Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 1 of 57
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 2 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 3 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 4 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 5 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 6 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 7 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 8 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 9 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 10 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 11 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 12 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 13 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 14 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 15 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 16 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 17 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 18 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 19 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 20 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 21 of 57
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 22 of 57
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 23 of 57
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE, Plaintiff,
go
Case No. 06-942L Judge Lynn J. Bush
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to RCFC 26 and 33, Plaintifftlhe Passamaquoddy Tribe ("Passamaquoddy"), by its attorneys, hereby responds to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories as follows: I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. Passamaquoddy objects to General Instruction No. VI to the extent it seeks to
require Passamaquoddy to supplement responses to Interrogatories which have not been propounded by Defendant, such as "the identity of and location of persons having knowledge of these matters" and "the identity, subject matter and testimony of experts who may be called as witnesses at trial or otherwise relied upon by plaintiff." B. Passamaquoddy objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to seek
information protected by privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. C. Passamaquoddy objects to Interrogatories No. 2 and 6 on the ground that they
seek information outside the scope of this Court's July 20, 2007 Order directing Defendant to serve written requests for discovery "on the topic of 28 U.S.C. § 1500 and whether this statute bars plaintiff's claims in this court." July 20, 2007 Order. To determine whether
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 24 of 57
Section 1500 applies to this action, this Court :must examine whether Passamaquoddy, when it "filed in this court, had 'pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States.'" Breneman v. U.S., 57 Fed. C1. 571,575 (2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1500). Thus, the scope of the factual dispute is a very narrow one -- whether Passamaquoddy's action in the United States District Court (styled Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Dirk Kempthorne, Ross O. Swimmer and Henry 34. Paulson, Case No. 1:06-cv-02240-JR ("Passamaquoddy District Court Action")) was "pending" at the time Passamaquoddy filed the instant action. Defendant acknowledged as much during a May 30, 2007 Hearing before Judge Hewitt in Ak-Chin Indian Community v. United States, 06-932L, a case in which the same-day filing issue also is currently being litigated, saying tlhat it would require "fairly limited discovery regarding the timing of the filings in the District Court and in the Court of Federal Claims" and only would seek e-mails and correspondence "of the particular paralegal who was to file the pleadings" through "a request for production" and "a couple limited interrogatories." May 30, 2007 Hearing Transcript, Ak-Chin Indian Community v. United States, 06-932L, at pp. 8-10. Notwithstanding the Court's July 20, 2007 Order and Defendant's representations regarding the appropriately narrow scope of discovery, Interrogatories No. 2 and 6 request that Passamaquoddy describe each and every step it or its attorneys and other legal representatives took in connection with filing the instant action and the Passamaquoddy District Court Action. Each and every action performed by Passamaquoddy or its attorneys
2
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 25 of 57
to initiate these actions is not relevant to the narrow issue of whether Passamaquoddy's District Court Action was pending at the time Passamaquoddy filed the instant action. Interrogatories No. 2 and 6 thus seek information outside the scope of permissible discovery. These interrogatories also seek information protected from discovery by the attorneyclient privilege and/or fall under the "core" or "opinion .... of attorney work product tier" because they seek information that would reveal the mental impressions, conclusions, opinion or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of Passamaquoddy concerning this litigation. See Desert Management v. U.S., 76 Fed. C1. 88, 93 (2007) (citing In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 343 F.3d 658, 663 (3d Cir. 2003)). This information is afforded "near absolute protection of discovery" and Pas;samaquoddy is not obligated to disclose it to Defendant. Id. These general objections are expressly incorporatedy b Passamaquoddy's response to each individual interrogatory below. II. SPECIFIC RESPONSES Interrogatory No 1: Please state the name, address, telephone number, reference into
position and employer of the Person(s) answering these interrogatories, and identify any and all Persons who provided any information used in preparing your responses to [for the purpose of answering] these interrogatories. Response: In answering these interrogatories, Passamaquoddy is relying
upon information provided to it by Kilpatrick Stockton LLP ("Kilpatrick Stockton"),
3
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 26 of 57
