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 A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al.,) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR 
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO SUBMIT EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE 
APPLICATION 
Plaintiffs' Motion For Enlargement Of Time To Submit Equal Access To Justice Act 
Application ("Motion For Enlargement") should be denied because it provides no persuasive 
reason for granting Plaintiffs additional time to re-file their EAJA application. More than eight 
months ago, on October 9, 2003, Plaintiffs filed their Request for an Award of Attorney's Fees 
and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt # 2328) ("First EAJA 
Application"). Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' application on the ground that, among other 
things, they had not satisfied the threshold requirement of submitting contemporaneous time 
records with their petition. See Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request For An Award Of 
Attorney's Fees And Expenses Pursuant To The Equal Access To Justice Act at 4-6 (filed 
October 23, 2004). Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to File 
Supporting Attorney and Expert Witness Documentation re EAJA Fee Application (Dkt. # 2345) 
on October 23, 2003 ("First Motion For Enlargement") and then subsequently filed their Motion 
for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs' Various Applications for Fees and Costs (Dkt. #2545)
on March 19, 2004. On May 27, 2004, the Court denied Plaintiffs' First EAJA Petition, denied 
their First Motion For Enlargement and ordered Plaintiffs to re-file an EAJA application for 
interim fees through the Phase 1.0 proceeding "within thirty days," this time with supporting 
documentation.1 Memorandum and Order, May 27, 2004 (Dkt. # 2583) ("May 27, 2004 Order") 
at 10. Plaintiffs' filing of their most recent Motion For Enlargement – eight months after they 
filed their first EAJA application, after they filed a motion for expedited consideration, and 
despite having been granted an additional thirty days – suggests they remain unable to produce 
contemporaneous time records. 
Although Plaintiffs claim they are "keenly aware of the time required to properly evaluate 
time records," Motion For Enlargement at 1, they fail to explain why they did not perform that 
due diligence prior to submitting their First EAJA Application in October 2003, or why they have 
not done so in the eight months since that time. Plaintiffs attempt to make the case that the 
Court's May 27, 2004 Order unexpectedly thrust a substantial new burden upon them with which 
they cannot comply, citing other competing case demands. Motion For Enlargement at 1-2. To 
the contrary, none of the reasons they cite for delay sprang up as a result of the Court's recent 
order, and all existed well before that time.2 
The competing task of having to produce documentation for a fee award in connection 
1 Plaintiffs already requested sixty days in both their First EAJA Application and their 
First Motion For Enlargement; however, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to re-file their petition with 
supporting documentation within thirty days. May 27, 2004 Order at 4. 
2 Indeed, since Plaintiffs stated in their 1996 Complaint that they intended to seek fees 
pursuant to EAJA, see Complaint at 27, ¶5, they presumably have been aware for eight years that 
they would have to produce contemporaneous time records to recover under EAJA, if they 
otherwise qualified for an EAJA award. 
2
with Defendants' Third Motion For Summary Judgment should not serve as an excuse for 
Plaintiffs' delay in filing their EAJA application. More than fifteen months have elapsed since 
the Court granted Plaintiffs' request for fees in connection with that motion and Plaintiffs have 
since completed their fee application. See Memorandum and Order dated March 11, 2003 (Dkt. 
# 1898) (granting Plaintiffs' request for monetary sanctions and ordering Plaintiffs to submit a 
filing detailing expenses and attorneys fees within 30 days)3; Plaintiffs' Statement of Fees and 
Expenses in Accordance with the Court's March 11, 2003 Order (filed June 21, 2004). Although 
the Court subsequently granted Plaintiffs an enlargement of time in which to submit the 
necessary documentation for that fee award, until June 25, 2004, see Order (Dkt. # 2581), it 
should have come as no surprise to Plaintiffs that they would eventually have to produce 
documentation to support their request for sanctions. 
3 Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on May 25, 
2004. See Order (Dkt. # 2581). 
3
Conclusion 
For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion 
For Enlargement. 
Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ Timothy E. Curley 
______________________________ 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
Deputy Director 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Attorney 
TIMOTHY E. CURLEY 
D.C. Bar No. 470450 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on June 22, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' 
Motion for Enlargement of Time to Submit Equal Access to Justice Application 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
__________________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Submit 
Equal Access To Justice Act Application, Dkt # 2593. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion, 
Defendants’ Opposition, any Reply thereto, the applicable law and the entire record of this case, it is 
hereby 
ORDERED that the Motion is, DENIED. 
SO ORDERED 
Date:______________ 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
)
)
)
) 
ORDER 
___________________________________ 
Hon. Royce C. Lamberth 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia 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. 
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