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., 
)
)
) 
Defendants. 
_________________________________) 
DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' 
STATEMENT OF FEES AND EXPENSES FILED JUNE 21, 2004 
Pursuant to the Court's Order of May 25, 2004, Defendants respectfully submit their 
objections to Plaintiffs' Statement Of Fees And Expenses In Accordance With The Court's March 
11, 2003 Order (filed June 21, 2004) ("Plaintiffs' Statement"). 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 
On March 11, 2003, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order imposing sanctions 
against Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g) based on the filing of a 
declaration executed by Frank Sapienza, the former Director of the Indian Trust Accounting 
Division of the General Services Administration ("Sapienza Declaration").1 Specifically, the 
Court ordered Defendants to "compensate Plaintiffs for any reasonable expenses, including 
attorneys' fees, incurred by plaintiffs as a result of opposing the claims set forth in the Sapienza 
Affidavit submitted in conjunction with defendants' Third Motion."2 Mem. & Order at 15. The 
1 On May 25, 2004, the Court denied our motion to reconsider the sanctions ruling. 
2 The "Third Motion" refers to Defendants' Third Phase II Motion For Partial Summary 
Judgment (filed Sept. 19, 2000) ("Third Motion"). 
Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth)
Court ordered Plaintiffs to submit an application "detailing the amount of reasonable expenses 
and attorneys' fees incurred as a result of preparing and filing their opposition brief to the Third 
Motion." Id. 
Plaintiffs have submitted a fee application seeking a staggering $356,774.12, based on 
1,165.7 claimed billable hours, in response to the Court's Order allowing them recovery for the 
preparation of a single summary judgment opposition brief. In so doing, they disregard the 
limitation prescribed in the Court's Order, seek reimbursement for other motions and activities 
for which the Court has not allowed them recovery, and seek unreasonable levels of 
compensation for the work that they ostensibly performed. Because Plaintiffs have so 
overreached in seeking reimbursement of fees which they could not reasonably believe the Court 
allowed them to recover, their entire application should be denied under established law in this 
Circuit. Alternatively, their total claim should be substantially reduced to $23,223.50, a 
reasonable amount in light of the relief contemplated by the Court's Order. 
ARGUMENT 
I. Because Plaintiffs Improperly Seek Fees And Expenses Based On Work For Which 
They Have Not Been Awarded Recovery, Their Entire Claim Should Be Disallowed 
The Court's March 11, 2003 Memorandum and Order permits the Plaintiffs to seek 
reimbursement for fees and expenses "incurred as a result of preparing and filing their opposition 
brief to the Third Motion." Mem. & Order at 15. Viewed against these clear parameters, 
Plaintiffs' application is so outlandish that it warrants denial in its entirety. 
This Court previously has recognized the exacting standards that are to be applied in 
reviewing fee applications against the government: "The D.C. Circuit has admonished . . . that 
2
'where a fee is sought from the United States, which has infinite ability to pay, the court must 
scrutinize the claim with particular care.'" Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. 122, 125 (D.D.C. 1999) 
(quoting Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 888 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). And, in Environmental 
Defense Fund v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254, 1258 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the D.C. Circuit warned: 
We may deny in its entirety a request for an "outrageously unreasonable" 
amount, lest claimants feel free to make "unreasonable demands, knowing 
that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be 
reduction of their fee to what they should have asked for in the first place." 
(quoting Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057, 1059 (7th Cir. 1980), and citing Jordan v. Dep't of 
Justice, 691 F.2d 514, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Trichilo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 823 
F.2d 702, 708 (2d Cir. 1987)). The court also noted that, as an alternative to disallowance of the 
entire fee request, a court may "impose a lesser sanction, such as awarding a fee below what a 
'reasonable' fee would have been in order to discourage fee petitioners from submitting an 
excessive request." 1 F.3d at 1258. After considering the fees claimed and work performed, the 
court disallowed the entire fee sought by one of the attorneys for the applicant (but not the others) 
because of an excessive amount of time claimed for certain tasks. Id. 
Plaintiffs' Statement fits precisely within the "outrageously unreasonable" standard 
described in Environmental Defense Fund. Aside from the fact that the overall amount claimed 
by Plaintiffs (1,165.7 hours and fees and expenses totaling $356,774.12) is grossly excessive in 
light of the matter for which recovery was allowed, Plaintiffs' Statement is outrageously 
unreasonable because it seeks substantial sums for work on motions and other tasks for which 
they were not authorized to request fees.3 Plaintiffs had no basis to believe that they were 
3 Moreover, as discussed in detail in Section II.B.3, infra, there is reason to believe that 
Plaintiffs have modified their billing records in an effort to increase their fee request. This 
3
entitled to include that work in their present application. Their conduct is aggravated by the fact 
that they have engaged in this practice twice before.4 A substantial sanction is appropriate to 
ensure that this does not happen again.5 
Based upon the dates and descriptions of work contained in the fee statements attached to 
Plaintiffs' Statement, the vast majority of the hours for which Plaintiffs seek recovery (at least 
745 hours, which is 64% of the 1,165.70 total hours claimed) involves work on activities other 
than preparing and filing their opposition brief to the Third Motion.6 See Exh. A (identifying the 
various activities outside the scope of the Court's Order for which Plaintiffs seek fees). Plaintiffs 
even go so far as to seek recovery for work on motions as to which they did not prevail, such as 
conduct further militates in favor of denial of their entire fee award. 
4 Following the 1999 contempt proceeding, Plaintiffs submitted an application for over 
$2.3 million, which the Court reduced to under $625,000, finding that Plaintiffs included in their 
application much work on matters beyond the scope of what the Court's decision stated they 
could recover at that time. Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. at 123, 139-40. On April 29, 2002, 
Plaintiffs filed a fee statement claiming over $409,000 for opposing two short discovery motions. 
The Court substantially reduced that award to $125,484.87, finding that Plaintiffs again included 
work beyond the scope of the recovery permitted by the Court. Mem. Op. and Order (Nov. 12, 
2002). 
5 This is particularly important now because Plaintiffs are preparing what is likely to be, 
based on prior practice, an equally excessive interim fee petition pursuant to EAJA. It bears 
noting that Plaintiffs have now sought two extensions of time (which the Court has not yet acted 
upon) in order to compile their "contemporaneous" billing records for that interim petition. 
6 The actual quantity of inappropriately claimed time may be higher; many of Plaintiffs' 
time entries include unsegregated tasks and are too vague to clearly identify which activity they 
involve. 
4
their motion to amend their contempt motion, cross-motions for summary judgment, and their 
opposition to Defendants' motion to withdraw three summary judgment motions.7 
Plaintiffs have ignored the Court's clear instruction that their application be limited to 
those fees and expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and filing of their opposition 
brief to the Third Motion. Instead, Plaintiffs' Statement is so far afield from these simple 
parameters that it cannot reasonably have been thought proper. Because Plaintiffs' Statement 
contains time for so many clearly non-recoverable tasks, we respectfully request that the Court 
disallow Plaintiffs' request for recovery in its entirety. As the D.C. Circuit recognized in 
Environmental Defense Fund v. Reilly, 1 F.3d at 1258, that is the only effective way to deter 
such wrongful conduct. 
II. Alternatively, Plaintiffs' Statement Should Be Substantially Reduced Because It 
Exceeds The Scope Of The Relief Ordered By The Court And Is Grossly Excessive 
Plaintiffs' Application far exceeds the relief ordered by the Court. First, Plaintiffs seek 
reimbursement of fees and expenses for work that was not incurred in connection with preparing 
and filing their opposition brief to the Third Motion. Second, the fees and expenses that 
Plaintiffs seek are unreasonable because $356,774, based on 1,165 hours, is a patently excessive 
amount for the preparation of a single summary judgment opposition brief. The billing entries 
are also replete with inconsistencies and other improprieties, and include the application of an 
7 See Order (Mar.11, 2003) (denying Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend 
and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a 
Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: 
the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards); Order (Sept. 17, 2002) (denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' Cross-Motions for 
Summary Judgment as to (A) There Being No Temporal Limit to Defendants' Obligation to 
Account, and (B) the Non-Settlement of Accounts); Memorandum and Order (Mar. 11, 2002) 
(granting Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Three Motions for Partial Summary Judgment). 
5
inappropriate billing rate for non-professional work. Plaintiffs' Fee Statement should be denied 
insofar as the billing entries included therein suffer from these defects. 
A. Plaintiffs' Application Goes Beyond The Relief Ordered By The Court 
The Court expressly limited the fees and expenses for which Plaintiffs could seek 
reimbursement to those "incurred as a result of preparing and filing their opposition brief to the 
Third Motion." Mem. & Order at 15. Plaintiffs disregard this limitation and seek fees and 
expenses for a variety of work unrelated to their opposition brief to the Third Motion, including 
discovery-related activities; summary judgment motions relating to the Phase 1.5 trial; an 
opposition to Defendants' motion to withdraw three summary judgment motions and Plaintiffs' 
cross-motions; a motion to amend Plaintiffs' request for contempt orders; and an opposition to 
Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's sanctions order. See Exh. A. None of 
these activities can be construed as "preparing and filing their opposition brief" to the Third 
Motion for summary judgment and, therefore, they are outside the scope of the Court's Order. 
Indeed, some of the work for which Plaintiffs seek reimbursement was allegedly performed by 
Mr. Gingold in June and July 2000, and by Mr. Rempel in June 2000, before the Third Motion 
was even filed.8 The total value of fees and expenses claimed by Plaintiffs that are outside the 
scope of the Court's Order is $118,716.26. 
8 The Third Motion and accompanying Sapienza Declaration were filed on September 
19, 2000. 
6
Plaintiffs' Application Is Excessive And Unreasonable B. 
Plaintiffs seek exorbitant compensation for both work ostensibly within the scope of the 
Court's Order and activities clearly outside the Order's parameters. They also improperly seek to 
have non-professional services compensated at a professional rate, and base a significant portion 
of their fee request on inconsistent or otherwise defective billing entries. 
1. The Number Of Billable Hours For Which 
Plaintiffs Seek Compensation Is Unreasonable 
Plaintiffs have requested $356,774.12 for 1,165.70 hours of billed time. Under no 
interpretation can such a sum be deemed reasonable for "preparing and filing their opposition to 
the Third Motion." 
In a recent decision analyzing the reasonableness of a fee application, this Court found it 
appropriate to compare the total number of hours worked to the specific document produced. 
Mitchell v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 217 F.R.D. 53, 58-60 (D.D.C. 2003) (Facciola, MJ); 
see also Environmental Defense Fund v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254, 1258 (evaluating fee application 
under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by multiplying prevailing hourly rate by number 
of attorney hours reasonably expended). In making this assessment, the Court considered the 
complexity of the legal issues and factual analysis involved, as well as whether the work was 
appropriately delegated. Mitchell, 217 F.R.D. at 58. Applying these factors, the Court found that 
the fee application was unreasonably high. A 16-page motion for which the applicant sought 
recovery cost $12,866.25, or $800 per page, to prepare; other documents for which recovery was 
sought cost more than $500 per page. In finding these sums unreasonable, the Court determined 
that the work performed by a junior lawyer, allowing for necessary research and familiarization 
7
with applicable legal principles, should not exceed one hour per page. The Court further held 
that a senior lawyer, whose role generally is limited to supervising and editing, should be capable 
of reviewing a ten-page draft in one hour. Based on these conclusions, the fee award was 
substantially reduced. Id. at 60. 
Even looking only at the time Plaintiffs attribute to opposing the Third Motion, which is 
the only time compensable under the Court's March 11, 2003 and May 25, 2004 Orders, the fees 
and expenses Plaintiffs seek reach dizzying heights. Plaintiffs claim to have spent 448.33 hours 
and have billed $130,286.30 to prepare their 38-page opposition brief to the Third Motion and 
the accompanying 73-page "evidentiary appendix."9 This amounts to $1,173.75 per page!10 Id. 
No degree of complexity could justify such overreaching, particularly given the number of years 
of legal experience possessed by the lawyers who performed the work. Even employing the rate 
of one hour per page utilized in Mitchell for the work of an inexperienced attorney, Plaintiffs' 
fees for preparing their opposition to the Third Motion still would be reduced to an amount based 
9 This is based on the following individual hours billed by Plaintiffs for work on their 
opposition brief to the Third Motion: Mr. Brown - 146.23 hours; Mr. Harper - 93.3 hours; Mr. 
Gingold - 104 hours; and Mr. Rempel - 104.8 hours. 
It is not clear that the appendix Plaintiffs filed with their opposition brief, titled 
"Evidentiary Appendix Filed In Opposition To Defendants' Third Phase II Motion For Partial 
Summary Judgment (Re: Settlement Of Accounts By Treasury And GAO), should be factored 
into the fee analysis. But for purposes of computing the maximum award to which Plaintiffs 
could be entitled, we include it here as work for which fees may be recoverable under the Court's 
Order. 
10 The time submitted by Plaintiffs for work not within the scope of the Court's orders 
(and therefore not compensable at all) is similarly extravagant. For example, Plaintiffs claim to 
have spent 201.5 hours and seek more than $52,000, or $4,053 per page, for preparing their 13- 
page motion to amend their contempt motion, and 134.42 hours and $29,179, or $1,621 per page, 
for opposing Defendants' motion to withdraw summary judgment motions and for preparing 
cross-motions. 
8
on 111 hours of work, or 20% of the hours that Plaintiffs have submitted. Reducing the hours to 
20% of those submitted by Plaintiffs, the maximum fees to which Plaintiffs would be entitled 
with respect to opposing the Third Motion are $23,223.50, consisting of: $10,220 for Mr. Brown 
(29.2 hours at $350/hour); $3,833.50 for Mr. Harper (18.7 hours at $205/hour); $7,280 for Mr. 
Gingold (20.8 hours at $350/hour); and $1,890 for Mr. Rempel (21 hours at the paralegal rate of 
$90/hour11). Accordingly, any fee award to Plaintiffs for their work in preparing the opposition 
brief to the Third Motion should not exceed $23,223.50. 
2. Non-Professional Services Rendered By Plaintiffs' Counsel's 
Consultant Does Not Merit Compensation At A Professional Rate 
Plaintiffs improperly seek reimbursement for time billed by non-lawyer Geoffrey Rempel 
at the professional rate of $225 per hour, based on an earlier decision of the Court finding that 
Mr. Rempel had performed professional accounting services in connection with a prior fee 
application. See Affidavit of Geoffrey Rempel, executed June 21, 2004 and submitted with 
Plaintiffs' Statement ("Rempel Aff."), at ¶ 20 (citing Memorandum Opinion (Nov. 12, 2002) at 
9). Here, however, Mr. Rempel rendered no professional accounting services in connection with 
Plaintiffs' opposition brief to the Third Motion. Instead, his work consisted primarily of assisting 
with the drafting of legal papers and providing other litigation support to Plaintiffs' counsel. As a 
result, he cannot be compensated based on the provision of professional accounting services. 