Passamaquoddy's counsel responsible for filing the instant action and the Passamaquoddy District Court Action. The following individuals from Kilpatrick Stockton provided information used to prepare the responses to the interrogatories: Keith M. Harper, Esq., G. William Austin, Esq., David Smith, Esq., Mark: Reeves, Esq., Raymond Bennett, Esq., Justin Guilder, Esq., Katherine Bosken, Esq., Alexis Applegate, Sandy Roy and Blaine Young. Interrogatory No 2. Please describe, in detail, the steps taken by you to file
the Complaints in the D.D.C. and the C.F.C. respectively. Response: As explained in more detail above in paragraph C of
Passamaquoddy's General Objections, Passamaquoddy objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the ground that it is overly broad and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because such information is not relevant to the factual dispute of whether the Passamaquoddy District Court Action was pending at the time Passamaquoddy filed the instant action. Passamaquoddy objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the additional grounds that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney-work product doctrine, including the mental impressions, conclusions, opinion or legal theories of Passamaquoddy's attorneys concerning this litigation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Passamaquoddy states that it relied upon Kilpatrick Stockton to file the instant action and the District Court Action. Kilpatrick Stockton states that prior to filing the instant action and the Passamaquoddy District Court Action, attorneys and support personnel at Kilpatrick Stockton drafted the
4
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 27 of 57
Complaints and prepared accompanying materials, including cover sheets, checks to cover the filing costs, a notice of designation for related cases and a summons. To file the instant action, on December 29, 2006, Alexis Applegate, a paralegal employed by Kilpatrick Stockton, walked to the Court of Federal Claims and handed the clerk the requisite number of copies of the Complaint, as well as a civil cover sheet and a check to cover the accompanying filing fees. Ms. Applegate walked back to the office with a file-stamped copy of the Complaint. To file the Passamaquoddy District Court Action, Ms. Applegate took a cab to the District Court. Ms. Applegate handed Passamaquoddy's District Court Complaint and accompanying materials to the intake clerk at the District Court who handled the filing of complaints. The clerk reviewed the materials and directed Ms. Applegate to take the check to the District Court cashier. Ms. Applegate submitted a check to the cashier, received a receipt from the District Court's cashier and[ then received a file-stamped copy of the Complaint, summons and related materials from the intake clerk. Ms. Applegate took a cab back to the office with a file-stamped copy of the Complaint, an executed summons and a receipt. Interro~atory No 3. Please identify the persons employed at Kilpatrick
Stockton, L.L.P. that performed the filing of Plaintiff's D.D.C. Complaint. Response: Alexis Applegate.
5
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 28 of 57
Interrogatorv No4.
Please identify the persons employed at Kilpatrick
Stockton, L.L.P. that performed the filing of Plaintiff' s C.F.C. Complaint. Response: Alexis Applegate. Interro~atoryNo 5. Did you use, employ, retain, otherwise engage the
services of, or compensate any person, third-party contractor, courier service or company that was not an employee of the law firm Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P. to file or assist with filing Plaintiff's D.D.C. and C.F.C. Complaints;? If the answer to this interrogatory is "yes," please identify such person(s), third-party contractor, or courier service. Response: Passamaquoddy relied upon Kilpatrick Stockton to complete the
filing of the Complaint in the instant action and the Passamaquoddy District Court Action. Kilpatrick Stockton did not use a third-party to assist with these filings. As explained in response to Interrogatory No. 2, on December 29, 2006, Ms. Applegate took cabs from Kilpatrick Stockton's offices to the District Court and to return to Kilpatrick Stockton's office. Ms. Applegate does not remember which cab company she used for the trips to and from the District Court and the receipts she received from each of the cabs do not identify the cab companies. Kilpatrick Stockton used Capitol Process Services, 1827 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. to serve the Complaint in the Passamaquoddy District Court Action. Interrogatorv No 6. For each person identified in response to Interrogatory
Nos. 3 or 4, and for each person, third-party contractor, or courier service identified in
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 29 of 57
response to Interrogatory No. 5, please explain in detail what tasks that person or entity performed in connection with filing Plaintiff's D.D.C. and C.F.C. Complaints. Response: As explained in more detail above in paragraph C of Passamaquoddy's General Objections, Passamaquoddy objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it is overly broad and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery which is not relevant to the factual dispute of whether the Passamaquoddy District Court Action was pending at the time Passamaquoddy filed the, instant action. Passamaquoddy objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the additional grounds that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine, including the mental impressions, conclusions, opinion or legal theories of Passamaquoddy's attorneys concerning this litigation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the actions Ms. Applegate took to file the Complaint in the instant action and the Passamaquoddy District Court Action are set forth in Passamaquoddy's response to Interrogatory No. 2. Passamaquoddy states as a further response: seer Response to Interrogatory No. 5. Interrogatory No 7. On, or after December 29, 2006, did you receive any
document from any person confirming or stating that the Plaintiff's complaints were successfully filed with the D.D.C. and the C.F.C.? If the answer to Interrogatory No. 7 is "yes," please identify any and all documentation you received and from whom you received it.
