IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
____________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of 
the Interior, et al., 
) 
) 
)
)
)
)
) No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 
LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' 
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION 
TESTIMONY OF ANSON BAKER AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 
Plaintiffs do not dispute that the issue of the referral of Justice Department attorneys to 
the District Court's Committee on Grievances was not raised in their Motion to Compel 
Deposition Testimony of Anson Baker And Request for Sanctions, or in Defendants' Opposition, 
but instead appeared for the first time in their Reply. Plaintiffs also do not dispute that the issue 
of the referral had no relevance to the underlying motion. Indeed, they readily concede that their 
mention of the referral provided no legal theory explaining the connection between the referral 
and the testimony sought from Mr. Baker. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for 
Leave to File a Surreply ("Plaintiffs' Opposition") at 3-4. 
Under these circumstances, one might understandably wonder why the referral was even 
mentioned in their Reply. The real reason that Plaintiffs raised the issue of the referral seems 
obvious to Defendants: when confronted with a well-reasoned, persuasive opposition to which 
Plaintiffs had no reply, they resorted to their usual base and degrading tactic of tarring the 
messenger. Plaintiffs accuse Defendants' counsel of being "ethically challenged." Plaintiffs'
Opposition at 2. Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs have challenged, ad nauseam, the 
ethics of Defendants' counsel in this litigation. The point missed by Plaintiffs is that the 
challenges are meritless. To ensure that the record is complete Defendants should be permitted 
to respond to the new issue raised in Plaintiffs' Reply. See Ben-Kotel v. Howard Univ., 319 F.3d 
532, 536 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc., 
238 F. Supp. 2d 270, 277 (D.D.C. 2002) ( "A surreply is most appropriate where the new matter 
introduced is factual.").1 
The bulk of Plaintiffs' Opposition contains an attack on the investigation – and, of course, 
its outcome – conducted by the Committee on Grievances in response to the Court's referral. 
These complaints have no place in this dispute. Plaintiffs' concerns about how the Committee 
conducted its business should be directed to the Committee, and Defendants will not address 
them here. The facts are indisputable. The Committee received a complaint from the Court; the 
Committee investigated the complaint; the Committee issued letters to each of the subjects of the 
referral indicating that the complaint had been discharged and that the matter is now closed. The 
basis for Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Surreply is simple: Because Plaintiffs raised the 
issue of the referral for the first time in their Reply, Defendants should be permitted to file a 
surreply which sets forth the outcome of the referral.2 
1/ Plaintiffs' Opposition does not contain a proposed order, as required by LCvR 7(c), and thus 
Defendants' Motion should be treated as unopposed. See Order of January 27, 1999, at 2 (Dkt. 
200); Order of December 21, 1998, Note to Counsel (Dkt. 185). 
2/ Plaintiffs purport to "reserve their right to oppose" any surreply. Plaintiffs' Opposition at 5 
n.12. Because the filing of any paper after a reply requires leave of Court, this reservation of a 
nonexistent "right" is a nullity. 
2
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, Defendants' Motion should be granted and Defendants' Surreply should 
be accepted for filing. 
Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 17, 2004 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ Sandra P. Spooner 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on June 17, 2004 the foregoing Defendants’ Reply in Support of 
Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition 
Testimony of Anson Baker and Request for Sanctions 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