IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
t s 
ELOtTISE PEPION COBELL, gt al., 
No. 1 :96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) Plaintiffs, 
V. 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of 
the Interior, al., 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
INTERIOR DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION 
TO COMPEL ANSON BAKERS DEPOSITION AND THE 
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO 
On August 21, 2003, Plaintiffs served on Interior Defendants counsel a notice of 
deposition of non-party Interior employee Anson Baker that included document requests 
(collectively, Anson Baker Discovery). On September 22, 2003, Interior Defendants filed a 
Motion for a Protective Order fi-on1 the Anson Baker Discoveqr. On September 23, 2003, 
Defendants served on Plaintiffs a Response to Plaintiffs Notice of Deposition and Request for 
Production of Documents, Dated August 21, 2003 (Response to Anson Baker Document 
Requests) (attached as Exhibit I), in which Defendants asserted objections to the Anson Baker 
document requests pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On 
October 3, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Anson Bakers Deposition and the 
Production of Docunients Related Thereto (Motion to Compel).  
1! Plaintiffs merged in a consolidated paper their Opposition to interiors Motion for a 
Protective Order with their own Motion to Compel the Anson Baker Discovery. Interior filed a 
Reply in Support of the Motion for Protective Order on October 14, 2003. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel conspicuously omits any reference to the Response. The 
Response raised numerous general and specific objections. Two of the general objections were 
substantially equivalent to the issues established in Lnteriors Motion for Protective Order: 
(1) under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure all discovery is currently unauthorized in this 
case; and (2) the Anson Baker Discovery is unrelated to any justiciable issue in this case and not 
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Motion for Protective Order; 
Response to Anson Baker Document Requests. Although neglecting to inform the Court that 
these objections had been raised in the Response, Plaintiffs discussed these issues in their 
consolidated Opposition and Motion to Compel and Interior responded to their arguments in its 
Reply, which is incorporated by reference here. No further discussion of these two general 
objections is needed.2 
Interior also raises other general and specific objections in its Response which Plaintiffs 
do not even address in their Motion to Compel. For example, Interior asserts that the requests 
are over broad, vague, and impose an undue burden and/or expense. Response at 4; see also id. 
at 6-7 (Objections to Request Nos, 1-3). Because Plaintiffs fail to inform the Court about 
Interiors objections and fail entirely to contest those objections, the Motion to Compel should be 
denied.l 
On October 15, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of the 
Motion to Compel. This Notice was improperly filed without seeking leave of Court and does 
not cite to any authority, supplemental or otherwise. Instead, the non-authority attached to the 
Notice consists of a letter from Mr. Ervin Chavez, President of the Shii Shi Keyah Allottee 
Association (Navajo), to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the unverified contents of which only 
reinforce that appraisals are related to asset nianageinent - a proposition not in dispute. 
Plaintiffs also neglected to discuss the Response at all with counsel for Defendants prior to 
filing the Motion to Compel. 
2 If Plaintiffs improperly raise arguments related to the objections asserted in Defendants 
Response for the first time in a reply supporting their Motion to Compel - and the Court is 
inclined to consider any such tardy argument - Interior will request authority to file a surreply to 
respond. For the Courts benefit in denying the Motion to Compel, however, Interior has 
attached declarations supporting the objection that complying with the overbroad requests would 
impose an undue burden, as asserted in the Response. See Declaration of Gabriel Sneezy 
(October 16,2003) (attached as Exhibit 2); Declaration of Janet Goodwin (October 17, 2003 
(attached as Exhibit 3); Declaration of Thomas Lonnie (October 17, 2003)(attached as Exhibit 4). 
Dated: October 17, 2003 
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel should be denied. 
Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
PHILLIP M. SELIGMAN 
Trial Attorney 
Cormnercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
3 Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
BLOUISE PEPION COBELL, al., gt 
Plaintiffs , 
V. 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
) 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, al., gt 
Defendants . 
deposition of Anson Baker; 
SO ORDERED. 