7
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 30 of 57
Response: Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it is overly broad and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery which is not relevant to the factual dispute of whether the Passamaquoddy District Court Action was pending at the time Passamaquoddy filed the instant action. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Kilpatrick Stockton received receipts from the Court of Federal Claims and the District Court, as well as file stamped copies of the Complaints filed in each action. In addition, Ms. Applegate sent an e-mail to (3. William Austin on December 29, 2006 at 12:41 p.m. telling Mr. Austin that all the Complaints had been filed. Kilpatrick Stockton also received Affidavits of Service from Capitol Process Services indicating that the Complaints in the Passamaquoddy District Com:t Action had been served. Interrogatory No 8. Please identify any and all documents in your possession,
custody or control that state, evidence or reflect the times of day that the Plaintiff's complaints were filed with the D.D.C. and the C.F.C., respectively, on December 29, 2006. Response: Passamaquoddy is aware of no documents which state, evidence or reflect the exact times of day that Passamaquoddy's Complaints were filed in the instant action or in the District Court. The following documents evidence the approximate time that Passamaquoddy filed the instant action and the District Court Action: ¯ Ms. Bosken sent an e-mail at 9:26 a.m. transmitting a draft of Passamaquoddy's Complaint filed in this action.
8
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 31 of 57
¯
Ms. Applegate sent an e-mail to G. William Austin on December 29, 2006 at 12:41 p.m. telling Mr. Austin that all the Complaints had been filed, but that she was "waiting for the summons." As explained in response to Interrogatory No. 2, Ms. Applegate did not have to return to the District Court to retrieve the summons from the clerk in the Passamaquoddy District: Court Action. Thus, these e-mails evidence that the filings of the instant action and the Passamaquoddy District Court Action were completed between 9:26 a.m. and 1.2:41 p.m.
¯
Affidavits of Service show that Kempthorne was served with the District Court Complaint at 3:14 p.m. on December 29, 2006, confirming that the Passamaquoddy District Court Action had been filed by 3:14 p.m.
¯
Ms. Applegate sent an e-mail to Mr. Harper on December 29, 2006 at 3:36 p.m. stating that she would let Mr. Harper ~mow when she heard back from the process servers thus confirming that Ms. Applegate already had the summons from the District Court and the Passamaquoddy District Court Action already had been filed at that time.
¯
Ms. Applegate sent an e-mail to Mr. Austin on December 29, 2006 at 4:17 p.m. stating that all Complaints in each court had been filed and that she was waiting to hear if the Complaints had been served.
9
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 32 of 57
Interrogatory No 9.
State the exact time and date the Complaint in the Court
of Federal Claims was filed. If you do not know the exact time of filing, please state your best approximation of the time, based on the infbrmation available to you. Response: Ms. Applegate filed the instant action on December 29, 2006 between 9:26 a.m. and 12:41 p.m. Interrogatorv No 10. State the exact time and date the Complaint in the D.D.C.
