IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, al., a 
Plaintiffs, 
V. ) 
) 
) 
) 
Case No. 1:96CV01285 (RCL) 
(Special Master Alan L. Balaran) GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, 
- et 4 7 a1 
Defendants. 
) 
1 
1 
) 
1 
1 
INTERIOR DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR 
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 
AND 
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL 
MICHAEL CARR'S DEPOSITION AND THE PRODUCTION 
OF DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO 
Plaintiffs' opposition and cross-motion to compel ("Opposition") are so clearly without 
merit that Interior Defendants will respond only briefly so as not to belabor the arguments 
already set out in their Motion for Protective Order and to Quash and in their responses to 
plaintiffs' "bills of particulars" regarding Mr. Carr and the other Named Individuals.' 
'In order to avoid unnecessary repetition of arguments already in the extensive record in 
this case, the govcrnnieiit incorporates herein by reference the follorvirig pleadings: 
hfenzoriindiini oj*Poitits otitl iliitfioritics it1 Opposition t o Plirintiffs' Bills of Porticiilars it1 
Snipport of'klotion for Order to Stioiv Crrzise Wiy Ititcnor L)ej&clunts atzcf Their- Employees unrl 
Counsel Sfiould Not Bt. Held in Conteniptjor Viokitirig Court Orders undjbr Deji-iiuciriig Tjiis 
Court in Connection with Triiil One (Filed Octobcr 19, 2001) (filed June 2, 2003) (the 
"Government's June 2, 2003 Opposition"); United Stutes' KcpJv lo Pluititifls' Opposition to Bills 
of PLirticidm-s Rcliitiiig to Plairitlffs ' Octohcr 19, 3001 Motion for Order to S h i v Ciiuse (filed 
A u ~ . 18, 2003). 1. The Proceedings Regarding the October 19,2001 Show Cause Motion 
Unquestionably Involve Potential Criminal Ramifications for the Named Individuals. 
Plaintiffs have consistently sought criminal sanctions against Michael Carr and the other non- 
party individuals named in their October 19, 2001 show cause motion. Plaintiffs' Opposition 
provides no indication that plaintiffs have abandoned their pursuit of such criminal sanctions. 
To the contrary, plaintiffs appear to admit that they intend to use the civil discovery rules as a 
stalking horse to build a criminal case against the Named Individuals. Such manipulation of the 
civil rules is, of course, absolutely improper and justifies the imposition of a protective order. 
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) ("[Tlhe court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may 
make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, 
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. . . ."). There can be no serious question 
that plaintiffs' attempt to deprive Mr. Carr of his constitutional due process rights is, at a 
minimum, oppressive.' 
While the government recognizes that plaintiffs' petition for rehearing is currently before 
the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals' decision still stands. That decision is itself based 
upon and supported by other governing precedent that makes clear that the particular allegations 
made against Mr. Cam and the other Named Individuals cannot be characterized as civil in nature 
21ndeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that it is often appropriate for a district court 
to impose a protective order "to prevent parties from using civil discovery to evade restrictions 
on discovery in criminal cases.'' Degen v. United States, 5 17 U.S. 820, 826 (1996) (citing cases); 
see also United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1,8-9 (1970) (presuming that appropriate remedy in a 
civil case where no corporate officer could respond to interrogatories without being subject to a 
"'real and appreciable' risk of self-incrimination" would be a protective order "postponing civil 
discovery until termination of the criminal action.") (internal citations omitted). Thus, there is 
ample authority supporting the imposition of a protective order to prevent civil discovery from 
going forward where there are unresolved criminal allegations arising from the same matters. 
-2- because plaintiffs have identified no action these individuals could take to purge the allegedly 
contumacious conduct, nor any damages they have allegedly suffered because of the claimed 
actions of any of these individuals. See International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. 
