FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ::q2 /,[j$ 22 Pi! 5: 25 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, A, 
Plaintiffs, 
V. 
1 
1 
1 
1 
) 
1 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of 
the Interior, &, 
Defendants. 
) 
1 
1 
1 
INTERIOR DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF’ 
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SPECIAL MASTER BALARAN 
Interior Defendants respectfully submit the following Reply In Support of Motion to 
Disqualify Special Master Balaran (“Motion to Disqualify”). I 
The facts requiring disqualification are clear and incontrovertible. Native American 
Industrial Distributors, hic. (“NAID”), a government contractor, sought to intervene in this 
litigation, alleging that the government had wrongfully concealed information fiom the Court and 
that the government had retaliated against NATD to obtain its silence. The Court denied the 
motion to intervene, but directed the Special Master to determine “whether there is any validity 
to NAID’s contention that the Departnieiit of the Interior withheld information from the Court 
that should have been disclosed in the Eighth Quarterly Report . . . .” November 5, 2002 Order 
at 1. 
1! The Motion to Disqualify was filed on May 29, 2003. Plaintiffs’ Opposition was not filed 
until August 18, 2003. Plaintiffs asked for an enlargement of time in which to file an Opposition 
on the day their Opposition was due, but Plaintiffs’ request has not been granted. Interior’s 
Motion for Expedited Consideration of the Motion to Disqualify, filed June 24,2003, has also 
not been ruled upon. 
f ;,: CY n. - ’& t f 1 TT j fi 5 Ti, !4 f: :,‘: 
CLER? 
No. 1:96CVO1285 
(Judge Lamberth) On April 21 , 2003, the Special Master issued an “Interim Report” purporting to find 
extensive misconduct by the government. The Special Master’s Report acknowledged that it was 
based on information “obtained outside of normal channels and to which the parties may have no 
familiarity.” Interim Report at 1 n. 1 .2 
Upon receipt of the Special Master’s billing records, it became evident that the 
“channels” relied upon included Mike Smith, who, at the time of the intervention motion, had 
been Vice President of NAID and a complaining witness. The Special Master met repeatedly 
with Mr. Smith outside the presence of counsel and without the government’s knowledge. The 
Special Master ultimately went so far as to hire Mr. Smith secretly and have him draft portions of 
the Interim Report. 
Plaintiffs do not take issue with these facts, which they largely ignore. 
As set out at length in our motion, the Special Master’s extraordinary conduct requires 
recusal. That the Special Master should have issued a highly stigmatizing report based on extra- 
record evidence would be reason enough to question his impartiality. That he should have seen 
fit to employ as his associate and draftsman the very individual who had charged the government 
with bad faith and retaliation in the first place fundamentally undermines the appearance of 
impartiality and requires recusal under the standards established by the Code of Judicial Conduct 
and 28 U.S.C. 4 455(a). Indeed, the Special Master’s employment of Mr. Sinith and his decision 
to publicize his “interim report” based on extra-record evidence demonstrates a lack of 
Opp. at 6 n. 10. In its 
Plaintiffs make the extraordinary pronouncement that Interior “has not contested a single 
substantive finding contained in the Master’s Interim Report.” 
Objection to the Interim Report, filed May 5, 2003, Interior contested, in great detail, the 
preliminary findings and conclusions in the lnterim Report. 
2 objectivity and an improper willingness to pre-judge the government’s conduct, requiring recusal 
under 28 U.S.C. fj 455(b). 
Plaintiffs cite no authority and fail to come to grips with the extraordinary character of the 
Special Master’s actions. They never explain how a judicial officer who evaluates one party’s 
conduct with the extra-record assistance of an adversary witness could plausibly be permitted to 
remain in his position. 
Instead, Plaintiffs suggest that the Special Master’s conduct cannot furnish a basis for 
recusal because the government “consented” to his dealings with Mr. Smith. This line of 
argument cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. 
Plaintiffs’ contention turns on the fact, noted in our motion to disqualify, that Mr. Smith, 
along with government counsel, was present at an in camera inspection at the Department of 
Interior on February 27, 2003 designed to identify documents relevant to the Special Master’s 
investigation. Motion at 6 n.6. (As noted in our motion, as an officer of NAID and a 
TAAMS Project Team member, Mr. Smith had previously seen all of the requested documents 
and it was hoped that his presence would facilitate identification of pertinent documents.) That 
the government permitted Mr. Smith to be present on this occasion in no way provided consent 
for the Special Master’s extensive ex parte dealings with Mr. Smith.3 The Special Master neither 
informed the government of these ex parte dealings nor requested its consent. 
Plaintiffs repeatedly quote the statement in the Special Master’s letter of June 24,2003 that “at 
your invitation, Mike Smith and I examined NAID files . . . .” Although the government did not 
object to Mr. Smith’s presence during the examination, which was conducted in the presence of 
government counsel, the government would take issue with the statement insofar as it suggests 
that Mr. Smith was invited by the government. However, that point need not be resolved. 
Notably, that letter suggests no further involvement by Mr. Smith beyond his appearance at the 
examination; nor did subsequent communications. Without explanation or citation, Plaintiffs state (Opp. at 5) that government counsel was 
not present at the February 27, 2003 inspection. That statement is wrong. The government 
consented to Mr. Smith’s participation in one meeting attended by government counsel. 
Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain how consent to Mr. Smith’s presence at a meeting with 
government counsel can be converted into consent to an extraordinary ex parte association of 
which the government was not aware until its receipt of the Special Master’s billing records4 
Plaintiffs fundamentally misunderstand the role of a judicial officer in our adversary 
system when they suggest that the government seeks to prevent the Special Master &om 
communicating “with those who have knowledge of the pertinent facts.” Opp. at 7 n. 1 1. This 
Court and its Special Master can obtain the testimony of witnesses in a proceeding on the record 
and in the presence of counsel. But a judicial officer cannot collaborate with a witness on an 9 
parte basis to judge the conduct of a party. That principle, evident enough in any event, is even 
more starkly clear when the witness is a former officer of a complaining party. 
Plaintiffs note that the Special Master has, on occasion, engaged in limited ex parte 
communications with the government to assist him in various oversight functions, and that 
Plaintiffs have not objected to these contacts. But Plaintiffs do not suggest that this Court or its 
Special Master would be free to engage in a substantive evaluation of Plaintiffs‘ conduct based on 
off-the-record assistance of present or former govemnent witnesses. Similarly, they do not 
suggest that the Special Master would be free to consult Plaintiffs’ own witnesses on an ex parte 
basis to evaluate the government’s conduct. That Mr. Smith was a witness for and former officer 
of another adversarial party does not alter the analysis. 
Even after receipt of the Special Master’s bills it was not immediately apparent that Mike 
Smith the NAID employee had been hired because the Special Master identified Mr. Smith only 
by his initials, “MSS.” 
4 Plaintiffs suggest that the Special Master should not be held to the same ethical standards 
as a judge because he was operating in an “investigatory” capacity in which he was asked to 
evaluate the validity of allegations that “Interior withheld information from the Court that should 
have been disclosed in the Eight Quarterly Report.” Opp. at 9 (quoting Nov. 5, 2002 Order at 1 .) 
Plaintiffs’ argument fails in all respects. As the D.C. Circuit recently reiterated, “[ilt is 
clear, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ objections, that in this Circuit the ethical restrictions of 
6 455 apply to a special master.” Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing 
Jenkins v. Sterlacci, 849 F.2d 627, (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Far from endorsing the proposition that 
different standards should apply when a Master functions in an “investigatory” capacity, the 
Court made clear that the type of “investigative, quasi-inquisitorial, quasi-prosecutorial role” 
championed here by Plaintiffs “is unknown to our adversarial legal system.” Id. at 1 142. The 
Special Master was charged with evaluating allegations of concealment by the government. That 
is a paradigmatic judicial function. A judicial proceeding that results in a public opinion 
charging a party with improper behavior can only take place within the recognized bounds of our 
adversary system.’ 