Date: 
1 
) 
) 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Anson Bakers 
Deposition and the Production of Documents Related Thereto [Dkt. #23 181. Upon consideration 
of the Motion, the responses thereto, and the record in this case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Motion to Compel is DENTED; it is further 
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs are precluded from deposing Anson Baker at this time; 
ORDERED that Defendants need not produce the documents requested in the notice of 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge 
Case No. 1:96CVO1285 
(Judge Lamberth) cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner 
John T. Stemplewicz 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Fax (202) 5 14-9 163 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, DC 20005 
Fax (202) 3 18-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
Fax (202) 822-0068 
Elliott Levitas, Esq. 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
17 17 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
13th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 5941 7 
(406) 338-7530 
Rod Lewis, Esq. 
Davis, Wright & Tremaine, LLP 
1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 
Portland, Oregon 97201 -5630 
(503) 778-5299 IN THE UNILED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBLA 
ELOUISE PEPTON COBELL, al,, 
Plaintiffs, 
V. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
Defend ants. 1 
) 
1 
1 
1 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, gj &,) 
. I 
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO P1,ATNTlFFS NOTTCE OF DEPOSlTlON 
AND REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, DATED AUGUST 21,2003 
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants provide 
this rcsponsc (Rcsponsc) to thc Rcqucst for Documents propounded as part of Plaintiffs 
Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents concerning Anson Baker, dated 
August 2 1, 2003 (Rcquests). This Response reflccts thc Dcfcndants good faith diligent cfforts 
to considcr and investigate the subject matters covered by the Requests and to respond to each of 
thc requests within the allotted time. The stateriients made herein are based upon the infomiation 
known as of the date of this response and are subject to correction, modification and 
supplcmentation if and when additional relevant infomalion becomes known to a Defendant. 
The Requesls as propounded seek production of documents responsive to one or more of 
eight enumerated individual requests. All of these requests arc subject to one or niore objections, 
which are asserted bclow. Gcncral Objections arc objcctions that apply to cach and every one of 
these Kcquests and are to be read as forming an integral part of thc response lo each individual 
request 
EXHIBIT 1 
Defs ODD^ to Pllfs Motion to 
Compel A&n Baker Depo & RFP GENERAT, OBJECTIONS TO REOUEST FOR DOCUMENTS 
Defendants objcct to the Kequests as a whole because this set o f discovery 1. 
requests violales Federal Rule o f Civi I Procedure 26(g)(Z)(B)&(C). This nile provides that a 
signed discovery request, served by a party, constitutcs a ccrtification that thc rcqucsts are "not 
interposed for m y improper purposc, such iis to harass" and that the requests are "not 
unrcasonahlc or unduly burdensome or expensive" to fulfill. The Requests, however, violate 
lhese standards. 
The Requests were propounded after trial of Phase 1.5 has concluded and before any 
confcrcricc has bccn hcld to set a schedule for any discovery that will be perniitted for any future 
trial phase in this case. More important, the Requests seek discovery of' information conccrning 
rnalters that are beyond the subject rnattcr of this case and, thus, beyond the subject matter 
jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and Plaintiffs' authority to investigate. The Requests also 
seek personal and privatc records concerning such things as Anson Baker's ernploymcnt 
percorniance, pcrsonal finances, and incomc taxcs, even though Mr. Raker is neither a party 
dcfendant in this Litigation nor been shown to tiavc cngaged in conduct that would make the 
rcqucstcd personal information either relevant to any chim or defense or reasonably likely to lead 
to discovery of admissible evidcncc. Sevcral parts of the Requests are unbounded as to time and 
would require Defendants to search for potentially responsive documents possibly dating back 
more than one hundred years. Thus, the Requests are patently "unreasonable" within the 
meaning of Rule 26 and "unduly burderisorrie and expensive" on their face, and Plaintiffs' 
counsel should have been aware of the uiu-easonable and burrtensome character of thc Requests 
prior to serving thcni. 
-2- Ihese Requests (a) seek information to annoy and harass Defendants andor their 
eniployee(s); (b) are neither relcvant to any subjcct matter properly within this case nor 
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidcrice, and (c) seek to impose an 
undue burden and expense upon Defendants to conduct discovery that is not presently permitted, 
as notcd abovc. On information and belief, Plaintiffs courisel were or should have been aware 
that discovery is not pennitted at tliis time, and that the Requests are obviously over broad, 
would impose undue burden on Defendants arid seek documents for thc ultcrior purposes of 
enibarrassment, oppression andor harassment. 