Bagwell, 5 12 U.S. 821, 829 (1994) ("Where a fine is not compensatory, it is civil only if the 
contemnor is afforded an opportunity to purge."); National Org. for Wurnen v. Operation Rescue, 
37 F.3d 646,658-62 @.C. Cir. 1994); Evans v. Williams, 206 F.3d 1292, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2000); 
see also Government's June 2,2003 Opposition at 7- 10 (discussing essential elements of civil 
contempt proceeding). Mr. Carr no longer works for the federal government, so he has no ability 
to purge any civil contempt the court might order.3 Accordingly, there is no place for civil 
discovery in the proceedings associated with the plaintiffs' October 19,200 1 motion. 
2. Plaintiffs Cannot Serve as Roving "Inspectors General." Plaintiffs invite the 
Court to disregard the Supreme Court's holding in Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, 
S.A., 481 U.S. 787,814 (1987), and its own recent ruling in LandmarkLegal Foundation v. EPA, 
2003 WL 21715678 at "4 (D.D.C. July 25,2003), and to permit them to conduct criminal 
investigations of federal employees and attorneys. See Opposition at 2. The Court should 
decline the invitation. Plaintiffs' additionally note the Court's "truth-seeking" function. 
Opposition at 3. Plaintiffs, however, pay no heed to the clear limitations on the federal judicial 
power, as recently clarified by the Court of Appeals. In the portion of the July 18,2003 decision 
that plaintiffs have not challenged, the Court of Appeals held that a "'roving federal district 
court"' has no role in our constitutional system. Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1141-43 (D.C. 
31ndeed, as we pointed out in the Government's June 2,2003 Opposition at 12-13 & n.5, 
plaintiffs' counsel has conceded on the record that former government officials and employees 
cannot be liable for civil contempt. 
-3- Cir. 2003), quoting with approval Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 11 15, 1162 (5th Cir.), amended in 
part, reh'g denied in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, district 
courts are not empowered to appoint agents to function in "an investigative, quasi-inquisitorial, 
quasi-prosecutorial role that is unknown to our adversarial legal system." Cobell, 334 F.3d at 
1142. Significantly, the plaintiffs have identified no order of this Court that has provided them 
with the authority they claim to conduct fiee-ranging investigations of alleged misconduct of 
their adversaries in this litigation, and we are aware of none. Indeed, the Court's decision in 
Landmark Legal Foundation, supra, directly contradicts plaintiffs' claimed authority. 
3. The Court's September 17,2002 Order Did Not Award Civil Discovery as a 
"Sanction" and Was Far More Limited Than Plaintiffs Contend. Remarkably, plaintiffs 
contend that the Court ordered discovery as a "sanction" for the contempt it had found. 
Opposition at 2 , 6 . There is no indication in the September 17,2002 order that the Court took 
any such action, nor do plaintiffs cite any authority that would permit a court to allow discovery 
not otherwise permitted by Rule 26(b) as a "punishment." In setting forth the scope of civil 
discovery, Rule 26(b)( 1) authorizes parties to obtain discovery "that is relevant to the claim or 
defense of any party. . .'I and further permits courts, "[flor good cause", to ''order discovery of any 
matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Discovery may be further limited by 
the court, but there is no provision in the rules for expanding the scope of discovery beyond that 
set forth in Rule 26(b). 
In any event, the Court of Appeals specifically vacated the findings of contempt and the 
sanctions imposed by the Court pursuant to those findings. Accordingly, even if the discovery 
permitted by the September 17,2002 order could conceivably have been meant as a 'kanction" 
-4- for the finding of contempt, plaintiffs cannot rely upon a vacated sanction as a basis for their 
claimed right to employ civil discovery to investigate their sundry suspicions? 
At this time, no proceeding before the Court requires any discovery. Trial 1.5 has been 
concluded and the Court has ruled upon the issues raised there. There is no indication in the 
September 17,2002 ruling that the Court intended to permit plaintiffs to conduct fishing 
expeditions into matters unrelated to the issues before the Court in Trial 1.5, much less that the 
Court intended to permit discovery to continue even after the conclusion of Trial 1.5 and the 
issuance of the Court's opinion. Indeed, nothing in the injunction issued by the Court on 
September 25,2003, provides for further discovery. The lack of any proceeding towards which 
discovery may be directed and the lack of any pre-discovery scheduling conference is an 
additional ground for granting Interior Defendants' motion. 
