UNITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
V. Case No. 1 :96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
) 
1 
1 
) 
1 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the 
Interior, et al., 
Defendants . 
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE 
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY AND PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL 
INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONSOLIDATED MOTION 
1 
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
Interior Defendants respectfully move to strike (1 ) Plaintiffs' Reply To Interior Defendants' 
Opposition To Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary 
Injunction (Oct. 24, 2003) ("Plaintiffs' Reply"); and (2) Plaintiffs' Notice Of Supplemental Information 
In Support Of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Motion For 
Preliminary Injunction (Oct. 28, 2003) ("Plaintiffs' Notice").' Neither Plaintiffs' Reply nor Plaintiffs' 
Notice (which consists of a letter in which a Congressman from New Jersey expresses his personal 
opinions to the Attorney General) is authorized by the rules of this Court. Accordingly, they should be 
stricken. 
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for 
Plaintiffs regarding this motion, and Plaintiffs oppose it. 2 
ARGUMENT 
Local Civil Rule 65.1 sets forth the provisions governing applications for restraining orders and 
preliminary injunctions. With respect to preliminary injunctions, the rule provides as follows: 
An application for a preliminary injunction shall be made in a document 
separate from the complaint. The application shall be supported by all 
affidavits on which the plaintiff intends to rely. The opposition shall be 
served and filed within five days after service of the application for 
preliminary injunction, and shall be accompanied by all affidavits on 
which the defendant intends to rely. Supplemental affidavits either to 
the application or the opposition may be filed only with permission of 
the court. 
LCvR 65.1(c).' Thus, this Court's rules do not expressly contemplate the submission of papers, 
other than an application and opposition, in the absence of leave of Court. Plaintiffs' Reply and 
Plaintiffs' Notice were not filed with leave of Court and, accordingly, they should be stricken. 
Even if Plaintiffs' extraneous filings were permissible under Local Rule 65.1, they still would 
be inappropriate. In typical fashion, Plaintiffs' Reply serves as a vehicle for continued personal 
attacks against the individuals involved in defending this litigation. See, e.g, Plaintiffs' Reply at I, 
n. 1 ("Obviously, Norton and her counsel cannot be trusted . . ."); id. at 2, n.2 (accusing Department 
of Justice counsel of, inter alia, concealing information from the Special Master and withholding 
evidence); id. at 5 ('I. . . this Court and plaintiffs would be forced to rely on the absurd: the good 
faith of Norton . . ."); id. at 7, n.7 (accusing the Secretary of the Interior of "shrill rantings"); id. at 8, 
The provision relating to temporary restraining orders states only that such an 
application "shall be made in a motion separate from the complaint," and sets forth the notice 
requirements for seeking such relief. See LCvR 65.l(a). 
2 n. 10 (asserting that Department of Justice counsel "routinely files papers with this Court that are 
As an initial matter, the offensive material is simply false and materially misleading . . . 
gratuitous; it bears no relevance to the issue of whether any irreparable harm results from the 
presence of Defendants' counsel at site visits conducted by the Special Master. Moreover, the 
language is meant solely to malign the individuals who work for or represent the Department of the 
Interi~r.~ On both counts, Plaintiffs' Reply should be stricken under Federal Rule 12(f). See Fed. 
3 While accusing Defendants and their counsel of dishonesty at every turn, Plaintiffs' 
hypocritically rest their own positions on manifest untruthfulness. For example, Plaintiffs continue to 
characterize the October 28,2002 meeting at which the Special Master agreed to cease conducting 
site visits outside the presence of counsel as a "secret oral agreement" that was conducted behind 
Plaintiffs' backs. See Plaintiffs' Reply at 7 ("Norton's sole argument is that some sort of 'secret oral 
agreement' had been consummated exparte by her lead defense counsel . . . However, plaintiffs have 
been provided no copy of this 'secret agreement;' nor was plaintiffs' counsel present at the alleged 
meeting in that regard."); id. at 7, n.9 ("plaintiffs were never provided an agenda informing that the 
scope and nature of the August 12, 1999 Consent Order would be discussed."). Such a position 
cannot be squared with reality or the record on this motion, which includes a copy of the letter 
providing Plaintiffs' counsel with notice of the meeting and the proposed agenda, as well as the 
subsequent letter apprising Plaintiffs' counsel of the Special Master's representation that he would 
provide advance notice of site visits to counsel. See Interior Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiffs' 
Consolidated Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction (Oct. 14, 2003), 
Ex. 1 ; Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Motion For Preliminary 
Injunction (Oct. 3, 2003), attachment to Ex. 1. 