Indeed, because he is not actively licensed as a CPA, see Rempel Aff., ¶ 1, he is not authorized to 
render professional accounting services. And because he is not a lawyer, he cannot be 
compensated professionally in that capacity either. Rather, Mr. Rempel's role in connection with 
11 As discussed in Section II.B.2, infra, Mr. Rempel rendered no professional accounting 
or legal services that would justify a professional rate of compensation for his work. 
9
Plaintiffs' opposition to the Third Motion can properly be deemed to be only that of a paralegal, 
and his billing rate should be adjusted downward to reflect that status. Under the Laffey matrix, 
paralegal work performed in the year 2000 (when Plaintiffs prepared their opposition brief) is 
compensable at the hourly rate of $90. Accordingly, any fees awarded to Plaintiffs based on 
work performed by Mr. Rempel in connection with Plaintiffs' opposition to the Third Motion 
should be reduced by $135 per hour ($225-$90) to reflect the appropriate nature of Mr. Rempel's 
work.12 
3. The Specific Time Entries Submitted 
By Plaintiffs Reveal Patent Improprieties 
Plaintiffs' Statement is replete with improper billing entries that warrant denial of fees 
claimed for that work. First, Plaintiffs' counsel seek reimbursement of fees and expenses that 
were already submitted, and rejected, on two prior occasions in connection with Plaintiffs' efforts 
to hold the Secretary and Assistant Secretary in contempt. See Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 
1133 (D.C.Cir. Jul 18, 2003), Cobell v. Norton, 319 F.Supp.2d 36 (D.D.C. 2004). Having 
attested to those fees as having been incurred in connection with their contempt charges, 
Plaintiffs cannot now claim such fees as having been incurred in connection with opposing the 
Third Motion. Plaintiffs employ similar tactics with respect to time that they previously 
submitted in connection with the Mona Infield matter. The total value of all time entries 
12 As discussed in Section II.A, supra, time billed by Mr. Rempel for activities unrelated 
to Plaintiffs' opposition to the Third Motion is not compensable under the Court's order. 
Moreover, as discussed in Section II.B, supra, the hours Mr. Rempel does attribute to Plaintiffs' 
opposition brief are excessive and must be reduced to a reasonable level, i.e., 20% of the hours 
he claims. 
10
included in Plaintiffs' Statement that have been double billed, which are identified in Exhibit B, 
is $57,748.50. 
Second, in numerous instances, time entries by one member of Plaintiffs' litigation team 
are not consistent with those of others. For example, Mr. Gingold seeks reimbursement for an 
alleged conference call of 0.4 hours with Mr. Harper and Mr. Brown on October 28, 2000, but 
the billing records of neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Brown indicate that any such conference call 
took place. Similarly, Mr. Gingold claims to have spent 1.3 hours on March 11, 2002, and 2.3 
hours on March 13, 2002, in teleconferences with Mr. Harper, but Mr. Harper's records do not 
reflect that any such conferences occurred on those dates. Indeed, there are dozens of entries in 
the fee schedules submitted by Plaintiffs that are internally inconsistent. The total value of these 
improper entries, which are set forth in Exhibit C, is $12,463.15. 
Third, itemized entries included in Plaintiffs' present fee request that were also the subject 
of previous fee applications made by Plaintiffs in other contexts are not consistent with those 
prior entries. For example, in the fee application Plaintiffs filed on November 18, 2002, Mr. 
Gingold sought to be reimbursed for the following billing entry for June 2, 2000: 
Appear at Special Master meeting with defendants and their 
counsel; discuss withheld GAO documents and related memoranda 
re: DOJ/DOI misrepresentations regarding GAO disbursing officer 
account audits and discharge of accounting duties in accordance 
with 12/21/99 Court order. 
Affidavit of Dennis M. Gingold, executed Nov. 18, 2002, Att. B (included in Exh. B(1) hereto). 
However, in Plaintiffs' present fee application, the same (purportedly contemporaneous) billing 
entry bears little resemblance to the form in which it was previously submitted: 
11
Accompanied by Rempel, met with Master, DOJ, DOI, & DOT re: 
production of accounting documents relevant to Cobell litigation, 
including all documentation that purports to represent the 
settlement of IIM accounts in the custody or control of 
disbursement officers. Brooks represented that the settlement of 
Disbursing [sic] officer accounts also settled IIM accounts. Asst. 
Secretary of the Treasury Don Hammond confirmed that the 
settlement of disbursing officer accounts did not result in 
accounting of IIM trust accounts. 
Affidavit of Dennis M. Gingold, executed June 21, 2004 ("Gingold Aff."), Schedule (included in 
Exh. B(1) hereto) (emphasis added). The obvious purpose of the new language apparently added 
by Mr. Gingold is to match statements he makes in his current affidavit in an effort to justify an 
award beyond the scope defined in the Court's Order: 
However, the attached Schedule does include time spent on this 
issue from the time this matter first was presented formally to the 
Special Master four years ago, a matter candidly discussed by the 
parties and counsel in the presence of the Master on June 2, 2000. 
During this meeting, Assistant Treasury Secretary Don Hammond 
explicitly admitted - contrary to knowingly false claims of defense 
counsel and the Interior defendants - that neither the GAO nor 
Treasury had settled, or conducted an accounting of, the accounts 
of individual Indian trust beneficiaries. 
Gingold Aff., ¶ 4 (emphasis added). While the foregoing entry is among the most egregious 
examples in Plaintiffs' Statement, it is only one of over forty billing entries that have been 
modified by Mr. Gingold to suit the present fee application.13 
13 See Exh. (B)(1), Affidavits of Dennis Gingold of Nov. 5, 2002, Nov. 18, 2002, and 
June 20, 2004, and compare entries for June 2, 2000 (two entries), July 5, 2000, July 25, 2000, 
Sept. 24, 2000 (two entries), Sept. 25, 2000 (two entries), Sept. 26, 2000 (three entries), Sept. 28, 
2000 (two entries), Sept. 30, 2000, Oct. 1, 2000, Oct. 5, 2000, Oct. 7, 2000 (two entries), Oct. 8, 
2000, Oct. 28, 2000, Oct. 29, 2000 (two entries), Oct. 30, 2000, Oct. 31, 2000, Nov. 1, 2000, 
Nov. 2, 2000, Nov. 3, 2000 (four entries), May 1, 2002 (two entries), June 20, 2002, June 21, 
2002, June 24, 2002, June 25, 2002, July 5, 2002, July 11, 2002, July 29, 2002, July 30, 2002, 
Aug. 6, 2002, and Aug. 7, 2002. 
12
Plaintiffs also makes inconsistent claims with regard to the billing entries of Mr. Rempel. 
For example, the fee statement submitted in connection with Plaintiffs' second contempt 
campaign in 2002 included the following entry for Mr. Rempel for September 23, 2000: 
Review Defs' Motion for MSJ re: GAO settled accounts for 
contempt motion. 
Affidavit of Geoffrey Rempel, executed Nov. 18, 2002, Schedule (included in Exh. 
B(2))(emphasis added). But in Plaintiffs' present fee application, which is limited only to work 
related to Plaintiffs' opposition to the Third Motion, Mr. Rempel has deleted the reference "for 
contempt motion" in an apparent attempt to link his work for that day to the scope of the present 
fee matter. In the present application, his billing entry for September 23, 2000 now reads simply: 
Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO settlement of 
accounts. 
Rempel Aff., Schedule. In fact, new language has been added to virtually all of Mr. Rempel's 
present fee entries that were also the subject of a prior fee application in an apparent effort to 
make them appear related to the award contemplated by the Court. See, e.g., id. at 9/25/00 
(adding the language "begin drafting and preparing response"); id. at 9/29/00 (adding the 
language "re settlement of accounts process"), id. at 10/5/00, 10/6/00, 10/26/00, 10/27/00, and 
10/28/00 (adding the language "for purposes of drafting the opposition" to each entry); see Exh. 
B(2), Affidavits of Geoffrey Rempel of June 21, 2004 and Nov. 18, 2002, and compare entries 
for Sept. 25, 2000, Sept. 26, 2000, Sept. 27, 2000, (two entries), Oct 5, 2000, Oct. 6, 2000, Oct. 
25, 2000, Oct. 26, 2000, Oct. 27, 2000, Oct. 28, 2000 (two entries) Oct. 29, 2000, Nov. 1, 2000, 
Nov. 2, 2000, Nov. 3, 2000, May 6, 2000. 
13
This conduct warrants not only disallowance of those fees that are based on the 
manipulated billing entries, but outright denial of the entire fee application as outrageously 
unreasonable. See Section I, supra. Both Mr. Gingold and Mr. Rempel swore that their billing 
entries were made contemporaneously with the tasks allegedly performed. See Gingold Aff. at ¶ 
2; Rempel Aff. at ¶ 15. Yet, these representations cannot be reconciled with the subsequent 
modification of Plaintiffs' bills to better suit their present fee application. A table identifying all 
of these suspect billing entries is attached hereto as Exhibit B.14 
CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue an order 
denying Plaintiffs' entire fee application as outrageously unreasonable. In the alternative, any fee 
award to Plaintiffs for preparing their opposition brief to the Third Motion should be reduced to 
an amount not exceeding $23,223.50. 
Dated: July 21, 2004 
Respectfully submitted, 
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 
Deputy Director 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
14 For the Court's convenience, a table reproducing all of the billing entries included in 
Plaintiffs' Statement, and describing our objections where applicable, is attached as Exhibit D. 
14
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on July 21, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' 
Statement of Fees and Expenses Filed June 21, 2004 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
2/7/02 
2/9/02 
2/11/02 
2/12/02 
2/12/02 
2/13/02 
2/13/02 
2/14/02 
2/14/02 
2/15/02 
2/15/02 
2/15/02 
3/10/02 
3/13/02 
3/13/02 
5/26/04 
6/8/04 
6/9/04 
6/9/04 
Brown Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
2.5 Research/Review GAO Report 
3.166 Legal Research re Cross-motion for MSJ 
3.25 Legal Research re Withdrawing MSJ; Prepare 
Memorandum of Points and Authorities 
1.583 Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 
Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 0.333 
0.333 Revise Opposition to Motion to Withdraw MSJ 
0.666 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 
2.92 Revise Memorandum of Points and Authorities 
re Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 
4.916 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 
0.75 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 
Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 3 
1.333 Revise Summary Judgment Opposition 
/miscellaneous re service & filing 
1.666 Review Opposition to Rule 56(g) Motion 
2.75 Prepare Reply re Cross-Motion for Summary 
Judgment 
6.916 Prepare Reply re Cross-Motion for Summary 
Judgment 
1.166 Review Court Orders re Sapienza Sanctions; 
Review File re Same 
4.916 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee 
Application 
1.916 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee 
Application 
3.666 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee 
Application; 
Prepare MKB Affidavit re fees; Legal Research 
re Laffey 
rates 
$0.00 $900.00 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,139.76 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,170.00 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $569.88 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $119.88 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $119.88 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $239.76 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,051.20 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,769.76 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $270.00 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,080.00 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $479.88 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $599.76 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $990.00 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $2,489.76 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $443.08 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,868.08 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $728.08 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,393.08 Outside of 
Scope
6/10/04 
6/10/04 
6/10/04 
6/11/04 
6/11/04 
6/11/04 
6/11/04 
6/14/04 
6/14/04 
6/17/04 
Total 
1.916 Prepare MKB Affidavit re fees 
1.25 Legal Research re adjusted Laffey 
rates/McDowell 
decision 
3.166 Prepare MKB Affidavit re fees 
0.583 Gather and segregate time for Sapienza Fee 
Application 
2.916 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees 
1.833 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees 
3.75 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees/Prepare 
Application and 
Order 
4.166 Revise MKB Affidavit re fees/Prepare 
Application and 
Order 
1.666 Finalize MKB Affidavit re fees/Application and 
Order 
1.25 Telephone Conference with team re time entries 
re GAO 
fee application 
70.242 $25,970.32 
hrs 
$0.00 $728.08 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $475.00 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,203.08 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $221.54 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,108.08 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $696.54 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,425.00 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $1,583.08 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $633.08 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00 $475.00 Outside of 
Scope 
$0.00
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Date 
6/5/00 Telcom. with Brian Ferrell, DOJ, requesting production of 
all documents relevant to settlement of IIM accounts in the 
custody or control of disbursement officers, at least with 
respect to the named plaintiffs and their predecessors-ininteres 
? in conformity with the representations of Brooks at 
the 6.2.00 meeting at the Master's office. 
6/6/00 Telcoms. with Ferrell re. same. (Document Production & 
Account Settlement) 
4/24/02 Review implications of Gamboa admissions and willful 
misrepresentations to Court and pltffs' counsel; review all 
filings by government and plaintiffs related thereto and 
consider options to rectify consequences of deception. 
4/24/03 Telcom. Holt re. same. 
4/24/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
4/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
4/24/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
4/24/02 Telcom. Fasold re. same. 
4/25/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
4/25/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
5/1/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office re. Gamboa 
letter and its implications. 
5/1/02 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. 
Matter Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$105.00 0.3 Outside of 
Scope 
$105.00 0.3 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,044.00 2.9 Outside of 
Scope 
$108.00 0.3 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$252.00 0.7 Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$180.00 0.5 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$216.00 0.6 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$72.00 0.2 Ouside of 
Scope/Denied 
$144.00 0.4 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$36.00 0.1 Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$72.00 0.2 Previously 
Billed/Denied; 
Outside of 
Scope 
$144.00 0.4 Previously 
Billed/Denied; 
Outside of 
Scope
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
5/9/02 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III 
contempt 
motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/10/02 Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III 
contempt 
motion, amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/10/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
5/10/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
5/13/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/13/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
5/13/02 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 
5/14/02 Telcom with Lawrence re. same. 
5/14/02 Discussion with Rempel re. same. 
5/14/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
5/14/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
5/15/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/15/02 Telcoms. Harper re. comments to same. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$1,944.00 5.4 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$72.00 0.2 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$36.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$36.00 0.1 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$972.00 2.7 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$144.00 0.4 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$108.00 0.3 Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill; Outside of 
Scope 
$144.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$36.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$144.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$180.00 0.5 Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$648.00 1.8 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$144.00 0.4 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/ Denied
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
5/16/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
5/16/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/16/02 Telcom. Scott Harris re. same. 