was filed. If you do not know the exact time of filing, please state your best approximation of the time, based upon all the information available to you. Response: Ms. Applegate completed the filing of the Passamaquoddy District Court Action on December 29, 2006, after she filed the instant action and before 12:41 p.m. Interrogatory No 11. Set forth in detail all facts upon which your responses to
Interrogatory Numbers 9 and 10, above, are based. Response: Ms. Applegate filed seven Complaints on December 29, 2006. In addition to the instant action, Ms. Applegate filed Complaints in the United States Court of Federal Claims styled Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, No. 06943L; Ak-Chin Indian Community v. United States, No. 06-932L; and Tohono O'odham Nation v. United States, 06-944L (collectively, the "Court of Federal Claims Actions"). Ms. Applegate also filed Complaints in the Distric, t Court initiating the actions styled Ak-Chin Indian Community v. Dirk Kempthorne, Ross O. Swimmer and Henry M. Paulson, Case No. l:06-cv-02245-JR, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine v. Dirk Kempthorne, Ross O. Swimmer
10
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 33 of 57
and Henry M. Paulson, Case No. 1:06-cv-02240-JR and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Dirk Kempthorne, Ross O. Swimmer and Henry M. Paulson, Case No. 1:06cv-02241-JR (collectively, "District Court Actions"). Mr. Harper recalls that he orally instructed Ms. Applegate to file the Complaints initiating the Court of Federal Claims Actions ;at the earliest possible time on December 29, 2006, and prior to filing the Complaints initiating the District Court Actions. Mr. Harper did not give the instruction to file the Court of Federal Claims Actions prior to filing the District Court Actions out of a concern for issues related to 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Rather, because Kilpatrick Stockton had successfully filed a Complaint in the action styled, Tohono O'odham Nation v. Dirk Kempthorne, Ross O. Swimmer and Henry M. Paulson, Case No. 1:06-cv02236-JR in the District Court on December 28, 2006, and Mr. Harper practiced more regularly in the District Court, Mr. Harper was comfortable that he and Ms. Applegate understood the necessary procedures to perfect the filing of a Complaint in the District Court. Because Mr. Harper and Ms. Applegate had not: yet filed any Complaints initiating actions in the Court of Federal Claims and Mr. Harper was not as familiar with the filing procedures in this Court, Mr. Harper instructed Ms. Applegate that she should file the Complaints initiating the Court of Federal Claims Actions as early as possible and before filing the Complaints she was planning to file in the District Court that day so that Mr. Harper and Ms. Applegate would have sufficient time to cure any potential problems occurring in connection with filing the Complaints in the Court of Federal Claims Actions. Ms. Applegate recalls Mr. Harper
11
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 34 of 57
expressing this concern to her and wanting to file the Complaints in the Court of Federal Claims Actions as soon as possible. Mr. Harper remembers making this instruction in spite of an e-mail Mr. Harper sent to Ms. Applegate at 8:59 a.m. on December 29, 2006, instructing her that she would have to file the Complaints in the District Court Actions while he made changes to the Complaints in the Court of Federal Claims Actions. In light of the impending holiday, late in the evening of December 28, 2006, Mr. Harper had asked Ms. Applegate to call the District Court and the Court of Federal Claims to determine if either of the Courts were closing early on December 29, 2006. Mr. Harper recalls that on the morning of December 29, 2006, after he sent Ms. Applegate the 8:59 a.m. e-mail, Ms. Applegate was unable to confirm that the Court of Federal Claims would not close early that day due to the impending holidays. This additional uncertainty prompted Mr. Harper to instruct Ms. Applegate to file the Court of Federal Claims Action before filing the District Court Action. To the best of her recollection, Ms. Applegate followed Mr. Hal~per's instructions and filed the Complaint in the instant action prior to filing the Complaint in the Passamaquoddy District Court Action. In addition, Ms. Applegate recalls that on December 29, 2006, the last trip she made to a court in connection with filing a complaint was to the District Court. Ms. Applegate specifically recalls giving a security guard at the District Court a "high-five" when she had completed all of the filings on December 29, 2006. The District Court assigned the action she filed on December 29, 2006 for the Ak-Chin Indian Community ("Ak-Chin") the highest
12;
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 35 of 57
