Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 1 of 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________

Marilyn Keepseagle

:

P.O. Box 509

Fort Yates, ND 58538-0509

:

and

:

Luther Crasco

:

HC 63 Box 5040

Dodson, MT 59524

:

and

:

Gene Cadotte P.O. Box 200 McLaughlin, SD 57642

:

Case Number:1:99CV03119

:

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

and
Porter Holder HC 71 Box 186-1 Soper, OK 74759

:

EIGHTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

(CLASS ACTION)

:

:

and

:

Keith and Claryca Mandan

:

P.O. 70

New Town, ND 58763,

:

ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND :

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

:

vs.

:

Ed Schafer, Secretary

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT :

OF AGRICULTURE

14th and Independence Avenue, S.W.

:

Washington, D.C. 20250

:

Defendant.

:

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 2 of 39
_____________________________________________________________ EIGHTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
_____________________________________________________________ The representative plaintiffs identified in the caption (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, some 838 of whom are listed in Appendix A, attached hereto, complain as follows:
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS Since at least 1981 Defendant has engaged in a pattern of discriminating against Native American farmers and ranchers (hereinafter, “farmers”) in the provision of direct loans and loan servicing because of their race. The USDA has committed this discrimination at various stages of the loan and loan servicing process. Native Americans have been denied equal opportunity to obtain loan applications and assistance in completing them, and the often inaccessible locations of USDA’s offices have imposed obstacles to obtaining credit on Native Americans not typically encountered by other farmers and ranchers. Those Native Americans who nevertheless applied for loans received significantly fewer loans than were provided to white farmers. Further, when loans were provided, they often included onerous terms that were not imposed on white farmers. Defendant also discriminatorily denied Native Americans access to loan servicing options that were made available to non-Native American loan recipients. The discrimination practiced by the USDA was exacerbated by the USDA’s wholesale failure to accept, process, and redress complaints, made both orally and in writing, whether individually or through a representative. At the same time, USDA advised aggrieved farmers that they could challenge decisions believed to be discriminatory by lodging complaints with the agency’s civil rights office.
2

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 3 of 39
Together, the USDA’s pattern and practice of denying Native Americans equal access to opportunities to obtain credit, while simultaneously depriving them of a meaningful way to challenge the discrimination they faced, have deprived Native American farmers of privileges afforded to non Native-American farmers, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), and has caused them substantial damage, including in many cases the loss of land held by their families for generations.
JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction is founded upon 15 U.S.C. § 1691, § 1691e(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and 7 U.S.C. § 2279.
VENUE 2. Venue lies in this judicial district because the Plaintiffs’ claims arose in this judicial district, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff and Class Representative Marilyn Keepseagle is a Native American rancher and resident of Fort Yates, North Dakota, located on the Standing Rock Reservation. She is a member of the Sioux Tribe.
4. Plaintiff and Class Representative, Luther (Luke) Crasco (“Crasco”) is a Native American rancher who resides in Dodson, Montana. Crasco is a member of the Assiniboine/Gros Ventre Indian Tribes on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Eastern Montana.
3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 4 of 39
5. Plaintiff and proposed Class Representative, Gene Cadotte (“Cadotte”), is a Native American rancher who resides in McLaughlin, South Dakota. Cadotte is a member of the Sioux Tribe located on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
6. Plaintiff and Class Representative Porter Holder is a Native American rancher and a resident of Soper, Oklahoma. He is a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
7. Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Keith and Claryca Mandan are Native American Ranchers and residents of Mandaree, North Dakota, located on the Fort Berthold Reservation. They are members of the Hidatsa Tribe.
8. Defendant Ed Schafer is Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), and is the federal official responsible for the administration of the statutes, regulations and loan programs which are the focus of this action.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 9. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and the following class, which already has been certified by this Court:
All Native American farmers and ranchers who (1) farmed or ranched between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; (2) applied to the USDA for participation in a farm program during that time period; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA individually or through a representative during the time period. 10. This action may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
11. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable.
4

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 5 of 39
12. The claims of the Class include common questions of law and fact, including but not limited to:
(a) Whether Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs and Class members in failing to process discrimination complaints;
(b) Whether Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs and class members in granting credit and providing other program benefits;
(c) Whether Defendant relied upon excessively subjective criteria in determining whether to grant direct loans or loan servicing;
(d) Whether Defendant failed to provide access to direct loans and loan servicing for Native Americans equal to that provided to white males;
(e) Whether Defendant failed adequately to monitor its local decision makers to ensure that direct loan and loan servicing decisions were not made on a discriminatory basis;
(f) Whether Defendant failed to provide plaintiffs and Class members equal opportunity for and access to credit or other program benefits;
(g) Whether Defendant's actions violated Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a); and
(h) Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to (1) a declaration of their eligibility to receive damages or other monetary relief; (2) monetary relief that is equitable in
5

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 6 of 39
nature; (3) costs; (4) attorneys’ fees; and (5) interest from the date they should have been paid to the actual date of payment. 13. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class. Plaintiffs and the members of the class all were subject to Defendant’s failure to properly investigate civil rights complaints, and all were denied equal access to credit or other direct loan program benefits as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct described herein. 14. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the class because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the class they seek to represent. Moreover, Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of complex agricultural disputes against the USDA on behalf of farmers and ranchers, experienced in civil rights litigation, and experienced in class action litigation. 15. The USDA has acted on grounds common to the class, thereby making injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole appropriate. 16. The common questions of law and fact identified above predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. 17. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.
6

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 7 of 39
USDA’S FARM LOAN OPERATIONS AND ITS GENERAL PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATION
The Organization Of The USDA’s Farm Service Agency 18. USDA’s Farm Service Agency (“FSA”) provides farm loans and other farm credit benefits to U.S. farmers.
19. The FSA was created in 1994 as a result of a reorganization of USDA, primarily by the merger of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (“ASCS”) with the Farmers’ Home Administration (“FmHA”), which previously had provided farm loans and other farm credit benefits.
20. FmHA was created to provide loans, loan servicing, and technical assistance for farmers. FmHA accomplished this goal either by making loans directly to farmers or guaranteeing loans made to farmers by private, commercial lenders. These loans included, but were not limited to, “farm ownership,” “operating,” and “continuing assistance” loans, as well as loans that “restructure” existing loans and “emergency” loans.
21. FmHA’s key responsibilities were to work with small, minority and disadvantaged farmers – farmers who could not get credit elsewhere – to assist these farmers in developing their financial plans and loan applications.
22. Defendant Schafer is responsible for the administration of the FSA and, through his predecessors, the FmHA & ASCS.
23. FSA, like FmHA and ASCS before it, operates through a three-tiered review system consisting of county-level offices and committees, which are reviewed and monitored by state-
7