2. Defendants object to the Requests to the cxtcnt they seek, or could be construed as 
seeking, information or documents protected by the attorneyclient privilege, work product 
privilege, deliberative process privilege, thc right to privacy under applicable law, any joint 
dcfcnsc, common interest or party cornniunications pnviIcge. investigative privilege, or any other 
applicable privilege, doctrine or right that would make the in formation or documents immune 
from discovei-y. Any inadvertent production of infomiation protected by any of thcsc privileges, 
doctrines, or rights sliail not be deemed a waiver of thc protections that those privileges, 
doctrines, or rights afford. 
Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek duplicate discovery of 3. 
any documents already produced or made available by any Lkfcndant in response to a prcvious 
discovery request or as part of a court subniission with which Plaintiffs wcre served (including 
submissions to the Courts appointed judicial officers). 
Defeiidarits ob-ject lo the Requests to thc extent that they seek production of 4. 
documents that are not within a Defendants possession or control. Without limiting lhe scope of 
-3- this objection, some Requests appear to seek production of documents that, if they exist, may be 
in lhe possessioii of Executive Departments beyond the control of Defendants; still others may be 
permanently maintained by the. National Archivcs and Records Administration, but such 
documents are public records and not within the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. 
Finally, some of the Requests seek docunients that are personal records of Mr, Baker (e.g., bank 
statements, credit card statemertts, pcrsoiial correspondence) over which Defendants have no 
control. 
Defendants object to thc Kcquests to the extent thcy scck irifor~riation thai is 
Defendants object to each of the Requests to the extent that they seek information 
Defendants object to Rcquests that seek production of all docurrients that 
5 . 
beyond the scope of this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 
admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. 
6. 
covered by thc Privacy Act, but not within the scope ofthe Order entered November 27, 1996, or 
the scope of any other applicable statute or order. In addition, Defendants object to thc Requests 
to the cxtcnt that they seek documents containirig corifidential business information belonging to 
third parties, tribes, contractors or the regulated comniunity or information that, if publicly 
released, could compromise Defendants regulatory or enforcement activi ties. 
7. 
directly or indirectly relate to, refer to, or embody a particular identified topic on the grounds 
that such requests are over broad, vague, and impose an iinduc burden and/or expensc. 
Defendants object to the Rcquests as oppressivc and unduly burdensornc to the 8. 
extent that they seek to impose, individually or collectively, an obligation on any Defendant to 
scarch for documents ~ithoiit any limitation as to date or age. 
-4- 9. Defendants object to the Kequesk to the extcnt that thcy scek any electronic data, 
including e-rnail records, that are stored on system back-up tapes; such back-up tapes are uscd for 
restoration of information in case. of system failure and are riot designed nor used to archive or 
retrieve selected information. 
Defendants further object to these Requests to the ex tent they seek to require any 
order. 
10. 
Defendant to contact and/or discuss issues in this litigation with class members contrary to Court 
1 I . Defendants also assert their ongoing objection to all discovery by Plaintiffs 
gcncrally, bascd upon the fact that the O,Z!~J relief sought in this case is under the Administrative 
Procedure Act. 
IS. Finally, Defendants object to all o f these Requests to the extent that Plaiiitiffs seek 
to impose on any Defendant the fir11 cost of retrieving, producing and/or duplicating responsivc 
documents. Defendants, as a prerequisite to producing or making available for inspection and 
copying responsive documents, niay require Plaintiffs to advance their reasonablc and fair share of 
the cost of that undertaking, in an amount and manner agreeable to both sides. 