5/17/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/18/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/20/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/24/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/24/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
5/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
5/24/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
5/25/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/25/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
5/26/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$36.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$2,664.00 7.4 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$36.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$2,520.00 7 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$684.00 1.9 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$792.00 2.2 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$1,692.00 4.7 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$36.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$144.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$36.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$1,440.00 4 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$72.00 0.2 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$2,556.00 7.1 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
5/27/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
5/28/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/28/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
5/30/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
5/30/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
5/31/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
6/1/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
6/3/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. meet and confer re filing of MSJ III 
contempt motion. 
6/3/02 Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
6/3/02 Discussion with Rempel re. same. 
6/3/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
6/4/02 Continued telcoms. Lawrence re. meet and confer on MSJ 
III 
contempt motion. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$3,168.00 8.8 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$72.00 0.2 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$936.00 2.6 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$72.00 0.2 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$900.00 2.5 Outside of 
Scope/ Denied 
$108.00 0.3 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope 
$36.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$1,258.00 3.4 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$148.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$740.00 2 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$185.00 0.5 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$111.00 0.3 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$259.00 0.7 Outside of 
Scope/Denied
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Objection Matter Date Time Claimed 
Amount 
$148.00 0.4 6/4/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$3,182.00 8.6 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
6/4/02 Finalize motion to amend 2.15 02 MSJ III contempt motion, 
amendment fo MSJ III contempt motion per newly 
discovered evidence. 
$1,480.00 4 6/6/02 Research and analyze complex personal service issues re. 
nonparties as to same. 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$148.00 0.4 6/6/02 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$222.00 0.6 6/6/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$222.00 0.6 6/6/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$37.00 0.1 6/7/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in 
connection with MSJ III contempt. 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$407.00 1.1 6/7/02 Conference call Rempel, Harper, Brown concerning 
appealability of contempt re. MSJ III contemnors, officially 
and individually, including DOJ attorneys. 
Inconsistent 
with Harper & 
Brown bills; 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$185.00 0.5 6/8/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. MSJ III personal service logistical 
issues. 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$555.00 1.5 6/8/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$37.00 0.1 6/9/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in 
connection with MSJ III contempt. 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$185.00 0.5 6/19/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents 
referenced in Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$37.00 0.1 6/20/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. Previously 
Billed/Denied 
$37.00 0.1 6/20/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. Outside of 
Scope/Denied; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bil; 
$37.00 0.1 6/21/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
6/24/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 
6/24/02 Meet with Cobell concerning Gamboa letter and MSJ III. 
6/25/02 Work on reply to MSJ III, including review of defs' cases 
and 
authorities and begin preparation of draft. 
6/25/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents 
referenced in Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 
6/26/02 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research 
and 
draft revisions. 
6/27/02 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research 
and 
draft revisions. 
6/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
6/27/02 Meet with Cobell re. same. 
6/28/02 Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research 
and 
draft revisions. Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend 
and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 
Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt 
Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in accordance with 
Newly Discovered Evidence: The April 19, 2002 Letter of 
GAO 
General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards). 
6/28/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
7/1/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents 
referenced in Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$111.00 0.3 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$370.00 1 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$1,850.00 5 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$148.00 0.4 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$814.00 2.2 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$481.00 1.3 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$37.00 0.1 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$148.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$1,369.00 3.7 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$148.00 0.4 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside of 
Scope 
$37.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/Denied
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
7/5/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 
documents referenced, and in connection, with Gamboa 
letter. 
7/9/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 
documents referenced, and in connection, with Gamboa 
letter. 
7/11/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 
documents referenced, and in connection with Gamboa 
letter. 
7/19/02 Prepare letter to Lawrence re. continued failure to produce 
GAO documents referenced, and in connection with, 
Gamboa letter, particularly with respect to docs. created, or 
received, by Interior and Treasury in response to GAO 
general counsel's opinion that IIM accounts were not settled. 
7/29/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
7/30/02 Prepare letter response to Lawrence re. same. 
8/6/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
8/7/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
8/8/02 Review first production of docs. referenced in Gamboa letter 
further demonstrating bad faih of defs' in filing MSJ III. 
9/13/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. production of remaining relevant 
Gamboa related docs. 
9/16/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
1/28/03 Conference call Harper and Brown re. need to file MSJ 
declaring settlement of disbursing officer accounts does not 
settle or constitute accounting of IIM Trust accounts. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$74.00 0.2 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$185.00 0.5 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$148.00 0.4 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$370.00 1 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$111.00 0.3 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$111.00 0.3 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$111.00 0.3 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$37.00 0.1 Previously 
Billed; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
$481.00 1.3 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$74.00 0.2 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$37.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
$148.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Brown & 
Harper bills
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
1/30/03 Review documents in support of statement of undesputed 
material facts re. MSJ settlements of Account. Review and 
revise Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to 
the NonSettlement of Accounts and Defendants' Failure to 
Perform the Accounting, in Whole or Part, Ordered by this 
Court on December 21, 1999 and Plaintiffs' Statement of 
Material Fasts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue in 
Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 
1/31/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
1/31/03 Review and revise motion for partial summary judgment and 
2/3/03 Finalize revisions and refinement of motion for partial 
summary 
judgment and undisputed material facts. 
2/15/03 Telcom. Harper re. same and opp. to defs' motion to strike 
GAO MSJ. 
2/21/03 Revise and redraft Reply to defs' opp. to GAO MSJ. 
2/21/03 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
2/21/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
2/24/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
2/24/03 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$2,257.00 6.1 Outside of 
Scope 
$111.00 0.3 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
$1,998.00 5.4 Outside of 
Scope 
$2,257.00 6.1 Outside of 
Scope 
$148.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
$1,332.00 3.6 Outside of 
Scope 
$148.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
$74.00 0.2 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill 
$148.00 0.4 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
$185.00 0.5 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
2/26/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
2/27/03 Prepare affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 
Motion to Treat as Conceded Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial 
Summary Judgment as to the NonSettlement of Accounts 
and Defendants' Failure to Perform the Accounting, in 
Whole or Part, Ordered by this Court on December 21, 1999 
and to Strike as Untimely Defendants' Opposition to 
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to 
NonSettlement of Accounts, or in the Alternative, Motion 
for Enlargement of Time Within Which to 
Reply to Defendants' Opposition Brief; review and revise 
motion to strike as conceded Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial 
Summary Judgment. 
3/8/03 Review and Revise draft Motion to Continue and 
Enlargement of Time re. GAO Summary Judgment. 
3/12/03 Review and revise Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue 
Defendants' 
Motions for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 
56(f) and to Enlarge Plaintiffs' Time to Respond 
Thereto and Affidavit of Dennis Gingold in Support Thereof 
and draft affidivate which avers, among other things, that 8 
requests for docs. regarding the April 19, 2002 Gamboa 
letter remained unsatisifed, affecting plaintiffs' ability to 
provide fully informed opposition to defs' motion. 
3/10/03 Review documents and begin draft affidavit in support of 
Motion to Continue GAO MSJ due to failure of defendants' 
to produced relevant referenced docuements. 
3/12/03 Continue such review and preparation of affidavit. 
3/13/03 Finalize same and prepare affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' 
Motion to Continue Motions for Summary Judgment due to 
failure of defendants to produce documents relevant to GAO 
Settlements issues, including evidence related to 
Defendants' Statment of Material Facts in Support of 
Motion for Partial 
Summary Judgment re. April 19, 2002 Gamboa letter and 
document references contained therein. 
3/13/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
4/7/03 Review and revise Plaintiffs' Reply re. Motion to Continue 
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Pursuant to 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and to Enlarge Plaintiffs' Time to 
Respond Thereto due to defs' refusal to comply with 
relevant doc. production requests. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$37.00 0.1 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill 
$1,591.00 4.3 Outside of 
Scope 
$2,035.00 5.5 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,591.00 4.3 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,406.00 3.8 Outside of 
Scope 
$111.00 0.3 Outside of 
Scope 
$2,738.00 7.4 Outside of 
Scope 
$111.00 0.3 Outside of 
Scope 
$481.00 1.3 Outside of 
Scope
Gingold Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
4/9/03 Review and Revise Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' 
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary 
Judgment as to the NonSettlement of Accounts. 
Total 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$1,554.00 4.2 Outside of 
Scope 
$72,566.00 210
Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
6/2/00 Meet and Confer /w DOI and DOI counsel before Special 
Master re various motions. Includes discussion w/ Dennis 
Gingold, Mark Brown between meetings and preparation 
and review of the existing status of discovery. During the 
course of this meeting Assistant Secretary Don Hammond 
confirmed that the settlement of accounts process did not 
constitute an accounting of the individual Indian trust 
accounts. 
12/15/01 Review material, including facsimiles from the Department 
of 
Justice and discovery material and prepare for contempt 
trial. 
12/16/01 Review material, including facsimiles from the Department 
of 
Justice and discovery material and prepare for contempt 
trial. 
2/4/02 Review Defs' Motion to Withdrawal Motions for Summary 
Judgment. Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to 
Withdraw 
MSJ. 
2/10/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 
Includes review of trial testimony and exhibits attached to 
original MSJ. 
2/11/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 
2/12/02 Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 
2/14/02 CC w/ Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 
and motion to withdrawal. 
2/14/02 Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSJ's and 
cross-motions for summary judgment and sanctions for 
seeking to mislead the Court. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$1,462.50 6.5 Outside of 
Scope 
$900.00 4.0 Outside of 
Scope 
$562.50 2.5 Outside of 
Scope 
$630.00 2.8 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw 
$1,327.50 5.9 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw 
$1,237.50 5.5 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw 
$2,137.50 9.5 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw 
$90.00 0.4 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw 
$1,890.00 8.4 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw
Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
2/15/02 CC w/ Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 
and motion to withdrawal. 
2/15/02 Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSJ's and 
cross-motions for summary judgment and sanctions for 
seeking to mislead the Court. File and service opposition. 
3/5/02 CC w/ Elouise Cobell re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and 
subsequent withdrawal. 
5/9/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 
Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 
Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt 
Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with 
Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of 
GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA 
Director Bert Edwards. 
5/14/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 
Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 
Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt 
Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with 
Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of 
GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA 
Director Bert Edwards. 
5/14/02 Discuss w/ Dennis Gingold re motion to amend GAO 
Motion for Summary Judgment. 
5/15/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 
Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 
Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt 
Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with 
Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of 
GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA 
Director Bert Edwards. 
5/30/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 
Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 
Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt 
Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with 
Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of 
GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA 
Director Bert Edwards. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$112.50 0.5 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw 
$1,530.00 6.8 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw 
$67.50 0.3 Pltfs did not 
prevail on 
Opposition to 
Motion to 
Withdraw 
$1,012.50 4.5 Outside of 
Scope 
$855.00 3.8 Outside of 
Scope 
$22.50 0.1 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,080.00 4.8 Outside of 
Scope 
$337.50 1.5 Outside of 
Scope Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
6/3/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 
Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 
Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt 
Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with 
Newly Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of 
GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA 
Director Bert Edwards. 
6/3/02 Discuss w/ Dennis Gingold re motion to amend and Defs' 
3rd MSJ (re settlement of accounts process). 
6/4/02 Draft and edit Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for Leave to 
Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 
Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt 
Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with 
Newly 
Discovered Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO 
General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards . 
6/6/02 Discuss w/ Dennis Gingold re GAO motion to amend and 
sanctions. 
6/6/02 CC w/ investigator re service of motion to amend for 
individuals personally identified in that motion. 
6/7/02 CC w/ Mark Brown, Keith Harper, Dennis Gingold re 
appealability of contempt in the context of GAO sanctions 
memorandum. 
6/22/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 
Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend 
Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment 
Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to 
F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered 
Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General 
Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards. 
6/23/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 
Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend 
Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment 
Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to 
F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered 
Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General 
Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$157.50 0.7 Outside of 
Scope 
$112.50 0.5 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,462.50 6.5 Outside of 
Scope 
$157.50 0.7 Outside of 
Scope 
$45.00 0.2 Outside of 
Scope 
$247.50 1.1 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,012.50 4.5 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,170.00 5.2 Outside of 
Scope Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
6/24/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 
Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend 
Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment 
Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to 
F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered 
Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General 
Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards. 
6/24/02 Meet w/ Elouise Cobell re Defs' 3rd MSJ and reply in 
support of motion to amend. 
6/25/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 
Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend 
Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment 
Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to 
F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered 
Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General 
Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards. 
6/25/02 Work with investigator to locate individuals identified in 
plaintiffs reply in support of motion to amend. 
6/26/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 
Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend 
Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment 
Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to 
F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered 
Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General 
Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards. 
6/27/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 
Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend 
Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment 
Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to 
F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered 
Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General 
Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards. 
6/28/02 Draft and edit Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Consolidated 
Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend 
Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary Judgment 
Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to 
F.R.C.P. 56(g) in Accordance with Newly Discovered 
Evidence: the April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO General 
Counsel Anthony Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert 
Edwards. 
4/8/03 Draft and edit Opposition to defendants' motion to 
reconsider the Court's GAO sanctions memorandum 
opinion awarding plaintiffs' sanctions for the deliberate 
filing of a false and misleading affidavit (Sapienza). 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
$472.50 2.1 Outside of 
Scope 
$270.00 1.2 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,192.50 5.3 Outside of 
Scope 
$337.50 1.5 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,440.00 6.4 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,260.00 5.6 Outside of 
Scope 
$427.50 1.9 Outside of 
Scope 
$1,912.50 8.5 Outside of 
Scope Date 
Total 
Rempel Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Objection Matter Time Claimed 
Amount 
119.7 $26,932.50
Harper Entries Outside of Scope of Court Order 
Matter Date 
6/4/02 Review and edit GAO contempt supplemental and 
amendment 
1/29/03 Conference call with IIM team re: response to government's 
Jan 6 plans and need for GAO summary judgement motion 
1/31/03 Draft and finalize GAO summary judgement motion; edit; 
review and add additional authorities; finalize order and 
statement of incontraverted facts 
3/12/03 Review opinion of court re: GAO "settlement of Accounts" 
and false affidavit; sanctions granted 
4/8/03 Draft and edit opposition to motion for reconsideration for 
GAO sanctions award 
4/12/03 Draft Plaintiffs reply in further support of MSJ on GAO 
failure to provide accounting 
4/13/03 Draft and edit and discuss with co-counsel-plaintiffs reply in 
support of MSJ on GAO failure to settle accounts 
4/14/03 Finalize reply in support of MSJ re: GAO failure to settle 
accounts 
Total 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
3.5 $927.50 Outside of 
scope 
1.1 $291.50 Outside of 
scope 
$2,120.00 8 Outside of 
scope 
$265.00 1 Outside of 
scope 
2.5 $662.50 Outside of 
scope 
4.5 $1,192.50 Outside of 
scope 
$1,325.00 5 Outside of 
scope 
3.3 $874.00 Outside of 
scope 
28.9 $7,658.00
06/21/04, 
11/18/02 & 
11/05/02 
Affidavits 
Items # 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 
10 
11 
REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 
Matter Date 
6/2/00 Prepare for Special Master meeting re. 