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 8 of 39
level offices and committees, which are in turn subject to federal level review in Washington, D.C., by the national office and the National Appeals Division (“NAD”).
24. County offices work in conjunction with local county committees. The county committees consist of producers from a county who have been elected by other producers in that county. The state committees consist of producers from each state who oversee the state and county offices. At the federal level, the national office oversees the state and county level offices while NAD renders final determinations of administrative appeals. Prior to the 1994 consolidation, FmHA had its own administrative appeal process.
25. USDA has long suffered from a lack of diversity in the FSA program delivery structure, and a severe under-representation of minority employees in FSA county offices.
The USDA’s Study Of Its Farm Loan Programs
26. Responding to frequent complaints that its farm credit programs were operating in a discriminatory manner, the USDA conducted a comprehensive study of its farm loan programs, through a Civil Rights Action Team (“CRAT”) which it convened. After an exhaustive examination of the issue, the USDA issued a report, known as the “CRAT Report.” This report concluded that minorities, including Native Americans, have had disproportionately lower access to USDA farm loan programs than comparably situated white farmers and ranchers.
27. In addition, in 1997 and 2000, the USDA office of the Inspector General studied the operation and effectiveness of the USDA civil rights office and issued reports on the subject, known as “OIG Report” & “OIG Report II,” respectively. As set forth below, these reports
8

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 9 of 39
found that the Civil Rights offices of the USDA were wholly ineffective and failed to permit farmers and ranchers to redress discrimination to which they may have been exposed.
The Process Of Applying For Loans And Loan Servicing 28. Traditionally, farmers have been advised of the availability of USDA loans and loan servicing by the USDA.
29. After being so advised, farmers interested in obtaining credit assistance have been provided a loan application and Farm and Home Plan (“FHP”), essentially a financial plan for the farm, and completed those materials with assistance from USDA officials. USDA regulations require that the agency offer all farmers, but especially Native American farmers and others who qualify as socially disadvantaged, extra help in the completion of loan applications, known as “technical assistance.”
30. Once the USDA issues a loan, the vagaries of farming and ranching may require that loan terms be renegotiated, relaxed or the loan forgiven. This process of managing the loan to ensure the continued success of the farmer and the eventual repayment of the loan is known as “loan servicing.” Farmers applying for loan servicing also completed a FHP along with a loan application.
31. Completion of the FHP loan application and loan serving application typically require the assistance and guidance of USDA officials to complete.
32. The provision of assistance and guidance in obtaining and completing the appropriate materials to obtain loans or loan servicing is critical because of the complexity of the programs and forms that must be completed.
9

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 10 of 39
33. The loan application and servicing process is uniform across the United States, and is completed pursuant to regulations found at 7 C.F.R. § 1901, et seq.; 7 C.F.R. Part 1951-S, et seq.
Native Americans Have Received Far Less Than Their Proportionate Share Of USDA Loans And Loan Servicing Dollars
34. Native Americans have long received fewer loan dollars from USDA than is appropriate given their share of the rural population, their share of the farming population, and their share of the population eligible to receive USDA loans.
35. Indeed, the disparity between the amount of direct loan funds Native Americans have received and the amount they were expected to receive is so great that the likelihood the disparity is due to chance is less than 5%.
36. Native Americans also have long received far fewer loan servicing dollars from USDA than are proportionate to their share of the rural population, their share of the farming population, and their share of those eligible to receive USDA loans.
37. As with the disparity in loan dollars, the disparity between the amount of funds Native Americans have received and the amount of funds they were expected to receive is so great that the likelihood the disparity is due to chance is less than 5%.
38. The CRAT report reached similar conclusions. The CRAT report found lower participation rates and lower approval rates for minorities in FSA programs:
Recent studies requested by Congress and FSA have found lower participation and lower loan approval rates for minorities in most FSA programs. Participation rates in 1994 in programs of the former Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), particularly commodity programs and disaster programs, were disproportionately low for all minorities.
10

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 11 of 39
The GAO found that between October 1, 1994 and March 31, 1996, 33 percent of minority applications but only 27 percent of non-minority applications in the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) were disapproved. During the same period, 16 percent of minority but only 10 percent of non minority loans in the direct loan program were disapproved. CRAT Report at 21 (emphasis added). 39. Moreover, even where loans eventually were approved, as the CRAT Report found, minorities endured longer loan processing times, including in FSA’s Northwest region where Native American farmers and ranchers have been particularly active:
In the Southeast, for example, in several States it took three times as long on average to process African-American loan applications as it did non minority applications. Similar disparities between non minority loan processing and American Indian loan processing appeared in records for a number of States included in FSA's Northwest region. CRAT Report at 21 (emphasis added). 40. The pattern of Native Americans receiving fewer direct loan and loan servicing dollars than the amounts proportionate to their representation in the rural population is consistent across the country and throughout the class period. Nor is the pattern of disparities between loans and loan servicing awarded to Native Americans and white farmers and ranchers likely due to chance. Instead, these disparities in loans and loan servicing likely have been due to USDA’s use of and reliance on policies and practices that have operated, and may have been intended to operate, adversely on Native Americans. These practices are described below.
USDA Relied And Continues To Rely On Overly Subjective Criteria In Approving Farm Loans And Loan Servicing
41. After farmers completed the loan application with its supporting documents, the application was subject to a two-step approval process. First, the application was presented to the County Committee for a determination of eligibility. If the County Committee determined that the farmer
11

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 12 of 39
was eligible, then the application was considered by the County Supervisor. The County Supervisor then approved or rejected the loan application.
42. The criteria that County Committee members and the county office were instructed to rely upon to assess loan applications are, and at all relevant times have been uniform across the United States.
43. Prior to 1997, the regulations in existence instructed County Committees to make loan eligibility decisions based on criteria such as: (a) the character of the applicant; (b) the industry of the applicant; (c) the commitment and ability of the applicant with regard to farming; and (d) the applicant’s education or experience in farming. See, e.g., 7 C.F.R. §§1910.4; 1910.6; 1910.7; 1941.12; 1943.12 (1989).
44. These criteria were susceptible to multiple interpretations by County Committee members.
45. The minimal written guidelines provided to County Committee members on how to interpret these loan criteria also were susceptible to multiple interpretations.
46. In 1997 the USDA revised the criteria to be used by County Committee members in evaluating applications for loans and debt servicing.
47. These new criteria, as well as the written guidelines accompanying them, also are susceptible to multiple interpretations.
48. If the farmer or rancher were found eligible for a loan, then USDA rules provided that the County Supervisor evaluated the application. This process also was highly subjective. The
12

