Free Joint Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:02-cv-00024-FMA

Document 99

Filed 04/01/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PUEBLO OF LAGUNA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02-24 L Judge Francis M. Allegra

JOINT STATUS REPORT ON RECORD INDEXATION AND RECORD REVIEW Plaintiff, the Pueblo of Laguna, and Defendant, the United States, (the "parties"), hereby jointly report to the Court regarding their progress on an indexation plan to be submitted to the Court and on other matters. I. INDEXATION PLAN STATUS On March 10, 2005, counsel for the parties met in Washington D.C. to discuss ADR, indexation, and other discovery issues. As previously reported to the Court, focus has been placed on assessing the indexation, and production of records at the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") office in Albuquerque. On October 22, 2004, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a proposed indexation plan. Defendant's proposed indexation plan contemplates a case by case review of relevant document collections. Subsequently the parties agreed on a cooperative effort to conduct an on-site review of BLM documents to address the sufficiency of existing indices and to discuss what additional indexing, if any, would be appropriate for each collection. With the recent completion of the BLM review, Plaintiff is in a better position to discuss Defendant's October 22, 2004 proposal to use a case by case approach (including on-site reviews

Case 1:02-cv-00024-FMA

Document 99

Filed 04/01/2005

Page 2 of 3

where appropriate) to the indexing of documents at various agency locations. Plaintiff asserts that the parties need to refine that site-by site approach based on the BLM review experience. On two separate occasions, February 17 and 18, 2005, and March 3 and 4, 2005, Plaintiff reviewed inventories prepared by BLM. An individual inventory sheet was created for each box scheduled to be moved from the BLM office in Albuquerque to the BLM office in Farmington, New Mexico. The inventories consisted of file-folder level entries. Plaintiff asserts that the inventories contained a number of incomplete and inaccurate file entries. This resulted in Plaintiff spending more time editing the inventories than verifying them. Plaintiff expects to discuss its BLM experience at-length with Defendant. The parties will attempt to work cooperatively to address the problems encountered with the BLM review so as to come to an agreement regarding the indexation plan to be proposed to the Court. As stated in the last status report, Plaintiff was creating its own inventory of BLM records that are relevant to the Pueblo of Laguna. Plaintiff expects to schedule a time with Defendant to complete this inventory. Furthermore, Plaintiff has designated these records for imaging and Defendant is working on producing them at this time. II. OFFICE OF TRUST RECORDS ("OTR") DOCUMENT REVIEW As of the date of the last status report, Plaintiff had commenced review of approximately 600 central-office boxes that Defendant had recently identified as not having been indexed in the Box Inventory Search System database. On March 10, 2005, Plaintiff completed review of these boxes at the OTR Renaissance facility in Albuquerque. Additionally, on March 17, 2005, Defendant made available for Plaintiff to review 21 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office boxes. Plaintiff completed the review of these boxes on the same day they were made available. III. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Case 1:02-cv-00024-FMA

Document 99

Filed 04/01/2005

Page 3 of 3

As has been reported to the Court previously, the parties have been working on segregating a substantial but discrete portion of the case for immediate attention and, the parties hope, settlement. That plan was the major focus of a meeting with the Settlement Judge in Washington, D.C. on March 11, 2005, and the plan is proceeding. The parties will keep the Court apprised of developments and also anticipate filing a joint motion with the Court in the near future that relates to their efforts to facilitate resolution of confidentiality issues in ADR. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of April, 2005.

s/Alan R. Taradash Alan R. Taradash Nordhaus, Haltom, Taylor, Taradash & Bladh, LLP 405 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87102-3541 telephone:505-243-4275 facsimile: 505-243-4464 Attorney of Record for Plaintiff Thomas J. Peckham Deidre A. Lujan Nordhaus, Haltom, Taylor, Taradash & Bladh, LLP 405 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87102-3541 telephone:505-243-4275 Of Counsel Donald H. Grove Nordhaus, Haltom, Taylor, Taradash & Bladh, LLP Suite 801 1401 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 telephone: 202-530-1270

s/Robert W. Rodrigues Robert Rodrigues U.S. Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Division General Litigation Section P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044-0663 telephone: 202-305-0484 facsimile: 202-305-0506