IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA !. _'/i ' ? ' ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) ,_: _.,,i_i_ ? ' Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:96CV01285 ) (Judge Lamberth) GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al__., ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP The Secretary of the Interior, thc Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, and the Secretary of the Treasury ("Defendants") submit the following objections to Plaintiffs' December 9, 2002, notice of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Electronic Data Systems Corp. ("EDS"): Rule 30(b)(6) requires the deposing party to "describe with reasonable particularity" the matters on which examination is required. Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition does not do so. The Notice states: The subject area [sic] of this deposition are: (1) The nature and scope of EDS's involvement in trust reform activities related to the Individual indian Money Trust, (2) the "As-Is" Project; (3) the "To-Be" Project and (4) any additional information regarding the IIM trust. Because of the vague and general description of the matters to be examined, EDS is thereby ixlhibited in its ability to prepare sufficiently for the deposition. In addition to each of the four enumerated "subject areas" of the deposition being objectionable for the reasons stated above, especially objectionable is subject area "4," which is "any additional information regarding the IIM trust," which is not only overly broad and vague, but ambiguous. Defendants' designated witness, EDS employee James G. Pauli, is probably the most knowledgeable EDS employee concerning the general subject matters stated in the Notice of Deposition. However, given Plaintiffs' failure to comply with Rule 30(b)(6), Defendants object to being bound by Mr. Pauli's testimony, and further reserve the right to object to specific areas of questioning where the witness did not have sufficient notice of the subject matter to be able to prepare. Finally, given the improperly described scope of the deposition and because Defendants did not serve the notice until after 6:00 p.m. on December 9, 2002 on the Department of Justice, Defendants further object to being bound by Mr. Pauli's testimony, and further reserve the right to object to specific areas of questioning where the witness did not have sufficient time to be able to prepare. December 18, 2002 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Assistant Attorney General STUART E. SCHIFFER Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Director /_ _.///" i y' f7 P sPooNER //? /D(C. Bar No. 261495 ( ._Deputy Director _"'-_'/ JOi-IN T. STEMPLEWICZ Senior Trial Counsel JOHN R. KRESSE Trial Attorney D.C. Bar No. 430094 Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 (202) 514-7194 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I declare under penalty of perjury that, on December 18, 2002, I served the foregoing Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs 'Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Electronic Data Systems Corp. by facsimile, in accordance with their written request of October 31, 2001 upon: Keith Harper, Esq. Dennis M Gingold, Esq. Native American Rights Fund Mark Brown, Esq. 1712 N Street, NW 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-2976 Ninth Floor 202-822-0068 Washington, DC 20004 202-318-2372 and by U.S. Mail upon: Elliott Levitas, Esq. 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 and by U.S. Mail and by facsimile upon: Alan L. Balaran, Esq. Special Master 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 202-986-8477 and by hand delivery upon: Joseph S. Kieftkr, III, Esq. Special Master-Monitor 420 7th Street, NW Apt 705 Washington, DC 20004 202-478-1958 Sean P. Schmergel