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 13 of 39
County Supervisor decided whether to approve or reject the loan application based upon whether the applicant had adequate security and whether the FHP was “feasible,” that is, it demonstrated a positive cash flow. The latter process – also required in the loan servicing application process – was rife with variables susceptible to multiple interpretations by the County Supervisor.
49. The use of these and other, similarly subjective criteria to determine eligibility for loans and loan servicing has allowed discrimination against Native American Farmers to flourish, and has led to and ratified a pattern and practice of discrimination against Native Americans in the provision of direct loans and loan servicing.
50. In addition, the use of subjective criteria to determine eligibility for loans and loan servicing has had an adverse impact on the ability of Native American farmers to obtain direct loans and loan servicing that cannot be reconciled with USDA’s legitimate operational needs.
The USDA Has Systematically Disadvantaged Native American Farmers In The Loan Application Process
51. The USDA also has engaged in a pattern and practice of denying Native Americans equal access to direct loan applications that it provided to farmers and ranchers, and therefore to loans, thereby systematically disadvantaging Native American Farmers in the loan application process.
52. Native American farmers routinely were not advised of the availability of USDA loans and loan servicing options; were not provided loan applications upon request; and were not provided adequate technical assistance to enable them to complete the loan and loan servicing application process, while other farmers and ranchers were routinely provided these benefits and opportunities.
13

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 14 of 39
53. In addition, USDA officials regularly erected a variety of barriers which prevented Native
Americans from receiving loans and loan servicing and/or delayed or reduced the value of any loans
or loan servicing received. These obstacles were not imposed upon white farmers.
54. As the CRAT Report found, one example of such barriers was:
The minority or limited-resource farmer tries to apply for a farm operating loan through the FSA county office well in advance of planting season. The FSA county office might claim to have no applications available and ask the farmer to return later. Upon returning, the farmer might receive an application without any assistance in completing it, then be asked repeatedly to correct mistakes or complete oversight in the loan application. Often those requests for correcting the application could be stretched for months, since they would come only if the minority farmer contacted the office to check on the loan processing. By the time processing is completed, even when the loan is approved, planting season has already passed and the farmer either has not been able to plant at all, or has obtained limited credit on the strength of an expected FSA loan to plant a small crop, usually without the fertilizer and other supplies necessary for the best yields. The farmer’s profit is then reduced.
CRAT Report at 15 (emphasis added).
55. As the CRAT Report further described:
If the farmer’s promised FSA loan finally does arrive, it may have been arbitrarily reduced, leaving the farmer without enough money to repay suppliers and any mortgage or equipment debts. In some cases, the FSA loan never arrives, again leaving the farmer without means to repay debts. Further operating and disaster loans may be denied because of the farmer’s debt load, making it impossible for the farmer to earn any money from the farm. The farmer then will have to sell the land or be foreclosed upon to settle debts. As an alternative, the local FSA official might offer the farmer an opportunity to lease back the land with an option to buy it back later. The appraised value of the land is set very high, presumably to support the needed operating loans, but also making repurchase of the land beyond the limitedresource farmer’s means. The land is lost finally and sold at auction, where it is bought by someone else at half the price being asked of the minority farmer. Often it is alleged that the person was a friend or relative of one of the FSA county officials.
CRAT Report at 16 (emphasis added).
14

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 15 of 39
56. This cycle, which was well-documented by the CRAT report, has operated regularly to deny Native Americans equal access to credit opportunities.
The USDA’s Failure To Supervise The Loan Servicing Process 57. Notwithstanding that the USDA has been on notice that its loan and loan servicing processing has consistently disadvantaged Native American farmers, it has failed to redress the inequities its policies have caused or to correct the flawed policies themselves.
58. The CRAT report reached a consistent conclusion:
Currently, the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services (FFAS) Mission Area, which manages the FSA program delivery system, provides ineffective oversight of the local delivery of farm credit services. CRAT Report at 16. 59. As the CRAT Report’s findings indicate, USDA’s failure to redress the inequities in the delivery of loans and loan servicing has been due, at least in part, to the low priority that the USDA has placed on compliance with the civil rights laws. CRAT Report at 55.
60. This conduct has systematically disadvantaged Native American farmers, and has ratified and exacerbated a pattern and practice of discrimination against them in the provision of direct loans and loan servicing.
61. The USDA’s failure to address inequities in its loan and loan servicing program also has had an adverse impact on Native American Farmers that cannot be justified by any business necessity.
15

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 16 of 39
The USDA’s Failure to Conduct Adequate Outreach Programs Targeted At Native American Farmers
62. The USDA has failed to conduct sufficient outreach aimed at Native American farmers,
despite being on notice for years that its failure to conduct such outreach had an adverse impact
on Native American farmers.
63. For example, as the CRAT Report found, a lack of outreach to small and limited-resource
farmers directly impaired the participation of minorities, including Native Americans, in USDA
programs:
Lack of diversity in the FSA county office delivery system directly affects participation of minority and female producers in USDA programs. Underrepresentation of minorities on county committees and on county staffs means minority and female producers hear less about programs and have a more difficult time participating in USDA programs because they lack specific information on available services.
However, outreach efforts have failed on a much broader front than just the county committee system in FSA. USDA does not place a priority on serving the needs of small and limited-resource farmers and has not supported any coordinated effort to address this problem. The many mission areas and agencies within the Department have developed their own separate programs that may or may not be successful in responding to the real differences in scale and culture presented by minority and limited-resource customers.
Minority and limited-resource farmers and ranchers reported they are not receiving the technical assistance they require. They said they are not receiving basic information about programs for which they might be eligible. They are not being helped to complete complicated application forms. They are not being helped to understand and meet eligibility requirements for programs. They are not receiving information about how their applications are handled and, if they are denied participation, why they were denied and how they might succeed in the future. When they do receive loans or other program benefits, they are not being helped to use those benefits most effectively to improve their operations.
Some outreach efforts, like the consolidated Service Center approach to providing comprehensive services to USDA customers, have created new barriers. Their locations have not considered the needs of minority and limited-resource customers who may have difficulty in reaching more distant centers than customers with
16

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 17 of 39
greater resources. Their services have not provided for cultural and language differences that make USDA programs inaccessible or less relevant to minority customer needs. And their services have failed to recognize the different needs of small-scale enterprises, be they farms, businesses, communities, or families. CRAT Report at 26-27. 64. In particular, as the CRAT Report concluded, the USDA has systematically failed to address the special need for outreach to Native Americans on Tribal lands:
A special case exists among American Indians on Tribal lands. USDA programs have not addressed their special status as sovereign nations and have not accommodated the special needs of their ownership of land in trust. The county delivery system ignores the political boundaries of Tribal governments. Lack of cooperation between the Department of the Interior, with responsibility for Indian Affairs, and the USDA, with its responsibilities for agricultural, rural, and food and nutrition programs, interferes with delivery of needed services to American Indians. Program rules specifying particular forms of land ownership for eligibility prevent American Indians from access to assistance they need to develop their agriculture and conserve their land. CRAT Report at 28. 65. For example, although the CRAT Report recommended that USDA “establish full-time USDA service centers on Indian tribal lands” and that USDA should “immediately” “work with Indian tribes to set guidelines and locations of the USDA service centers,” the USDA has failed to undertake either recommendation. CRAT Report at 76 (emphasis in original).
66. On the contrary USDA offices often are located far from Native American farms and ranches, making it very difficult for Native Americans to gain access to USDA credit programs. On some occasions, USDA even specifically has required Native Americans to obtain credit assistance from FSA county offices further from their home than the nearest office.
17

