SEP-03-2003 10:33 
.. . 
P.02 
Nf-1- 03-5063 
202 514 7964 
I consol i d a t ed w . ~ t h 
No. 03-5084 and 
NO. 03-50971 
1 
1 
1 
) 
1 
1 
1 
DOJ RPPELLQTE STFIFF 
1N THE UXITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL3 
FOR T€Ia DISTRICT OF COLUMUIA CIRCUIT 
Z&oT.tTsE PEPZON CnRELL, et al., 
Agyellccc, 
.- 
v , 
GRT,E A . NORTCIN, as Secretary OL 
the Interlor, e t al, 
nppella l i t s 
c_ 1 
) 
FEDERAL WVERNMhXT4S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 
MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CONSOLTDATED APPEALS 
These appeals arise frc-)rn d i a t r i c t c i s i i r t orders that. apply c1 
f icliiciary except ion cz, the actamey-client and w r k product 
privilegeb. As described hi our motion, these O r d e r s d w l t w i t h 
a .specific discovery requcct but A ~ S O purported to eetablish a 
frameNork for future ?XI i n y s i n a discovery regime to 1.1~: 
sq1erd3cd by the Special Master-Monitor Joseph S . Kietfer 111. 
Gcs 212 F , R . D . 48 ( U . D . C . 2003) (respandiriy to governmeiit 
oh; cctionc LO Mr . K i e f fcr s ovo r.sight and iwnsirig sanctions L c i r 
raising Llie obicctrons) . O n April 24, 2003, thle Court stayed 
July 1 B , 21!!73, the Court 
issued 
bk.. I<iet+er's a~ppintmcnte, and 
required his removal f m i n the poeicloriy of Master and Moiiitor. 
a Cobell IT I?LIL;~OR, 331 F.33 1128 (R.C. C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . AS We 
expldined in our moeiori, with the remr.ival of ME. K i e f f e r , the 
circumstanres t h a t qave rise LO the appeal T I C ) longer e n s t , arid 
nu Eurthcr rulings regarding the "f .i cluciary er-ceptj t JLI" 
during 4 40-day t r i a l rhnt cuncludcd i n J u l y . Accordingly, the SEP-03-2003 10:33 
202 514 79b4 P. 03 
I 
DOJ FIPPELLQTE STQFF 
governmuit has moved ti) dismloc its appeals. As we rioted in our 
motion, it is ullclcar whether new appl~catiuns of the fiduci A L ~ 
exceptii-m will resulr. i r i s-ulingc that iiiay warrant a p p ' l l a t e 
I.*view. snd dismissal OF the present appeals w u i l l d be withour 
prejlidic-e to thc goverr?rnw~t' 6 right ta r:l-inllengc euch Lot-ure 
r iilinga I shduid I-.hey occur. 
A . Plaintitts as5m.L t h a t the Uourl. should establj sh 
r-:on?.it.iona on L.he diarniesal. The Court, plaint i f fs urge, should 
tither r_ti..;misa with prcjirdice OX indicare that t u t u r e appeals may 
be bnrrcd on a law-of-thc-case rhewy, Plaintiffs a l s o a3k f o r 
a t t o r x y t s fees,i plaini.iffs offer no basis whatsoever fox 
imposing condit i zms on t h e Cour 1. ' s ordcr of dismi sb;al., 
Plaintiffs believe that no attorney-client or WOrk-pIr~idUCt 
L ulir.gs involviriy the 80 called "f i d u c i a r l exceptr.; c x i * should be 
eubjecr L o appellate review p r i o r to final judgment. A6 we 
explained in oiir upgosition to plaintiffa' notion rrn dismiss, 
Flaintiffs avk (Reapone6 at 3-41 that t h c dismissel be 
with prejudice o r be dismissed uri ehc following C Q n i i t i : 
1) the r i g h t of Pla.i,~t;ffa.A~pellees r.0 assert, and the 
application ol, the "law of the r.:ase" doctrine as a bar 
to any ful.ilre challenge by [.lie government t5 the 
f 1 riuciary' exccptior. to i.ha attorney-clienr p i v i l e q c or 
attorney work pradiict privilege, sh811. not bc impeded 
nor be affsr.:I.ed by thc w i t h d r a w i l l of t h c appeal: and 2 ) 
Ylalnt-iffs-A~pcllees cost% and rewonable fens for- 
preparation of appeal r-esgonace are L U he paid by 
Trustce-Uelegates . SEP-03-2003 10:33 DOJ APPELLATE STAFF 
t.hat position is incorrect. 
privj leye rulings. 