civil action number of all of the District Court Actions Ms. Applegate filed that day and that civil action number is not immediately before or after the civil action number assigned to the Passamaquoddy District Court Action. Because the District Court assigns civil action numbers based upon the time that the Complaints in the District Court are filed, Ms. Applegate is certain that the Complaint initiating the District Court action for Ak-Chin was the last Complaint she filed that day and was tlhe only filing that day which necessitated her returning to the District Court to complete the filing and to retrieve the summons. Passamaquoddy states as a further response, see' Responses to Interrogatories No. 2 and 8. Interrogatory No 12. Identify Blaine Young and describe what role[s], direct
or indirect, Blaine Young had in the preparation or filing of Plaintiff's Complaints in this case the D.D.C. Response: At the time Passamaquoddy filed the instant action and the Passamaquoddy District Court Action, Mr. Young was a Desktop Support Analyst in the Information Technology Department in Kilpatrick Stockton's Washington, D.C. office. Mr. Young currently holds the same position, working out of Kilpatrick Stockton's Charlotte, North Carolina office. It is believed that Mr. Young converted the Passamaquoddy District Court Complaint and the accompanying materials into PDF form and saved them to a compact disk for filing. Interrogatory No 13. Explain in detail the steps you took to convey the
Complaints and summonses for this case and the DDC case to the process server[s] for
13
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 36 of 57
service on the defendants in those respective cases, including in your response when (i.e., at what time) you provided those materials to the process server[s] for service on the defendants. Response: Passamaquoddy did not convey the Complaint in the instant action to a process server. See RCFC 4. With regard to the Passamaquoddy District Court Action, on December 29, 2006, after having left the Complaint and accompanying materials for the Ak-Chin District Court Action with the intake clerk, but not having yet completed its filing or obtained the summons, Ms. Applegate returned to Kilpatlfick Stockton's office. At that time, Ms. Applegate called Capitol Process Services to notify it that there were four District Court Complaints which she would need to be served later that day. Ms. Applegate explained to Capitol Process Services that as soon as she,' returned from the District Court with the summons for last action Ms. Applegate was filing that day, she would call Capitol Process Services so that it could retrieve all four District Court Complaints and summonses at the same time. When Ms. Applegate returned to Kilpatrick Stockton's office after having completed the filing of the Ak-Chin District Court Action and obtained the summons, Ms. Applegate called Capitol Process Services to tell them to come to Kilpatrick Stockton's offices to retrieve the Complaints and summonses to be served in all four District Court Actions. Ms. Applegate left the Complaints and summonses for all four District Court
14
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 37 of 57
Actions in an envelope in Kilpatrick Stockton?s mailroom for Capitol Process Services to retrieve. Passamaquoddy does not know the exact time of day that Ms. Applegate left the District Court Complaints and summonses for Capitol Process Services or the exact time that Capitol Process Services retrieved these materials. Passamaquoddy is able to approximate that Ms. Applegate left the District Court Complaints and summons for Capitol Process Services and Capitol Process Services retrieved these materials between 12:41 p.m. and 3:14 p.m. on December 29, 2006. This estimation is based upon the e-mail Ms. Applegate sent G. William Austin on December 29, 2006 at 12:41 p.m. telling Mr. Austin that all the Complaints had been filed, but that she was "waiting for the summons." Because Ms. Applegate left all four Complaints and summonses for the District Court Actions with Capitol Process Services at the same time, this e-mail establishes that Ms. Applegate had not left the District Court Action Complaints and summonses for Capitol Process Servers as of 12:41 p.m. on December 29, 2006. In addition, the Affidavit of Service shows that Kempthorne was served with Passamaquoddy's District Court Complaint at 3:14 p.m. on December 29, 2006, thereby establishing that by 3:14 p.m., Capitol Process Servers had retrieved the District Court Complaints and summonses from Kilpatrick Stockton's mail room.
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 38 of 57
This the 14th day of August, 2007.
/s/Keith Harper KEITH HARPER D.C. Bar No. 451956 E-mail: kharper@kilpatrickstockton, corn G. WILLIAM AUSTIN D.C. Bar No. 478417 E-mail: baustin@kilpatrickstockton, corn Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 607 14th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 508-5800 Fax: (202) 505-5858 Attorneys for Plaintiff Passamaquoddy Tribe
16
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 39 of 57
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE, Plaintiff,
V°
Case No. 06-942L Judge Lynn J. Bush
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories by hand delivering a copy thereof addressed to: Laura M.L. Maroldy, Esq. Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division 601 D Street, N.W., Room 3136 Washington, D.C. 20044
17
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 40 of 57
This the 14th day of August, 200'7.
