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

Case 1:02-cv-00024-FMA

Document 128

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 1 of 5

United States Court of Federal Claims
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02-24L Judge Francis M. Allegra

JOINT STATUS REPORT Plaintiff, the Pueblo of Laguna, and Defendant, the United States, (collectively, the "parties") respectfully submit this Joint Status Report regarding the parties' progress on alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") proceedings, document production and indexation since their last joint status report filed on May 12, 2008. I. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION As previously reported, the parties' efforts in this case with respect to ADR proceedings, including indexation and document production are running concurrently with their efforts in Navajo Nation v. United States, No. 06-945L. Since the last status report, the parties have had ADR status conferences with Senior Judge Bruggink on May 23, 2008, June 26, 2008, and July 29, 2008. As previously reported, the parties agreed with Judge Bruggink to address during ADR status conferences, as practical, both cases for which a plaintiff tribe and the United States are represented by the undersigned counsel of record. Although discussions during the ADR status conferences focused primarily on Navajo matters, the parties addressed methodologies and discovery matters discussed below common to both cases. The parties are optimistic that application of the methodologies that already have

Case 1:02-cv-00024-FMA

Document 128

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 2 of 5

been developed in other cases will facilitate ADR negotiations in this case, especially in light of the fact that the parties have identified the same substantial but discrete issue on which to concentrate their efforts in ADR. The parties remain committed to collectively and diligently resolving any issues that may arise in ADR in this case. II. DISCOVERY PROGRESS A. Document Inspection and Production

The parties are working cooperatively to comply with the Record Retention Order ("RRO") entered by the Court on March 19, 2004. As previously reported, the parties have resumed their efforts with respect to document production in Laguna. Specifically, the parties are addressing Plaintiff's inspection in June 2004 through March 2005 of over 6,700 boxes that were to be transferred from the Office of Trust Records ("OTR") to the American Indian Records Repository ("AIRR") in Lenexa, Kansas. The Laguna Pueblo, as well as several other tribes, reviewed this large record collection simultaneously over the course of a number of months in a project named "Joint Discovery Project" ("JDP") in an effort to avoid multiple reviews, which would have effectively increased the amount of time for completion. During the JDP, Plaintiff designated thousands of relevant records for production. Defendant subsequently transferred the records to the AIRR as authorized under RRO ¶ (2)(d), but, because the parties had agreed that production of the records requested by Laguna Plaintiff was not a priority at that time, Defendant produced only a limited number of those records to Plaintiff. Because the parties have now resumed their discussions in Laguna, they are working cooperatively to finalize the production of those designated records. Defendant is preparing to produce to Plaintiff certain document images that Defendant has produced to other tribes in other cases.

2

Case 1:02-cv-00024-FMA

Document 128

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 3 of 5

To facilitate the production of the records, the parties have agreed initially to focus on Defendant's production of documents including the Cheyenne-Arapaho collection, the Joe Christie collection, and the Andersen Iron Mountain collection. Defendant has also agreed to produce a smaller set of records designated by Plaintiff in the JDP as a priority matter. The parties will continue to explore whether the same or a similar methodology can be used to identify the universe of records designated by the Plaintiff in 2004 and 2005. Defendant has provided initial and supplemental responses to Plaintiff's informal document request from early this year including production of some documents. Defendant will continue to provide responsive documents on a rolling basis, and the parties will confer as necessary regarding further production. Additionally, in correspondence dated July 31, 2008, Defendant provided Plaintiff with numbers and other information relating to certain individual Individual Money Accounts ("IIM") and Special Deposit Accounts ("SDA") that may relate to or in which the Pueblo may or may not have an interest, along with an explanatory memorandum entitled Procedures for Identifying Potential Tribal Related Accounts in the IIM System. Counsel for the parties are engaged in ADR processes in both Laguna and Navajo Nation, and Defendant has provided copies of the Common Data Set and the Data Validation Report to both tribes. Defendant will continue providing on a rolling basis outstanding responsive documents and information. A representative of the Office of Historical Trust Accounting will be available to participate in discussions related to the Pueblo of Laguna accounts during the next scheduled ADR status conference with Judge Bruggink on September 5, 2008. The parties have discussed during ADR status conferences with Senior Judge Bruggink Plaintiff's intention to serve formal discovery requests on Defendant in this stayed case pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Judge Bruggink has scheduled ex parte 3

Case 1:02-cv-00024-FMA

Document 128

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 4 of 5

meetings with the parties' counsel beginning with the Government on August 18, 2008. Plaintiff has continued its discussions with tribal officials regarding the scanning and coding of relevant records in Plaintiff's possession. Although Plaintiff continues to develop its plan for collecting documents from various Pueblo repositories, the time-intensive process of retrieval, scanning, and coding Laguna documents is already underway. B. Indexation

The parties have discussed and utilized a plan for indexing documents, data and tangible things reasonably anticipated to be subject to discovery in this case that contemplates a site-bysite review of relevant records. Because the parties have focused on the document production matters discussed above, they have not resumed discussions to develop their indexation plan for submission to the Court. The parties anticipate these discussions will take place in conjunction with further discussions concerning document production. The parties will report to the Court in the next status report the progress of such discussions. III. CONCLUSION The parties will continue to work together to advance the ADR proceedings and resolve issues as they arise. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, the parties will file their next status report on November 10, 2008.

4

Case 1:02-cv-00024-FMA

Document 128

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 5 of 5

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of August, 2008. s/Alan R. Taradash by Alan R. Taradash Nordhaus Law Firm, LLP 405 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87102 telephone: 505-243-4275 facsimile: 505-243-4464 Attorney of Record for Plaintiff s/Robert W. Rodrigues by Robert W. Rodrigues United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Div. Natural Resources Section P.O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 telephone: 202-353-8839 facsimile: 202-353-2021 Attorney of Record for Defendant OF COUNSEL: Gladys Cojocari Holly H. Clement Office of the Solicitor United States Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 TERESA DAWSON Office of the Chief Counsel Financial Management Service United States Department of the Treasury Washington, D.C. 20227

5