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 18 of 39
67. Indeed, as the CRAT Report found, despite the recognized need for increased outreach to minorities, including Native Americans, cultural insensitivity or even bigotry within USDA actually inhibited minority participation in USDA loan programs. CRAT Report at 27.
68. The USDA’s systematic and long standing failure to offer anything other than meager outreach to Native American farmers, which has long been known to the agency, has adversely affected their ability to participate in USDA direct loan and loan servicing programs.
The USDA’s Failure To Investigate Civil Rights Complaints 69. The USDA advised farmers who believed their denial of credit was due to discrimination to file a complaint with the Secretary of Agriculture through the FmHA - Equal Opportunity (“EO”) office, or with the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and Adjudication (“OCREA”), or both.
70. At the same time, USDA systematically failed to record, investigate and redress complaints of civil rights violations made by members of the certified class in this action.
71. Indeed, in 1983, the USDA effectively dismantled its EO and OCREA offices, leaving it with no ability to record, investigate or redress discrimination complaints.
72. The predictable result was that civil rights complaints made by Native American farmers to the USDA have been unanswered. As the CRAT Report found:
USDA doesn’t respond even when they do file complaints. In Tulsa, OK. an advocate representing black and American Indian farmers said, “we have filed 72 civil rights complaints. Not one complaint has even been answered.” CRAT Report at 24.
18

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 19 of 39
73. Moreover, as the OIG report found, the EO office lacked a system for tracking civil rights complaints, failed to resolve discrimination complaints, and had a massive backlog:
The program discrimination complaint process at FSA lacks integrity, direction, and accountability. The staff responsible for processing discrimination complaints receives little guidance from management, functions in the absence of any current position descriptions or internal procedures, and is beset with its own personnel EEO problems. The staff also processes discrimination complaints without a reliable tracking system to determine the status of the complaints and, apparently, without deadlines to resolve the complaints. The resulting climate of disorder has brought the complaint system within FSA to a near standstill. Little gets accomplished to resolve discrimination complaints or to make program managers aware of alleged problems within their programs. OIG Report at 6 (emphasis added).
74. Moreover, as the OIG found, there was no system within the EO office for reconciliation or tracking of civil rights complaints, no management oversight of the complaint process, and no method even for determining the status of many cases. See OIG Report at 8-9.
75. Defendant’s OCREA office was similarly in a shambles throughout most of the class period, with the result that its complaint files are riddled with inaccuracies and cannot function as an accurate or reliable method for tracking civil rights complaints.
76. Indeed, as the CRAT Report found, record-keeping of discrimination complaints at USDA was “non-existent.”
77. Similarly, as OIG found CREA “does not have controls in place to monitor and track discrimination complaints.” OIG Report at 9.
78. Indeed, the magnitude of the problem is greater than reflected in the OIG and CRAT studies. The process of resolving claims under the settlement reached in Pigford, et al. v.
19

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 20 of 39
Veneman (D.D.C.) (Friedman, J.) has shown that literally thousands of discrimination complaints filed at the local level were never entered into the FSA/OCREA system. 79. Nor have these problems with the civil rights complaint system improved much in recent years. Although the OIG and CRAT studies reported on conditions at the USDA prior to 1997, later USDA reports reveal that the problems at USDA’s civil rights department persist. See September 29, 1997, USDA’s Office of Inspector General issued Phase II of the OIG Report on Civil Rights Issues, entitled “Minority Participation In Farm Service Agency’s Farm Loan Programs - Phase II.” 80. For example, in a report issued on September 30, 1998 by the USDA’s Office of Inspector General entitled “Report to the Secretary on Civil Rights Issues – Phase V” [hereinafter “OIG Report V”], the OIG found that the USDA “has not made significant progress in reducing the complaint backlog” and found “continuing disorder” within the civil rights department. 81. Indeed, even as recently as March 10, 2000, USDA’s Office of the Inspector General released an audit report entitled “Office of Civil Rights Status of the Implementation of Recommendations Made in Prior Evaluations of Program Complaints - Phase VII” (“OIG Report VII”), which found that, as of that time, “no significant changes in how complaints are processed have been made” and that it could not “conclude that all complaints are processed with due care.” OIG Report VII at i.
20

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 21 of 39
82. Even where civil rights complaints were received, investigated, and found meritorious, the USDA declined to provide the relief warranted, further undermining public confidence in the integrity of the civil rights complaint system.
83. As the CRAT report found:
Farmers who told the CRAT stories of discrimination and abuse by USDA agencies also described a complaints processing system which, if anything, often makes matters worse. They described a bureaucratic nightmare where, even after they receive a finding of discrimination, USDA refuses to pay damages. They charged USDA with forcing them into court to seek justice, rather than working with them to redress acknowledged grievances. They painfully described the toll these ongoing battles with USDA has taken on their families, and on their health. CRAT Report at 22-23. 84. In effect, the USDA’s complaint apparatus has failed to support or enforce the civil rights laws. As the CRAT report concluded: “the USDA does not have the structure in place to support an effective civil rights program.” CRAT Report at 56.
85. Having failed to operate a civil rights complaint system that is responsive to evidence of discrimination, the USDA has exacerbated the discrimination practiced in its loan and loan servicing programs.
Waiver Of Statute Of Limitations
86. The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, P.L. 105-277, Div. A, § 101(a) [§ 741], 112 Stat. 2681 (Codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2279), waives ECOA’s two year statute of limitations for farmers who filed complaints of discrimination with the USDA before July 1, 1997 that allege discrimination at any time between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996.
21

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 22 of 39
Individual Allegations Of Representative Plaintiffs
Marilyn Keepseagle 87. Plaintiff and Class Representative, Marilyn Keepseagle (“Keepseagle”) lives and ranches with her husband, George, on the land on which George was born on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in Fort Yates, North Dakota. The land that the Keepseagles still own today (after the forced sale of the 380 acres) includes 160 acres originally owned by George’s father and two 160-acres parcels originally owned by George’s aunt.
88. The difficult economic circumstances that the Keepseagles faced throughout the 1980s and 1990s required them to seek loans and debt servicing assistance from FmHA. As a coapplicant with George on all of their loan applications, Marilyn Keepseagle’s dealings with USDA began in the early 1980s when she applied to borrow funds to purchase land. This is a relationship that, over the years, has caused the Keepseagles great stress, worry and financial harm.
89. Between 1981 and 1999, Keepseagle was the subject of willful and continuing discrimination by USDA, including: (1) the discriminatory denial of loans and loan servicing routinely provided to non-Native Americans; (2) the placement of restrictive conditions on loan proceeds that, upon information and belief, were not placed on loans to non-Native American farmers; and (3) the failure to provide adequate technical assistance throughout the loan process.
90. Keepseagle’s efforts to receive technical assistance in completing the loan materials were often futile. On most occasions nobody at the USDA would assist Marilyn in completing the
22