Finally, Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Special Master was forced to employ Mr. Smith 
because of the government’s failure to produce documents is simply a red herring. If the Special 
Master had, in fact, been confronted with the kind of recalcitrance now posited by Plaintiffs, the 
Court could have considercd appropriate means of securing compliance. Under no circumstances 
can a judicial officer simply proceed to gather documents on an extra-record basis in 
collaboration with an interested witness. 
This Court’s November 5,2002 Order nowhere authorized the Special Master to proceed as he 
did. 
5 In any event, Plaintiffs’ contention is without basis. Interior will not engage in a lengthy 
recitation here of the facts regarding the NAlD document production.6 However, the Special 
Master was twice given an opportunity to inspect, in camera, the entire collection of documents 
responsive to his requests. Moreover, as the Special Master’s billing records make clear, his 
association with Mr. Smith continued long after the Special Master had availed himself of the 
opportunity to review the documents in camera and request their reproduction. Indeed, 
Mr. Smith’s paid employment only commenced at the time of the in camera inspection on 
February 27,2003. 
The government filed its motion to disqualify on May 29,2003. Since that time, 
the Special Master has embarked on new areas of inquiry. On June 5, 2003, the Special Master 
announced his intention to investigate the Yeasing files” of the Minerals Management Service 
(“MMS”), and on July 3 1,2003, propounded document production requests concerning MMS 
audit files7 Although, to the Interior Defendants’ knowledge, the Court did not specifically 
authorize an investigation of MMS audit files by the Special Master, he claimed in his request 
@ Interior provided a detailed description of the chronology and history of the document 
production for the NAID investigation in its Objections to the Interim Report. Interior 
Defendants’ Objections To “Interim” Report of the Special Master Regarding the Filing of 
Interior’s Eighth Quarterly Report at 2-5. The only significant supplement to that description is 
that in compliance with a demand from the Special Master - made after the Motion to Disqualify 
had been filed - Interior provided copies of the entire balance of responsive documents on the 
NAID investigation to the Special Master for his in camera inspection on June 27, 2003. 
Letter from Phil Seligman, Department of Justice, to Alan Balaran, Special Master (June 27, 
2003 j (attached as Exhibit 1 ). 
Letter from Alan L. Balaran, Special Master, to A m a h D. Kessler, Department of Justice 
(June 5,2003 j (attached as Exhibit 3); Letter from Alan L. Balaran, Special Master, to Amalia D. 
Kessler, Department of Justice (June 16, 2003) (attached as Exhibit 4); Letter from Alan L. 
Balaran, Special Master, to John Siemietkowski, Department of Justice (July 3 1,2003) (attached 
as Exhibit 5). 
6 that it is within his authority to oversee document retention and protection fi-om destruction, as 
set forth in the Court's Order of August 12, 1999. Letter from Alan L. Balaran, Special Master, 
to Timothy E. Curley, Department of Justice (August 12,2003) (attached as Exhibit 2). The 
Special Master's recent invoices reveal that he is also apparently working on matters related to 
the Phase 1.5 trial, matters outside his authority.8 
It has been clear for months that the Special Master should be disqualified from further 
participation in this case. The government should not be required to proceed before a judicial 
officer who mani€estly should be recused from further involvement in the case. We respectfully 
ask that the Court act on the disqualification motion at the first possible opportunity. 
Respecthlly submitted, Dated: August 22, 2003 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
D.C. Bar N o < - 4 9 5 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
PHILLIP M. SELIGMAN 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
As set forth in his June and July invoices, the Special Master claimed a total of $1 5,200 for 76 
Special Master's June and July 2003 Invoices hours spent reviewing trial testimony. 
(attached as Exhibit 6). 
7 P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 5 14-7 194 
8 Phil M. Soiigman 
Trial Attorney 
BY Hand 
Alan L. Balaran, Special Master 
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 13th Floor 
Washington, DC 20006 
Re: Cobell v. Norton: Your Investigation of Allegations by Native American 
Industrial Distributors (‘N4I”’) 
Dear Mr. Balaran: 
Enclosed are documents responsive to your request of October 7,2002 for documents 
related to your investigation of claims made by NAID, as authorized in the November 5,2002 
Order of the Court. This is the second, and final, batch of responsive documents. The first batch 
was produced on Apnl4,2003. 
These documents are being provided for your in camera review. The documents are 
contained in twelve boxes with the following bates ranges: 
REVSM-0 13 DO1 WDC 
BOX 01 
0002 000001 - 001 114 
0003 000001 - 002446 
BOX 02 
REVSM-0 13 DO1 WDC 
0003 002447 - 002857 
0004 OOOOO1 - 001943 
000.5 OOOOO1 - 001239 
BOX 03 
REVSM-013 DO1 WDC 
000.5 001240 - 001825 
0006 000001 - 001863 
0007 00000 1 - 00 1076 
BOX 04 
REVSM-0 13 DO1 WDC 
0007001077-004657 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Civil Division 
Express Delivery: 
1100 L Street, N.W. 
Regular Mail: 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, DC 20044-0875 
Room 10 I 52 
Washington, DC 20005 
Tc.1.; (202) 307-1 105 Facsimile: (202) 305-4933 
phillip.rcligman@usdoj.gov 
June 27,2003 
BOX 05 
REVSM-0 13 DO1 WDC 
0007 004658 - 006385 
0008 000001 - 001710 
BOX 06 
REVSM-013 DO1 WDC 
0008 001711 - 005192 
BOX 07 
REVSM-013 DO1 WDC 
0008 005193 - 008695 
BOX 08 
REVSM-0 I3 DO1 W5C 
0008 008696 - 009043 
0009 000001 - 003039 
EXHIBIT t 
Def s Reply in Support of Motion 
to rlisyualify Special MaSier BOX 09 
REVSM-013 DO1 WDC 
0009 003040 - 006032 
BOX 11 
REVSM-013 DO1 WDC 
0011 000945 - 002123 
0012 000001 - 002199 
0012 002200 - 002704 
BOX 12 
REVSM-013 DO1 WDC 
A privilege log for those documents for which hterior wishes to assert privilege will be 
provided to you later. At that time, non-privileged documents will be provided to Plaintiffs’ 
counsel. In the meantime, as with the prior batch of responsive documents, we ask that Interior 
be given an opportunity to assert a claim of privilege before you disclose the information in any 
document. 
Please note that these documents are being produced to you in accordance with your 
direction, but over the objection of Interior Defendants. For the reasons stated in Interior 
Defendants’ Objections to Interim Report of the Special Master Regarding the Filing of Interior’s 
Eighth Quarterly Report, Interior Defendants’ Supplemental Objections to the Interim Report, 
and the Motion to DisqualiFy, we do not believe that it is appropriate for you to continue your 
NADD investigation. 
In any event, we ask that you do not provide these documents to Mike Smith, Jerry 
Moran, or any other current, or former, NAlD employee. If you decide to hire someone, 
including anyone associated with NAID, to assist you with the remainder of your investigation, 
we request that Interior be given advance notice of such a decision and an opportunity to object. 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. (by fax) 
Keith Harper, Esq. (by fax) 
0010 Oooool - 000409 
0010 000410 - 003039 
0011 OoooO1 -OW44 
BOX 10 
REVSM-0 1 3 DO1 WDC 
enclosures 
cc (without enclosures): 
- 2 - COBELL WZRMONT 
*******Y***L******YO* 
TRANSUISSION OK 
..................... 
I** TX REPORT *** 
1698 TX/RX NO 
CONNECTION TEL 
CONNECTION ID 
ST. TIME 
USAGX T 
PGS. SENT 
RESULT 
IMPORTANT; This facsimile i s intended only for the use of the individual or entity do which it is addressed. It may 
santain inhmndlon rhar is piivileged, confidendal, OT othtrwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If 
of this trarumision is not the mtendcd recipient or the anplop or agent rcsponsiblc fbr dclivaing the 
aetlsmissfon to rhc Intended redpiat, you are beretby notified that my dissemination, dir;tribntion, COpfiIIg OT use 
OK 
08/27/2005 12:45 FAX 2023533303 
the &r 
of this tnrmnission or it's urntents is strictly phiiited. If you have rtcaivcd this tmmnissioo in error, pleaso 
notify us by telephoning snd return the orkid transmission to us at the addncss given below. 