Defendants misrepresentation re. settlement 
of Indian disbursing officer accounts as 
accounting IIM trust accounts 
6/2/00 Accompanied by Rempel, met with Master, 
DOJ, DOI, & DOT re. production of 
accounting docs. relevant to Cobell 
litigation, including all documentation that 
purports to represent the settlement of IIM 
accounts in the custody or control of 
disbursement officers. Brooks represented 
that the settlement of Disbursing officer 
accounts also settled IIM accounts. Asst. 
Secretary of the Treasury Don Hammond 
confirmed that the settlement of disbursing 
officer accounts did not result in an 
accounting of IIM trust accounts. 
7/5/00 Telcoms. Holt re. GAO summary 
judgment/accounting 
7/25/00 Draft MSJ surreply re. Defs' material 
misrepresentations re. GAO 
9/24/00 Review MSJ, note defs' claims, identify 
responses, and assess authorities in 
opposition to such claims. 
9/24/00 Review relevant documents and prepare 
letters to Brooks and Ferrell concerning 
same and in response to letters defending 
MSJ claims. 
9/25/00 Work on MSJ III response; begin review 
legal authorities, e.g., 
"Law of Appropriations" and cases and 
Comptroller General discussion of nature 
and scope of settlement of accounts process 
and legal impact; begin review of 
documents related thereto. 
9/25/00 Telcoms. Harper re. nature and scope of 
settlements-of-account process per 
Comptroller General. 
9/26/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 
research for MSJ III response. 
9/26/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III draft. 
9/26/00 Telcom. Holt re. same. 
Time Claimed 
Amount 
0.8 $280.00 
2.1 $735.00 
0.7 $245.00 
1.7 $595.00 
0.7 $245.00 
2.2 $770.00 
$2,800.00 8 
0.3 $105.00 
4.5 $1,575.00 
0.2 $70.00 
0.3 $105.00 
Objection Adjusted 
Amount 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied
06/21/04, 
11/18/02 & 
11/05/02 
Affidavits 
Items # 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 
Matter Date 
9/28/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 
research for MSJ III response 
9/28/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III draft. 
9/30/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 
research for MSJ III response 
10/1/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 
research for MSJ IIIresponse 
10/4/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III response. 
10/5/00 Telcom. Interior witness confirming false 
GAO MSJ. 
10/7/00 Continue work on MSJ III response; 
continue review of legal authorities; 
documents, including data reports, oil & gas 
reports, and assessments of nature and 
scope of settlements process re. the 
class. 
10/7/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III 
documentation issues given the refusal of 
Interior and Treasury to produce documents 
to support their settlement of account 
claims. 
10/8/00 Continue document review, revisions, legal 
research for MSJ III response. Includes 
review of data reports, oil & gas reports, 
and assessments of nature and scope of 
settlements process re. the class; compare 
"accounting" to desk audits by GAO and 
Treasury of disbursing officer reports. 
10/28/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ 
III. 
10/28/00 Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III issues. 
10/29/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ 
III. 
10/29/00 Telcom. Harper re. defendants' 
misrepresentations regarding 
settlement of accounts v. accounting. 
10/30/00 Continue revisions of MSJ III draft 
response. 
Time Claimed 
Amount 
6.2 $2,170.00 
0.4 $140.00 
$1,750.00 5 
$350.00 1 
1.4 $490.00 
0.1 $35.00 
9.1 $3,185.00 
0.9 $315.00 
3.9 $1,365.00 
4.5 $1,575.00 
0.5 $175.00 
$1,400.00 4 
0.1 $35.00 
4.6 $1,610.00 
Objection Adjusted 
Amount 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied
06/21/04, 
11/18/02 & 
11/05/02 
Affidavits 
Items # 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 
Matter Date 
10/31/00 Revise and redraft opposition to MSJ III. 
11/1/00 Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ 
III based on Rempel additions. 
11/2/00 Continue revisions of Rempel additions to 
MSJ III draft response and review and 
comment on Rempel affidavit in support of 
certain factual statements including 
admissions of Hammond. 
11/3/00 Finalize Plaintiffs' Opposition to 
Defendants' Third Phase II Motion for 
Partial Summary Judgement (Re: Settlement 
of Accounts by Treasury and GAO). 
11/3/00 Telcoms. with Harper re. finalization of 
MSJ III opposition. 
11/3/00 Telcom. Ferrell re. service of MSJ III 
opposition. 
11/3/00 Telcom. Cobell re. MSJ III issues. 
5/1/02 Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's 
Office re. Gamboa letter and its 
implications. 
5/1/02 Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's 
Office, re. same. 
6/20/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
6/21/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
6/24/02 Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 
6/25/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO 
documents referenced in Gamboa letter but 
withheld by defendants. 
7/5/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to 
produce GAO documents referenced, and in 
connection, with Gamboa letter. 
7/9/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to 
produce GAO documents referenced, and in 
connection, with Gamboa letter. 
Time Claimed 
Amount 
6.9 $2,415.00 
6.1 $2,135.00 
4.4 $1,540.00 
11.6 $4,060.00 
0.4 $140.00 
0.1 $35.00 
0.3 $105.00 
0.2 $72.00 
0.4 $144.00 
0.1 $37.00 
0.1 $37.00 
0.3 $111.00 
0.4 $148.00 
0.2 $74.00 
0.5 $185.00 
Objection Adjusted 
Amount 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed / Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed
REVIEW OF GINGOLD SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 
Date 06/21/04, 
11/18/02 & 
11/05/02 
Affidavits 
Items # 
41 7/11/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to 
produce GAO documents referenced, and in 
connection with Gamboa letter. 
7/29/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 42 
7/30/02 Prepare letter response to Lawrence re. 43 
8/6/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 44 
8/7/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 45 
Total 
Matter Time Claimed 
Amount 
0.4 $148.00 
0.3 $111.00 
0.3 $111.00 
same. 
0.3 $111.00 
0.1 $37.00 
96.6 $33,876.00 
Objection Adjusted 
Amount 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed 
$0.00
IN THE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., on 
their own behalf and on behalf of 
all persons similarly situated, 
Plaintiffs, )) 
)))) 
v. 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the 
Interior, et al., 
)))
)))
Defendants. 
__________________ 
AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS M. GINGOLD 
My name is Dennis M. Gingold. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and am 1. 
lead attorney for plaintiffs in this action. I make this affidavit in support of plaintiffs' request for 
fees and expenses in connection with certain sanctionable conduct of defendants as outlined in this 
Court’s March 11, 2003 Memorandum and Order and reaffirmed in its May 25, 2004 
Memorandum and Order (collectively the “Orders”). 
2. I maintain my time records in annual, hard copy diaries. Contemporaneous with the 
completion of a particular task or activity, I manually enter the time charged on the date the 
professional service is rendered; the specific matter or task; the time expended, to the tenth of an 
hour; and a brief description of the work performed. From this diary, I enter my time 
Civil Action 
No. 96-1285 (RCL) 
1
IIM TRUST LITIGATION 
Gingold Schedule: GAO Settlement of Accounts Sanctions 
DATE TIME 
2.1 6.2.00 
0.8 
0.3 6.5.00 
6.6.00 
7.5.00 
0.3 
0.7 
7.25.00 1.7 
9.19.00 0.2 
9.20.00 0.3 
9.22.00 0.8 
0.6 
9.24.00 0.7 
2.2 
SUBJECT MATTER 
Accompanied by Rempel, met with Master, DOJ, DOI, & DOT re. 
production of accounting docs. 
relevant to Cobell litigation, including all documentation that 
purports to represent the settlement of 
IIM accounts in the custody or control of disbursement officers. 
Brooks represented that the settlement 
of Disbursing officer accounts also settled IIM accounts. 
Asst. Secretary of the Treasury 
Don Hammond confirmed that the settlement of disbursing officer 
accounts did not result in an 
accounting of IIM trust accounts. 
Prepare for Special Master meeting re. Defendants 
misrepresentation re. settlement of Indian disbursing officer 
accounts as accounting IIM trust accounts. 
Telcom. with Brian Ferrell, DOJ, requesting production of all 
dcouments relevant to settlement of 
IIM accounts in the custody or control of disbursement officers, at 
least with respect to the named 
plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interes ? in conformity with the 
representations of Brooks at the 
6.2.00 meeting at the Master's office. 
Telcoms. with Ferrell re. same. 
Telcoms. Holt re. GAO summary judgment/accounting. 
Draft MSJ surreply re. defs’ material misrepresentations re. GAO 
accounting issues. 
Telcom. Harper re. GAO settlement issues and action to take 
regarding Brooks delivery of threat to 
file motion for summary judgment claiming falsely that the 
settlement of disbursing officers' accounts for 30 years 
discharges defs' accounting duty from 1921-1950. 
Telcom. with Harper re. same. 
Telcoms. with Ferrell re. GAO settlements of account issues and 
conflicting representatiions of 
Brooks and Hammond. 
Meet with Rempel re. Defendants Third Phase II Motion for Partial 
Summary Judgment (Re: 
Settlement of Accounts by Treasury and GAO) ("MSJ III") and in 
responce collect documents in 
create factual appendix to explicitly refute misrepresentations, 
including opinion of Don Hammond. 
Review MSJ, note defs' claims, identify responses, and assess 
authorities in opposition to such claims. 
Review relevant documents and prepare letters to Brooks and 
Ferrell concerning same and in response 
to letters defending MSJ claims. 
RATE AMOUNT 
$735.00 $350.00 
$280.00 $350.00 
$105.00 $350.00 
$105.00 
$245.00 
$595.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$70.00 $350.00 
$105.00 
$280.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$210.00 $350.00 
$245.00 $350.00 
$770.00 $350.00
DATE TIME 
9.25.00 8.0 
0.4 
0.3 
9.26.00 4.5 
0.2 
0.3 
9.27.00 5.0 
9.28.00 6.2 
0.4 
9.30.00 5.0 
10.1.00 1.0 
10.4.00 1.4 
0.1 
0.8 
10.5.00 4.9 
0.1 
10.6.00 0.2 
10.7.00 9.1 
0.9 
10.8.00 3.9 
10.28.00 4.5 
0.4 
1.2 
0.5 
SUBJECT MATTER 
Work on MSJ III response; begin review legal authorities, e.g., 
"Law of Appropriations" and cases and 
Comptroller General discussion of nature and scope of settlement 
of accounts process and legal 
impact; begin review of documents related thereto. 
Telcom. with Ferrell re. same. 
Telcoms. Harper re. nature and scope of settlements-of-account 
process per Comptroller General. 
Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 
response. 
Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III draft. 
Telcom. Holt re. same. 
Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 
response. 
Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 
response. 
Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III draft. 
Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 
response. 
Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 
response. 
Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III response. 
Telcom. Holt re. MSJ III issues. 
Review relevant authorities; docoumentation. 
Continue work on MSJ III response; continue review of legal 
authorities; documents. 
Telcom. Interior witness confirming false GAO MSJ. 
Discussion with Rempel re. relevance of BIA regs. to MSJ III and 
Trial 1 testimony and exhibits related 
thereto for reference in opposition to MSJ III. 
Continue work on MSJ III response; continue review of legal 
authorities; documents, including data 
reports, oil & gas reports, and assessments of nature and scope of 
settlements process re. the 
class. 
Telcoms. with Harper re. MSJ III documentation issues given the 
refusal of Interior and Treasury to 
produce documents to support their settlement of account claims. 
Continue document review, revisions, legal research for MSJ III 
response. Includes review of data 
reports, oil & gas reports, and assessments of nature and scope of 
settlements process re. the 
class; compare "accounting" to desk audits by GAO and Treasury 
of disbursing officer reports. 
Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ III. 
Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status of MSJ III and 
issues that need to be flushed out. 
Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ III draft and necessary edits. 
Telcom. Harper re. MSJ III issues. 
RATE AMOUNT 
$2,800.00 $350.00 
$140.00 
$105.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$1,575.00 $350.00 
$70.00 
$105.00 
$1,750.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$2,170.00 $350.00 
$140.00 
$1,750.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 $350.00 
$490.00 
$35.00 
$280.00 
$1,715.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$35.00 
$70.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$3,185.00 $350.00 
$315.00 $350.00 
$1,365.00 $350.00 
$1,575.00 
$140.00 
$350.00 
$350.00 
$420.00 
$175.00 
$350.00 
$350.00
DATE TIME 
10.29.00 4.0 
0.1 
0.2 
10.30.00 0.5 
1.0 
4.6 
10.31.00 6.9 
11.1.00 6.1 
11.2.00 4.4 
0.4 
11.3.00 11.6 
0.4 
0.1 
0.3 
11.6.00 0.5 
0.1 2.1.02 
0.1 
0.3 
0.2 2.4.02 
2.12.02 0.2 
2.14.02 8.5 
0.2 
0.4 
RATE SUBJECT MATTER 
Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ III. $350.00 
Telcom. Harper re. defendants' misrepresentations regarding $350.00 
settlement of accounts v. accounting. 
Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ III draft and necessary edits. $350.00 
Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status of MSJ III. $350.00 
Conference call with Rempel, Harper and Brown re. status of $350.00 
remaining tasks re. MSJ III response 
includling need for Rempel supporting affidavit vis-a-vis 
admissions of Don Hammond, etc. 
Continue revisions of MSJ III draft response. $350.00 
Revise and redraft opposition to MSJ III. $350.00 
Revise and redraft draft opposition to MSJ III based on Rempel $350.00 
additions. 
Continue revisions of Rempel addtitions to MSJ III draft response $350.00 
and review and comment on 
Rempel affidavit in support of certain factual statements including 
admissions of Hammond. 
Conference call with Rempel, Harper and Brown re. status of $350.00 
remaining tasks and text of Rempel 
affidavit. 
Finalize Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Third Phase II Motion $350.00 
for Partial Summary Judgement 
(Re: Settlement of Accounts by Treasury and GAO). 
Telcoms. with Harper re. finalization of MSJ III opposition. $350.00 
Telcom. Ferrell re. service of MSJ III opposition. $350.00 
Telcom. Cobell re. MSJ III issues. $350.00 
Telcom. Brown re. Sanctions for defs’ materially false GAO MSJ $350.00 
III. 
Meet and confer with Cynthia Alexander and Matt Fader, DOJ, and $360.00 
object to defendants' motion to 
withdraw pending motion for partial summary judgement regarding 
GAO Settlement of Accounts 
of disbursing officers as discharging the accounting of IIM Trust 
beneficiaries ("MSJ III"). 