Reauest 1 
RESPONSES TO THE HEOUEST FOR DOCUMENTS 
Without waiving the foregoing objections and subject lo them, Defendants rcspond to each 
individual request as follows: 
All documents, including without limitation memoranda, handwritten notes and marginah, 
calendars, diaries, appoiiitnicnt books, schedulers, planners, Day-Timers, time records, voice mail, 
cniail, and the like, all hard copy documents, and electronic documents housed in, or created on, 
computcrs OT personal digital assistants, whcther thc computers are owned or leased by the 
-5- government, its agents, ernployccs, Mr. Bakcr or any other individual or other entity, and any 
draffs thereof, which directly or indirectly refate to, rcfcr to, or embody material regarding the 
appraisal of individual lridian allotted and tribal land. 
Ob-icctions: Dcfcndants incorporatc by rcfcrcnce their General Objections above and firther 
object to this request on the grounds that the description of docunicnts requested, and in particular 
the phrase directly or indirectly relate to, refer to, or embody is over broad, vague and 
ambiguous. Defendants also object on the basis that the request seeks discovery concerning the 
appraisal of both allotted and tribal lands which is vague and ovcr broad; the request does not 
define appraisal or identify any particular appraisal topic, nor does it limit the requcst to a 
spccific pcriod of timc. Finally, as noted above, the subject matter of thc request is not relevant to 
any claim or dcfcnsc in this case nor is it rcasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible 
evidence. The Request may also improperly seek discovery of privileged documents or material 
protected by the Privacy Act or other confidentiality statutc. as noled above. 
Any documents including legal opinions, memoranda, instructions or other material rclicd upon 
by Mr. Baker or any individuals under his supervision tiow or in the past which address or relate 
in any way to the appraisal of individual Indian trust lands or tribal trust lands, including but not 
limited to governing policies or standards for any such appraisal activities. 
Obiections: Defendants incorporate by reference their General Objections above and further 
object lo this request on the grounds that the description of documents requested, and in particular 
the phrase directly or indirectly relate to, refer to, or embody is over broad, vague and 
anibiguous. Defendants also object on thc basis that the request seeks discovery concerning the 
appraisal of both allotted and tribal lands which is vague and over broad; the request does not 
define appraisal or identify any particular appraisal topic, nor does it limit the request to a 
-6- specific period of time. Finally, as noted above, the subject matter of the request i s not relevant to 
any claim or defense in this case nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible 
evidence. The Request also appears improperly to seek discovery of privileged documents or 
material protected by the Privacy Act or other confidentiality statute, as noted above. 
Request 3 
All documents, including without limitation memoranda, handwritten notes and marginatia, 
calendars, diaries, appointment books, schcdulers, planners, Day-Timers, time records, voice mail, 
email, and the like, all hard copy documents, and electronic documents housed in, or created on, 
computers or persorial digital assistants, whether the computers arc owned or leased by the 
government, its agents, employees, Mr. Baker or any other individual or other entity, and any 
drafts thereof, which embody, refer to or relate to any conununication between Mr. Baker and any 
third-party lcssee or contractor - including, but not liniitcd to any agcnt, rcprcscntativc or any 
other direct or indirect intermediary of such third-party lessee or contractor - of individual Indian 
trust assets. 
Obiections: Defendants incorporate by reference their General Objections above and further 
object to this request on the grounds that the description of documents requested, and in particular 
the phrase directly or indirectly relate to, refer to, or embody is over broad, vague and 
ambiguous. Defendants also object on the basis that the request seeks discovery of any 
communications conccming individual lndian tnist asscts which is not dcfincd and so is vague, 
ambiguous and over broad. It is also over broad and objectionable to the extent it does not limit 
the request to a specific period of time. Finally, as noted above, the subject matter of the request 
is not relevant to any claim or defense in this case nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to 
discovery of admissible evidence. The Request may also seek discovery of privileged documents 
or material protected by the Privacy Act or other confidentiality statute, as noted above. 
-7- Rcqucst 4 
A resume or citrrirulum vitm, licences, and professional certifications of Mr. Baker. 
Obiections: Defendants incorporale by reference their General Objections above and further 
object to this request on the grounds that the iiiateriaIs sought contain matter subject to thc Privacy 
Act and that Mr. Bakers appraisal work i s not relevant to this case and is not within the scope of 
discovery of this case pursuant to Fcderal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The request is also 
unlimited as to time and type ofrecord and is, therefore, over broad. 