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 23 of 39
lengthy series of complicated forms. Instead, the FmHA County officials would simply give her and George the forms and tell them to bring them back when they had completed them.
91. In addition, Keepseagle was not provided information about various USDA credit programs available to her and George, such as the Socially Disadvantaged farmer (SDA) program, the guaranteed loan program, or the limited resource loan program. Upon information and belief, this information was provided to white farmers.
92. USDA also often manipulated the loan process to disadvantage Keepseagle. For example, even though the local FmHA officials were aware of the annual deadlines for grazing leases to be paid in Keepseagle’s county, they often held her loan funds until after this deadline, so that the Keepseagles’ leases could not be paid on time. This often led to the loss of grazing permits. Also, FmHA officials often returned her loan applications without explanation, or set the applications aside until she inquired, on many occasions, about the status of her loan processing.
93. Even more devastating to Keepseagle’s farm operation, however, was FmHA’s refusal to assist her in determining which loan servicing options would be best for the ranch. When Keepseagle applied for debt servicing programs, the FmHA officials generally did not take the time to fully discuss with her or her husband the various loan servicing options available, or which options would be preferable given the nature of the Keepseagles’ ranching operation and long-term goals. On one occasion, Keepseagle’s request for loan servicing was delayed over an extended period of time, thus exacerbating her already-critical financial condition. This neglect had the predictable result that Keepseagle was not even aware of loan servicing options routinely made available to white farmers.
23

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 24 of 39
94. Moreover, Keepseagle’s inquiries regarding loans necessary to permit the effective management of the family ranch, such as loans for the purchase of new equipment in crop years where such an expenditure would be critical to success, were ignored. Instead, USDA officials set forth conditions which she needed to satisfy in order to receive a restructure or deferral of her outstanding debt. By refusing even to discuss loans that would permit necessary capital expenditures and improvements, USDA effectively prevented the Keepseagles from growing or even maintaining their ranching operation. White farmers, on the other hand, routinely received loans to finance capital expenditures necessary to grow their farming operations.
95. Similarly, the loans that Keepseagle did receive often were subject to restrictive conditions which severely hampered her and her husband’s ability to manage the ranching operation. Throughout much of the 1980s and 1990s, any loans received by Keepseagle were placed in a supervised bank account, an account which required every check written to be countersigned by officials of the FmHA. The effect of this requirement was that Keepseagle and her husband were required to travel 18 miles back-and-forth between his ranch and the FmHA office every time he had to pay any operating expense. While Native American borrowers such as Keepseasgle were subject to this condition for extended periods of time, white borrowers did not face such restrictions.
96. Since 1981, Keepseagle and her husband have complained orally to the USDA regarding the agency’s discriminatory treatment against and other Native Americans on several occasions. Keepseagle and her husband made similar complaints to their Tribal government which were passed on to the USDA by members of the Tribal government.
24

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 25 of 39
Luke Crasco 97. Plaintiff and Class Representative, Luther (Luke) Crasco was born and raised on a ranch, where he honed his skills as a rancher under the tutelage of his father. Crasco entered the ranching business in 1974. At that time he owned 685 acres and leased 2,500 acres.
98. Between 1981 and 1990, Crasco applied to the USDA for loans. During that time he was the victim of willful and continuous discrimination by USDA because he was a Native American. In particular, USDA discriminated against him by: (1) unnecessarily delaying his loans; (2) refusing to provide him loans at limited resource loan rates; (3) providing loans in amounts insufficient to meet his ranching needs, (4) requiring the loan proceeds to be placed in a supervised bank account even though Crasco was an experienced rancher with a lending history with FmHA, and (5) failing to provide him with technical assistance throughout the loan process. None of these constraints and restrictions were placed on white farmers.
99. On some occasions, Crasco’s loans were discriminatorily denied. For example, in November 1985, Crasco filed an application for an emergency loan and an operating loan. Crasco was eligible for these loans, but was wrongly denied by the FmHA County Supervisor. FmHA then reversed its position and approved the loan, but falsely told Crasco that they were out of money. Eventually, in May 1986, the loan was closed after Crasco got help from his Congressman. As with the other operating loans, this loan was inadequate because it did not provide for living expenses. USDA discriminated against Crasco by delaying the loan and providing an inadequate amount, and FmHA required a supervised bank account even though Crasco was an experienced rancher with a lending history with FmHA.
25

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 26 of 39
100. In 1989 and early 1990, Crasco complained to the FmHA county supervisor in the Malta Office about ongoing discrimination by FmHA. There was a meeting with FmHA officials and the Tribal Council about discrimination. FmHA then transferred the accounts of Native American ranchers on the Fort Belknap Reservation from Malta to Havre. The Malta Office is 39 miles from Crasco’s home while the Havre office is 110 miles away. The service was no better in Havre than it had been in Malta. USDA discriminated against Crasco and other Native American ranchers by refusing to place an office in a location convenient to them. As a result, Native American farmers and ranchers, such as Crasco, have to take time away from their farms and ranches and drive long distances to simply have a check approved, deliver papers, or meet with the USDA staff.
101. Between 1990 and 1994, Crasco’s attempts to receive loan servicing through FmHA were repeatedly delayed and denied. The FmHA officials dealing with Crasco’s application, Daryl Munson and J.T. Karkow, discriminated against Crasco by (1) refusing to assist him in receiving and completing his loan servicing application, (2) wrongfully denying Crasco’s requests for loan servicing, thus forcing Crasco to engage in repeated administrative appeals, (3) delaying the eventual receipt of these funds by refusing proper loan servicing procedures, and (4) failing to provide him with technical assistance throughout the loan servicing process.
102. Crasco was also subject to racially derogatory statements:
x FmHA County Supervisor, Melvin Nielson, would try to humiliate Crasco. In discussing the fact that Crasco was able to get glasses at a low cost through Indian Health Services, Nielson said to Crasco, “You Indians are always getting things for free.” 26

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 27 of 39
x When Crasco informed Neilson of his need for a loan, Nielson said, “Why don’t you Indians just go back to Ft. Belknap and borrow money there. That’s where you belong.”
x In 1989 or 1990, while Crasco was working on a farm and home plan with FmHA, County Supervisor, Ernie Becker, stated, “You Indians are always getting free money and you don’t pay taxes.” When informed by Crasco that he did, in fact, pay taxes, Becker responded, “You Indians don’t pay enough taxes. That’s why I’ve only got a little office.”
x FmHA County Supervisor Vern Hellyer once told Crasco, “I have only been sent here for two reasons – to protect the government’s money and to sell you people out.”
103. Hellyer and Becker would also try to humiliate Crasco. They asked him to obtain estimates for the irrigation system. Once Crasco would do so, however, at the last minute they would present reasons for denying loan funds for this purpose. For example, they informed Crasco that there were no funds available, or that there was not enough water in the creek (which was not true). On one occasion, Becker stated, “I can’t loan you the funds for the sprinkler system because it’s too movable. It’s got to be a piece of real estate. You’ll just pick it up and go sell it.” Crasco told Becker that it was discriminatory to state that he did not trust Indians. Crasco asked FmHA to come out and see his place to see the need for the sprinkler, but they never came.
104. The treatment that Crasco, and other Native American operators, received from FmHA, was completely different from the assistance, loans and loan servicing that FmHA provided to non-Native American farmers and ranchers.
27