FROM Departmcnt of Judcc 
Civil Division 
Fax NO. (202) 353-3303 
Voice No. (202) 307-3013 
SENT BY: Gwen Lewis for John O'Connor 
D e d s Gingold, Esq. TO: 
FAX No. (202) 3 18-2372 
Boo1 
93182372 
DENNIS GINGOLD 
08/27 12:44 
01'08 
3 COBELL VERBION" 06/27/2003 12:46 FAX 2023533303 I 
t t ~ 
TRANSMISSION OK 
t*$ TX REPORT *********~****$****** 
************+*******$ 
l8S9 
98220088 
TX/RX NO 
CONNECTION TEL 
CONNECTXON ID 
ST. TIhE 
USAGE T 
PGS. SENT 
RESULT 
KEITH HARPER 
06/27 12:45 
00 * 30 
3 
OK 
IMPORTANT: This f d m i l c is intcndcd only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is widlwsd It rmy 
rrontain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure un& applioable law. If 
the reader of this transmidm is not the mtendcd rcc;P;cnt or ths employee OT agent responsible fbr delivering Ihe 
tnnsmiesion to the intxndtd rccipicnt, yw M: herebywtifid that a y dissemination, distriition, copying or use 
ofthir tnmmission or it's contents i s bctly prohfbitsd, If you havo received this tmmnision in cnur, please 
notify us by telephoning md return the original transmission to us st the ad& given below. 
FIROM. Dcpartmeut of Justice 
Civil Division 
F a NO- (202) 353-3303 
Voice No. (202) 307-3013 
SENT BY: John O'Connor 
Keith Hapar, Esq. To: 
FAX No. (202) 822-0068 
moor KAW ObflCrj 
Aug-12-03 05:26 , From-THE LAW OFFICE OF ALAN BALARAN 
ALAN L. &UAEUN. P.L.L-C. 
AUMJTTeT) IN DC ANU hW 
August 12,2003 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Timothy Curley, Esq. 
UNTTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF .TUSTICE 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Sration 
Washington, DC 20044-0875 
Dear Mr. Curl ey: 
‘ - 
past month, the parries have engaged in exrensive negoriations aimed at dcfining the respzcr~ve 
obli9ations of the Dcpxtmenr of rhe lnrerior and Ihe Dqxmmenr of ihe Troa,sur)r vls a vis HIM- 
relarcd records . . These negotiations have resulred in an ageemeni benveen the parties, the 
rems of which arc set our in the Order Regardmg Inrenor Depminenr HIM Records Rc:rention 
and rhe Order Regardrng Treasury Depamnent HIM Records Retenlion to which IS appended a 
Gnnl ILSI of the predecessors In intmest (‘Proposed Ordcrs’j’.). 
RE: CobelI rt al. 17. Norton et al., Civil Action No. 96-1285 
MMS-Requesr for Documents 
I have received your letter dated A U ~ L ~ S I 7, 2003 responding to my July 3 I , 2003 requesi 
for documents related to the auditing functions of the Minerals Management Service (“MMS”). 
This request, as you know, was a follow up to my leners of June 5 and 16, 2003 10 Amalia 
Kessler stating my intenrion 10 examine MMS’ audit files. Your letrer seek additional rirnc ro 
consider my requests and an extension until Friday, August 23, 2003 to respond. 
By relephonc conference this darc. 1 granted your request for an exrcnsion of time. To 
avoid any misunderstanding, rhe extension I gamed was TO allow addilional Time to garher 
responsive documents - not to decide whether you would comply with my request in the first 
insrmce. My right ro inspect MMS’ audit files is sqiiru-ely grounded in the &gust 12, 1999 
Order which srares, in pertinent pan: “Ir is fkrther ORDERED, that Alan L. Balaran, Special 
Masrer (“Special Master”), is hercby aurhonzed to oversee the Interior Depqrmienr’s retention 
and prorecrion from desrrucrion of IIM Records . . . .” This order \+’as exu1icirlv consented lo by 
the Department of Justice, the Depanmcni of the Lilerior and the Depnrtmcni of the Treasury 
and, to my knowledge, has nor been mended.’ 
See Augusr 5, 1399 Recommclidation and Repon o f the Special Master Regarding 
Documenr Preservation and Prorection (adopted by the Coun on August 12, 1999) (“During the 
EXHIBIT 2 
Defs Reply in Support of htotion 
to I)isqualtfy Speclal Master 
2 !I29868477 1-991 P 02/03 F-360 
1717 PE”mtthNDlAVS.. N.W. 
THIRTEENTH FLOOR 
WASHMGTOK D.C. 20006 
TI?I-EPHOr\lE (2023 46h5010 
FAX (202) 966-8411 
E-MAIL haLnn@crob corn From-THE LAW OFFICE OF ALAN BALARAN 
Sincerely, 
Alan L. Balaran 
SPECIAL MASTER 
Aug-12-03 0 5 : X 
Ampljfsng rlie August 12, 1999 Order, the Chief of Sraff, Depanq-ienr ol the Inrerior 
generared a meinorandurn which srated: 
As thc Order of July -, 1999 direcrs, ilie Sptcial Master appoinled by the Coun, 
Alan Balarm, is authorized lo oversee and independenrly verify our compliance 
with our document retenrion responsibilities. Mr. Balasau may exercise his 
responsibilities by visiting u i y locarion where HIM records are maiiitained and 
inspecring the HIM records at that location. These inspections may occur with no 
advance notice. Please provide full cooperation should Mr. Balarap visit your 
office. 
Memorandum Re: Rermion of D o c ~ e n t s aid Dara Relating to Individual lndian Money Ci-fiM) 
Accounts Identified in Airachmenr A, ar 2. 
The March 2003 MMS Audit Report, which precipirated my requesr to examine MMS 
audit files, uncovered o missing file involving Navajo allotted leases that was subsequently 
"rm-eated." Pursuant to the above-ciled Augusr 12, 1999 Consent Order apd attached 
memorandum, it is my inrention to conduct a thorough examination to dereirmine whether similar 
MMS documenis have been lost or fabricated. If your request for an extension of time is to 
dispute my righr ro proceed, ir is denied. 
If your requesr for addirional time is to secure responsive document$, rhen, as stated, you 
may have until close-of-business August 22, 2003. 
cc: Dennis Gingold, Esq. 
T-991 P 03/03 F-360 Jun-05-03 05:07 
LAW obFiC€ 
From-THE LAW OFFICE OF ALAN BALARAN 
ALAN L. BALARAN. Y.L.L.C. 
June 5,2003 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Amalia Kesslcr 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IUSTfCE 
Civil Division 
Commercial Lirigation Branch 
P. 0. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Wash ingvon, D C 20044- 0 8 75 
5ear Ms. Kessler: 
RE: Cobeii 1’- Norton Civil Action No.*96-1285 
Audit of the Minerals &lanagemeat Service Audit 
Offices (No. 2003-I-0023j March 7003 
In March 2003. the Depanmeiu ofthe Interior Office of the hpeqror General (“OIG”) 
issued i t s Audit of the Minerals Management Service Audii Offices (‘‘MMS Audir Repo1.r”). (hi 
eiecironic copy orthe MhlS Audi1 Repon w~ll bc transmitted for your rwiew.) Thc srarcd 
objecrive of rhar repon “was TO determine wherhtr hlMS’ internal quality control system 
provides reasonable assurance rhat MhlS audirs ate perfonned in accordwce with established 
policies, procedures, and the Governmenc Auditing Standards (Srandards).” $ee Memorandum 
fiom Anne Richards, Regional Audit hfariager, Cenlral Region to the Assisrant Secretary for 
Land and Minerals Mmagemenr. 