All documents, whcthcr in hard copy or electronic format - including all rncmoranda, voice mail, 
email, handwritten notes and niarginalia - that relate to, refer to, or embody, directly or indirectly, 
gerierally or specifically, and infornial or foniial, disciplinary or persomiel action, threatened 
disciplinary or personnel action, investigations, examinations, assessments or adverse or critical 
perforniance reviews (Professiona I Evaluations) concerning Mr. Baker or any employee under 
his supervision. 
Obiections: Defendants incorporate by reference their General Objections above and further 
object to this request on thc grounds that the materials sought contain matter subject to the Privacy 
Act and that Mr. Bakers job performance and personnel records, as well as those of any 
employee under his supervision, arc not relevant to this case and are not within the scopc of 
discovery of this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Thc rcqucst is also 
unlirtiitcd as to time and lype of record and is, therefore, over broad. 
Request 6: 
All federal and state tax returns for Mr. Raker since calendar year 1983, including but not limited 
to, all supporting documentation for such returns. 
Obiections: Defendants incorporate by reference thcir General Objections above and further 
object to this request 011 the grounds that the materials sought contain matter subject to the Privacy 
Act, as well as other confidentiality statutes, and that Mr. Bakers tax returns are not relevant to 
this case or within the scope of discovery of this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
- 8- Request 7: 
All communications by and between the Tntemal Revenue Service and Mr. Raker since catcndar 
year 1983. 
Objections: Defendants incorporate by reference their General Objections above and further 
object to this request on the grounds that the materials sought contain matter subject to the Privacy 
Act, as well as other confidentiality statutes, and that Mr. Bakers communications with the IRS 
are not relevant to this case and are riot within the scope of discovery of this case pursuant to 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The request is also unlimited as to the subject of the 
communication and is, therefore, over broad. 
Rcaucst 8: 
All bank statements, bank books, credit card statements, personal financial statements, checking 
account statements, savings account statements, mutual fund statements and all other statements 
which embody, reflect, or relate to assets or investments made or held by Mr. Baker, iticluding 
those assets hcld or invcstcd on behalf of Mr. Baker in the possession of agents, representatives or 
any other third party since 1983. 
Objections: Dcfcndants incorporate by reference their General Objections above and further 
object to this request on the grounds that the matcnals sought contain matter subjcct to thc Privacy 
Act and that Mr. Bakers personal finances are not relevant to this case and are not within the 
scope of discovery of this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Furthermore, 
Dcfcndants do not collect such personal financial records of employees in the ordinary conduct of 
their business and so it would be unreasonable and irnduly biirdensome to require Defendants to 
search for such docunients September 23,2003 Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KETSLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHFFEK 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
*%&&..(T&&- $& 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
D.C. Bar No. 26 I495 
STEMPLEWIC'Z 
Deputy Director 
JOHN 'l'. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
MICHAEL J. Q U I " 
D.C. Bar. No. 401376 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. BOX 875 
Bcn Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 5 14-7 194 
-10- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I declare under penaity of pejury that, on September 23,2003 1 served the foregoing 
Defenrliinis ' Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition arid Request for Production of 
Docurncnis, Duled Augiw'i 21, 2003 by facsimile in accordance with their writtcn request of 
October 3 1,2001 upon: 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native hmerican Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2376 
(202) 822-0068 
Pcr the Court's Order of April 17,2003, 
by facsimilc and by U.S. Mail upon: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Black feet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 594 17 
(406) 338-7530 
Dermis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kcstcr Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 318-2372 
By U.S. Mail upon: 
Elliott Levitas, Esq 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 r 
~ * h * * X + * * * ~ O X * * * X X Y X r $ Y * * X O * X * 
09/23/2003 18: 14 FAX 2023050097 
1252 
12 
TX/RX NO 
PGS . 
__--- 
[ 561914063387530 
TX/RX INCOMPLETE 
TRANSACTION OK 
ERROR INFORMATION 
[ 5 8 193182372 
[ 59198220068 
~~ 
FROM: Depaitment o f Justice 
Civil Division 
Fax No. (202) 353-3565 
Voice No. (202) G 16-9668 
SENT BY: Kevin Kingstoil 
Law Clerk 
Labat-Anrlersnn, hc. 