Telcom. Harper re. same. $360.00 
Telcoms. Cobell re. same. $360.00 
Telcom. Cobell re. same, particularly impact false MSJ III was $360.00 
intended to have on class. 
Telcoms. Ferrell re. MSJ III issues, intended impact, etc. $360.00 
Review and revise Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Withdraw $360.00 
Defendants' Motions for Summary 
Judgment; Plaintiffs' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment as to 
(B) The Non-Settlement of 
accounts to reinforce such settlement of Indian disbursing officer 
accounts does not constitute an 
accounting of IIM trust accounts. 
Telcoms. Harper re. same. $360.00 
Conference call with Cobell and Rempel re. defs' motion to $360.00 
withdraw MSJ III, the intended affect of 
AMOUNT 
$1,400.00 
$35.00 
$70.00 
$175.00 
$350.00 
$1,610.00 
$2,415.00 
$2,135.00 
$1,540.00 
$140.00 
$4,060.00 
$140.00 
$35.00 
$105.00 
$175.00 
$36.00 
$36.00 
$108.00 
$72.00 
$72.00 
$3,060.00 
$72.00 
$144.00
DATE TIME 
0.2 
4.25.02 0.4 
0.1 
0.2 5.1.02 
5.2.02 
0.4 
0.4 
0.6 
0.9 
5.6 5.3.02 
0.1 
3.9 5.4.02 
5.5.02 6.3 
0.1 
5.6. 02 0.2 
5.3 
0.2 
3.7 5.7.02 
5.9.02 
1.2 
0.3 
5.4 
5.10.02 0.2 
0.1 
0.1 
5.12.02 0.2 
5.13.02 2.7 
0.4 
0.3 
5.14.02 0.4 
0.1 
0.4 
0.5 
SUBJECT MATTER 
Telcom. Fasold re. same. 
Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Telcom. Levitas re same. 
Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office re. Gamboa letter 
and its implications. 
Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. 
Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, re same. 
Work on notice of supplemental authority re. Gamboa letter. 
Telcoms. Harper re. discussions with U.S. Attorney's office and 
notice of supplemental authority re. 
Gamboa letter. 
Review and revise consolidated motion for leave to amend 
plaintiffs' 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion and finding 
pursuant to R 56(g) per newly discovered evidence, i.e., the 
Gamboa letter. 
Telcom. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, re same. 
Work on notice of supp. authority, leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III 
contempt motion, amendment of 
MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 
Continue to draft and revise same. 
Telcom. Harper re. issues and implications re. same. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
Work on notice of supp. authority, leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III 
contempt motion, amendment of 
MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 
Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, amendment of 
MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 
Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 
Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, amendment of 
MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 
Work on motion for leave to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt 
motion, amendment of 
MSJ III contempt motion per newly discovered evidence. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion 
per newly discovered evidence. 
Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 
Telcom with Lawrence re. same. 
Discussion with Rempel re. same. 
Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
Telcom. Levitas re same. 
RATE AMOUNT 
$72.00 
$144.00 
$36.00 
$72.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$144.00 
$144.00 
$216.00 
$324.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$2,016.00 $360.00 
$36.00 
$1,404.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$2,268.00 
$36.00 
$72.00 
$1,908.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$72.00 
$1,332.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$432.00 
$108.00 
$1,944.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$72.00 $360.00 
$36.00 
$36.00 
$72.00 
$972.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$144.00 
$108.00 
$144.00 
$36.00 
$144.00 
$180.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00 
$360.00
DATE TIME 
2.0 
0.5 
0.3 
0.7 6.4.02 
0.4 
8.6 
4.0 6.6.02 
0.4 
0.6 
0.6 
0.1 6.7.02 
1.1 
0.5 6.8.02 
1.5 
0.1 6.9.02 
6.19.02 0.5 
6.20.02 0.1 
0.1 
6.21.02 0.1 
6.24.02 0.3 
1.0 
6.25.02 5.0 
0.4 
6.26.02 2.2 
6.27.02 1.3 
0.1 
0.4 
6.28.02 3.7 
SUBJECT MATTER 
Work on motion to amend 2.15.02 MSJ III contempt motion, 
amendment of MSJ III contempt motion 
per newly discovered evidence. 
Discussion with Rempel re. same. 
Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Continued telcoms. Lawrence re. meet and confer on MSJ III 
contempt motion. 
Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Finalize motion to amend 2.15 02 MSJ III contempt motion, 
amendment fo MSJ III contempt motion 
per newly discovered evidence. 
Research and analyze complex personal service issues re. nonparties 
as to same. 
Telcoms. Scott Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, re. same. 
Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 
Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in 
connection with MSJ III contempt.. 
Conference call Rempel, Harper, Brown concerning appealability 
of contempt re. MSJ III contemnors, 
officially and individually, including DOJ attorneys. 
Telcoms. Lawrence re. MSJ III personal service logistical issues. 
Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. unresolved personal service issues in 
connection with MSJ III contempt.. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced in 
Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 
Meet with Cobell concerning Gamboa letter and MSJ III. 
Work on reply to MSJ III, including review of defs' cases and 
authorities and begin preparation of 
draft. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced in 
Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 
Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and 
draft revisions. 
Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and 
draft revisions. 
Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Meet with Cobell re.same. 
Continue work on Gamboa/MSJ III reply; includes research and 
draft revisions. 
Consolidated Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion to Amend 
Plaintiffs' February 15, 2002 Summary 
RATE AMOUNT 
$740.00 $370.00 
$185.00 
$111.00 
$259.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$148.00 
$3,182.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$1,480.00 $370.00 
$148.00 
$222.00 
$222.00 
$37.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$407.00 $370.00 
$185.00 $370.00 
$555.00 
$37.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$185.00 $370.00 
$37.00 
$37.00 
$37.00 
$111.00 
$370.00 
$1,850.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$148.00 $370.00 
$814.00 $370.00 
$481.00 $370.00 
$37.00 
$148.00 
$1,369.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00
DATE TIME 
0.4 
0.1 7.1.02 
0.2 7.5.02 
0.5 7.9.02 
7.11.02 0.4 
7.19.02 1.0 
7.29.02 0.3 
7.30.02 0.3 
0.3 
0.1 
1.3 
8.6.02 
8.7.02 
8.8.02 
9.13.02 0.2 
9.16.02 0.1 
1.28.03 0.4 
1.30.03 6.1 
0.3 
1.31.03 5.4 
SUBJECT MATTER 
Judgment Contempt Motion and a Contempt Finding Pursuant to 
F.R.C.P. 56(g) in accordance with 
Newly Discovered Evidence: The April 19, 2002 Letter of GAO 
General Counsel Anthony Gamboa to 
OHTA Director Bert Edwards). 
Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. production of GAO documents referenced in 
Gamboa letter but withheld by defendants. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 
documents referenced, and in connection, 
with Gamboa letter. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 
documents referenced, and in connection, 
with Gamboa letter. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 
documents referenced, and in connection 
with Gamboa letter. 
Prepare letter to lawrence re. continued failure to produce GAO 
documents referenced, and in 
connection with, Gamboa letter, particularly with respect to docs. 
created, or received, by Interior 
and Treasury in response to GAO general counsel's opinion that 
IIM accounts were not settled. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
Prepare letter response to Lawrence re. same. 
Telcoms. Lawrence re. same. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
Review first production of docs. referenced in Gamboa letter 
further demonstrating bad faih of defs' 
in filing MSJ III. 
Telcoms. Lawrence re. production of remaining relevant Gamboa 
related docs. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
Conference call Harper and Brown re. need to file MSJ declaring 
settlement of disbursing officer 
accounts does not settle or constitute accounting of IIM Trust 
accounts. 
Review documents in support of statement of undesputed material 
facts re. MSJ settlements of Account. 
Review and revise Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary 
Judgment as to the Non-Settlement of Accounts 
and Defendants' Failure to Perform the Accounting, in Whole or 
Part, Ordered by this Court on December 
21, 1999 and Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Fasts as to Which 
There is No Genuine Issue in Support 
of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 
Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Review and revise motion for partial summary judgment and 
RATE AMOUNT 
$148.00 
$37.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$74.00 $370.00 
$185.00 $370.00 
$148.00 $370.00 
$370.00 $370.00 
$111.00 
$111.00 
$111.00 
$37.00 
$481.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$74.00 $370.00 
$37.00 
$148.00 
$370.00 
$370.00 
$2,257.00 $370.00 
$111.00 
$1,998.00 
$370.00 
$370.00
IN THE 
j EiO'u'iSE PEIYOX COBELL, u., on 
their own behalf and on behalf of 
all persons similarly situated, 
P 1 ain ti ffs , 
V. 
) 
1 
) 
1 
1 
1 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the 
Interior, u., 
r 
Defendants. 
1 
1 
) 
1 
1 
AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS M. GINGOLD 
1. My name is Dennis M. Gingold. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and am 
lead attorney for plaintiffs in this action. I make this affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' 
Application for Fees and Expenses Related to the Sanctionable Conduct of Defendants and Their 
Counsel and Incurred as a Resuit of Having to Litigate the 2"' Contempt Trial. 
2. I maintain my time records first in a diary dedicated to this purpose. 
Contemporaneous with the completion of a particular task or activity, I enter in the diary the time 
charged on the date the service was rendered; identify the client; the matter; the hours expended, 
to the tenth of an hour; and a description of the work performed. From this diary, I enter m:y time 
1 
Civil Action 
No. 96-1285 (RCL) l v v - - V J l J I / ww 
,.-A 
TASK 
TXTn-1, nn o h n x r o nTCP/frallrt iccllps. v v win UII u u u v w v I U V I LA--- 
Telcom. Cobell re. above. 
Conf. calls Interior witnesses confirming defendants' 
r I - - 2 - - 1 _ _ _ - A*--- Ialst: Ut:C;lillilLIU113 allu ULllCl 
-+L, 
1 L . p . re. TAAMS, BIA 
data clean-up and accounting status. 
Voice mail Infield re. above. 
Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 
Voice mail Babby re. above. 
Prepare for Special Master meeting re. defs' misreps. 
Re. above stated GAO auditlaccounting issues. 
Appear at Special Master meeting with defendants 
and their counsel; discuss withheld GAO documents 
and related memoranda re. DOJ/DOI 
misrepresentations regarding GAO disbursing officer 
account audits and discharge of accounting duties in 
I .I. CIVVVl cwvmv-lanrp UUllVV with 
hy 
I I, I 13/3 1 -, /99 , , Cmirt - - -- - order - - --,- : 
06/03/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 
06/04/00 
06/05/00 
0 610 6/00 
06/07/00 
06/08/00 
Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 
Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 
Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 
Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 
Re. same review recent decision on attorney 
misconduct and fraud on Court. 
06/08/00 Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 
Telcom. Cobell re. above. 
T-1--- 1 CIbUIlI. T-K-lA 1Il1lblU va lb. C D P T ~ O b W U f l L J II L"I"y"'""""""""" 'tw TirrPnrPcPntatinnq 
defendants, including material omissions in McDivitt 
declaration. 
Work on draft re. above OTSCifraud issues. 
Voice mail Holt re. same. 
Work on draft re. above OTSC/fraud issues. 
TIME 
6.3 
0.3 
0.9 
0. i 
10.7 
0.1 
0.8 
0.5 
3.8 
6 
2.6 
6.1 
6.5 
0.5 
6.1 
0.2 
0.6 
4.9 
0.1 
3 .G 
DATE 
n c 17 1 IAA 
05/3 1 /00 
06/0 1 /00 
06/0 1 /00 
06/0 1/00 
06/02/00 
06/02/00 
06/02/00 
06/08/00 
nc1 ninn vo/Or/uu 
06/1 O/OO 
06/1 O/OO 
06/11/00 
Attachment B 
AMOUNT 
$2,142.00 
$102.00 - 
$315.00 - 
m - r nn b33.UU 
$3,745 .OO 
$35.00 
$280.00 -1 
$175.00 -2 
$1,330.00 
$2, i 00.00 
$9 1 0.00 
$2,13 5 .OO 
$2,275.00 
$1 75 .OO 
$2,135.00 
$70.00 
$2 1 0 -00 
9 1 , 1 1 3 . W V 
6 1 7 1 C AA 
$35.00 
$1,260.00 
35 DATE 
06/25/00 
06/25/00 
06/27/00 
06/27/00 
06/27/00 
06/2 8/00 
06/28/00 
06/29/00 
06/29/00 
06/29/00 Meet with Interior witness to confirm same. 
06/30/00 Telcom. and voice mail Holt re. above. 
06/30/00 Conf. call Interior witnesses re. above. 
06/30/00 Work on above OTSC contempt issues. 
07/01/00 Work on above OTSC/fi-aud issues. 
07/02/00 Work on above OTSC/fraud issues. 
07/03/00 Telcom. and voice mail Holt re. GAO related 
summary judgment issues re. accounting contempt. 
07/03/00 Work on OTSC/fraud. 
07/05/00 Review documents re. OTSC/fiaud. 
07/05/00 Telcoms. Holt re. GAO related summary judgment 
07/12/00 Work on OTSClfraud issues. 
TASK 
Voice mail exchange Holt re. contempt accounting 
issues and defendants motions for summary judgment 
re. same (e.g., GAO issues). 
Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 
Telcom. Holt re. GAO Summary Judgment issues re. 
above. 
Work on above OTSC/fi-aud issues. 
Voice mail Cobell re. above. 
Voice mails and telcom. Interior witnesses 
confirming continuing TAAMS failure and cover-up 
and data clean-up problems and cover-up. 
Work on OTSC/fraud re. same. 
Telcom. Interior witness. confirming OTSC/fraud 
facts. 
Voice mai! Holt re. above summary judgment issues. 
and data clean-up problems; continuing fraud. 
issues/accounting contempt. 
07/06/00 Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 16.5 
07/07/00 Work on OTSC/fraud issues. 
07/10/00 Prepare memorandum re. newly discovered TAAMS 0.5 
0.1 
2 
0.6 
0.8 
7.2 
3.3 
5.6 
0.4 
5.8 
12.6 
0.7 
8.5 
1.9 
TIME 
0.2 
6.5 
0.5 
6.2 
0.1 
0.4 
8.7 
0.4 
Attachment B 
- 
$2,170.00 ~ 
$35.00 
$140.00 
$2,03 0 .00 
$4,4 101.00 
$245.00 -3 
AMOUNT 
$70.00 
$2,275 .OO 
$175.00 
$3,045.100 
$1 40.00 
$35.00 
$7 00.00 
$210.00 
$2 8 0.00 
$2,520.00 
$1 ,I 55.00 
$1,960.00 
$140.00 
$5,77 5;. 00 
$2,975.00 
$175.00 
$665.00 
37 DATE 
07/22/00 
08/03/00 
08/04/00 
09/24/00 
09/24/00 
09/2 5/00 
09/25/00 
09/26/00 
09/26/00 
09/26/00 
09/28/00 
0 712 3 /oo WGrk GE 2bwe C>TSC/fi2Lld issues. 