/s/Keith Harper KEITH HARPER D.C. Bar No. 451956 E-mail: kharper@kilpatrickstockton, corn G. WILLIAM AUSTIN D.C. Bar No. 478417 E-mail: baustin@kilpatrickstockton, com Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 607 14th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 5;08-5800 Fax: (202) 505-5858 Attorneys for Plaintiff Passamaquoddy Tribe
18;
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 41 of 57
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 3
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB Document 20-2 District of Columbia live database, Query ¯ Date Search
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 42 of 57of 3 Page 1
Select A Case
1:06-cv02240-JR 1:06-cv02241-JR 1:06-cv02242-JR 1:06-cv02243-HHK l:06-cv02244-RJL PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE OF MAINE v. KEMPTHORNE et al SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY v. KEMPTHORNE et al
filed 12/29/06
filed 12/29/06
COEUR D' ALENE TRIBE v. KEMPTHORNE et al
filed 12/29/06
WEBB v. LAPPIN et al
filed 12/29/06
VERNER v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT et al
filed 12/29/06
l:06-cv02245-JR
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY v. KEMPTHORNE et al
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cv02246-CKK 1:06-cv02247-JR
GRIFFIN v. COASTAL INTERNATIONAL SECURITY INC. SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA COMMUNITY v. KEMPTHORNE et al
filed 12/29/06
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cvWATSON v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 02248-RWR OF JUSTICE
filed 12/29/06
l:06-cv02249-JR l:06-cv02250-JR
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY v. KEMPTHORNE et al NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE OF INDIANS v. KEMPTHORNE et al
filed 12/29/06
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cvMATERIA v. CHAO 02251-RWR
filed 12/29/06
https ://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?372721787353301 -L_504_0-1
5/11/2007
Document 20-2 DistrictCase 1:06-cv-00942-LJBQuery ¯ Date Search of Columbia live database -
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 43 of 57of 3 Page 2
1:06-cv02252-RJL 1:06-cv02253-RCL
SWEENEY v. J.D. LONG MASONRY, INC.
filed 12/29/06
PALIOTTO v. JOHNNY ROCKETS GROUP, INC.
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cv02254-JR
HAUDENOSAUNEE et al v. KEMPTHORNE et al
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cv02255-RMC 1:06-cv02256-RJL 1:06-cv02257-CKK
COLEMAN v. LAPPIN et al
filed 12/29/06
WILLS v. SMITH
filed 12/29/06
HARRIS v. GOINS
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cvHARLEY v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION 02258-RMU 1:06-cv02259-UNA
filed 12/29/06
STAMPS v. SECRETARY OF TREASURY
filed 12/29/06 closed 12/29/06
1:06-cvBEYNUM v. CLAY et al 02260-RWR
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cvRUFFIN v. DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH 02261-RWR REHABILITATION SERVICES et al 1:06-cv02262-RJL WILSON-GREENE v. DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH REHABILITATION SERVICES et al
filed 12/29/06 closed 04/13/07
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cvCRUZ-PACKER v. DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH 02263-RWR REHABILITATION SERVICES et al 1:06-cv02264-GK DAVIS v. DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH REHABILITATION SERVICES et al
filed 12/29/06
filed 12/29/06 closed 03/22/07
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?372721787353301 -L_504_0-1
5/11/2007
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB Document 20-2 District of Columbia live database - Query ¯ Date Search
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 44Page 3 of 3 of 57
1:06-cvCARVAJAL v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT 02265-RMU AGENCY et al 1:06-cv02266-HHK
filed 12/29/06
WILLIAMS FUND PRIVATE EQUITY GROUP, INC. v. ENGEL
filed 12/29/06
1:06-cvROY et al v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT 02267-RMU OF COLUMBIA 1:06-cv02268-JDB 1:06-cv02269-ESH 1:06-mc00566-CKK 1:07-mc00010-GK
filed 12/29/06
BEAIRD et al v. GONZALES et al
filed 12/29/06
FALCK et al v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al
filed 12/29/06
HUSSEIN
filed 12/29/06
MUHAMMAD v. CIA AGENT et al.
filed 12/29/06
PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt
05/l 1/2007 18:58:21 PACER Login: Description: Pages:
l~[ l [ ost.
1
[Filed From: 12/29/2006 Filed [To: 12/29/2006
Search ~[Criteria:
1[o.16
https ://ecf.dcd.uscourts. gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?372721787353301 -L_504_0-1
5/11/2007
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 45 of 57
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 46Page 1 of 2 of 57
Applegate, Alexis From: Sent: To: Applegate, Alexis Friday, December 29, 2006 2:24 PM Stephens, Dayna
Subject: RE: Need Rush Checks Dayna, REDACTED Thanks for all of your help this morning and have a Happy New Year! Alexis
From: Stephens, Dayna Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:09 AM To: Harper, Keith; Applegate, Alexis; Roy, Sandy Cc: Bazen, Sarah; Deringer, Linda; Roberson, Darlene Subject: RE: Need Rush Checks These are printed now_. please let me know if you brave received them
From: Harper, Keith Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:59 AM To: Applegate, Alexis; ,Roy, Sandy Cc: Bazen, Sarah; Deringer, Linda; Stephens, Dayna; Roberson, Darlene Subject: RE: Need Rush Checks Alexis, REDACTED in all the CFC Complaints.