Since M.MS is responsible for the cvlnual collection of $6 billion in royalries and fees for 
minerals produced froin federal, rribal and allotted lands, I became concgyned upoii reading a 
section of the MMS Audu enTiTled “Profess~onalism,” where the OIG reponed thar ir selected for 
rc\ i u w an audir involving Navajo Indian leases. According to the MMS Audit Repon, 
[wlhen MMS officials could nor locare rhrs audir file, instead of iqforming (the 
OIG] of rhar facr, they recreated and backdared the working papers. The recreared 
papers were dared ro u. hen MMS believed rhe work had been done rather than 
when the repIacemenr working papers were actually created. 
MMS Audit Repon a 8. The OIG also rcyorred that MMS ”then granred a cash award, citing 
‘creativity,’ to h e audiior who reconsrrucrsd rhe usorking papers.” Id. Ar 8. 
EXHIBIT 3 
Def‘s Kcply in Support of Motton 
21129868417 
1717 PENNSYLVANIA.%VS., N.W. 
THIXTEENII.I FLOOR 
\WSHINGTON. D.C. 20006 
1mPMONe f-W) 466-5010 
fAx po?) QdN477 
E-MAIZ &bduan@cmir.com 
to Disqualify Special htaster 2029868417 T-EU P 03/03 ~-846 Jun-05-03 05:Ol From-THE LAW OFFICE OF ALAN BALARAN 
The MMS Audit Repon menrions two other instances of missing files penainiiig to 
Indian leases; a statistical possibility that working papers for as many as 62 audits are missing; 
rhe existence of“incoinp1ete files” for the audits perfonned by thz same einployezs responsible 
Tor recreating and backduing the Navajo leases file; and 30 “incompIere sets” of files (lacking 
working papers or nlaster indices). Id. at 9.’ 
Aside from the violarion of Court orders implicated by the loss of Navajo leasing ilks 
coiitnining INS^ information, MMS failed 10 infonn the COLW, the plaintiffs (or, I suspect, the 
Instead, MMS auditors ”recreated“ and l‘backdated” The records 
Navajo allortees) tlxir trust docurnendon was missing and/or thai files containing LIh.1 
information were 
in an atrempr lo deceive the OIG. And one was awarded a cash bonus for his dl~plicify. Beyond 
this, trust information missing froin these incomplete files and work papers are germane IQ rhe 
underlying litigation and thus discoverable by plaintiffs. Given the findings of the OIG, plaiiitiffs 
can nor determine wherher documents produced by the agency are ‘.origpals” or ‘?recreations” 
generated by “creative“ employees awaiting cash bonuses. 
1 am confident that had rhe OIG nor uncovered &is problem in &a cowse ofperforming 
irs audit, the loss of the Nil-njo trust information would not have come to light. 
I am therefore informing you of my intrnrion to invesrigare MMS’ leasing files to deteniiine 
wherhzr individual Indian TNSL information is properly maintained and safrguarded. 
Thank you. 
Sincerely, 
SPECIAL MASTER 
Electronic attachment 
cc: Dmiis Gingold, Esq. (w/artachmenr) 
’ These figures were based on sratistical and judgment samples and not an exhaustive 
revizw ofeach file. Td. ar S-9. 
’ As the MMS Audit Repon is dated March 2003, I suspect rhar rhe agency was aware 
that trust doeurnenration was missing ar the time lliz audit a m undertalceq in 2001. Jun-16-03 06:UZ 20299684TT T-839 P 02/02 F-903 
8717 PENNSYLVANIA hW.. N.W. 
THIRlX~NTM PLOOR 
WAWlNCTON, D C 2M106 
TELEPHONZ \22:, .(t?55310 
fhx (a?) 9%-6477 
E-MAIL abnlsin@cnJr.cum 
From-THE LAW OFFICE OF ALAN BALARAN 
June 16,2003 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Amalia Kessler 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
Civil Division 
Conimercial Lirigation Branch 
P. 0. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington,. DC 2 004.4-08 75 
Dear Ms. Kessler: 
cc: 
Re: Cobcll v. Norton Civil Action No. 96-1285 
March 2003 OIG Audit of MMS 
Thank you for your lerrer this dare in which you seek clarification Q f my June 5 , 3003 
correspondence concerning elic March 2003 DtrpartmznT of rhe hertor Office of The Inspector 
General Audit Repo~f. To be precise, it is my inrention to mure thar &l dpcumenrs relcvanr ro 
the Minerals Management Service’s duties to IIM beneficiaries are reraincp and preserved in 
accordance wirh the agency’s fiduciary duties. To the exrent thar some of rhose docurnenls, such 
as rhose contained in leasing files, are mainrained by organizarions such 8$ The Bureau of Indian 
Affairs or die Bureau of Land Managemar, they will bz inspected as well, 
Sinc ere1 y , 
Alan L. Balaran 
SPECIAL MASTER 
Dennis Gingold, Bsq. (w/arraclmient) 
EXHIBIT 4 
D e r s Reply in Support of Motion 
to Disqualify Special Master 2029868477 Jul-31-03 04:58 T-981 P 02/03 F-306 
1’ I 7 PEPENNSYLVANW A=.. N.W 
THfRTEENTH FLOOR 
WASHINGTON. D.C 10006 
TELWONE (202) 46LS010 
(202) qa6-w-1 F.U 
E-MAIL abJarx@emb.com 
From-THE LAW OFFICE OF ALAN PALARAN 
July 3 1,2003 
V I A FACSIMILE 
John T. Siemietkowslu, Esq. 
LrNITED STATES DEPARTMEYT OF JUSTICE 
P.O. Bax 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, DC 20044-0875 
CORRECTED 
Dear Mr. Siemietkowski: 
1 . 
2. 
RE: CobelI et al. v. Norton et al., Civil Action No. 96-1285 
MMS-Request for Docunimrs 
On June 5 and 16, 2003, I informed Justice Attorney Amalia Kesslp that, in view of rhe 
findings conrained in the March 2003 Audir of [he Minerals Maagemmt Service Audit Offices 
(“MMS Audit Repon”) generated by thc Office of the hpeclor General (.‘QlG‘’), ir was my 
inrenrion to exLmine MMS’ audii files (as well as similar files in the custoqy and control of other 
agencies) to determine whether individual fndian msr information was beivg properly 
maintained ‘and safeguarded Thc MMS Audit Reporr, as you may recall, exposed an jncjdenr 
involving the loss of an audit file involving Navajo allorted leases; rlie subqequent attempt by 
MMS employees ro “recrearc” and “backdare” inlormarion contained in rhst fiIe; and die 
subsequent cash menlive award given to one of those employees 
Accordingly, and pursuant to the August 12, 1999 coisenr order auThorizing ine ro ensure 
rhat trusr infomaiion is properly maintained and safeguarded, I am requesting production of the 
folIowinp documenrs no later than Monday, August 1 1, 2003: 
A list of all oil aid ,oas companies rhar have operared on Indrian allotted lands 
since 1982; and 
A coinplete ser of compliance audit files (“audit files”) geriarated by the Minerals 
Management of [he Dugan Production Corporarion inchdin$, but nor limited 10, 
audir requests or proposals; workplms; workpapers; correspondence, internal and 
csrernal exhibits; and rgorts of findings, conclusions, u d reconunendations. 
EXHIBIT 5 
Dc.1’~ Reply iii Suppvi t of Motion 
to Disqunlity Special Master T-981 P 03/03 F-306 Jul-31-03 04:58 2029868477 
f l e a - , 0 
c. 
Alan L. Balaran 
SPECIAL MASTER 
From-THE LAW OFFICE OF ALAN BALARAN 
Thank you in advance for your cooperarion. 
Sincerely, 
cc: Dennis Gingold, Esq. ALAN I;. BALARAN, P.L.L.C. 
invoke submitted to: 
Cobell. et al. v. Norton, et al. 