4. Rule 53 Grants a Special Master the Authority to Set Schedules and to 
Conduct Proceedings Efficiently. In referring the October 19,2001 motion to the Special 
Master, the Court plainly intended the Special Master to have the usual powers granted by Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 53(c). Specifically, Rule 53(c) provides: "Subject to the specifications and limitations 
stated in the order [of reference], the master has and shall exercise the power to regulate all 
proceedings in every hearing before the master and to do all acts and take all measures necessary 
or proper for the efficient performance of the master's duties under the order." Nothing in the 
September 17,2002 order of reference purports to limit this power. 
4Moreover, plaintiffs cannot use a "sanction" supposedly imposed upon the Interior 
Defendants in their official capacities as a basis for taking discovery of a non-party like Mr. 
Carr and the other Named Individuals, who had no right or opportunity to participate in the 
proceedings that concluded with the Court's September 1 7,2002 decision. 
-5- The government has objected to the referral of the contempt proceedings to the Special 
Master on the grounds that the Special Master should play no role in a proceeding that involves 
potential criminal consequences for the Named Individuals and has moved to recuse the Special 
Master on other grounds. However, the government does not contest the power afforded a 
special master under Rule 53(c) where a matter has properly been referred to a special master. 
Plaintiffs have never challenged the order of reference and do not seem to be challenging it now. 
Instead, plaintiffs appear to challenge the scope of a special masterk authority under Rule 53(c) 
to set schedules and protocols. Specifically, plaintiffs complain about the deadlines set by the 
Special Master for filing their "bills of particulars" and his determination that no discovery would 
take place before the issuance of his reports and recommendations on the legal sufficiency of the 
"bills of particulars." However, these sorts of determinations are precisely the type of actions 
contemplated by Rule 53(c). While plaintiffs may belatedly wish to raise an objection regarding 
the schedule and procedures established by the Special Master more than 10 months ago, they 
clearly are not permitted to issue discovery requests or engage in other "self-help" without a 
ruling by the Court that the Special Master has somehow exceeded or abused his Rule 53(c) 
authority. Thus, plaintiffs should have timely asked the Court to clarify or modifL the Special 
Masterk November 4,2002 Revised Procedures and Schedule for Investigation Into Plaintifs' 
Motion for Orders to Show Cause ("Revised Procedures Memorandum") and not simply ignored 
it. Their discovery and their motion to compel are, accordingly, improper. 
Even if the plaintiffs' motion to compel is viewed as a challenge to the Special Master's 
Revised Procedures Memorandum, it should still be rejected. As noted in the Government's June 
2,2003 Opposition at 4-5, plaintiffs were directed by the Court on March 15,2002 to file 
individualized specifications of their charges, and the Special Master simply adopted and 
-6- reiterated that directive in his Revised Procedures Memorandum. Plaintiffs complain that the 
Special Master's schedule did not permit them adequate time to file bills of particulars regarding 
the October 19,2001 motion, but in fact plaintiffs had more than a year and a half to formulate 
specific charges against the Named Individuals. If plaintiffs did not have enough evidence to 
support their extremely serious allegations against the Named Individuals, they should never 
have filed the October 19,2001 motion in the first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 l(b). In short, 
there was nothing unreasonable about the schedule that the Special Master set for plaintiffs to file 
their bills of particulars. 
Likewise, it was entirely proper for the Special Master to defer the commencement of any 
civil discovery until he and the Court had first reviewed the plaintiffs' allegations for legal 
sufficiency and for a determination of the precise character of the proceeding. The government 
and the Named Individuals have consistently argued that the presence of allegations of criminal 
misconduct precludes the employment of civil discovery procedures. Thus, the Special Master 
established a protocol that would address concerns of efficiency and economy as well as 
concerns regarding the protection of the constitutional due process rights of the Named 
Individuals whom plaintiffs have accused of criminal misconduct. Plaintiffs articulate no reason 
to revisit the Special Master's schedule or procedures, and none exists. Rather, as urged by the 
government and the Named Individuals in their personal capacities, the proceedings before the 
Special Master should be terminated because of the criminal nature of the plaintiffs' allegations 
and because plaintiffs have failed to supply a legal basis for their charges. 
-7- denied. 
For all the reasons stated above and in Interior Defendants' opening brief, the motion for 
protective order and to quash should be granted, and plaintiffs' motion to compel should be 
Conclusion 
Respecthlly submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
MICHAEL F. HERTZ 
Senior Trial Munsel ' 
D.C. Bar No. 425194 
Tracy L, Hilmer 
D.C. Bar No. 421219 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 261 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044 
(202) 307-0474 
DATED: October 3,2003 
-8- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
~ ~ 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., 
) 
1 
) Civil Action No. 96-CV-1285 (RCL) Plaintiffs, 
V. 
GALE A. NORTON, et al., 
) 
) 
) 
1 
Defendants . 
day of ,2003, hereby 
ORDER 
Upon consideration of PZaint@s' Motion to Compel Michael Carr's Deposition and the 
Production ofDocuments Related Thereto (filed Sept. 24,2003), Interior Defendants' opposition 
thereto and the entire record in this case, it is this 
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion be, and hereby is, DENIED. 
HON. ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge CC: 
Tracy Hilmer 
Dodge Wells 
Sandra Spooner 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Fax (202) 5 14-9 163 
(202) 616-3085 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
17 17 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 
12th Floor 
Washington, DC 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
(202) 822-0068 
Counsel for Plaintiffs 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
607 14th Street, N.W. 
Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 3 18-2372 
Counsel for Pluintgs 
Elliott Levitas, Esq. 
1 100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Counsel for Pluintifs 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 5941 7 
(406) 338-7530 
Mary Lou Soller, Esq. 
Adam Feinberg, Esq. 
Miller & Chevalier 
655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
By First Class Mail 
Counsel for Chester Mills and Terence 
Virden 
Earl J. Silbert, Esq. 
Robert A. Salerno, Esq. 
Adam Hoffinger, Esq. 
Piper Rudnick LLP 
1200 19th Street, N.W., 7th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
Counsel for John Cruden, Jack Huugrud 
and Sarah Himmelhoch 
David S. Krakoff, Esq. 
Alessio D. Evangelista 
Jamie Abrams 
Christine Stroop 
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. 
1350 I Street, N.W. Suite 700 
Washington, D.C. 20005-33 11 
Counsel for Daryl m i t e 
Amy Berman Jackson, Esq. 
Trout & Richards 
1 100 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. 
Suite 730 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
Counsel for Edith Blackwell 
William H. Briggs, Jr., Esq. 
Marc E. Rindner, Esq. 
Ross, Dixon & Bell 
2001 K Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20006-1 040 
Counsel for Phillip Brooks 
Michael Bromwich, Esq. 
Anne Perry, Esq. 
Fried Frank Hams Shiver & Jacobson 
100 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W .Suite 800 
Washington, D.C. 20004-2505 
- 2 - B. Michael Rauh, Esq. 
Julie Campbell, Esq. 
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 
150 1 M Street, N. W. Suite 700 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Counsel for Neal McCaleb 
Barry Boss, Esq. 
Asbill, Junkin, Moffitt & Boss 
1615 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Suite 200 
Washington, D.C. 20009 
William Gardner, Esq. 
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
1 1 1 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
Counsel for Willa Perlmutter 
Barbara Van Gelder, Esq. 
Eric Lyttle, Esq. 
Wiley, Rein & Fielding LLP 
1776 K Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20006-2304 
and 
Erika C. Birg, Esq. 
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 
1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1300 
Washington, DC 20036 
Counsel for James Eichner 
Roger Zuckerman, Esq. 
Leslie Kiernan, Esq. 
William Taylor, Esq. 
Zuckerman, Spader, GoIdstein, Taylor & 
Kolker, LLP 
1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 700 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
Counsel for Robert Lamb and Hilda Manuel 
Christopher Mead, Esq. 
London & Mead 
1225 19th Street, N.W. Suite 320 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
Counsel for Ken Rossman 
Robert Luskin, Esq. 
Patton Boggs 
2550 M St., Suite 500 
Washington, D.C. 20037-1350 
Counsel for Edward Cohen, Bruce Babbitt 
and John Leshy 
Plat0 Cacheris, Esq. 
John F. Hundley, Esq. 
Sydney J. Hoffinann, Esq. 
Baker & McKenzie 
8 15 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Counsel for John Berty and Glen Schumaker 
R. Christopher Cook, Esq. 
Jones Day Reaves & Pogue 
5 1 Louisiana Ave, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20001-21 13 
Counsel for Michael Carr 
Kathleen E. Voelker, Esq. 
1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
Counsel for James Douglas 
Martha Rogers, Esq. 
Leon Rodriguez, Esq. 
Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shnver 
1410 H Street, N.W., Suite 500 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Counsel for Timothy Elliott 
- 3 - Herbert Fenster, Esq. 
Jane Ann Neiswender, Esq. 
Daniel G. Jarcho, Esq. 
McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP 
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4800 
Denver, Colorado 80202 
Counsel for Gale Norton 
James Johnson, Esq. 
Jamie Levitt, Esq. 
Morrison & Foerster 
1290 Sixth Avenue 
New York, NY 10 104 
Counsel for Sabrina McCarthy 
E. Lawrence Barcella, Jr. 
Scharn Robinson, Esq. 
Paul, Hasting, Janofsky & Walker LLP 
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20004-2400 
Counsel for William Myers 
Stephen M. Byers, Esq. 
Miguel Rodriguez, Esq. 
Crowell & Moring 
100 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20004-2595 
Counsel for Dominic Nessi 
Elizabeth Wallace Fleming, Esq. 
Trout & Richards PLLC 
1100 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 730 
Washington, DC 20036 
Counsel for Michael Rossetti 
Jeffrey D. Robinson, Esq. 
Dwight Bostwick, Esq. 
Melissa McNiven, Esq. 
Baach, Robinson & Lewis 
One Thomas Circle, Suite 200 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Counsel for Lois Schiffer and Anne Shields 
Steven J. Roman, Esq. 
John A. Gibbons, Esq. 
Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinshy 
2101 L Street NW 
Washington, DC 20037- 1526 
Counsel for David Shilton and John Bryson 
Michael Goodstein, Esq. 
Deanna Chang, Esq. 
Resolution Law Group, P.C. 
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 350 
Washington, D.C. 20015 
Counsel for Tom Clark 
Stanley Brand, Esq. 
Andrew D. Herman, Esq. 
Brand & Frulla 
923 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Counsel for Peter Coppelman 
Hamilton P. Fox III, Esq. 
Kathleen M. Devereaux, Esq. 
Gregory S. Smith, Esq. 
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20004-2415 
Counsel for Charles Findlay 
Thomas E. Wilson, Esq. 
John A. Ordway, Esq. 
Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP 
1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
Counsel for John Most 
Larry A. Nathans, Esq. 
Robert W. Biddle, Esq. 
Bennett & Nathans, LLP 
210 East Lexington Street, Suite 301 
Baltimore, MD 2 1202 
Counsel for David Shuey 
- 4 - Eugene R. Fidelt, Esq. 
Matthew S. Freedus, Esq. 
Feldesman, Tucker, Leifur, Fidell& Bank 
LLP 
2001 L Street, N.W., 2nd Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
Counsel for James Simon 
- 5 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I declare under penalty of perjury that, on October 3,2003, I served the foregoing Interior 
Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash 
Plaint@s' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents Directed to Non-Party 
Michael Carr and Defendants; and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Michael Carr's 
Deposition and the Production of Documents Related Thereto in the manner stated upon the 
persons listed on the attached service list. By Hand Delivery and by facsimile: 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
171 7 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 
12th Floor 
Washington, DC 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
By facsimile, pursuant to written agreement: 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
(202) 822-0068 
Counsel for Plaintiffs 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW 
Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 3 18-2372 
Counsel for Plaint@@ 
and by U.S. Mail upon: 
Elliott Levitas, Esq. 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Counsel for Plaintiffs 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 594 17 
(406) 338-7530 
By first-class mail, postage prepaid, andor 
by facsimile or email pursuant to written 
agreement: 
Mary Lou Soller, Esq. 
Adam Feinberg, Esq. 
Miller & Chevalier 
655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
By First Class Mail 
Counsel for Chester Mills and Terence 
Virden 
Earl J. Silbert, Esq. 
Robert A. Salerno, Esq. 
Adam Hoffinger, Esq. 
Piper Rudnick LLP 
1200 19th Street, N.W., 7th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
By Email to: earl.silbert@pipemdnick.com 
By Email to: 
robert. salerno@pipermdnick. corn 
By Email to: 
adam. hoffinger@pipemdnick. corn 
Counsel for John Cruden, Jack Haugrud 
and Sarah Himmeihoch 
David S. Krakoff, Esq. 
Alessio D. Evangelista 
Jamie Abrams 
Christine Stroop 
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. 
1350 I Street, N.W. 
Suite 700 
Washington, D.C. 20005-33 1 1 
By Email to: dkrakoff@bdlaw.com 
By Email to: aevangelista@bdlaw.com 
By Email to: jabrams@bdlaw.com 
By Email to: cstroop@bdlaw.com 
Counsel for Daryl White 
- 1 - Amy Berman Jackson, Esq. 
Trout & Richards 
1350 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. 
Suite 1220 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
By Email to: abj@troutrichards.com 
Counsel for Edith Blackwell 
Michael Bromwich, Esq. 
Anne Perry, Esq. 
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson 
100 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Suite 800 
Washington, D.C. 20004-2505 
By Email to: 
Michael-Bromwich@ffhsj .com 
By Email to: perryan@ffhsj.com 
Counsel for Sharon Blackwell 
B. Michael Rauh, Esq. 
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 
1501 M Street, N.W. 
Suite 700 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
By Email to: mrauh@manatt.com 
Counsel for Neal McCaleb 
Barry Boss, Esq. 
Asbill, Junkin, Moffitt & Boss 
1615 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. 
Suite 200 
Washington, D.C. 20009 
By Fax: 202-332-6480 
Counsel for Stephen Swanson 
William Gardner, Esq. 
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
1 1 1 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
By Fax: 202-739-3001 
Counsel for Willa Perlmutter 
William H. Briggs, Jr., Esq. 
Marc E. Rindner, Esq. 
Ross, Dixon & Bell 
2001 K Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20006-1040 
By Email to: bbriggs@rdblaw.com 
By Email to: mrindner@rdblaw.com 
Counsel for Phillip Brooks 
Barbara Van Gelder, Esq. 
Eric Lyttle, Esq. 
Wiley, Rein & Fielding LLP 
1776 K Street, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20006-2304 
By Fax: 202-7 19-7049 
and 
Erika C. Birg, Esq. 
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 
1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1300 
Washington, DC 20036 
By Email to: ebirg@paulweiss.com 
Counsel for James Eichner 
Roger Zuckerman, Esq. 
Leslie Kiernan, Esq. 
William Taylor, Esq. 
Zuckerman, Spader, Goldstein, Taylor & 
Kolker, LLP 
1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 
Suite 700 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
By First Class Mail 
Counsel for Robert Lamb and Hilda Manuel 
Christopher Mead, Esq. 
London & Mead 
1225 19th Street, N.W. 
Suite 320 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
By Fax: 202-785-4280 
Counsel for Ken Rossman 
- 2 - Robert Luskin, Esq. 
Patton Boggs 
2550 M St., Suite 500 
Washington, D.C. 20037-1350 
By Email to: lUuskin@PattonBoggs.com 
Counsel for Edward Cohen, Bruce Babbitt 
and John Leshy 
Plat0 Cacheris, Esq. 
John F. Hundley, Esq. 
Sydney J. Hoffmann, Esq. 
Baker & McKenzie 
8 15 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
By Email to: 
caro1yn.j .coffman@bakernet.com 
By Email to: svdnevhoffman@aol.com 
Counsel for John Berry and Glen Schumaker 
R. Christopher Cook, Esq. 
Jones Day Reaves & Pogue 
5 1 Louisiana Ave, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20001-21 13 
By Emi1 to: 
christophercook@JonesDay.com 
Counsel for Michael Carr 
Kathleen E. Voelker, Esq. 
1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
By Email to: kathleenvoelker@aol.com 
Counsel for James Douglas 
Martha Rogers, Esq. 
Leon Rodriguez, Esq. 
Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver 
1410 H Street, N.W., Suite 500 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
By Email to: mprogers@ober.com 
By Email to: lrodriguez@ober.com 
Counsel for Timothy Elliott 
Herbert Fenster, Esq. 
Jane Ann Neiswender, Esq. 
Daniel G. Jarcho, Esq. 
McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP 
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4800 
Denver, Colorado 80202 
By Email to: hfenster@mckennalong.com 
By Email to: 
jneiswender@mckennalong .com 
By Email to: djarcho@mckennalong.com 
Counsel for Gale Norton 
James Johnson, Esq. 
Jamie Levitt, Esq. 
Morrison & Foerster 
1290 Sixth Avenue 
New York, NY 10 104 
By Email to: jamesjohnson@mofo.com 
By Email to: jlevitt@mofo.com 
Counsel for Sabrina McCarthy 
E. Lawrence Barcella, Jr. 
Scharn Robinson, Esq. 
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20004-2400 
By Fax: 202-508-9700 
Counsel for William Myers 
Stephen M. Byers, Esq. 
Miguel Rodriguez, Esq. 
Crowell & Moring 
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20004-2595 
By Email to: sbyers@crowell.com 
By Email to: mrodriguez@crowell.com 
Counsel for Dominic Nessi 
Elizabeth Wallace Fleming, Esq. 
Trout & Richards PLLC 
1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1220 
Washington, DC 20036 
By First Class Mail 
Counsel for Michael Rossetti 
- 3 - Jeffrey D. Robinson, Esq. 
Dwight Bostwick, Esq. 
Melissa McNiven, Esq. 
Baach, Robinson & Lewis 
One Thomas Circle, Suite 200 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
By Email to: jeffiey.robinson@baachrobinson.com 
By Email to: dwightbostwich@baachrobinson.com 
By Email to: melissa.mcniven@baachrobinson.com 
Counsel for Lois Schiffer and Anne Shields 
Steven J. Roman, Esq. 
John A. Gibbons, Esq. 
Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinshy 
2101 L Street N W 
Washington, DC 20037-1 526 
By Email to: romanS@dsrno.com 
By Email to: gibbonsj@dsmo.com 
Counsel for David Shilton and John Bryson 
Michael Goodstein, Esq. 
Deanna Chang, Esq. 
Resolution Law Group, P.C. 
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 350 
Washington, D.C. 20015 
By Fax: 202-686-4843 
Counsel for Tom Clark 
Stanley Brand, Esq. 
Andrew D. Herman, Esq. 
Brand & Frulla 
923 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
By First Class Mail 
Counsel for Peter Coppelman 
Hamilton P. Fox III, Esq. 
Kathleen M. Devereaux, Esq. 
Gregory S. Smith, Esq. 
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Waslungton, D.C. 20004-2415 
By Fax: 202-637-3593 
Counsel for Charles Findlay 
Thomas E. Wilson, Esq. 
John A. Ordway, Esq. 
Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP 
1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
By Email to: bjones@bcr-dc.com 
By Email to: jaoabcr-dc.com 
Counsel for John Most 
Larry A. Nathans, Esq. 
Robert W. Biddle, Esq. 
Bennett & Nathans, LLP 
210 East Lexington Street, Suite 301 
Baltimore, MD 2 1202 
By First Class Mail 
Counsel for David Shuey 
Eugene R. Fidell, Esq. 
Matthew S. Freedus, Esq. 
Feldesman, Tucker, Leifur, Fidell & Bank 
LLP 
2001 L Street, N.W., 2nd Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
By Email to: efidell@feldesmantucker.com 
By Email to: 
mfreedus@feldesmantucker.com 
Counsel for James Simon 
- 4 -