ) 
Interior, et al., )
1 
Defendants. 1 
Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
This matter coming before the Court on the motion of Lnterior Defendants for leave to file 
Supplemental Authority in support of their Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Request for Personal 
Sanctions in Plaintiffs' Comments to the January 27,2003 Corrected Report and 
Recommendation of the Special Master ("Interior's Motion for Leave"), and having considered 
any responses thereto, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Clerk shall supplement Interior Defendants' 
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Request for Personal Sanctions in Plaintiffs' Comments to the January 
27,2003 Corrected Report and Recommendation of the Special Master by attaching to it 
Interior's Motion for Leave and its attached Memorandum Order and Opinion in Pigford v. 
Veneman. 
SO ORDERED this day of ,2003. 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner, Esquire 
John T. Stemplewicz, Esquire 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Fax (202) 514-9163 
Dennis M Gingold, Esquire 
Mark Kester Brown, Esquire 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Ninth Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
Fax (202) 3 18-2372 
Keith Harper, Esquire 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
Fax (202) 822-0068 
Elliott Levitas, Esquire 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Alan L. Balaran 
Special Master 
I71 7 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
13th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530 This is the background image for an Adobe Acrobat Capture page with image plus hidden text.  
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I declare under penalty of perjury that, on April 30,2003 I served the foregoing Interior 
Defendants' Motionf o r Leave lo File Supplemental Authority in Support of Interior Defendants' 
Motion to Strike Plaint~s' Requestfor Personal Sanctions in Plaintiffs' Comments to the 
Jcrnuary 27, 2003 Corrected Report and Recornmendation ofthe Special Master (Mar. 4, 2003) 
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 
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 59417 
(406) 338-7530 
By facsimile and U.S. Mail: 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
13th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Ninth Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
(202) 318-2372 
By US. Mail upon: 
Elliott Levitas, Esq 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530