United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia 
333 Constitution Avenue, NW 
/ 
Washington DC 20001 
July 01, 2003 
Invoice #42 
Professional Services 
Drafi Monthly Report 
Review transcript of oral argument; summarize arguments in draft 
documents from Mid-Pacific Region, Phoenix Area office; Denver; 
Indian trust records from Albuquerque to Iron Mountain; 0 s N8C 
Denver 
Review oral argument transcript. draft summary of arguments for use 
in draft opinion 
Review Brooks and Carr Bill of Parkulars (11) and resgonse thereto; 
generate outline for oral argument 
Review briefs for Named Individual Cohen 
6/u2003 ALE 
ALB Review OSM request to move inactive non-Indian non-trust records 
and attachments 
ALE Review IT Security Reports and forward to parties and Court 
AW 
6/3/2003 ALB Review attached documentation lo 5122 request to move BOR 
AW 
AL0 
614t2003 ALB Review Wewoka Chicksaw document production responsive to request 
No. 4: draft memo to file and questions related thereto 
AW 
1717 PEWYLVANlA AVE , N.W. 
THIRTEENTH FLOOR 
WASHINCTQN. D C. UMX, 
TELEPHONE (202) 466-5018 
FAX (Ut-2) L)H(rt1477 
E-MAIL tbalann@crolr.cura 
Amount 
200.00 
40.00 
280.00 
375.00 
HrslRate 
1 .oo 
200.00lhr 
200 OO/hr 
0.20 
1.40 
200.001hr 
150.00ihr 
500.00 
2.50 
2.50 
200.001hr 
3.70 
150.001hr 
2.70 
200.00hr 
3 .OO 
200 OOihf 
5 20 
150 O0:h: 
555.m 
540.00 
600.00 
780 00 
E”(HLB1T 6 
Def s Reply 111 Support of Motion 
10 Disqualify Spccial Master Cobell, et af. v. Norton, et al. 
6I4l2003 ALB Draft summary of arguments related to two of the Named Individuals 
Status Conference with J. Kerr ALB 
61512003 ALB Review OIG Report regarding MMS AuditslReview OIG Investigative 
Report; Draft Letter to Kessler regarding MMS Documents 
Draft Letter to Gillett regarding SAG invoice; review Gillett 
correspondence; Vconference w/Kerr regarding same 
ALL3 
Ale Review Cason testimony Transcript;Drafi Letter to Spooner requesting 
lelephone conference 
6/6/2003 ALt3 Draft summary of arguments -- Named Individuals Cohen, Blackwell 
ALB Review Emergency Motion of Babbitt, Cohen and E. Blackwell to Stay 
Contempt Proceedings 
AL0 Review Himrnelhoch and McCarthy filings regarding Bills of Particulars 
II 
6/7/2003 AlB Review Transcript of first day's opening and first second and third days 
of Homan testimony 
ALB Draft summary of arguments; review additional briefs 
61812003 ALB Review Days 4 and 5 of Homan direct and cross 
AL0 Draft opinion regarding e-rnail contempt issues 
61912003 AL0 Review Wewoka Chickasaw production responsive to requests No. 2 8 
7 
Review end of Homan testimony and F rtrgerald testirnoy (days 7 & 8 ALB 
AL0 Draft summary of arguments for use in draft regarding final two Named 
Individuals 
6t1012003 ALB Review Hammond and Fasold (days 9-12) 
6l11M003 AL0 Telephone conference wlCason, Gillett & Spooner regarding OSM 
Page 2 
HrsIRate Amount 
3.30 
200. OOihr 
I .oo 
ZOO.OO/hr 
660.00 
200,oo 
660.00 3.30 
200.00lhr 
200.001hr 
0.30 
1.60 
200.00/hc 
200.0O/hr 
60.00 
320.00 
640.00 
60.00 
3.20 
0.30 
200.00thr 
500.00 
900.00 
740.00 
740.00 
1,740.00 
700.00 
2.50 
200 . O O h 
4.50 
200.00/hr 
3.70 
200 .OO/hr 
3.70 
200.00/hr 
8.70 
ZOO.OO/hr 
3.50 
200.00/hr 
4.20 
200.00/hr 
2.30 
200.001hr 
5.60 
a40.00 
460.00 
1,120.00 
80.00 
200.00/hr 
0.40 
200.001hr Cobell. et al. v. Norton, et al. 
Research -- criminal contempt 
Research-criminal contempt 
Review Notice of Filing by DO1 of Federal Register Notices Related to 
the Collection of lndian Trust Related Records from Third Parties 
Review testimony of John Wright, Landy Stinnett and Alan Graham 
McQuillan (through day 15) 
6/11/2003 AW 
6/12/2003 AW 
6l1312003 ALB 
611 412003 ALB 
ALB Edit opinion regarding e-mail contempt issues 
AW Legal Research --criminal contempt 
Review Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of time to file opposition to 
disqualify 
ALB 
AL0 Review Brief regarding admissibility of depositions of defendants' 
experts as party admissions 
Draft letter to Gillett regarding visit to OSM after reviewing invitation 
Drafl Letter to Gilleti responding to his letter of June 11 regarding OSM 
Review request to move NBC and NPS records and attached 
documentation 
Review Duncan testimony (days 16, 17 and 18) 
Legal Research -- civil contempt 
6/15/2003 AL0 
ALB 
ALE 
ALE 
ALE Edit e-mail contempt opinion 
AW 
6/16/2003 ALE Draft Letter to Kessler responding to letter seeking clarification of 
scope of MMS documents request 
ALB Review oral argument requesting judgment; and Langbein testimony 
(direct and cross) 
ALB Finalize e-mail contempt analysis 
Page 
HrslRate 
3 
Amount 
300.00 
150.00/hr 
450.00 
80.00 
960.00 
2.00 
3.00 
150.001hr 
0.40 
200.001hr 
4.80 
200.0Whr 
760.00 
405.00 
20.00 
60.00 
40.00 
80.00 
3.80 
200 .OOh r 
2.70 
150.00ihr 
0.10 
200.0O/hr 
0.30 
200.00/hr 
0.20 
200.a)lhr 
0.40 
200.00lhr 
1 .oo 
200.00Jhr 
3.70 
200.OO/h r 
2.50 
200.001hr 
150.0011tr 
200.00 
740.00 
500.00 
450 00 
100.00 
600.00 
1,100.00 
3.00 
0.50 
200.00/hr 
3.00 
2 00 .OO/hr 
5.50 
2 00. OOlh r Cobell, et al. v. Norton, et at. 