Un-6 a 
Inc.. 31.4 F.3d 612 (D.C. fir. 20031 - 
their c:i-iiitention thar. the governmenL must proceed with the 
preser,t appeals or prejudic.e i t s sbiliry t.u challenge l a t e r 
Indeed, plaintiffs' ~ I ~ s e r r t poeition t h a t t h e goverriincnt 
n?ust. seek appellate review AOW, i T at: all, is In stark concrast 
w i t h the position t h a t p l a j r . i t i f f a took i r i t h e i r motion ro dismisc 
che agpealc. In t h a t motion, plair-itiffa argued r.ha:, unlike In 
&iLip Mor1.i s, t h c r u l i n g s Irom which t h e 'government a p p d a d in 
t h i H case d i d nor ~oricluzivcly resulve a privilege ismc: 
[TI he District Courr s chllcnged orders in this cdse 
ge!rierally provide only prospecrive guiailnca to !..he 
parties regs r ding privilege issues not yet r d l y 
developed or r i p e for decision. Moreover, even a6 T;cr 
the Y i iigle dcpositiiir.i queetion che District Court 
crrr-iered t o be znl-jwcred Over the T r u s t e e Delagtitf?'s 
objection, the record does noL discloce any t+lilssequcnt 
e f f o r t t u enforcc the December 23 order ox to 
reschedule Mr. Caaori' s depociticn sn hat the a i s p u l d 
question could lie re-asked. Tliiis, no ChOWing n C 
"canclusiveriesss" or "f1nal.i t-y" heo baen made that would 
j Use: j f y the interlocut ur.y revicw 'char Trustee-Pcleqat es 
i.rripi-uperly eesk i n this inctance . 
P l a i n t i f f s ' Mution t o Dismiss at 5 . 
P.04 202 514 7964 
, 
v. Phi1ir.i Mar ri c, 
I 
I 
I 10:33 SEP-03-2003 DOJ FlPPELLFlTE STQFF 
P. 05 202 514 7964 
p l a i n t i f f s ' previous Lrisil;tencc thar the district court: had 
not cor~c:lusiucly resnlvtd B claim or privilege and Lhat the 
i ssuea were t hiiu "not yet f u l l y devcloped [ 11- r i p e tor doc:ifiaon, '' 
cannot lie squared with their currenl.. position thal: the qovarnmpnt 
should incur prejudice from the vcluntarlly dismiseai 01 the 
current appea13. If the ngpcal had heen fuiiy litigated and t h i s 
Iluui-t had concl!ded that the privilege issllc Nab not "ripe for 
decislnn," thc result inigkt be disnlissal of the appeal, b u t not H 
rulinq that would impair c h ~ government's ability to seek 1-eview 
of a l a t e r order. The voluntarily dismiaoal of [.he appeals 
&hould have riri greater consequences . 
R . PlaintiffsT request tor at.turney'3 fees is unfounded. 
Plaintiffs c:i te Circuit R L I ~ E : 3 0 , authoriziriy fee3 when A I I appeal 
"to harass or t o cause ~inutces~i\ry delay." Response 31:. is C&en 
5 6 . P l a j n L i f f s otfex no .r'CasOn or aur:hnrity to demonsL,r-ate that 
chis stapdard is sat.isfied, even asfiuming that the. rule would 
allow fees ccyainst the feBFslrd goucrnment. The government- filed 
nnl. ices of appeal arid is now maviiy to diemiss ttic-jse notices 
hcfore briefing. The 9jOvtiLrirnent did not seek a etay ol: any 
rlit;trict: court ruling or in any way seek t o delay t h e progress of 
thc case h s e d on the no1 ices of appeal. The filing of l:he 
nnLices ot appeal caused no delay and plaintiffs identity none. 
Filing e u c h notices caTiriot pltaucibly he characterized 2s 
Ir l\h~zafisme~r. 
- 4 - SEP-03-2003 10:34 
202 514 7964 
< 
DO1 RPPELLRTE STRFF 
motion 1 ~ - I dismice tho governmeat's appmls for lack of 
I 
jitirisdiction. T f Lhe Court grari1.s the qovernmer*tt's motion to 
dismiss 1 ts sppaals vol iinLar-ily, it canrit-k properly r e a d 1 the 
issuea presentw1 in plaintiffs' iriution. M d , if the Court does 
noT: gratr. the governmtri:.' s motion, rhe issue ot jurisdir.kion will 
properly be resvl ved upon compl otian of brief1 ng . 
r). P l a i n t i f f a d i s ~ i i i t e thc lmportailce of former F l a u L e r - 
Monitor Zoseph Kief f e r ' G role t.c-> the governmer~t: ' 5 concerns 
plaintiffs' [:niltentions were currcct, they w r ~ u l d not: cuppart t.he 
conci.~ r.iunz they seek t.0 impoce upon r . h dismiocal of Lhr 
government's dppeala. In f a r : t , Mr, X i d f e r was charqcd w i t h 
ovctr.beeinq dlecovery and w i t h propavnding hia Own doc.iJrnent 
requests. &g 212 F . R . D . 4R, 5 7 - 6 0 ( D . U . C . 7.003). This Courl. 
has cataloqued in F;OILIC detail the exi.raordinsry role atlsigned t b 
! 