DATE: 
COBELL-MAIN 
*** MULTI TX/RX REPORT *I;* 
- 
X * * * * * 8 ~ * * * * * Y * X % S t S * ~ ~ ~ * ~ * * * * 
(406) 338-7530 
--I-- 
September 23,2003 
Mark K. Brown 
Dennis M. Gingold Earl Old Person TO: 
FAX NO. (202) 822-0068 (202) 318-2372 
Keith Harper 
NUMBER OF PAGES SENT (INC1,UDING COVER PAGE): 12 
Defendants Response to Plcrintlffs Notice of Depositiort trod 
Request for Production of Documents, Dated August ZI, 2003 
IMPORTANT This facsimi1e.k hitended only for the use of the hdividual or entity to whiizit i s addressed. It nay 
contain infomiation that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure ulrder applicable law. If 
thc rcader of this: ~ansn~Jssion i s not the intended recipient or rlle employee cc agent rcspunslble for deliveling the 
___^____-_I. 
g 001 
OLD PERSON 
CINCO1.I) 
1LARlli:K 
_.- ELOUTSE PEPION COBELL et.al., 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et.al., 
1. 
2. 
3. 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
) 
) CaseNo. 1: 96CV01285 Plaintiffs, 
V. (Judge Lamberth) ) 
) 
) Defend ants 
DECLARATION OF GABRIEL SNEEZY 
I, Gabriel Sneezy, am the Acting Director of the Office of Appraisal Services of the Office 
of the Special Trustee (OST), United States Department of the Interior. As the Acting 
Director, I am responsible for the management of the Office of Appraisal Services. I have 
held this position since August 10, 2003. My previous employment was with the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BLA) for 11 years. The last position which I held in the BTA was as 
Chief Appraiser where I was responsible for providing technical advice to the Director of 
the Office of Trust Responsibilities. 
I have reviewed the Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents filed 
by the Plaintiffs on August 21,2003. I was generally familiar with appraisal processes 
and filing practices within the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the time I was employed in that 
bureau. In approximately March of 2002, appraisals for Indian lands were placed under 
the management of the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. Appraisal 
processes and filing practices did not change significantly. However, in order to make a 
rough estimate of the level of effort that would be necessary for a search of the documents 
potentially responsive to this Request from the Plaintiffs, it was necessary for me to rely 
upon information gathered from a number of individuals. 
The Office of the Special Trustee is presently responsible for performing and/or reviewing 
appraisals of lands allotted to individual Indians and tribal lands. The appraisals vary 
greatly in complexity, depending on the proposed use of the land, and range from those 
EXHIBIT 2 
Defs Oppo. to Pltfs Motion to 
Compel Anson Baker Depo Rr RFP performed on parcels owned by one or two individuals, to those performed on tracts in 
which several hundred beneficiaries have an interest. Accordingly, the paper and 
electronic files created during the performance and/or review of appraisals can vary from 
several pages of paper and little or no electronic data, to voluminous files of paper and 
many floppy disks and compact disks of digital photographs, charts, and graphs. 
4. The first item of the Plaintiffs Request for Production appears to request all documents in 
the Department of the Interior which relate to appraisals of Indian lands. Following is a 
broad assessment of the effort that would be necessary to search for documents that would 
be potentially responsive to the first item. This statement is based on information 
compiled by others in the Office of Appraisal Services in response to inquiries from the 
Office of the Solicitor. 
a. 
b. 
c. 
Appraisal files in 12 offices of OST Regional Appraisers would need to be 
searched, as well as appraisal files in the Office of Appraisal Services of the Office 
of the Special Trustee in Albuquerque, New Mexico. According to information 
compiled by appraisal staff, the estimated number of cubic feet of paper appraisal 
documents which are located in these 13 locations is approximately 1,500 cubic 
feet. 