4 Among the more egregious examples is Plaintiffs' assertion that the Special Master is 
engaged in an examination of "obstruction" by Department of Justice counsel in connection with site 
visits to the Chickasaw and Wewoka Agencies in December 2002 and that Department of Justice 
counsel have withheld evidence relevant to this purported examination. Plaintiffs' Reply at 2, n.2. 
Although the Special Master expressed an intention to investigate "events surrounding the USi site visit 
to the Chicasaw [sic] Agency," following the issuance by Interior of a report concerning those events, 
see Letter from Alan L. Balaran, Special Master, to Glenn Gillett, Department of Justice, Mar. 25, 
2003 (attached as Ex. 1 to Plaintiffs' Reply), he never indicated that the subject of his inquiry was any 
"obstruction" by Government counsel. Likewise, the outrageous allegation that Department of Justice 
counsel "have acted in concert to withhold evidence relevant to this and other malfeasance" has no 
record support and is purely fabricated. 
3 R. Civ. P. 12(f) ("the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any 
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."). The fact that this has become a familiar 
tactic on the part of the Plaintiffs does not lessen its impropriety; rather, it magnifies the need for the 
Court to end this practice. 
With respect to Plaintiffs' Notice, the grounds for striking are even more plain. The Notice 
consists solely of a letter from Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. to the Attorney General, in which 
Mr. Pallone expresses his personal opinions on certain aspects of the litigation. The letter is not 
legal authority; it is not factual evidence. It is simply the personal opinion of one individual who has 
no role in this litigation.' Cobell v. Norton, No. Civ. 96-1285,2003 WL 2221 1405 at "1 18 
(Sept. 25, 2003) ("the Court does not equate the opinions of a single current House Member (and 
two former Members) with the intent of the full House of Representatives, much less with the intent 
of the full As such, it is wholly immaterial to the injunction motion and should be 
stricken under Federal Rule 12(f). 
Even if Plaintiffs' Notice contained facts that could serve as competent evidence 
relevant to Plaintiffs' injunction motion -- which plainly it cannot -- it still would be improper because it 
LCvR 65.l(c). 
5 
was not submitted in the form of an affidavit. 
6 Moreover, while the Court's statement was made in the context of comments made by 
Members of Congress concerning controlling statutory law, the statements of Mr. Pallone reflect only 
his personal views concerning the litigation. 
4 Dated: November 17,2003 
CONCLUSION 
For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue an 
Order granting their motion to strike Plaintiffs' Reply and Plaintiffs' Notice. 
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 
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) 5 14-7 194 
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on November 17,2003 the foregoing Defendants' Motion to Strike 
Plaintiffs' Reply and Plaintqfs' Notice of Supplemental Information Submitted in Support of 
Their Consolidated Motion for a Tempora y Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 
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 5941 7 
Fax (406) 338-7530 
/s/ Kevin P. Kingston 
Kevin P. Kingston IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
)
)
)
) 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply and 
Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Information Submitted in Support of Their Consolidated Motion for a 
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. # ____ ). Upon consideration of the 
Motion, any Response thereto, any Reply, and the entire record of this case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Motion is, GRANTED and; 
It is FURTHER ORDERED that The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike Plaintiffs' Reply To 
Interior Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order 
And Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 2347); and Plaintiffs' Notice Of Supplemental Information In 
Support Of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Motion For 
Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 2349) from the docket and the record of this case. 
SO ORDERED 
___________________________________ 
Hon. Royce C. Lamberth 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia 
Date:______________
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) 514-9163 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Fax (202) 318-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Paul 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 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530