07/24/00 
07/25/00 
TASK 
Work on above OTSCIfiaud issues. 
Work on MSJ surreply re. defs' material 
misrepresentations on GAG accolliitiiig issiics. 
Work on opposition to defendants' motion for 
protective order blocking discovery by plaintiffs. 
Confer Rempel re. same. 
Work on opposition to defs' GAO Motion for 
Summary Judgment ("MSJ"), including review of 
correspondence between me, Ferrell and Brooks re. 
defs' willfully false representations that the GAO 
audit of disbursing officers' accounts constituted an 
accounting'of IIM Trust assets. 
Voice mail Harper re. same. 
VJGrk G:: Gppsitim k? defs' GAO MSJ. 
Voice mail exchanges Harper re. same. 
Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ, 
I eicom. and voice rnaii Harper re. same. 
Telcom. and voice mail Holt re. same. 
Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 
0912 8/00 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
09/3 O/OO 
1 010 1 /00 
10/04/00 
- 
Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 
Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 
Telcoms. Harper re. opposition to defs' GAO MSJ 
and fraud on Court re. same. 
Telcom. Interior witness confirming false GAO MSJ. 0.1 
I- l---,. 
Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. 
1 elLullls. and voice mail exchaage Eal-per re. s2me. 
Voice mail exchanges Holt re. same. 
~0/05/00 
10/07/00 
4 n in-Iinn 
lUlU I I U U 
10/07/00 
TIME 
Review documents lost records and serious concealed 1.5 
data clean-up issues re. Tribal credit programs. 
1.3 
2 
1.7 
1 
0.1 
0.7 
0.1 
8 .0 
0.3 
4.5 
0.3 
0.4 
6.2 
0.4 
5 
1 
1.3 
3.8 
0.9 
0.3 
Attachment B 
- 
$45 5 -00 
$700.00 
$595.00 -4. 
AMOUNT 
$525.00 
$350.00 
$3 5 .OO 
$245.00 -5 /-6 
$35.00 
$2,800.00 -7 
$105.00 -8 
$1,575.00 -9 
.b o i 1 U 
nr J . UU 
nn - 1 0 
$140.00-11 
$2,170.100- 12 
$140.00 -13 
$1,750.00 - 14 
$350.00 -15 
$455.00 -16 
$35.00 -17 
$1,330.00 - 1 8 
$ X ~ . O Q -19 
$105 .OO 
38 10/28/00 
10/28/00 Telcom. and voice mail exchange Harper re. same. 
TASK 
re. same. 
Work on GAO MSJ issues re. evidence of additional 
defs' material misreps. to Court. 
Voice mail Holt re. same. 
Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same. 
Voice mail Harper re. same. 
10/08/00 Work on opposition to defs' GAO MSJ. Telcom. Holt 3.9 
TIME 
4.5 
0.1 
0.6 
4 
0.1 
work on unu iviw issues re. saiiie and ~ b j ~ t i ~ f i s -r.v A L 
0.5 
6.9 
6.1 
4.4 
11 
0.1 
0.5 
0.3 
0.5 
7.6 
6.1 
0.3 
0.3 
5.9 
0.4 
5 .? 
0.6 
0.2 
4.6 
0.3 
0.4 
DATE 
10/28/00 
10/29/00 
10/29/00 
i 0/30/00 
1 013 0/00 
1 0/3 1 /00 
11/01/00 
1 1 lncln 
I l/UU/UO 
11/15/00 
11/16/00 
11/17/00 
11/17/00 
i iiic3IOO 
11/02/00 Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same. 
Work on dAO MSJ issues re. same. 
Voice mail Ferrell re. same. 
11/03/00 
11/03/00 
11/03/00 Telcoms. and voice mail exchange Harper re. same. 
11/03/00 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
(!!. --T. 
11/16/00 
11/16/00 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
Work on MTRO. 
Telcom. Harper re. same. 
Work on MTRO. 
11/18/00 Work on MTRO. 
11/18/00 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
1 !/!8/00 Tdcom. Holt re. same. 
11/19/00 
11/19/00 Telcom. and voice mail Harper re. same. 
voice mail and ielcom. Halt re. same. 
-. T 
raised by defs re. same. 
Conf. call Harper and Brown re. same. 
Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same. 
Work on GAO MSJ issues re. same. 
T 1 eluJlll. 1-n- 
GAO MSJ. 
Begin preparation of Motion to Reopen Trial I 
ivi I KU -!!\ re. iraud eic. perpetrated on Coiirt. 
Work on MTRO. 
~ 
r( A n a irnr * 
f5ilqp v 1 u v v n D,,,,, re. SmctiGns fer defs' m.teria!!v J 
. T 
Attachment B 
AMOUNT 
$1,3 6 5 .OO-m 
$1,575 .OQa 1 
$35.00 
$210.0m2 
$1,400.0@a3 
$35.00 -224 
$!,a 0 . 0 0 ~ 
$175.00 
$2,4i 5.00-2233 
$2,135.00-m 
$1,540.00 -2233 
$3,850.00 -a 
$35.00 - 3 1 
$175.00 a 
$105.00 -332 
$1?5.00 
$2,660.00 
$2,135.00 
$1 05 .oo 
$iOS.OO 
$2,065.00 
$140.00 
$1,995.00 
$2 10.00 
$70.00 
$1,610.00 
$ I05 .OO 
W L R 1 m I.,."" nn 
39 IN THE 
UNITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT 
FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, &., on 
their own behalf and on behalf of 
all persons similarly situated, 
P 1 ain t i ffs, 
V. 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the 
) 
) 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
Interior, d., 
Defend ants . 
AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS M. GINGOLD 
My name is Dennis M. Gingold. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and am 1. 
lead attorney for plaintiffs in this action. I make this affidavit in support of (a) plaintiffs' 
statement of fees and expenses in partial settlement of claims related to the order to show cause 
entered by the Court for defendants' violation of the Anti-Retaliation Order and (b) Mona 
Infield's statement of fees and expenses in partial settlement of the complaint filed with the 
Office of Special Counsel, OSC File No. MA-00-1 024 (collectively "Statement of Fees"). 
2. I maintain my time records first in a diary dedicated to this purpose. 
Contemporaneous with the completion of a particular task or activity, I enter in this diary the 
time charged on the date the service was rendered; identify the relevant client; the matter; the 
Civil Action 
NO. 96-1285 (RCL) 
(Hon. Alan Balaran, Special Master) 
1 TIME TASK 
Work on Infield draft contempt time per discussion 
Telcom Cobell re. same. 
0 
0.1 
0.3 
0.5 
0 
Telcom. Infield re. above. 
0.5 
0 
0 
0 
0.1 
0.3 
4.2 
Prepare Infield draft time for U.S. Attorney's Office. 
Telcoms. and voice mail exchange Scott Harris re. 
settlement issues. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
U.S. Attorney's Office. 
7 , - A rr. Prepare infield draft time for u .a. Attorney's umce. 
Prepare Infield draft time for U.S. Attorney's Office. 
options re. U.S. Attorney's Office. 
DATE 
04/2 1/02 with Scott Harris re. potential settlement. 
04/22/02 No reievant time. 
04/23/02 Voice mail Scott Harris re. above. 
04/24/02 Voice mail exchanges Scott Harris re. above. 
04/25/02 No relevant time. 
04/26/02 Telcom. Scott Harris re. above. 
04/27/02 No time. 
04/28/02 No relevant time. 
O.i/'29/02 NO relevant time. 
04/30/02 Voice mail Scott Harris re. above. 
05/0 1/02 
05/42/02 ?e!c=m. !nfk!d re. status and sett!emer,t =ptior;s re. 
05/0 3/0 2 
05/04/02 No relevant time. 
05/05/02 Telcom. and voice mail Infield re. status and settlement 0.4 
05/06/02 
Telcoms. and voice mail Harper re. Infield issues. 
D--.: D-LL7 
'''I't- l\CVICW " A ' " ' ' ' C . 1 l l l l C l U . 
0.6 
0.1 
0.6 
4.3 
1.9 
0.0 
0.6 
0.5 
0.4 
0.9 05/0 7/0 2 
__ T - C - l l 
Telcom. ,,d Loice mail exchange Scott Harris re. 
Infield issues. 
Telcoms. and voice mail exchange Harper re. same. 
Privileged and Confidential 
Attachment A 
AMOUNT 
$0.00 
$42.50 
$127.50 
$2 12.50 
$0.00 
$212.50 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$42.50 
$127.50 
$1,785.00 
$2.55.00 -34 
$1,827.50 
$807 S O 
$0.00 
$170.00 
$255.00 
$382.50 
65 06/ 16/02 No relevant time. 
06/17/02 No relevant time. 
06/ 18/02 No relevant time. 
0 6/ 1 9/0 2 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 
06/20/02 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 
06/2 1/02 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 
06/2 2/0 2 No relevant time. 
06/23/02 No relevant time. 
06/2 4/0 2 Voice mail exchange Lawrence re. above. 
06/25/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
0 6/2 6/0 2 No relevant time. 
06/27/02 No relevant time. 
Voice mail exchange and telcom. Infield re. above. 
06/ 2 8/0 2 
0 6/ 2 9/0 2 No relevant time. 
0 6/3 0/0 2 No relevant time. 
07/0 1/02 No relevant time. 
07/02/02 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 
0 7/03/0 2 Voice mail Lawrence re. above. 
07/04/02 No relevant time. 
07/05/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
07/06/02 No relevant time. 
07/07/02 No relevant time. 
07/08/02 No relevant time. 
07/09/02 Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
07/ 10/02 No relevant time. 
Telcom. and voice mail exchange Lawrence re. above. 
Telcom. and voice mail exchange Infield re. same. 
07/ 1 1/02 
07/ 12/02 Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
07/13/02 No relevant time. 
07/ 14/02 No relevant time. 
07/ 1 5/0 2 No relevant time. 
07/16/02 No relevant time. 
Privileged and Confidential 
TIME 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.1 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.2 
0.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
0.2 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.5 
0.0 
0.4 
0.5 
0.2 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
Attachment A 
AMOUNT 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$42.50 
$42 50-35 
$42.50 -3 6 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$85.00 -37 
$170.00 -38 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$170.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$42.50 
$0.00 
$85 .OO-39 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$21 2.50-40 
$0.00 
$170.00 
$212.5041 
$85.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
68 TASK DATE 
07/18/02 
07/19/02 Prepare letter to Lawrence re. defs' failure to resolve 
Infield matter and request return of materials provided 
to defs. in accordance with agreement with U.S. 
0 7 / 2 0/0 2 
07/22/02 Review defs' motion re. Infield. 
07/23/02 No relevant time. 
0 7/24/0 2 N o relevant time. 
07/25/02 No relevant time. 
0 7/ 2 6/0 2 No relevant time. 
07/2 7/02 No relevant time. 
0 7 / 2 8/ 0 2 No relevant time. 
07/ 29/0 2 Voice mail and telcom. Lawrence re. above. 
Telcom. Cobell re. same. 
0 7/ 3 0/0 2 Work on Infield response to Lawrence. 
I eicom. Cotell re. same. 
07/3 1/02 No relevant time. 
08/@ 1/02 No relevant time. 
08/02/02 No relevant time. 
08/03/0 2 No relevant time. 
u , / L l / U - 
n7 / ? I /n? 
07/ 17/02 No reievant time. 
No relevant time. 
Attorney's Office. 
Telcom. Lawrence re. same. 
No relevant time. 
No relevant time. 
. - 
T 1 
No relevant time. 
Telcom. Infield re. same. 
._ 
08/04/02 
08/05/02 No relevant time. 
08/06/02 Telcoms. and voice mail Lawrence re. above. 
08/07/02 Tekom. Lawrence re. same. 
08/08/02 No relevant time. 
? 2, '?9/0 2 N o relevant time. 
08/ 10/02 No relevant time. 
08/ 1 1/02 No relevant time. 
08/ 12/02 No relevant time. 
08/13/02 No relevant time. 
Privileged and Confidential 
TIME 
0.0 
0.0 
2.5 
0.3 
0.0 
0.0 
0.8 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.4 
0.1 
0.6 
0.2 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.4 
0.1 
0.2 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
Attachment A 
AMOUNT 
C A AA 
.ppv.uu 
$0.00 
$1,062.50 
$127.50 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$340.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$170.00 -42 
$42.50 
$255.00 -43 
$85.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$1 70.00-44 
$42.50 -45 
$85.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
$0.00 
69 REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 
06/21/04 & 
11/18/02 
Affidavits 
Items # 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 
Matter Date 
9/23/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ 
and exhibits re: GAO 
settlement of accounts. 
9/25/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ 
and exhibits re: GAO 
settlement of accounts; begin 
drafting and preparing 
response. 
9/26/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ 
and exhibits re: GAO 
settlement of accounts; begin 
drafting and preparing 
response. 
9/27/00 Review Mildred Cleghorn 
documentation for settled 
accounts as it relates to Defs' 
3rd MSJ (settlement of 
accounts process). 
9/28/00 CC w/ Rick Fasold re : BIA 
documentation reviewed. 
Conference call in context of 
Defs' 3rd MSJ and availability 
of information to refute 
defendants' contention that the 
GAO settled the IIM accounts. 
9/28/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ 
and exhibits re: GAO 
settlement of accounts; begin 
drafting and preparing 
response. 
9/29/00 Draft, edit response to 
Defendants' 3rd MSJ (re. 
settlement of accounts 
process). 
9/29/00 Draft preliminary statement of 
facts for opposition to Defs' 
MSJ (re. settlement of 
accounts process). 
10/5/00 Draft statement of facts for 
Response to Defs' MSJ III (re. 
settlement of accounts 
process). Includes reviewing 
Defs' documentation as well as 
plaintiffs' pertinent trial 1 
exhibits and testimony for 
purposes of drafting the 
opposition. 
Time Claimed 
Amount 
1.7 $382.50 
5.5 $1,237.50 
9.5 $2,137.50 
4.2 $945.00 
0.1 $22.50 
7.2 $1,620.00 
1.9 $427.50 
3.5 $787.50 
1.8 $405.00 
Objection Adjusted 
Amount 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied
REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 
06/21/04 & 
11/18/02 
Affidavits 
Items # 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
Matter Date 
10/6/00 Draft statement of facts for 
Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. 
settlement of accounts 
process). Includes reviewing 
Defs' documentation as well as 
plaintiffs' pertinent trial 1 
exhibits and testimony for 
purposes of drafting the 
opposition. 