Legal Research - civil contempt 
Review Defendants‘ Opposition Brief regarding admissibility of 
depositions of defendants’ experts as party admissions 
Angel)) 
ALB Finalize contempt opinion 
Legal Research -- civil contempt 
Cite check contempt opinion; review law review article conterning 
issues relevant to respondeat superiorkonlcrnpt 
Legal Research -- fraud oil court; ordm 
6/16/2003 AW 
ALB 
611 712003 At6 Draft Letter to Siemietkowski regarding Treasury’s e-mail systems 
(requesting update) 
ALB Draft Letter to Gillett regarding rules of engagement and Ty Gast e-mail 
ALE Review transcript testimony of Associate Deputy Secretary Cason and 
Michelle Herman (days 21-24 
ALB Draft opinion regarding e-mail contempt issues 
ALE Status Conference with J. Kert 
6118l2003 ALB Review testimony of Brunner and Rosenbaum (through day 26 (before 
AW 
6/19/2003 ALB 
AW 
6120/2003 ALB Review documents produced responsive to Wewoka/Chickasaw 
requests 2 , 3 , 4 and written responses to 8 & 9 
A t 6 Review Angel testimony (up to day 29) 
ALE Status Conference with J. Kerr 
6121t2003 ALB Review OSM Pittsburgh revisit report; forward to counsesl 
ALB Review Wewoka Chickasaw documents responsive to May 13 requests 
no. 2 & 4 
Hrs/Rate 
Page 4 
Amount 
150.00lhr 
2.30 
0.20 
200.OOlhr 
0.10 
200 .OO/hr 
345.00 
40.00 
20.00 
200.00 
800.00 
400.00 
300.00 
920.00 
760.00 
270.00 
840.00 
375.00 
1 .oo 
200.001hr 
4 .OO 
200.00ihf 
2.00 
200.00lhr 
1.50 
200.00ihr 
4.60 
200.00Ihr 
3.80 
200.001hr 
1.80 
150.00/hr 
200 .OO/h r 
4.20 
2.50 
150.001hr 
2.50 
ZOO.OO!hr 
5.00 
2 00. OOlh r 
0.70 
200.00ihr 
1.20 
200.001hr 
3.80 
200.00/hr 
500.00 
1,000.00 
140.00 
240.00 
760.00 5 Cobell. ef at. v. Norton. et al 
HrdRate Amount 
120.00 6/21/2003 ALB Review Notice of Filing of Fourteenth Quarterly Report for Treasury 
Page 
200.001hr 
6/22/2003 ALE Review Newell testimony (days 21 and 22) 700.00 
ALB Finalize contempt opinion 760.00 
6123/2003 ALB Review Letter from M. Clark regarding Wewoka Chickasaw; draft letter 
to Seligman requesting final delivery of documents for Wewoka as well 
as NAlO 
Review Interior defendants' motion to reconsider admissibility of 
defense exhibits 105-1 11 
100.00 
40.00 
660.00 
0.60 
200.00/hr 
3.50 
3.80 
200.00hr 
0.50 
200.001hr 
200.00/hr 
0.20 
3.30 
200.001hr 
Review Zimrnerman resume, interview, draft Letter to Gillell regarding 
OiRM visit and appending resume of Zimmerman -- physical security 
ALB 
ALB Review testimony of Hermann and Brunner 
6/24/2003 ALB Review Seligman response to WewokalNAJD document request; drafl 
letter in response setting production deadlines 
6/25/2003 ALB Review Letter from J. Siemietkowski regarding supplemental 
production of documents regarding OST IT Security since 8/01 
ALB Review 001's expedited consideration to disqualify 
ALB Review testimony of Rosenbaum 
ALB Review MMS public documents regarding oil and gas leases to 
generate list for produclion 
6/26/2003 ALB Draft Letter to Gillett requesting status regarding OSMIPittsburgh 
ALB 
6/27/2003 ALB 
1 .oo 
200.001hr 
0.10 
200.00/hr 
0.10 
200.00/hr 
4.60 
200.001hr 
4.60 
20O.OOh 
200.00hr 
0.30 
0.80 
200.001hr 
2.40 
200.OOhr 
0.20 
200.00/hr 
4.50 
200.001hr 
200.00 
20.00 
20.00 
920.00 
920.00 
60.00 
160.00 
480.00 
40 00 
900.00 
expert 
DraR Letter to Seligrnan regarding receipt of NAlD documents and 
responding to his concerns regarding investigation; undertake cursory 
review of production 
AL 6 Review Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for a TRO and PI regarding IIM 
Data 
6/28/2003 AL6 Review MMS puMic docurrients regarding oil and gas leases to 
generate list for production Cobeli, et al. v. Norton, et al. 
6/29/2003 ALB Review request to move BOR and F&W records arid attachments 
thereto; draft letter to Vissicchio consenting to request 
6/30/2003 ALB Review request to move two sets of National Park Service records, four 
sets of Office of Surface Mining records, three sets of Fish and Wildlife 
records and fifty-one sets of National Business Center records and 
attachments; send letter of approval to Vissicchio 
ALB Review Notification of Proposed Records Movement 
ALB Review SAlClDOJ March 2003 Scan Data Report 
DraH letters to Vissicchio regarding various request to move 
documents; review requests and attachments; focus on MMS request 
for 5 inactive trust boxes and request inventories 
ALE3 
For professional services rendered 
Previous balance 
611 012003 Payment - thank you 
Total payments and adjustments 
Balance due 
6 Page 
HrslRats Amount 
120.00 
140.00 
240.00 
140.00 
140.00 
0.60 
200.001hr 
0.70 
200.001hr 
I .20 
200.00/hr 
200.00/hr 
--___ 
0.70 
0.70 
200.001hr 
186.80 $35,925.00 
$48,453.55 
($48,453.55) 
($48,453.55) 
$35,925.00 
-_._I LAW OFFICE 
ALAN L. BALARAN, P.L.L.C. 
Invoice submitted to: 
Cobell. at al. v. Narton, et al. 
United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia 
333 Constitution Avenue. NW 
Washington DC 20001 
August 04.2003 
Invoice #44 
Profe$sional Services 
7/1/2003 ALE Review FIMO Report; draft letter to Curfey requesting redaction; draft 
memo to file regarding loss of lrust data 
ALE3 Review Status report regarding system closures 
ALE Ticonference wlJ. Warshowsky (DOJ) regarding possible meeting 
w/Cason 
ALB Review Warshawsky letter bvilh attached summary of lnovis server 
silua lion 
AL6 Draft Monthly Report; review attachments for inclusion 
AL3 Review Spooner letter fegading request for meeting; draft response 
thereto; review reply 
ALB Review documentation and begin inventory of documents provided in 
ALE Draft Letter to Curfey regarding FiMO document destruction report; 
memo to file regarding repoft and list pmclpal players 
response to NAlD request 
AW Legal Research 
AOMI'IT'CI) IN IJCAND Mo 
/ 
1717 PENNWLVANWAVE., N.W. 
THIRTEENTH FLOOR 
WASHINGTON. l>C 206 
TELEPtiONE (202) 466-5alO 
F A X (202) Wb R V I 
E-MAIL rb&rm@mtccorn 
Hrs/Rate 
1.50 
200.001hr 
200. OOlh r 
Amount 
300.00 
60.00 
60.00 
60.00 
200.00 
140.00 
500.00 
450.00 
260.00 
0.30 
0.30 
200.00/hr 
200.00kr 
0.30 
1 .oo 
200.0Oihr 
0.70 
200. OOlhr 
2.50 
200.001hr 
3.00 
150.00lhr 
1 30 
200. OOhr 22 Named Individuals against whom plaintiffs did not file Bills of 
Cobeli, et al, v. Norton, et al. 
71262003 ALB Review Praecipe and Opposifian thereto fo dismiss claims against 
Particulars on time. Draft opinion recommending that motion for 
ALE3 
order to show cause be vacaled. 
Review Newell and Lassiter testimony 
Review Status of IT shutdowns in response to TRO; Vconference 
w/Kerr regarding same and discussion concerning OlRM Hefndon 
physical walkthrough 
Review log of record move notificatians graciously provided by G. 
Vissicchio 
Draft report on motion for contempt 
Legal Research 
Drafl report an contempt motion 
A t B Review Swimmer testimony 
Draft report on contempt motion 
Legal Research 
Draft report on contempt motion 
Legal Research 
Draft 
ALB Review Swimmer testirnorry 
Review letters by Spooner and Gilletf; respond accordingly 
Review testimony of Ross Swimmer 
ALE! 
ACB 
AW 
71312003 AW 
AW 
7/4/2003 AW 
AW 
715/2003 AW 
7/6/2003 AW 
AW 
7/7/2003 ALB 
AL B 
2 Page 
HrsslRate Amount 
2.20 440.00 
200.001hr 
1.50 
200.00hr 
300.00 
120.00 
40.00 
0.60 
200.0Whr 
0.20 
200,Whr 
2.40 
150.051hr 
2.50 
360.00 
375.00 
660.00 
150.001hr 
4.40 
150.00/hr 
700.00 3.50 
200.00lhr 
4.00 
150.00/hr 
600.00 
574 50 
1,305.00 
3.83 
150.00ihr 
8.70 
150.001hr 
150.00hr 
525.00 
495.00 
900.00 
80 00 
460.00 
3.50 
3.30 
150.00!hr 
4.50 
200.00\hr 
200.001hr 
0.40 
2.30 
200.00ihr Cobel, et ai. v. Norton, et at. 