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 28 of 39
105. In addition to the complaint of discrimination which resulted in the transfer of Native American borrower files to the Havre (Montana) FmHA office, Crasco made oral complaints of discrimination to FmHA officials Becker and Munson. The Fort Belknap Tribal Council also filed written complaints of discrimination with USDA several times. Chairman William Main sent the complaints, one of which (dated July 12, 1993) specifically referenced discriminatory treatment faced by Crasco. This probably happened in 1992 or 1993. In addition, in the 1980s, Tribal Chairman Donovan Archambault filed discrimination complaints for the tribe with USDA.
Gene Cadotte 106. Plaintiff and Class Representative, Gene Cadotte (“Cadotte”), is a Native American rancher who resides in McLaughlin, South Dakota. Cadotte is a member of the Sioux Tribe located on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Cadotte was born into a ranching family and has continued a ranching operation throughout his adult life. Cadotte leased 6,000 acres of ranch land and, at the height of his operation (1996), acquired and maintained a herd of 300 cattle.
107. Between 1981 and 1994, Cadotte was the subject of willful and continuing discrimination by USDA including the agency’s (1) discriminatory denial of loans and loan servicing, (2) discriminatory delays in providing loan proceeds, and (3) failure to provide adequate technical assistance throughout the loan process.
108. Cadotte first started applying for FmHA loans in 1989. The FSA did not provide the same level of services and technical assistance to Cadotte as it did white farmers and ranchers between 1989 and 1999. Throughout the course of the 1990s, Cadotte did not receive the same competent and timely service received by white farmers and ranchers. Unlike their treatment of Native Americans, the county office staff were friendly and courteous to white farmers and ranchers.
28

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 29 of 39
These farmers did not have to wait very long to get their business taken care of. For Native Americans, however, it was even difficult to get timely appointments with FSA personnel. At times when Cadotte went to the county office, it appeared that the supervisors had forgotten Cadotte’s appointment and would simply rush Cadotte through their meetings with him.
109. Of special concern was the fact that USDA left Cadotte and other Native American ranchers on their own to learn about the scope of the agency’s federal farm programs (including socially disadvantaged, limited resource and guaranteed loans), program benefits, program rules, and how best to benefit from FmHA services. Like other Native Americans, Cadotte simply was not given any technical assistance.
110. In addition, between 1989 and 1999, Cadotte was also discriminatorily denied access to USDA farm operating and ownership loans and, when he did receive USDA loan funding, it was unnecessarily delayed and in amounts insufficient to satisfy his ranching needs. For example, in February 1989, Cadotte applied to the USDA office in Ft. Yates, North Dakota for a $180,000 loan package to buy additional cows and refinance a $32,000 debt Cadotte owed to USDA and an $82,000 debt owed to the Indian Credit Corporation (ICC). The ICC, which had financed Cadotte’s ranching operations throughout most of the 1980s, was going out of business and calling in its outstanding loans. In conjunction with the FSA loan financing, Cadotte applied to the BIA for a $60,000 grant. Cadotte had prepared a detailed business plan, which demonstrated that Cadotte’s operation, with the refinancing and additional cows, would cash flow. Also, Cadotte thought he had a good lending relationship with USDA with whom he began dealing in 1975. In fact, in 1987, USDA informed Cadotte that his ranch management had been excellent; and earlier, in 1974, the agency described him as a good, above average ranch operator.
29

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 30 of 39
111. Nonetheless, FmHA’s Acting Reservation Office Director, William Hendricks, Jr., denied Cadotte’s loan request claiming it would not cash flow. Cadotte believed that his farm and home plan could have been made to cash flow if the FmHA staff provided proper assistance in completing Cadotte’s farm and home plan. Cadotte appealed the FmHA loan denial to National Appeals Staff in February 1989. On April 27, 1989, Cadotte received a letter from the National Appeals staff rejecting the appeal. As a result of not getting the loan, the ICC foreclosed on Cadotte and he lost all his cattle (about 170 head) and equipment.
112. Several times in the late 1990s Cadotte complained orally Ervin Knuth, the county supervisor of the FSA office in Ft. Yates, North Dakota, about the unfair and unequal treatment Cadotte was getting as a result of being Native American. During the same time period, Cadotte also wrote a letter to the Superintendent of the Standing Rock reservation, complaining that Native American ranchers do not seem to have the clout with FSA that white farmers and ranchers do and conveyed similar concerns to Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman, Charles Murphy and the office of Senator Tom Daschle.
Porter Holder 113. Plaintiff and Class Representative Porter Holder was raised helping to run the family ranch operation with his father and brothers. He runs his own ranch today with over 100 head of livestock, including 65 mother cows.
114. By 1998, Holder had the know-how to develop a successful ranching operation and was ready to begin on his own.
30

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 31 of 39
115. In December of 1998, Holder went to the USDA’s Farm Service Agency office in Hugo, Oklahoma, to apply for a loan to purchase 395 acres of property formerly owned by his father. USDA had foreclosed on this land and held it in inventory. Though Holder was on solid footing financially, he decided to approach the USDA for a loan because the relatively small size of his planned operation led commercial lenders to decline loan requests at reasonable rates and terms. Holder’s goal was only to rely on USDA financing temporarily – Holder was looking for “a hand up, not a hand out.”
116. The USDA official in the Hugo office who gave Holder a loan application neither provided him with assistance in completing the forms, despite Holder’s request, nor informed him about the various USDA farm loan programs which may have been available to him such as guaranteed loans and loans to socially disadvantaged, limited resource, and beginning farmers and ranchers.
117. On December 21, 1998, Holder completed the application for a $135,000 loan, primarily for the purpose of purchasing the 395 acres of property, and submitted it to the USDA office in Hugo.
118. No action was taken on his loan application until July, 1999. Despite Holder’s numerous inquiries during this time period, he was never given an explanation for this inaction.
119. Holder finally obtained an appointment with the USDA office in Hugo on July 30, 1999, with USDA farm loan official, Zach Williams, to discuss his farm loan application. At this meeting, Williams reviewed Holder’s four-page application and stated, “Huh! You might as well withdraw this [application] because you ain’t got nothing.” Holder responded that he had
31

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 32 of 39
approached USDA because he knew his resources were limited and the USDA was the place from which to obtain such loans.
120. Nonetheless, without asking to look at Holder’s tax returns or review additional financial information, Williams drew a line across the front page of the application and told Holder to initial the line and he did so. By doing so, Williams could categorize the application as “withdrawn” application rather than “denied.”
121. Holder immediately complained to Williams that the denial was based on Holder’s race. Williams did not deny the allegation of discrimination and instead responded by inquiring whether Holder had sought a loan from his tribe.
122. Based on conversations Holder had with farmers and ranchers in his area, he was informed that many non-Native American farmers and ranchers in his area were able to participate in USDA’s farm loan programs, including individuals with limited assets.
123. Though Holder has finally been able to establish his own farm and ranch operation through private financing at rates higher than would have been offered by USDA’s limited resource and socially disadvantaged programs, he believes that USDA’s discriminatory conduct prevented him from becoming an established rancher earlier.
Keith and Claryca Mandan 124. Plaintiffs and Class Representatives, Keith and Claryca Mandan, are Native American Ranchers and residents of Mandaree, North Dakota, located on the Fort Berthold Reservation. They are members of the Hidatsa Tribe. The Mandans own 388 acres of reservation lands on the Fort Berthold Indian reservation in west central North Dakota.
32

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 33 of 39
125. Between 1981 and 1999, the Mandans were the subject of willful and continuing discrimination by USDA including the agency’s (1) discriminatory denial of loans and loan servicing, (2) placement of restrictive conditions on loan proceeds, and (3) failure to provide adequate technical assistance throughout the loan process.
126. The Mandans were subject to onerous loan restrictions to which white farmers were not subject. For example, in 1981, the Mandans received loans totaling $212,980. Even though a significant portion of this amount was secured with real estate, all of the funds were placed in a supervised account, thus requiring a FmHA official to approve every expense. This condition on the loan was excessively restrictive as it required the Mandans to go 50 miles back-and-forth between their ranch and the FmHA office every time they needed to pay any operating expenses. In addition, because the FmHA reviewed every expense, they effectively controlled the management of Mandans ranching operation even though agency officials were never actually on-site to see what the operation needed nor knew the family’s long-term business and personal goals. The Mandans believe that white farmers and ranchers in their community were not required to have their FmHA loan funds placed in supervised bank accounts for any extended period of time, if at all.
127. Between 1982 and 1992 the Mandans’ repeated attempts to receive USDA loans and loan servicing were denied by USDA. For instance, in February of 1983, Claryca wrote to Senator Byron Dorgan’s office describing USDA’s discriminatory conduct vis-à-vis Native Americans. Immediately thereafter (within two days), FmHA officials accused the Mandans of an unauthorized disposition of proceeds from a cattle sale dating back to December of the previous year. Although this accusation was meritless – at no time did the agency press charges for
33

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 34 of 39
“conversion” – the FmHA County Supervisor used it as an excuse to deny the Mandans any additional loan funds for operating or living expenses as well as any servicing of their existing debt.
128. In response to this refusal by FmHA to assist the Mandans with their request for loans and loan servicing, Keith Mandan contacted USDA’s Chief of Reservation Programs for North Dakota Odell Ottmar, to complain of discrimination and to ask for statistics regarding delinquency rates of Native American borrowers on the Fort Berthold and Standing Rock reservations. On September 9, 1983, Mr. Ottmar responded with a letter showing the delinquency rate among Indian operators to be 64% in the Fort Berthold Office and 40% in the Fort Yates office. In this letter, Mr. Ottmar stated his belief that “the majority lack good management knowledge and skills which are essential to farming and ranching success.” This overtly discriminatory statement is an example of the prejudicial attitudes that FmHA officials administering loan and loan servicing programs held towards Indian operators.
129. Between 1981 and 1999, the Mandans have complained of USDA discrimination, both in writing and orally, and to, or before, a combination of officials from USDA, other U.S. government agencies, and their Tribal government. These complaints include:
x In 1983, Keith Mandan complained verbally and in writing to Odell Ottmar, FmHA’s Chief of Reservation Programs in North Dakota.
x The Mandans complained verbally to FmHA State Director, Ralph Leet, Odell Ottmar, and County Supervisor, Lorace Hakason, at a January 31, 1983 meeting.
x Claryca Mandan wrote a complaint and filed it with Congressman Byron Dorgan’s office on February 9, 1983. 34

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 35 of 39
x In 1983 or 1984, Claryca Mandan testified at a Fact Finding congressional hearing on the FmHA’s failure to offer low-interest limited resource loans to Native Americans, conducted by Congressmen Byron Dorgan and Glenn English at Minot.
x Both Keith and Claryca Mandan filed written discrimination complaints against USDA on or about 1989-90 with the Federal Trade Commission through a personal representative.
x Claryca complained to the USDA’s National Small Farm Commission on behalf of Native American farmers and ranchers, through written and oral testimony at a hearing in Washington, DC in 1997.
x Both Keith and Claryca Mandan lodged written complaints along with many Native American members of the Fort Berthold Land and Livestock Association in a written Position Paper against FmHA discrimination; this paper was circulated to FmHA, the Tribal Council, Congressional Office, and BIA.
x Claryca Mandan made an oral complaint of discrimination about FmHA officials Ottmar and Hakanson to Tribal Chairman, Edward Lone Fight, and FmHA State Director, Marshall Moore, in 1990. The Tribal Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes passed resolutions calling for the removal of these individuals as a result of these complaints (and similar oral and written complaints made by other Native American farmers and ranchers).
x The Mandans were part of an administrative class complaint of discrimination filed with the USDA’s Office of Civil Rights by Three Affiliated Tribes Chairman, Tex Hall, on February 1, 1999 (See Three Affiliated Tribes Class Complaint Number 020199-3216). 35

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 36 of 39
130. The Mandans also lodged oral complaints (which were reduced to writing) to a USDA “fact-finding team” assembled September 6-11, 1995 under the direction of Mr. Montoya. The creation of this “fact-finding team” was a result of a class complaint of discrimination made to Francis Harjo, Director of USDA Native American Programs, by several Native American farmers and ranchers, in a phone call from officials in the Three Affiliated Tribes. Mr. Harjo referred the complaint to the USDA’s civil rights office. The “fact-finding team” interviewed many Native American farmers and ranchers and made numerous recommendations as a result of its civil rights investigation, which were never acted upon by the Agency.
COUNT I (Declaratory Judgment) 131. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, re-allege all paragraphs above as is fully set forth herein. 132. An actual controversy exists between plaintiffs and Class members and defendant as to their rights with respect to defendant’s direct loan programs. 133. Plaintiffs and the Class pray that this Court declare and determine, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the USDA has violated the rights of plaintiffs and Class members to equal credit, to equal participation in direct loan programs, and to full and timely enforcement of racial discrimination complaints.
36

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 37 of 39
COUNT II (Violation of Equal Credit Opportunity Act) 134. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, re-allege all paragraphs above as is fully set forth herein.
135. Defendant’s acts of denying plaintiffs and Class members equal access to direct loan and loan servicing programs were the result of racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a) (“ECOA”).
136. Plaintiffs and the Class seek monetary and equitable relief available under ECOA, including revenues and other economic and non-economic damages and equitable relief sufficient to redress and correct the flaws in the direct loan program alleged herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, request that this Court enter judgment against defendant as follows: (a) An Order declaring, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that plaintiffs and the Class members were denied equal credit opportunities and other direct loan program benefits and the full and timely enforcement of their discrimination complaints.
(b) An Order declaring Defendant’s actions to be a breach of plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and awarding eligible plaintiffs and Class members monetary and injunctive relief appropriate to the proof at trial;
(c) An Order granting plaintiffs and the Class members an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
37

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 38 of 39

(d) fair.