10/25/00 Draft statement of facts for 
Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. 
settlement of accounts 
process). Includes reviewing 
Defs' documentation (exhibits) 
and drafting response in light 
of uncontested facts. 
10/26/00 Draft Response and statement 
of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
(settlement of accounts 
process). 
10/27/00 Draft Response and statement 
of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
(settlement of accounts 
process). 
10/28/00 Draft Response and statement 
of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
(settlement of accounts 
process). 
10/28/00 Discussion w/ Dennis Gingold 
re: Defs' MSJ III and edits to 
draft. 
10/29/00 CC with Dennis Gingold re: 
Defs' MSJ III and edits. 
10/30/00 CC w/ Dennis Gingold, Mark 
Brown, Keith Harper re: 
Response to Defs' MSJ III and 
tasks. 
10/30/00 Draft Response and statement 
of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
(settlement of accounts 
process). Begin drafting 
Rempel affidavit in support of 
response. 
Time Claimed 
Amount 
7.4 $1,665.00 
2.5 $562.50 
8.5 $1,912.50 
3.3 $742.50 
3.0 $675.00 
1.2 $270.00 
0.2 $45.00 
1.0 $225.00 
7.0 $1,575.00 
Objection Adjusted 
Amount 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied
REVIEW OF REMPEL SCHEDULE: FEES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 
06/21/04 & 
11/18/02 
Affidavits 
Items # 
19 
20 
21 
22 
Matter Date 
11/1/00 Draft Response and statement 
of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
(settlement of accounts 
process). Includes drafting 
Rempel affidavit in support of 
response. 
11/2/00 Draft Response and statement 
of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
(settlement of accounts 
process). Includes drafting 
Rempel affidavit in support of 
response. 
11/3/00 Draft Response and statement 
of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
(settlement of accounts 
process). Includes drafting 
Rempel affidavit in support of 
response. File and serve 
response. 
5/6/02 Notice of Supplemental 
Authority - Draft, prepare, file 
and serve notice regarding 
GAO letter from GAO General 
Counsel to Bert Edwards, 
Director of OHTA re 
settlement of accounts 
process. 
Total 
Time Claimed 
Amount 
9.5 $2,137.50 
13.0 $2,925.00 
11.5 $2,587.50 
2.6 $585.00 
106.1 $23,872.50 
Objection Adjusted 
Amount 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00 Previously 
Billed /Denied 
$0.00
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. )) 
)))) 
GALE NORTON, et al., 
Defendants. 
)))))
___________________________________ ) 
AFFIDAVIT OF GEOFFREY REMPEL 
1. My name is Geoffrey Rempel. I am a Certified Public Accountant (inactive) and I am engaged 
as a member of plaintiffs’ litigation team. I have been involved in this matter for almost eight 
years, including almost three-and-one-half years at PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. I make this 
affidavit in support of plaintiffs’ submission of reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, as 
ordered in the Court’s March11, 2003 Memorandum and Order and the Court’s May 25, 2004 
Order (collectively “Orders”). 
2. Defendants’ Third Phase II Motion for Partial Summary Judgment(Re: Settlement of Accounts 
by Treasury and GAO (“Defendants’ MSJ”) was served on plaintiffs and filed with the Courton 
September 19, 2000. In support of Defendants’ MSJ, defendants attached the Affidavit of Frank 
Sapienza. This affidavit (and the motion for summary judgment based upon that affidavit) were 
Civil Action 
No. I:96 CV 01285 RCL 
1
SUBTOTAL AMOUNT 
$1,462.50 
$67.50 
$135.00 
$382.50 
$1,237.50 
$2,137.50 
$945.00 
$22.50 
$1,620.00 
$427.50 
$787.50 
IIM TRUST LITIGATION 
Rempel Schedule: GAO Settlement of Accounts Sanctions 
"Subtotal" Corresponds to Timeframe set forth in Affidavit 
Billing Rate $225.00 
DATE TIME 
6.5 06/02/00 
TASK 
Meet and Confer w/ DOT and DOI counsel before 
Special Master re: various motions. Includes discussion 
w/ Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown between meetings and 
preparation and review of the existing status of discovery. 
During the course of this meeting Assistant Secretary Don 
Hammond confirmed that the settlement of accounts 
process did not constitute an accounting of the individual 
Indian trust accounts. 
09/22/00 0.3 
CC w/ Rick Fasold re: Defs' Third Motion for Summary 
Judgment (GAO settlement of accounts) and available 
material available to refute; compile information for 
opposition. 
0.6 
Discussion w/ Dennis Gingold re: DOT and GAO 
09/22/00 settlement of accounts and defendants' 3rd Motion for 
1.7 
Summary Judgment. 
09/23/00 
Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO 
5.5 
settlement of accounts. 
Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO 
09/25/00 settlement of accounts; begin drafting and preparing 
9.5 
response. 
Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO 
09/26/00 settlement of accounts; begin drafting and preparing 
4.2 
response. 
Review Mildred Cleghorn documentation for settled 
09/27/00 accounts as it relates to Defs' 3rd MSJ (settlement of 
09/28/00 0.1 
accounts process). 
CC w/ Rick Fasold re: BIA documentation reviewed. 
Conference call in context of Defs' 3rd MSJ and 
availability of information to refute defendants' 
contention that the GAO settled the IIM accounts. 
7.2 
Review Defs' Motion for MSJ and exhibits re: GAO 
09/28/00 settlement of accounts; begin drafting and preparing 
1.9 
response. 
09/29/00 
Draft, edit response to Defendants' 3rd MSJ (re. 
3.5 
settlement of accounts process). 
09/29/00 
Draft preliminary statement of facts for opposition to 
Defs' MSJ (re. settlement of accounts process). 
1
DATE TIME TASK 
CC w/ Lorna Babby re: production of policy and 
procedure boxes. This conference call was initiated for 
the purpose of ascertaining whether there was an 
0.3 10/05/00 information contained in prior discovery (policy and 
procedures boxes) that might assist in drafting the 
opposition to Defs' 3rd MSJ (settlement of accounts 
process). 
Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. 
settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' 
10/05/00 documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent trial 1 1.8 
0.2 10/06/00 
exhibits and testimony for purposes of drafting the 
opposition. 
Discuss w/ DG re: BIA regulations and Defs' 3rd MSJ (re. 
settlement of accounts process). Includes discussion of 
drafting opposition and research on historical regulations 
at DOI/DOT/GAO. 
Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. 
settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' 
10/06/00 documentation as well as plaintiffs' pertinent trial 1 7.4 
2.5 10/25/00 
exhibits and testimony for purposes of drafting the 
opposition. 
Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ III (re. 
settlement of accounts process). Includes reviewing Defs' 
documentation (exhibits) and drafting response in light of 
uncontested facts. 
8.5 10/26/00 
Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
3.3 
(settlement of accounts process). 
10/27/00 
Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
3.0 
(settlement of accounts process). 
10/28/00 
Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
1.2 
(settlement of accounts process). 
10/28/00 
Discussion w/ Dennis Gingold re: Response to Defs' MSJ 
0.2 
1.0 
III and edits to draft. 
10/29/00 CC w/ Dennis Gingold re: Defs' MSJ III and edits. 
10/30/00 
CC w/ Dennis Gingold, Mark Brown, Keith Harper re: 
7.0 
Response to Defs' MSJ III and tasks. 
Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
10/30/00 (settlement of accounts process). Begin drafting Rempel 
affidavit in support of response. 
9.5 
Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
11/01/00 (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel 
affidavit in support of response. 
Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
11/02/00 (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel 13.0 
0.2 
affidavit in support of response. 
11/02/00 CC w/ DG, MB, KH re Rempel GAO affidavit. 
SUBTOTAL AMOUNT 
$67.50 
$405.00 
$45.00 
$1,665.00 
$562.50 
$1,912.50 
$742.50 
$675.00 
$270.00 
$45.00 
$225.00 
$1,575.00 
$2,137.50 
$2,925.00 
$45.00 
2
TASK DATE TIME 
Draft Response and statement of facts to Defs' MSJ III 
11/03/00 (settlement of accounts process). Includes drafting Rempel 11.5 
affidavit in support of response. File and serve response. 
4.0 
Review material, including facsimiles from the 
12/15/01 Department of Justice and discovery material and prepare 
for contempt trial. 
2.5 
Review material, including facsimiles from the 
12/16/01 Department of Justice and discovery material and prepare 
for contempt trial. 
2.8 
Review Defs' Motion to Withdrawal Motions for 
02/04/02 Summary Judgment. Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' 
Motion to Wthdrawal MSJ. 
Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal 
5.9 02/10/02 MSJ. Includes review of trial testimony and exhibits 
5.5 
attached to original MSJ. 
02/11/02 
Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal 
9.5 02/12/02 
Edit, draft Opposition to Defs' Motion to Wthdrawal 
0.4 02/14/02 
CC w/ Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 
MSJ. 
MSJ. 
and motion to withdrawal. 
8.4 
Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSJ's and 
02/14/02 cross-motions for summary judgment and sanctions for 
0.5 
seeking to mislead the Court. 
02/15/02 
CC w/ Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 
and motion to withdrawal. 
6.8 
Prepare opposition to motion to withdrawal MSJ's and 
02/15/02 cross-motions for summary judgment and sanctions for 
seeking to mislead the Court. File and service opposition. 
5.0 
0.3 
7.2 
8.0 
6.5 
2.5 
03/05/02 
Review defendants' opposition to plaintiffs MSJ (incl. 
03/05/02 
CC w/ Elouise Cobell re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and 
03/06/02 
Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 
03/07/02 
Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 
03/08/02 
Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 
03/09/02 
Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 
settlement of accounts) and prepare to draft reply. 
subsequent withdrawal. 
plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 
plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 
plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 
plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 
SUBTOTAL AMOUNT 
$2,587.50 $25,110.00 
$900.00 
$562.50 $1,462.50 
$630.00 
$1,327.50 
$1,237.50 
$2,137.50 
$90.00 
$1,890.00 
$112.50 
$1,530.00 $8,955.00 
$1,125.00 
$67.50 
$1,620.00 
$1,800.00 
$1,462.50 
$562.50 
3
TASK DATE TIME 
1.5 03/10/02 
Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 
1.2 
plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 
CC w/ Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 
03/11/02 and drafting of reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ re 
1.5 
settlement of accounts. 
03/11/02 
Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 
0.8 
plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 
Discuss w/ Dennis Gingold re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and 
03/11/02 drafting of reply in support of Plfs' MSJ re settlement of 
0.6 
accounts. 
Discuss w/ Dennis Gingold re Defendants' 3rd MSJ and 
03/12/02 drafting of reply in support of Plfs' MSJ re settlement of 
6.0 
accounts. 
03/12/02 
Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 
0.4 
plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). 
CC w/ Elouise Cobell, Dennis Gingold re Defs' 3rd MSJ 
03/13/02 and drafting of reply in support of Plaintiffs' MSJ re 
11.2 
settlement of accounts. 
Draft and edit reply to defendants' opposition to 
03/13/02 plaintiffs' MSJ (incl. settlement of accounts). File and 
serve reply. 
2.6 05/06/02 
Notice of Supplemental Authority - Draft, prepare, file 
and serve notice regarding GAO letter from GAOGeneral 
Counsel to Bert Edwards, Director of OHTA re 
settlement of accounts process. 
Draft and edit Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion for Leave 
to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs’ February 15, 
2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a 
4.5 05/09/02 Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in 
Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the 
April19, 2002 Letter of Gao General Counsel Anthony 
Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 
Draft and edit Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion for Leave 
to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs’ February 15, 
2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a 
3.8 05/14/02 Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in 
Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the 
April19, 2002 Letter of Gao General Counsel Anthony 
Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 
0.1 05/14/02 
Discuss w/ Dennis Gingold re motion to amend GAO 
4.8 
Motion for Summary Judgment. 
Draft and edit Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion for Leave 
to Amend and Motion to Amend Plaintiffs’ February 15, 
2002 Summary Judgment Contempt Motion and a 
05/15/02 Contempt Finding Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(g) in 
Accordance with Newly Discovered Evidence: the 
April19, 2002 Letter of Gao General Counsel Anthony 
Gamboa to OHTA Director Bert Edwards. 
SUBTOTAL AMOUNT 
$337.50 
$270.00 
$337.50 
$180.00 
$135.00 
$1,350.00 
$90.00 
$2,520.00 $11,857.50 
$585.00 
$1,012.50 
$855.00 
$22.50 
$1,080.00 
4
1. My name is Geoffrey Rempel. I am a Certified Public Accountant (inactive) and a full time 
member of plaintiffs’ litigation team. I have been involved in this matter for almost six years, 
including almost three-and-one+half years at PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. (“PwC)’). I make this 
affidavit in support of plaintiffs’ fee application filed in accordance with this Court’s September 
i i , 2002 opinion and order. 
Record Keebinp: Time and Exbense 
2. I maintain my time records on a electronic spreadsheet application that is dedicated :;olely to 
recording my time. This spreadsheet is updated monthly based upon contemporaneous journal 
entries made in my daily planner. These entries reflect the day a particular task or service W;IS 
1 DATE 
09/20/00 
09/22/00 
09/22/00 
TIME 
3.1 
6.0 
0.3 
2.2 
1.7 
5.5 
9.5 
4.2 
0.3 
0.1 
7.2 
1.9 
3.5 
10/05/00 Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ 111. 1.8 
Includes review Defs' documentation as well as 
plaintiffs' pertinent trial exhibits and testimony. 
TASK 
Prepare and draft TAAMS review based on GA0 
report: compiled in preparation of contempt motion. 
09/2 1 /oo Prepare and draft TAAMS review based on GAO 
report; compiled in preparation of contempt motion. 
CC w/ Rick Fasold re: Defs' Third Motion for 
Summary Judgment (GAO settlement of accounts) and 
material available to refute: compile informatilon for 
contempt motion. 
Prepare and draft TAAMS review based on GAO 
report; compiled in preparation of contempt motion, 
Review Defs' Motion for MS] re: GAO settled accounts 
for contempt motion. 
Review Defs' Motion for MSJ including exhibits re: 
CC w/ Rick Fasold re: BIA documentation in context 
Review Defs' Motion for MSJ including exhibits re: 
09/23/00 
09/25/00 
settled accounts in preparation of response. 
09/26/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ including exhibits re: 
settled accounts in preparation of response. 
09/27/00 Review Mildred Cleghorn documentation for settled 
accounts as it relates to Defs' 3rd MSJ. 
09/28/00 Conference call with Interior witnesses regarding e- 
mail videotape. DO1 preservation of e-mail. 
09/28/00 
of Defs' 3rd MSJ. 