7/7/2003 ALB Review US. Department of the Treasury E-Mail Archival Solution 
Review; draft letter to parties 
AW Conference with Special Master on draft 
Me Draft Letter to Siernietkowski regarding Treasury Report from SAG; 
conference wlSAG regarding same 
ALE Draft Letter to Giltett regarding OSM-Pittsburgh 
7/8/2003 ALB Review Swimmer testimony; extract issues related to leases atrd "fair 
ALE3 
AL0 
AL R Review Gillett letter regarding scheduling of IT site visits 
ALB Review Siernietkowski's lctter regarding Solicotor's office discovery 
of addtionaf BIA e-rnail server 
market value" 
Review Memoranurn of Points and Authorities in Opposition to 
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause why Interior 
Defendants Should not be Held in Contempt re:IT Security Matfers 
Review fnterior Defendants' Motion and Memorandum to File Under 
Seal Discussion and Documents relating to Protected information 
Began inputting data from Box 1 of NAlD Production 
Appraisal Office 
Continue inputting data from Box I of NAlD Production 
Inputting information of NAlD Production frorn Word document into 
Excel spreadsheet 
input Data from Box 2 of NAlD production. 
7/9/2003 JW 
ALB Draft Letter to S. Spooner regarding meeting to discuss TRO issues 
ALB Review Duncan testimony 
ALB Draft and Revise Site Visit Report regarding document retention at 
7/10/2003 JW 
JW 
GB 
AiB Draft and Revise Site Visit Report regarding document retention at 
Appraisal Office 
3 Page 
Amount HrsRate 
200.00hr 
60.00 
120.00 
200.00 
20.00 
0.30 
0.80 
150.00thr 
1.00 
200.00/hr 
0.10 
200.001hr 
4.50 
200.00h 
1.30 
200. OOh r 
200.00/hr 
9oo.w 
260.00 
200.00 
20.00 
40.00 
540 00 
20.00 
600 00 
900.00 
300.00 
100.00 
360.00 
I , 120.00 
1 .oo 
0.10 
200.001hr 
0.20 
200.00/hr 
9.00 
60. OOIhr 
0 10 
200.001hr 
3.00 
200.00hr 
4.50 
ZOO.OO/h r 
5.00 
60.001hr 
5.60 
3.00 
60.00kr 
6.00 
60.00/hr 
200.001hr ALB 
Cobell. et at. v. Norton, et al. 
711 112003 JW 
Excel spreadsheet 
Inputting information of NAlD Production from Word document into 
GB Input Data from Box 2 of NAlO production. 
ALB Draft and Revise Site Visit Report regarding document retention at 
ALB 
Appraisal Office 
Review Incident response plan provided to Justice by OSM 
Interim Network to Interriet and attached declaration of N. Colodney 
Review Notice of Intention of the Office of Solicitor to Connect 
Draft and Revise Site Visit Reporl regarding document retention at 
Appraisal Office 
7/13/2003 ALB Organize and review NAID information produced by Interior for Finai 
Report 
Input data from Box i of NAID Production 
7/12/2003 ALE3 
7/14/2003 JW 
JW 
AW 
AW 
Input data from Box 1 of NAID Production 
G8 Input Oat8 from 8ox 2 of NAID production. 
Legal research 
Draft report on contempt motion 
Draft report on contempt motion AW 
ALB Organize and reviow NAID information produced by Interior for Final 
711 512003 ALB 
JW 
JW 
Report 
Conference with DOJ, DOI, SOL and Ps regarding weekly meetings 
and penetration testing; memo to file 
Input data from Box 1 of NAtD production into Excel Spreadsheet 
Reviewed spreadsheet with Box 2 inventory of NAlO Production 
4 Page 
Amount 
120.00 
HrslRate 
2.00 
60.00kr 
450.00 7.50 
800.00 
60.00/hr 
4.00 
200.00hr 
0.30 60.00 
40.00 
200.00h 
0.20 
200.001hr 
6.50 1,300.00 
i,080.00 
200.oo/hf 
5.40 
525.00 
525.00 
200.00h 
8.75 
60.00hr 
8.75 
60.00thr 
60.00fhr 
6.00 
3.00 
150.M)lhr 
1 .TO 
150.001hr 
2.50 
150.00/hr 
6.30 
200.00/hr 
200.OO/hr 
360.00 
450 00 
255.00 
375 00 
1,260.00 
300.00 
135.00 
15.00 
1 .SO 
2.25 
60.00hr 
0.25 
60.00ihr Cobell, et al. v. Norfon, et ai. 
Researched issues related to San Juan Basirl pipelines 
Continued researching issues related to San Juan pipelines 
Input data from Box 1 of NAlD Production 
711 5/2003 JW 
JW 
.rw 
G6 Input Data from Box 2 of NAlD production. 
AL B Organize and review NAlD information produced by Interior for Final 
Report 
At8 Review Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance with May 21. 2003 
Memorandum and Order 
7/16/2003 ALE 
ALE 
ALE 
ALB Edit Site Visit Report 
JW 
Review Transcript of 5/16 IT meeting; draft memo to fife 
Tkonference wkounsel regarding upcoming IT meeting 
Review Rules of Engagement; discuss wlJ. Ken 
Continue researching issues relating to San Jaun Basin pipelines 
Completed inputting data from box 1 of NAlD production JW 
GB Input Data from Box 2 of NAlD production 
AL B Review Plaintiffs' Counterdesignations of Depositiori Testimony and 
711712003 JW 
GB 
AL 0 Draft Letter to Warshawsky in response to request for 24/7 extension 
of IRMS activity and review of original request and altached 
Defendants' Response thereto 
Began inputting data from Box 3 of NAlD Production 
Input Data from Box 2 of NAlD production 
docurnen tation 
5 Page 
Amount Hrs/Rate 
2.50 1 50.00 
60.00/hr 
75.00 
105.00 
390.00 
1,100.00 
40 00 
1.25 
60.001hr 
1.75 
60.00/hr 
6.50 
60.00hr 
5.50 
200.00hr 
0.20 
200.00hr 
2.10 
200. OOlhr 
420.00 
60.0 
140.0O 0.70 
0.30 
200.00lh r 
200.00hr 
200.001hr 
2.80 
1 .oo 
60.001hr 
7.00 
60.001hr 
7.25 
60.00/hr 
1.50 
200.001hr 
8.50 
560 .OU 
60.00 
420.00 
435.00 
300.00 
510 00 
480.00 
160 00 
60.00lhr 
8.00 
60.00/tir 
0 80 
2OO.OOlhr Cobell, ct al. v. Norton, et at. 
Rules of Engagement (responding to letter of July 16) 
7/17/2003 ALB Draft Letter to Warshawsky regarding meeting concerning Oraft 
ALB Organize and review NAID information produced by Interior for Final 
Report 
Continue inputting data from Box 3 of NAlD Production 7tf8M003 JW 
AW 
AW 
711912003 ALE3 
7/21/2003 GB 
JW 
AW 
GB Input Data from Box 2 of NAID pzoduction. 
Legal Research 
Draft reportm contempt 
ALE Review Cobell v. Norton (Circuit Opinion) 
. ALE Review response to Court's Inquiries During Closing Arguments 
Organize and review NAlD information produced by Interior for Final 
usport 
7/20/2003 ALB Organize and review NAlD information produced by Interior for Final 
Report 
Continue inputling Data from Box 2 of NAlD production. 