So we will have to run those copies again while you file the DDC.
........ : .......... ............ . ......................-z ...... " .............: ............... ............................................................................... ; .............:.......:., "
From: Applegate, AlexisSent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:07 AM To: Roy, Sandy C¢: Harper, Keith; Bazen, Sarah; Deringer, Linda; Stephens, Dayna; Roberson, Darlene Subject: Need Rush Checks Sandy,
REDACTED
6/25/2007
PAS00211
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 2 Page 47 of 57of 2
Thanks everyone, Alexis
~
KILPATRtCK ........ STOCKTON tip
Alexis E. Applegate Paralegal Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Suite 900 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2018 t 202 508 5807 f202 585 0047 Confidentiality Notice: ]'his communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. !8 U.S.C, Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments: may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product_ If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 202 508 5800, and destroy tl~e original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any matter.
6/25/2007
PAS00212
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 48 of 57
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page Page 49 of 57 1 of l
Guilder, Justin From: Bosken, Katherine Friday, December 29, 2006 9:04 AM
Sent: To: Guilder, Justin Subject: RE: CFC Complaints
Sure.
From: Guilder, Justin Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:04 AM To: Bosken, Katherine Subject: CFC Complaints I will change the Passamaquoddy and CFC Complaints and let me know when that is done? REDACTED Can you
~
K I LPATRICK STOCKTON LLt )
Atmm~,s ~ Law
Justin Guilder Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Suite 900 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2018 t 202 639 4707 f202 585 0014
Con fidentiaii.ty Notice: This comnlunication constitutes an eiectroqic communication within the moaning of -',he Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 US C Section 2510, and its disciosu{e is strictly iimited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments may contain confidentiai a{torney-ciieni pr;vileged information and attorney work product. If you are sot the intended recipiem any, disclosure, cosying, distribution or use of any of the information contair~ed in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED P~ease contact ~s immediaie~y by ret~rn e-maii or at 202 508 5800. and destroy the original transmission and its attach.meats without reading or saving in any manner
PAS00112 6/9R/2007
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 50 of 57
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 6
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 51 of 57
Page 1 of 1
Munson, Catherine
From: Sent: To: Subject:. Guilder, Justin Friday, December 29, 2006 11:41 AM Edward Roybal ..
Can you give me i
REDACTED
k~
KILPATRICK STOCKTON ~P
***DISCLAIMER*** Treasury Deem Cimular 230 Disclmure" To ensure compliance with ~equiremcnts imposed by ff~e Treasury Department, we inform you that any U.S. f~dcra! lax advic contained in lhis communication (including any ~ttachmcnta) is not intended or written to be ~:1, and cannot be ,~¢d, for the pm'po,~ of (i) avoiding p~nal6¢~ undcr the Intcraa] Revenue Code or (ii) promo~ng, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressod herein_.
6/27/2007
AKCHIN00130
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 52 of 57
Guilder, Justin From: Sent: To: Subject:
II ii Iii
iii
iiii i
[email protected] Friday, December 29, 2006 1:28 PM Guilder, Justin Re:; REDACTED
Ok let me check Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ..... Original Message ..... From: "Guilder, Justin"
REDACTED
Can you give me"
***DISCLAIMER*** Treasury Department Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Treasury Department, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained inthis communication (including any attachments)is not intended or wrltten to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Kevenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or. matter addressed herein.°.
AKCHIN00 ] 14
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 53 of 57
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
THE AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff,
V.
Case No. 06-932L Judge Emily C. Hewitt
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to RCFC 26 and 33, Plaintiffthe Ak-Chin Indian Community ("Ak-Chin"), by its attorneys, hereby responds to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories as follows: I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. Ak-Chin objects to General Instruction No. VI to the extent it seeks to require
Ak-Chin to supplement responses to Interrogatories which have not been propounded by Defendant, such as "the identity of and location of persons having knowledge of these matters" and "the identity, subject matter and testimony of experts who may be called as wimesses at trial or otherwise relied upon by plaintiff." B. Ak-Chin objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to seek
information protected by privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. C. Ak-Chin objects to Interrogatories No. 2 and 6 on the ground that they seek
information outside the scope of this Court's May 30, 2007 Order directing Defendant to serve written requests for discovery "of information relevant to the factual dispute
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 54 of 57
Interrogatory No 8.