M r . KiefIer by thc discricr. court, Seg cobell v . Nortpn, 334 
F.3d 1129, 1142 (l7.C. Cir. Z O U 3 ) . 
~ 1 a - i ntif fs note that t.hc 5overnment a9.r eed to MY, Kief r-er's 
i r i i t i a l appoincmerit as a Monitor, aid assert t h a t MX. Kieftcr was 
properly reappointed ovex the govcrgmenlt R u b j ectiono . Resycmse 
a t 5 , This Courl , however, f 1 a t l . y rejected that: aryumenc. See 
- i d . at 1 1 4 1 ("The plain;. if fs' suqqescion l.liat: Ithc consent 
order], which explicitly grants the parties the [right t o objecr 
- 5 - 
P.06 
1. 
, I 
I' SEP-03-2003 10:34 
P.07 
tn Kieffcr' 6 reappointment, a c t u a l l y served RS conserir- to h i s 
202 514 7964 
E. For rile redsong sei. out above wnd in our mot.iuii, t h c 
court tihould gram r.he govcrnment ' s motion KO r i i s m i a s wirhoui. 
i:or,ditions. Howevcr, if r.he Court were to conciude that thc 
govarnnwnt can d i s m j s v it3 appeals only by prejudicing i t s 
rlhility to sekk review of future d i s t r i c l . court ordeJs, thc 
goverririient would hdve no choice b u t t o proceed with its appeals. 
DOJ QPPELLQTE STQFF 
unlimited tanurc, is dbsurd.") . 
I n t h a t everil., our rnoticlri should be denied and the present 
-6- 
appeals should go Fniwerd.z 
Under the bricfing .sc-:hedule estah1.ished by this Court I the 
gove-r.iii\ent'3 openircy bricf woulrl be due on SepLember 9 , 2007. 
Accordingly, we r'ccpact2:i.Jl.ly aak that the Court act. ui'l our motion 
to t-lisrnioc at Khe earliccE pos.rible time. Toyether with t t i i s 
motion, we are filing R conditional nic'ikion for an exLcnsion of 
titw in whlch r o rile our openilly bricf in t l i e event that t.he 
Court coric~:lude~ that ir. can dismiss nri1.y upon the rx~nditions 
IJ.:l-JpCsed by p l e i i i t i f f s . 
A l t e r n a t . i v e l y , t h e goverIimant would, i J i that caBe, ask to 
withdraw i t s mution asld prar.ee.d with the appeala.' SEP-03-2003 10:34 DOJ QPPELLQTE STQFF 
P.08 202 514 7964 
k 
I &ttorpe\rs, A d a g e Staff. 
ncriartment ot Justicg;l 
m D Street, N . N , 
Wpchinsron , D . C . 20530 
/. AUGUST 2003 . 
I 
i 
COWLUSTON 
For the forecj~'~ing rcacons arid thoac stated i i i our motion, 
the goverrinient a appeals should Be Blsnc i ssed. 
LEWIS YELIN 
(202) 514-5UbY 
civil Division, Room 
- 7 - SEP-03-2003 10:34 DOJ RPPELLRTE STRFF 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
caused copies ~ - 3 f the foregoir.iy motion to he sent t o the C m i r - t and 
to the following courisel by hand dplivery: 
Thc Bonorahle Royce C. Lambrrth 
United StateB D i s t r i c t C u u r t 
UniI ed S t a t e B courthuuse 
'Third and Const i L ut ion Ave , , IU . W - 
Washingtan, D . C . 20001 
Kc i LII H. Harper 
Nhtivc A m e r i c d n Righte Fund 
171% N SIr-cet, N.W. 
Waqhiiigton, D.C. 2n036-2376 
( 2 0 2 ) 785-1166 
McKr:llna Long & Aldrich 
Box 6 
Herbert Ldwz-tncc E'en6 t er' 
1900 X Streec, 1J.W. 
FJschington, D.C. 20005 
(2021 496-7500 
and LO I 'he following coilrise1 b y zedera1 nxpreEil , overnight mail : 
Elliott K . LeviiAs 
Law Office 01 Elliott H. Levitas 
llou Peachtree Street 
Wire 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
(104) 619-6450 
and to the Pcillowinq counsel. by first class, regular mail: 
Uerir, i s Marc Gingold 
A07 14th Street, N.W, 
waskringI.~-m, D . C . 2OOOS 
202 514 7964 P. 09 
I 
TOTRL P. 09 I