Input data from Box 3 of NAIO production 
Oraff report on contempt motion 
this Court's May 21, 2003 Memorandum and Order; Motion 
A1 B Review Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motiori to Compel Compliance with 
ALB Draft and Finalize Contempt Report and Recorririiendation against 
Named Individuals 
Continue inputting Data from Box 2 of NAlD production. 
tnput data from Box 3 of NAlD production 
7t22212003 GB 
JW 
Page 6 
Amount 
140.00 
HrslRate 
0.70 
200.00/hr 
840.00 
420.00 
. 4.20 
200.00/hr 
7.00 
60.001br 
6.50 
2.30 
60.00hr 
150.00ihr 
390.00 
345.00 
a7o.00 5.80 
150.001hr 
1.50 NO CHARGE 
5.30 
6.60 
200.00Rlr 
0.20 
200.001hr 
200.00hr 
2OO.OOihr 
7.00 
60.001hr 
60.00hr 
40.00 
1,060.00 
1.320.00 
420.00 
480.00 
570.00 
60.00 
1,100.00 
420.00 
510.00 
8 .OO 
150.00ihr 
3.80 
200.00/hr 
0.30 
200.001hr 
5.50 
7.00 
60.001hr 
8.50 
60.00hr 7/23/2003 JW 
GB 
AW 
ALB Review Jacobs' Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Pro Se and 
Defendants' Opposition Thereto 
ALE4 
AL0 
Cobell, et af. v. Norton, et a}. 
Draft report on contempt motion 712212003 AW 
ALB 
meeting of 7/21 
Draft Letter to J. Warshawsky responding to letter of 7/16 concerning 
ALB Draft and Finalize Contempt Report and Recommendation against 
Named Individuals 
Continue inputting data from Box 3 of NAlO production. 
Continue inputfing Data from Box 2 of NAlD production. 
Draft report on contempt motion 
Draft letter to Warshawsky regarding McDivitt Declaration 
Draft and Finalize Contempt Report and Recommendation against 
Named Individuals 
Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAlD production. 
Continue inputting data from Box 3 of NAlD Production 
Edit Site Visit Report to the Eastern Region Navajo Office 
Review Request to Move three sets of Fish and Wildlife Service 
Inactive Non-indianlNon-Trust records 
Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAlD production. 
Make corrections to Site Visit Report 
Input data from Box 3 of NAID production 
Review fnterior's Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for 
Preliminary Injunction 
7/24/2003 GB 
JW 
JW 
ALB 
7/25/2003 GB 
JW 
JW 
ALB 
Page 7 
Amount 
240.00 1.60 
HrslRate 
150.001hr 
160.00 
1.260.00 
510.00 
450.00 
0.80 
200.00/hr 
6.30 
200 O O h r 
8.50 
60.00/hr 
7.50 
60.00hr 
150 OO/hr 
300.00 
120.m 
40.00 
2.00 
0.60 
200.001hr 
0 20 
200.0Okr 
600 00 
210.00 
3.00 
200.001hr 
60 0 0 t h ~ 
395.00 
120.00 
120.00 
390.00 
3.50 
6.60 
60.00ihr 
2 .oo 
60 OOhr 
0.60 
200 001hr 
6.50 
60.00ihr 
60 OOhr 
60 00 
420.00 
200.00 
1 .oo 
7.00 
60.00lhr 
1 .oo 
200 OOhr Cobelf, et al. v. Norton, et af. Page 8 
Amount HrslRate 
60.00 
200.001hr 
0.30 
0.30 
200 OO/hr 
60.00 
t20.00 
7/25/2083 ALB Review Petitioners' Motion for Scheduling Order to Govern furhter 
ALE3 Uconference w/D.Rless -- collect correspondence regarding IT 
Proceedings 
ALB Review Notice of Fillng/Motion and Memorandum to file Under Seal 
Discussion and Documents Relating to Protected Information 
security; transcript of 7/15 meeting for court's review 
300.00 
0.60 
200.001hr 
150.00lhr 
7/26/2003 AW Drafl report on contempt motion 
Review Interior's Motion for leave lo File Supplemental Opposition 
lo Plaintiffs' Motion for PI and Supplemental Opposition; Interior's 
Statement of Supplemental Authority for Motion lo Disqualify Special 
Master Balaran 
ALB 
ALB Drafl and Finalize Contempt Report and Recommendation against 
100.00 
1,300.00 
Named tndividuals 
2 .oo 
0.50 
6.50 
200 .OO/hr 
200.00Rlr 
4.50 
150.Oofhr 
5.00 
7/27/2003 AW Draft report on contempt motion 
ALB Oraft and Finalize Contempt Report and Recommendation against 
Named Individuals 
ALB Draft and Finalize Contempt Report and Recamniendalim against 
Named Individuals 
n2a/2003 ALB Review request to move records by BIA; MMS;Fish arid Wildlife; 
675.00 
1,000.0# 
1 .ooo.oo 
440.00 
450.00 
510 00 
630 00 
200.00kr 
5.00 
200. OOihr 
2.20 
200 OOihr 
7.50 
60.00hr 
8 50 
60.00thr 
4 20 
1 SD.OO/hr 
1.50 
200.00lhr 
7.50 
60.00thr 
3 00 
8.00 
60.00Ihr 
'1 50.00ihr 
NPS and BOR 
GB Confiriue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAlD production. 
Completed inputting data from Box 3 of NAlD production 
Draft report on contempt motion 
Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAlD production. 
Begin inputting data from Box 5 of NAlD production 
Draft report on contempt motion 
JW 
AW 
AlB Review Court's opinion regarding preliminary injunction 
7/29/2003 GB 
JW 
AW 
300.00 
450 00 
480.00 
450 00 JW 
81112003 ALB Review Notice of Filing of Interior's 14th QR - Review sections 
related to IT; Records; Training; Appraisals etc. 
G 0 Continue ii\pulting Data from Box 4 of NAlO production, 
JW 
a13/2003 ALB Draft Monthly Report; review timesheets for assistants; cite check 
and put exhibits together for site visit report; cite check Contempt 
Cobell, et al. v. Norton, et at. 
Named Individuals 
7/29/2003 AL0 Draft and Finalize Contempt Report and Recommendation against 
713012003 GB Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAlD production. 
Review Filing of Redacted Version of July 25,2003 Letter with 
Attachments to Daniel Reiss 
ALB 
ALB Draft and Finalize Contempt Report and Recommendation against 
Named lndlviduals 
Continue inputting data from Box 5 of NAlD production 
Continue inputting Data from Box 4 of NAlD production. 
JW 
7/31/2003 GB 
Draft report on contempt AW 
ALB Draft Letter to Siemietkowski requesting MMS Documents 
Continue inputting data from Box 5 of NAlD production 
Continue inputting data from Box 5 of NAlO production 
decision 
For professional services rendered 
Additional Charges : 
Ti112003 Copying cost for MMS articles and public documents 
711 512003 Copying 
7130/2003 Court Report and Transcript for WcwokalChickasaw Depositions 
-._^_ HrdRete 
Page 9 
Amount 
1,260.00 
300.00 5.00 
140.00 
6.30 
200.00fhr 
60.00hr 
0.70 
200.00/hr 
4.20 
200.00lhr 
8.00 
60.00ihr 
840.00 
480.00 
450.00 7.50 
60.00hr 
2.50 
50.001hr 
2 00. OOlh r 
0.30 
8.00 
60.00/hr 
2.70 
200.00/hr 
7.50 
60.00lhr 
8.50 
60.OORr 
200.00/hr 
4.60 
500.48 
375.00 
60.00 
480.00 
540.00 
450.00 
510.00 
920.00 
$58,964.50 
268.07 
268.07 
t ,096.24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE 
I declare under penalty of perjury that, on August 22,2003 I served the foregoing Interior 
Defendants Reply in Support of Motion to Disqualifi Special Master Balavan by facsimile in 
accordance with their written request of October 3 1 , 200 1 upon: 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
(202) 822-0068 
Per the Court’s Order of April 17,2003, 
by facsimile and by U.S. Mail upon: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 594 17 
(406) 338-7530 
By facsimile and US. Mail: 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
17 1 7 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
1 3 th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 3 18-2372 
By U.S. Mail upon: 
Elliott Lcvitas, Esq 
1 100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530