Appraisal reports and other appraisal-related documents are sent to BIA agency 
offices, where they are generally not segregated as such, but rather kept in a variety 
of types of files pertaining to the project for which an appraisal was needed or 
considered: leases, rights of way, permits, etc. Additional appraisal-related 
documents may be created in these agency offices which would not be found in the 
OST Regional Offices. There are approximately 82 BIA agency offices in which 
appraisal documents are likely to be found scattered throughout various categories 
of files. Because appraisals and appraisal-related documents are not filed as a 
distinct category of documents in a single location within the office but rather 
scattered throughout other types of files, I cannot estimate with any degree of 
accuracy the volume of responsive documents that may be located in the agency 
offices. The effort that would be required by agency employees to perform a 
search for such documents, would entail searching all lease, right of way, permit, 
and other types of files that may contain appraisal-related documents; and such an 
effort would likely require thousands of employee-hours. 
The foregoing statements in paragraphs a and bare made in general with regard 
to documents and files currently in the possession of the Office of the Special 
Trustee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Older files, some of which are likely to 
include appraisal reports and related documents, have been sent to various Federal 
Records Centers. Again, because appraisals and appraisal-related documents are 
often not segregated from other types of documents, but rather were maintained in 
2 d. 
e. 
Documents potentially responsive to the second item in Plaintiffs Request for Production 
might be found in all or in some subset of the locations described in the foregoing 
description of the level of effort necessary to respond to the first item in Plaintiffs 
Request for Production. That is, guidance, instructions, policies, and standards, etc. may 
exist in any office where personnel is or was involved in appraisals on Indian lands, but 
would not necessarily be located in every such office. Specific documents actually relied 
upon by Mr. Baker or individuals under his supervision are likely to exist in offices of the 
two Regions where Mr. Baker has been employed, the Navajo Region and the Northwest 
Region, but also may exist in other Regions where Mr. Baker was assigned to special 
projects. I would be unable to attest to actual reliance by any individual upon any specific 
document. 
Documents potentially responsive to the third item in Plaintiffs Request for Production 
might be found in any or all of the locations described in paragraph 5 above. In 
addition, electronic email messages of Anson Baker in all locations where he has worked 
in the Department, would need to be examined. 
5. 
6. 
The foregoing information is not intended to constitute an exhaustive description of all 
locations within the Department of the Interior where a search for documents potentially 
responsive to the Plaintiffs Request would be necessary, if production of such records were 
required, but rather to demonstrate the degree of effort that such a search would require. Actual 
a variety of types of files, I cannot estimate what volume of potentially responsive 
documents might be recoverable from Federal Records Centers, or that have been 
recovered by the Department and are now being indexed by the Office of Trust 
Records. 
Approximately 37 tribes or tribal organizations have current contracts with the 
Department of the Interior pursuant to 25 U. S.C. 4501(c)(7)(B) which authorize 
them to conduct appraisals of allotted or tribal lands. Appraisal reports and related 
documents potentially responsive to the Plaintiffs Request may be found in the 
files of those tribes or tribal organizations which have undertaken this function. I 
cannot at this time estimate with any degree of accuracy the volume of potentially 
responsive documents in the possession of such tribes. However, it is clear that in 
order to produce whatever volume of responsive documents exist in the files of 
such tribes, a search would have to be undertaken in each such tribal location. 
In addition, private contractors performing appraisals both for tribes and for 
Departmental bureaus, may have responsive documents. 
3 production of the documents would of course require extensive copying and other tasks, with 
related expenses. 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my 
knowledge. 
Gabriel Sneezy 
Acting Director of the Office of Appraisal Services 
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians 
United States Department of the Interior 
Dated: October 16, 2003 
4 ELOUISE PEPION COBELL et.al., 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et.al., 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
1 
Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 1: 96CV01285 
V. (Judge Lamberth) 1 
) 
1 Defendants 
a. 
b. 
c. 
DECLARATION OF JANET GOODWIN 
I, Janet Goodwin, am a Senior Attorney in the Office of the Solicitor, Division of Indian 
Affairs, United States Department of the Interior. I have held this position for 
approximately 16 months. I have been employed by the Office of the Solicitor in various 
other positions for the past 22 years. 