Please identify any and all documents in your possession,
custody or control that state, evidence or reflect the times of day that the Plaintiff's complaints were filed with the D.D.C. and the C.F.C., respectively, on December 29, 2006. Response: Ak-Chin is aware of no documents which state, evidence or reflect the exact times of day that Ak-Chin's Complaints were filed in the instant action or in the District Court. The following documents evidence the approximate time that Ak-Chin filed the instant action and the District Court Action:: ¯ Ms. Applegate sent an e-mail to G. William Austin on December 29, 2006 at 12:41 p.m. telling Mr. Austin that all the Complaints had been filed, but that she was waiting for the summons. Thus, at that time, the instant action had been filed, but as explained in response to Interrogatory No. 2, Ms. Applegate had not yet completed the filing of the Ak-Chin District Court Action because she had to return to the District Court to complete the filing, retrieve a summons and pay the filing fees, all of which she completed in a later trip to the District Court. Ms. Applegate sent Mr. Austin a subsequent e-mail on December 29, 2006 at 2:23 p.m. telling Mr. Austin that she had just returned from the Court and was completing her time before she left for the day. These e-mails evidence that the instant action was filed before 12:41 p.m. and that the filing of the Ak-Chin District Court Action was completed between 12:41 p.m. and 2:23 p.m.
US2000 10135529.1 1
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 55 of 57
¯
Mr. Guilder, an attorney at Kilpatrick Stockton who assisted with the preparation of Ak-Chin's Complaint filed in the instant action, sent an e-mail on December 29, 2006 at 11:41 a.m. to Edward Roybal, Ak-C]hin's counsel with the law firm Strickland & Strickland, requesting information to be included in the Complaint filed in this action. This e-mail evidences that the instant action had not been filed as of 11:41 a.m. (Mr. Roybal did not respond to this e-mail matil after Mr. Guilder already had obtained the requested information on his own).
¯
Ms. Applegate sent an e-mail to Mr. Harper on December 29, 2006 at 3:36 p.m. stating that she would let Mr. Harper know when she heard back from the process servers thus confirming that Ms. Applegate already had retrieved the summons from the District Court and the Ak-Chin District Court Action already had been filed at that time.
¯
Ms. Applegate sent an e-mail to Mr. Austin on December 29, 2006 at 4:17 p.m. stating that all Complaints in each court had been filed and that she was waiting to hear if the Complaints had been served.
¯
Affidavits of Service show that Kempthorne and Swimmer were served with the District Court Complaint at 3:14 p.m. on December 29, 2006, confirming that the District Court Action had been filed by 13:14 p.m.
US2000 10135529.1
10
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 56 of 57
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 7
Case 1:06-cv-00942-LJB
0S11S12007 10:20 FAX 2025085858
Document 20-2
Filed 09/28/2007
Page 57 of 57
~0041004
Kilpatric Stock~on
From:
Bosken, Katherine
Sent: To:
Co:
Friday, December 2g, 2006 9:2e AM ,eq~'~e, Nexis
GUild.r, J~stln; Harper, Ke)th; Smgh. DavKI CFC versions of TON, Sa/t River, and Ak-Chin"
REDACTED
suqect:
Attachments: fiNAL TON CFC coa~olak¢OOC.nd: USE THIS FINAL SRPMIC CFC COMPLAINT.doc.nrl; FINAL Ak Chin CFC ornp~nt.DOC.nd "
I_'ve al~ched do~Jrn~nt inks Io b~e final C.FC complaints f~ TON, SaJt River, and Ak-C.~n. ... Justin is handling.
Call with any questions x 7468.
Thanks,
Kat~
REDACTED
B KII~ATI%ICK ~N ].u,
~her;.ne M. R. Bosken ~,+ ~ ~P l~l W,~ Yomlb SlI.Cet W'~ NC 27101.2400 t 3~607 7468 f 3~ 734 2635
~,.AS0o484
6,'22/2OO7
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms