IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
____________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of 
the Interior, et al., 
) 
) 
)
)
)
)
) No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE 
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 
DEPOSITION OF GABRIEL SNEEZY 
On November 4, 2003, without any prior communication to counsel for Defendants,1 
Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Gabriel Sneezy, the Acting Director, Office of Appraisal 
Services, Office of the Special Trustee, Department of the Interior for November 17, 2003 
(“Notice of Deposition”) (attached as Exhibit 1). Plaintiffs are not permitted to depose Mr. 
Sneezy because they are not entitled to any discovery at this time. Further, even if some 
discovery were permitted now, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate how discovery of Mr. Sneezy 
would be permitted under the principles of review for cases where jurisdiction is based upon the 
1/ In noticing Mr. Sneezy’s deposition without any effort to confer with Defendants about the 
availability of the deponent or counsel, Plaintiffs have ignored the Court’s admonition that 
counsel should confer regarding the scheduling of depositions. See Order of May 8, 1998; 
Transcript of November 6, 1998 Hearing at 2 (“I don't know what's happened to the notion that I 
was trying to set forth in May about civility, but I don't think that the plaintiff should have 
noticed those depositions without a discussion about dates with the defendants first”) (attached as 
Exhibit 2). Plaintiffs similarly failed to heed the Court’s admonition and, without prior 
communication with government counsel, have issued deposition notices for Secretary Norton, 
Associate Deputy Secretary James Cason, Michael Carr, Anson Baker, Deborah Gibbs Tschudy, 
Lonnie Kimball, Donna Erwin, David Bernhardt, Bert Edwards, Elouise Chicharello, and Lucy 
Querques Denett.
Administrative Procedure Act.2 Finally, discovery from Mr. Sneezy would not be within the 
scope of permissible discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 26(c), Defendants move for a protective order preventing the noticed deposition of Mr. 
Sneezy.3 
ARGUMENT 
I. MR. SNEEZY’S DEPOSITION SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED BECAUSE NO 
DISCOVERY IS ALLOWED AT THIS TIME 
Plaintiffs are not authorized to take any discovery at this time. Fact discovery for the 
Phase 1.5 trial closed on March 28, 2003, the trial itself was concluded over three months ago 
and the Court ruled upon the issues raised therein on September 25, 2003. Plaintiffs have not 
sought leave of Court to take discovery out of time, and the Court's October 17, 2002 Phase 1.5 
Trial Discovery Order did not authorize Plaintiffs to conduct roving discovery after Trial 1.5. 
In addition, nothing in the structural injunction issued by the Court on September 25, 
2003, provides for further discovery. The Court's injunction establishes a series of deadlines 
through September 30, 2007, for the Department of Interior to perform specific tasks. Under the 
schedules established by the Court's September 25, 2003 orders, a Phase II trial is likely, and it is 
possible that there will be discovery associated with it. However, there currently is no order 
2/ Defendants note and reassert their continuing objection to discovery on the ground that such 
discovery is improper in an APA case. For that purpose, we incorporate by reference the 
arguments set forth in Defendants’ Motion For A Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Notice 
of Deposition of the Secretary of Interior at pages 5-7 (November 10, 2003). 
3/ As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and Local Rule 7(m), counsel for Defendants conferred 
with counsel for Plaintiffs on November 5, 2003 in an attempt to resolve this dispute without 
Court action. Plaintiffs expressed an intent to oppose the relief requested here. 
2
setting a discovery schedule for a Phase II trial, which would be years in the future given the 
structural injunction’s timetable. 
Nor are there other proceedings before the Court requiring discovery. Even if the noticed 
deposition of Mr. Sneezy were purportedly related to some future proceeding in this case,4 the 
parties have not held a discovery planning conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 26(f) and, therefore, Plaintiffs are not authorized to take discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 
26(d), 30(a)(2)(C) and 34(b). Because no discovery is permitted at this time, the Court should 
issue a protective order to prevent the noticed deposition of Mr. Sneezy. 
II. DISCOVERY FROM MR. SNEEZY IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF 
PERMISSIBLE DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 26 
Even if discovery were otherwise permissible, Plaintiffs cannot show that the discovery 
sought from Mr. Sneezy would be within the scope of the Federal Rules. Under Rule 26(b)(1), 
parties may only obtain discovery regarding matters that are “relevant to the claim or defense of 
any party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although information need not be admissible at trial to 
be discoverable, it still must be “[r]elevant” information and must be “reasonably calculated to 
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. 
At the meet and confer discussion initiated by Defendants’ counsel on November 5, 2003, 
Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to identify any of the subject areas they would cover in a deposition 
beyond whatever is “relevant” to the litigation. Plaintiffs’ refusal to describe the information 
sought from Mr. Sneezy makes it impossible for the Court and Defendants to assess claims of 
relevance. As discussed above, however, Defendants are unaware of any information in the 
4/ As explained in the next section, during the meet-and-confer discussion on November 5, 2003, 
Plaintiffs’ counsel declined to articulate any specific reasons for deposing Mr. Sneezy. 
3
possession of Mr. Sneezy at this time that would be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to 
the discovery of admissible evidence. A deposition of Mr. Sneezy could thus necessarily only 
cover topics outside the scope of permissible discovery. 
Moreover, the Defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal of the September 25, 2003 
structural injunction, and the Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of that injunction on 
November 12, 2003. Plaintiffs, therefore, have no basis for seeking to inquire about what 
Defendants are presently doing to comply with the structural injunction. As such, a protective 
order is warranted to prevent the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (protective order appropriate 
“to protect a party or person from annoyance, . . . oppression, or undue burden or expense.”). 
4
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, Interior’s Motion for a Protective Order should be granted. 
Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 14, 2003 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ John T. Stemplewicz 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on November 14, 2003 the foregoing Defendants’ Motion for a 
Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition of Gabriel Sneezy was served by 
Electronic Case Filing, and on the following who is not registered for Electronic Case Filing, by 
facsimile: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
Fax (406) 338-7530 
/s/ Kevin P. Kingston 
Kevin P. Kingston 
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
____________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of 
the Interior, et al., 
Defendants. 
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order 
Regarding Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition of Gabriel Sneezy. (Dkt. # _______). Upon 
consideration of the Motion, the responses thereto, and the record in this case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED; it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are precluded from deposing Mr. Sneezy at this time. 
SO ORDERED. 
Date: ________________ 
) 
) 
)
)
)
)
) No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
) 
ORDER 
_____________________________ 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge
cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner 
John T. Stemplewicz 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 2044-0875 
Fax (202) 514-9163 
Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, N.W., Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Fax (202) 318-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
Fax (202) 822-0068 
Elliott Levitas, Esq. 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Earl Old Person (Pro Se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530 
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., 
Plaintiffs 
v. 
GALE NORTON, Secretary 
)))))
)))
Defendants. )))
____________________________________) 
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 
To: Mark E. Nagle 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Judiciary Center Building 
555 Fourth Street, NW, Room 10-403 
Washington, DC 20001 
J. Christopher Kohn 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division 
1100 L Street, NW, Room 10036 
Washington, DC 20005 
Attorneys for Defendants 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on November 17, 2003, at the offices of Dennis M. 
Gingold, (“Plaintiffs’ Counsel”), 607 14th Street, N.W., 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, 
plaintiffs in this action will take the deposition of Gabriel Sneezy (“Sneezy”), Acting Director, 
Office of Appraisal Services, Office of the Special Trustee, Department of the Interior. 
This deposition will commence at 10:00 a.m. and will continue from day to day until 
completed. Testimony will be recorded by stenographic means. 
Case No.1:96CV01285
OF COUNSEL: 
JOHN ECHOHAWK 
Native American Rights Fund 
1506 Broadway 
Boulder, Colorado 80302 
November 4, 2003 
_____________________________ 
DENNIS M. GINGOLD 
D.C. Bar No. 417748 
607 14th Street., N.W. 
9th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
202 824-1448 
_______________________________ 
KEITH M. HARPER 
D.C. Bar No. 451956 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20036-2976 
202 785-4166 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OFDEPOSITION was served on the 
following by facsimile, pursuant to agreement, on this day, November 4, 2003. 
Mark E. Nagle 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Judiciary Center Building 
555 Fourth Street, N.W. Room 10-403 
Washington, D.C. 20001 
202.514.8780 (fax) 
J. Christopher Kohn 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division 
1100 L Street, N.W. Room 10036 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
202.514.9163 (fax) 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
406.338.7530 (fax) 
_______________________ 
Geoffrey M. Rempel 
3