I reviewed the Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents filed by the 
Plaintiffs on August 21,2003. I determined that the Office of the Solicitor might 
reasonably possess documents potentially responsive to the first, second, third, and fifth 
requests of thc Plaintiffs, and solicited the following information from Headquarters, 
Regional, and Field Offices: 
Whether the office has documents potentially responsive to the four requests 
enumerated above; 
An estimate of the volume of such documents in each office; and 
An estimate of the level of effort that would be required to searcldproduce the 
documents. 
I received replies for 19 offices, including all of the Regional and Field Offices. 
The following statements are a summary of the responses which I received: nine of the 
offices do possess potentially responsive documents, and three more may possess 
potentially responsive documents. The estimates of volume ranged from a few documents 
in some offices to others with great volumes. For example, one office listed 72 cabinet 
file drawers, 87 storage boxes, and 176 boxes in the Federal Records Center which would 
need to be searched for responsive documents. The estimated employee hours which 
EXHIBIT 3 
Dcfs Oppo to Pltfs Motion to 
Compel Anson Raker Depo & RFP would be needed to conduct a search in the Office of the Solicitor came to a total of 
approximately 1,700 hours. 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my 
knowledge. 
ffice of the Solicitor 
United States Department of the Interior 
2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL et.al., 
Plaintiffs, 
V. (Judge Lamberth) 
) 
) Case No. 1: 96CV01285 
1 
) GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et.al., 
) Defendants 
1. 
2. 
3. 
a. 
b. 
c. 
DECLARATION OF THOMAS P. LONNIE 
I, Thomas P. Lonnie, am the Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty and Resource 
Protection in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Department of the 
Interior. I have been in this position for approximately three months. My responsibilities 
include oversight of BLMs trust programs. My previous position was Deputy State 
Director of the Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management. I have been 
employed by the BLM for 20 years. 
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for providing information upon request 
related to mineral evaluations for leasing, land sales, and land exchanges, for use by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee. 
I reviewed the Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents filed by the 
Plaintiffs on August 21,2003, and determined that some offices of the Bureau of Land 
Management might reasonably possess documents potentially responsive to the first and 
second requests of the Plaintiffs. The following information was solicited from those 
offices by BLM staff and by the Office of the Solicitor: 
Whether the office has documents potentially responsive to the four requests 
enumerated above; 
An estimate of the volume of such documents in each office; and 
An estimate of the level of effort that would be required to searchlproduce the 
documents. 
4. The following statements are based on the responses provided to BLM staff and to the 
Office of the Solicitor, and concern paper records only: six offices possess potentially 
responsive documents. The estimates of volume ranged from a few files in some offices to 
others with significant volumes. For example, one office estimated that it had 10,000 
pages and another estimated a full four-drawer filing cabinet; both estimated that over a 
EXHIBIT 4 
Defs Oppo to Pltfs Motion to 
Compcl Anson Baker Depo & RFP week of employee time would be required to search and copy responsive documents. The 
estimated employee time which would be needed to conduct a search for potentially 
responsive paper documents in the Bureau of Land Management totaled approximately 
three weeks. Electronic records would have to be searched in all locations where paper 
records are located. 
In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has contracted with private contractors for 
appraisal services. I am unable to provide estimates of the volumes of potentially 
responsive documents that might be found in the offices of private contractors, but an 
exhaustive search would necessarily include the same. 
16 1/7-03 
5 . 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my 
knowledge. 
Date 
@- Thomas Lonnie 
Assistant Director, Mineral Realty and 
Resource Protection 
Bureau of Land Management 
United States Department of the Interior 
2 CERTFICATE OF SERVICE 
I declare under penalty of perjury that, on October 17,2003 I served the foregoing 
Interior Defendunts  Opposition to Plaint8s Motion to Compel Anson Bakers Deposition arid 
the Production ofDocuments Related Thereto by facsimile in accordance with their written 
request of October 3 1, 200 1 upon: 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, 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 
171 7 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., 13th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
Per the Courts 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 594 17 
(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 
PDF Copy by E-Mail Upon: 
Rod Lewis, Esq. 
Davis, Wright & Tremaine, LLP 
1300 SW Fifth Avenue, SW Ste. 2300 
Portland, OR 9720 1-5630 
E-Mail: rodlewis@dwt.com - 
Counsel for Atzson Baker