IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________

ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al.,  )

				)

Plaintiffs, 			)

				)

v. 				) Case No. 1:96CV01285 (RCL)

				) (Judge Lamberth)

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary	)

of the Interior, et al.,	)

				)

Defendants. 			)

________________________________)



		DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED

		BRIEFING AND CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A

		PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING SENSITIVE IT SECURITY INFORMATION





Defendants respectfully move for expedited briefing and consideration of Defendants'

Motion For A Protective Order Regarding Sensitive IT Security Information, filed on this date

("Defendants' P.O. Motion").1 Expedited consideration is needed because Plaintiffs have made a

motion to this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order, seeking disconnection from the Internet

and the immediate shutdown of Interior computer systems. See Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion

for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 2926) (filed Apr. 11,

2005) ("Plaintiffs' Motion"). In order to address fully Plaintiffs' assertions and for the Court to

have complete information before making any determination on Plaintiffs' Motion, Defendants

must be able to place certain sensitive IT security information in the record. In order to provide

this information without creating a larger risk through the disclosure of sensitive IT security



1 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(m), counsel for Defendants called Plaintiffs'

counsel, Messrs. Gingold and Mr. Harper, on April 12, 2005, regarding this motion. Neither Mr.

Gingold nor Mr. Harper answered Defendants' counsel's call, and Defendants' counsel left

voicemails for both. As of the filing of this motion, neither Mr. Gingold nor Mr. Harper had

returned Defendants' counsel's call. 



information, Defendants require entry of a protective order to preserve such sensitive information

from public access. Defendants have made a motion for such a protective order today, and now

request that the Court expedite briefing and consideration of Defendants' motion to facilitate

prompt consideration of a full record when determining whether to grant Plaintiffs' Motion.

For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter the attached order

granting expedited consideration of Defendants' P.O. Motion. Under the proposed order,

Plaintiffs would file and serve upon Defendants any opposition to Defendants' P.O. Motion

before midnight on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, with any reply from Defendants due before

midnight on Thursday, April 14, 2005, with the request that Defendants' P.O. Motion be decided

by Friday, April 15.



Dated: April 12, 2005 



Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER

Assistant Attorney General

STUART E. SCHIFFER

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN

Director

/s/ John Warshawsky

___________________________________

JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ

Senior Trial Attorney

JOHN WARSHAWSKY

D.C. Bar No. 417170

Trial Attorney

Commercial Litigation Branch

Civil Division

P.O. Box 875

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-0875

Telephone: (202) 307-0010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on April 12, 2005 the foregoing Defendants' Emergency Motion for

Expedited Briefing and Consideration of Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Regarding

Sensitive IT Security Information 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





				IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

				FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________

ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al.,  )

				)

Plaintiffs, 			)

				)

v. 				) Case No. 1:96CV01285 (RCL)

				) (Judge Lamberth)

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary	)

 of the Interior, et al.,	)

				)

Defendants. 			)

________________________________)



					ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Emergency Motion for Expedited

Briefing And Consideration of Defendants' Motion For A Protective Order Regarding Sensitive

IT Security Information Dkt._______, any responses thereto, and the record in this case. The

Court concludes that the Motion is well taken and should be GRANTED.

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file and serve upon Defendants any opposition to

Defendants' Motion For A Protective Order Regarding Sensitive IT Security Information no later

than midnight local time on April 13, 2005; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must file and serve upon Plaintiffs any reply to

Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' Motion For A Protective Order Regarding Sensitive IT

Security Information no later than midnight local time on April 14, 2005.

SO ORDERED this _____ day of __________, 2005.

__________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc:

J. Christopher Kohn, Esq.

John T. Stemplewicz, Esquire

Commercial Litigation Branch

Civil Division

P.O. Box 875

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-0875

Fax (202) 514-9163

Dennis M Gingold, Esquire

Mark Kester Brown, Esquire

607 14th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

Fax (202) 318-2372

Keith M. Harper, Esquire

Richard A. Guest, Esquire

Native American Rights Fund

1712 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-2976

Fax (202) 822-0068

Elliott Levitas, Esquire

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800

Atlanta, GA 30309-4530