09/28/00 Review Defs' Motion for MSJ including exhibits re: 
settled accounts in preparation of response. 
09/29/00 
settled accounts in preparation of response. 
09/29/00 Draft preliminary statement of facts for MSJ. 
Attachment B 
AMOUNT 
$697.50 
$1,350.00 
$67.50 
$495.00 
$382.50 -1 
$1,237.50 -2 
$2,137.50 -3 
$945.00 -4 
$67.50 
$22.50 -5 
$1,620.00 -6 
$427.50 -7 
$787.50 -8 
$405.00 -9 
19 TIME 
7.4 
1.5 
1.2 
0.8 
DATE 
10/12/00 
1 O/ 13/00 
10/ 13/00 Conference call with Gingold regarding update of my 
conversation with Interior witnesses (see above CC). 
10/25/00 
0.3 
2.5 
8.5 
3.3 
10/26/00 
10/27/00 Draft Response, statement of facts to Defs' MSJ I11 
10/28/00 Draft Response, statement of facts to Defs' MSJ 111. 
TASK 
10/06/00 Draft statement of facts for Response to Defs. MSJ 111. 
Includes review Defs' documentation as well as 
plaintiffs' pertinent trial exhibits and testimony. 
1 O/ 12/00 Discuss w/ DG re: contempt motion and scheduling 
going forward. 
CC w/ Mona Infield re: TAAMS deployment and 
GAO report (3 calls). Discussion in context of 
misreporting and pending contempt motion. 
Conference call with Interior witnesses regarding 
electronic information (e-mail) preservation arid 
security. Context of conversation was in Defs' false 
representations and pending contempt motion. 
Review Defs' MSJ (GAO acc'ts) and update contempt 
notes and facts. 
Draft Response, statement of facts to Defs' MSJ 111. 
Discussion w/ DG re: Response to Defs' MSJ 111. 
CC w/ DG re: Defs' MSJ 111. 
CC w/ DG, MB, KH re: Response to Defs' MSJ 111. 
3.0 
1.2 
0.2 
1 .o 
7.0 
0.4 
12.5 
10/28/00 
10/29/00 
10/30/00 
10/30/00 Review Defs' MSJ I11 and draft response and affidavit. 
10/31/00 CC w/ EC re: update on MSJ 111 and settlement 
negotiations. 
10/3 1 /00 Draft Response to Defs' MSJ I11 and affidavit - - 
includes statement of facts. 
Attachment B 
AMOUNT 
$1,665.00 -10 
$337.50 
$270.00 
$180.00 
$67.50 
$562.50 -11 
$1,912.50 -12 
$742.50 -13 
$675.00 -14 
-15 $270.00 
$45.00 -16 
$225.00 -17 
$1,575.00 -18 
$90.00 
$2,812.50 
20 TASK 
Draft Response to Defs' MSJ I11 and affidavit - - 
includes statement of facts. 
Draft Response to Defs' MSJ I11 and affidavit - - 
includes statement of facts. 
Draft Response to Defs' MSJ I11 and affidavit -- 
includes statement of facts. 
1 1 /06/00 Serve Court and Department of Justice with corrected 
Motion for Summary Judgment. 
Pick up transcripts and material for motion to reopen 
Trial I. 
1 1 /08/00 CC w/ DG re: status reports of Reopen research (3 
calls) 
11/12/00 Begin research, review and compile materials for 
motion to reopen T I. 
11/13/00 Discuss w/ DG re: reopening of T I. 
Draft Statement of Facts for Reopening T I . Includes 
researching materials and trial transcripts as well as 
compiling facts. 
11/13/00 CC w/ TH, EL, DG re: reopening T I. 
CC w/ EC re: status and moving to reopen T 1. 
11/14/00 CC w/ TH re: MSJ I11 Response. 
11/14/00 Draft Statement of Facts for Reopening T I . Includes 
researching materials and trial transcripts as well as 
compiling facts. 
11/14/00 Discuss w/ DG. MB, EL re: reopening. 
11/14/00 CC w/ EC, EL, DG, MB re: reopening. 
11/15/00 CC w/ TH re: motion to reopen (2 calls). 
Draft Statement of Facts for Reopening T I. Includes 
researching materials and trial transcripts as well as 
compiling facts. 
Discuss w/ EL re: reopening of T I. 
Draft Statement of Facts for Reopening T I. Includes 
researching materials and trial transcripts as well as 
compiling facts. 
CC w/ TH re: Statement of Facts and reopening. 
DATE 
11/01/00 
11 /02/00 
1 1 /03/00 
11/07/00 
11/13/00 
11/13/00 
11/15/00 
11/16/00 
11/16/00 
11/16/00 
Attachment B 
AMOUNT 
$2,137.50 -19 
$2,925.00 -20 
$2,587.50 -21 
$270.00 
$157.50 
$135.00 
$787.50 
$180.00 
$1,125.00 
$382.50 
$90.00 
$22.50 
$1,575.00 
$292.50 
$90.00 
$45.00 
$1,800.00 
$562.50 
$495.00 
$45.00 
TIME 
9.5 
13.0 
11.5 
1.2 
0.7 
0.6 
3.5 
0.8 
5.0 
1.7 
0.4 
0.1 
7.0 
1.3 
0.4 
0.2 
8.0 
2.5 
2 . 2 
0.2 
21 DATE 
1 1 /27/0 1 Review individuals oppositions to MSC; compile 
information and representations for pending contempt 
05/06/02 Notice of Supplemental Authority ~ 
06/19/02 Draft, edit Notice of Supplemental Authority (Defs 
~~ ~ 
L-l_, J _ C _ _ _ _ \ 
--..: --:-.:-- r--- P ,...- el-. -..-- 
TASK 
and serve (deputy special trustee drafted a rnerno that 
was filed with the Court in support of plaintiffs motion 
to show cause for the completed contempt trial. 
filed a motion to recuse the Court Monitor, therein 
they admitted that the 12/2 1 /99 order regarding an 
accounting was in fact an order contrary to tneir 
assertions during the contempt trial - filed in support 
of plaintiffs’ findings and conclusions). 
3 - P - - - l - ~ ~ - i - l 
09/05/02 Draft, edit notice of supplemental authority ~ findings 2.1 
and conciusions (NAID quarteriy report contractor 
provides this Court information with respect to 
ongoing false quarterly reporting). 
nn 1 1 7 In- nAL-: ..-A 
U Y / I I / U L lXeLllY.Vti d l l U 1CVlY.W U p l l l l U l l I I U l l l LUUILIIUU>C. 
- YLl 
09/ 17/02 CC w/ reporters re contempt opinion. 
09/17/02 Discuss opinion w/ DG, MB. 
09/!8/02 Review nnininn 
09/ 18/02 Discuss w/ DC, MB re Contempt Opinion. 
09/18/02 CC w/ EC, DG re contempt opinion (2 calls). 
TIME 
0.8 
Draft, prepare, file 2.6 
2.5 
07/31/02 Draft, edit and file notices to the Court (notice filed in 4 . 2 
support of OST resignation; relevant to contempt trial 
in light of suppression of testimony damaging to 
defendants’ contempt trial defense). 
08/01/02 Draft, edit and file notices to the Court (notice filed in 3.0 
support of OST resignation; relevant to contempt trial 
in light of suppression of testimony damaging to 
aerenaarirs corirerripi 11 iai ueierisel . 
L . L 9 9 
2.5 
4.2 
6.5 
2.1 
0.5 
Attachment B 
AMOUNT 
$180.00 
$585.00 -22 
$562.50 
$945.00 
$675.00 
$472.50 
O A ~ K nn 
Q’iY J .uu 
$562.50 
$945.00 
$1,462.50 
$472.50 
$1 12.50 
50 Date 
10/4/00 
10/30/00 
Total 
Brown Internally Inconsistent Entries 
Matter 
Telephone Conversations with 
Keith Harper re MSJ strategy 
Revise Objections 
Memorandum; Telephone 
Conference with Keith 
Harper/Dennis Gingold re 
Strategy 
Time Claimed Objection 
Amount 
0.416 $145.60 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
1.333 $466.55 Inconsistent 
with Harper & 
Gingold bills 
1.76 $612.15
Gingold Internally Inconsistent Entries 
Matter Date 
10/28/00 Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status of MSJ III 
and issues that need to be flushed out. 
10/29/00 Telcom. Harper re. defendants' misrepresentations regarding 
settlement of accounts v. accounting. 
10/30/00 Discussion with Rempel re. MSJ III draft and necessary edits. 
10/30/00 Conference call with Harper and Brown re. status of MSJ III. 
10/30/00 Conference call with Rempel, Harper and Brown re. status of 
remaining tasks re. MSJ III response including need for Rempel 
supporting affidavit vis-a-vis admissions of Don Hammond, etc. 
11/6/00 Telcom. Brown re. Sanctions for defs’ materially false GAO 
MSJ III. 
2/1/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
3/5/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
3/11/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
3/12/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
3/12/02 Conference call Brown and Harper re. same. 
3/13/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
0.4 $140.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper & 
Brown bills 
0.1 $35.00 Previously 
Billed/Denied 
; Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.2 $70.00 Inconsistent 
with Rempel 
bill 
0.5 $175.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
1 $350.00 Inconsistent 
with Rempel, 
Harper, & 
Brown bills 
0.5 $175.00 Inconsistent 
with Brown 
bill 
0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
1.3 $468.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
1.1 $396.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.8 $288.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper & 
Brown bills 
2.3 $828.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill
Gingold Internally Inconsistent Entries 
Matter Date 
3/13/03 Conference call Cobell and Rempel re. same. 
4/22/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same and implications of knowingly false 
representations to Court and pltffs' and plaintiffs' counsel. 
4/23/02 Telcoms. with Harper re. same. 
4/24/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
4/24/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
4/25/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
4/25/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
5/5/02 Telcom. Harper re. issues and implications re. same. 
5/6/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
5/9/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent 
with Rempel 
bill 
0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.7 $252.00 Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
0.6 $216.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
0.2 $72.00 Inonsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied 
0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied
Gingold Internally Inconsistent Entries 
Matter Date 
5/10/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
5/12/02 Telcom. Harper re. same 
5/13/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
5/13/02 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 
5/14/02 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
5/15/02 Telcoms. Harper re. comments to same. 
5/25/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
5/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
5/30/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
6/3/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
0.1 $36.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of Scope/ 
Denied 
0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of Scope/ 
Denied 
0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of Scope/ 
Denied 
0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill; Outside 
of Scope 
0.5 $180.00 Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill; Outside 
of Scope/ 
Denied 
0.4 $144.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of Scope/ 
Denied 
0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of Scope/ 
Denied 
0.2 $72.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of Scope/ 
Denied 
0.3 $108.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of Scope 
0.3 $111.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of 
Scope/Denied
Gingold Internally Inconsistent Entries 
Date 
6/7/02 Conference call Rempel, Harper, Brown concerning 
appealability of contempt re. MSJ III contemnors, officially and 
individually, including DOJ attorneys. 
6/8/02 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
6/20/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
6/27/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
6/28/02 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
1/28/03 Conference call Harper and Brown re. need to file MSJ 
declaring settlement of disbursing officer accounts does not 
settle or constitute accounting of IIM Trust accounts. 
1/31/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
2/15/03 Telcom. Harper re. same and opp. to defs' motion to strike GAO 
MSJ. 
2/21/03 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
Objection Time Matter Claimed 
Amount 
1.1 $407.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper & 
Brown bills; 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
1.5 $555.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
0.1 $37.00 Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
; Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bil; 
0.1 $37.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; 
Outside of 
Scope/Denied 
0.4 $148.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill; Outside 
of Scope 
0.4 $148.00 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Brown & 
Harper bills 
0.3 $111.00 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.4 $148.00 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.4 $148.00 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill
Gingold Internally Inconsistent Entries 
Matter Date 
2/21/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
2/24/03 Telcom. Harper re. same. 
2/24/03 Telcoms. Levitas re. same. 
2/26/03 Telcom. Levitas re same. 
6/9/04 Telcoms. Harper re. same. 
6/14/04 Telcom. Harper re. GAO time and scope of roders 
6/16/04 Conference call Rempel and Harper to confirm accuracy of time 
entries and scope of action taken in connection with protection 
of class re. defs’ repeated filing of false Sapienza declaration. 
6/16/04 Conference call Rempel, Harper, and Brown re. same. 
6/19/04 Telcoms. Harper re. same and comments re. affidavits. 
6/21/04 Telcoms. Harper re. clarification of affidavits and time entries in 0.5 $195.00 
conformity with order. 
Total 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
0.2 $74.00 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill 
0.4 $148.00 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.5 $185.00 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill 
0.1 $37.00 Outside of 
Scope; 
Inconsistent 
with Levitas 
bill 
0.7 $273.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
0.2 $78.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
2 $780.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
1 $390.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper & 
Brown bills 
0.5 $195.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
25.9 $9,491.00 
hrs
Rempel Internally Inconsistent Entries 
Matter Date 
6/17/04 CC w/ Keith Harper, Dennis Gingold (Mark Brown some) re 
GAO application. 
Total 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
2.0 $450.00 Inconsistent 
with Harper 
bill 
2 $450.00
Harper Internally Inconsistent Entries 
Matter Date 
9/21/00 Conference with DG re: Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement 
on the Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 
10/9/00 Telephone call from and to DG (2 calls) re: settlement 
possibilities; discussions with Interior; SMJ III; extension of 
time; 
10/27/00 Telephone call to DG and or GR (4 calls) to discuss 
Opposition to Defs' Motion for Summary Judgement on the 
Settlement of Accounts by GAO Pre-1951 
3/6/02 Telephone call from DG re: MSJ withdrawal and sanctions 
request 
6/17/04 Conference call to DG and GR to discuss scope of courts May 
11th order granting fees for GAO MSJ and Sapienza bad faith 
affidavit and review time jointly to ensure accuracy 
Total 
Objection Time Claimed 
Amount 
0.6 $123.00 Inconsistent 
with Gingold 
bill 
0.4 $82.00 Inconsistent 
with Gingold's 
bill 
1 $205.00 Inconsistent 
with Gingold's 
& Rempel's bill 
0.4 $104.00 Inconsistent 
with Gingold's 
bill 
2.0 $670.00 Inconsistent 
with Gingold's 
& Rempel's bill 
4.4 $1,184.00
__________________________________________
) 
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' Statement of Fees and Expenses in 
Accordance with the Court's March 11, 2003 Order, Dkt # 2596. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ 
Statement, Defendants’ Objections, any Reply thereto, the applicable law and the entire record of this 
case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Statement of Fees and Expenses 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. 
Richard A. Guest, 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