An Order granting any and all other relief that the Court determines proper and

Dated: February 8, 2008

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Joseph M. Sellers Joseph M. Sellers, Bar No. 318410 Christine E. Webber, Bar No. 439368 Llezlie L. Green, Bar No. 484051 COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
David J. Frantz, Bar No. 202853 CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN 1818 N Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036-2477 Telephone: (202) 331-7050 Facsimile: (202) 331-9306

38

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS-AK Document 460 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 39 of 39
Anurag Varma, Bar No. 471615 PATTON BOGGS LLP 2550 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 457-6000 Facsimile: (202) 457-6315 Phillip L. Fraas 818 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-1499 Sam Hirsch JENNER & BLOCK LLP 601 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 Facsimile: (202) 639-6066 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Sarah Vogel SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 1022 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 Of Counsel
39

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

TOM VILSACK, Secretary, United States )

Department of Agriculture,

)

)

Defendant.

)

____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:99CV03119 (EGS)
Judge: Emmet G. Sullivan Magistrate Judge: Alan Kay

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

888856.5 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................... 1 III. RECITALS ......................................................................................................................... 8 IV. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS............................................................................................. 9 V. NOTICE............................................................................................................................ 10 VI. DISMISSAL AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ....................................................... 10 VII. FUNDING......................................................................................................................... 11 VIII. MORATORIUM ON ACCELERATIONS, FORECLOSURES, AND OFFSETS ......... 13 IX. NON-JUDICIAL CLAIMS PROCESS ............................................................................ 14 X. THE DUTIES OF CLASS COUNSEL............................................................................. 32 XI. AUDIT OF CLAIMS........................................................................................................ 32 XII. PROGRAMMATIC RELIEF ........................................................................................... 33 XIII. COURT SUPERVISION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 38 XIV. PROCEDURES GOVERNING APPROVAL OF THIS SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT.................................................................................................................. 40 XV. ATTORNEYS’ FEES, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS,
EXPENSES, AND COSTS............................................................................................... 42 XVI. CONDITIONS THAT RENDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT VOID OR
VOIDABLE ...................................................................................................................... 44 XVII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IF VOIDED............................................. 44 XVIII. RELEASES....................................................................................................................... 45 XIX. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY................................................................................... 45
i
888856.5 5

XX. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE SECRETARY AND FSA............................... 46 XXI. INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................... 46 XXII. MODIFICATION ............................................................................................................. 47 XXIII. DUTIES CONSISTENT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS....................................... 47 XXIV. DUTY TO DEFEND ........................................................................................................ 47 XXV. HEADINGS ...................................................................................................................... 47 XXVI. SEVERABILITY.............................................................................................................. 47 XXVII.COUNTERPARTS........................................................................................................... 47
ii
888856.5 5

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a class action, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 1:99CV03119 (D.D.C.) (“the Case”), brought by Plaintiffs against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“the Secretary” or “USDA”) under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f, alleging that USDA discriminated against Native Americans in its farm loan and farm loan servicing programs. In the interest of resolving the dispute between the parties without the expense, delay, and inconvenience of further litigation of the issues raised in this action, and in reliance upon the representations, mutual promises, covenants, and obligations set out in this Settlement Agreement, and for good and valuable consideration also set out in this Settlement Agreement, and subject to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., the parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

II. DEFINITIONS

Unless otherwise noted, as used in this Settlement Agreement:

A. A “Claimant” is any individual who submits a claim and/or seeks an award under this Settlement Agreement. A “co-claimant” is any individual who submits a claim or seeks an award with a claimant, or whom the Neutral determines should have submitted his or her claim jointly with another claimant. Claimants shall be deemed co-claimants, eligible for consideration for one, shared award, where the individuals were, or would have been, co-applicants to the loan application which is the subject of the claim. For example, co-operators, spouses, or business partners who farmed or ranched together in one farm operation, would be co-claimants.

B. The “Claim Deadline” is 180 calendar days from the Effective Date.

C. A “Claim Determination” is the binding and final result of a Track A or a Track B adjudication and represents whether a Class Member is eligible to receive an award as a result of the Non-Judicial Claims Process, and if so, the amount of the award. A Claim Determination is shown on a Track A Claim Determination Form (Ex. A) or a Track B Claim Determination Form (Ex. B).

D. The “Claims Administrator” is a class action claims administration company suggested by Class Counsel and approved by the Court. Class Counsel propose Epiq Systems, 10300 SW Allen Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97005.

E.
888856.5 5

The “Class” is all persons who are Native American farmers and ranchers who (1) farmed or ranched or attempted to farm or ranch between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; (2) applied to the USDA for participation in a farm loan program during that same time period; and (3) during the same time period filed a discrimination complaint with USDA either individually or through a representative
1

F.
G. H. I. J.
888856.5 5

with regard to alleged discrimination that occurred during the same time period.
The phrase “filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA” in subsection (3) of Section II.E above shall include discrimination complaints filed with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) after November 3, 1992, and complaints made orally or in writing with other persons if evidence meeting the standard set out in Section IX. C or Section IX.D, as appropriate, establishes that the recipient of the complaint forwarded it to the USDA. In determining whether the evidence establishes a complaint was forwarded to the USDA, the Track A and Track B Neutrals shall consider all of the available evidence including representations made to the putative claimant and presumptions of regularity that attach to the conduct of government officials (including tribal government officials). To be cognizable, the complaint forwarded to the USDA must have identified the claimant and claim with sufficient specificity to put the USDA on notice of the identity of the claimant and the nature of his/her claim.
The phrase “applied to the USDA” may include, for purposes of “Track A” a bona fide effort to apply for a loan, as discussed in IX.C.2.a-3(1)-(5)
Where used in this Settlement Agreement, the Class refers, individually and collectively, to the Class Representatives, the Class, and each Member of the Class as well as their heirs, administrators, personal representatives, successors, and/or assigns.
“Class Counsel” are the following attorneys: Joseph M. Sellers, Christine E. Webber, Peter Romer-Friedman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; David J. Frantz of Conlon, Frantz & Phelan, LLP; Paul M. Smith, Katherine A. Fallow, Michael Brody, Jessica Ring Amunson, and Carrie Apfel of Jenner & Block, LLP; Anurag Varma of Patton Boggs LLP; Phillip L. Fraas of Stinson, Morrisson and Hecker; and Sarah Vogel of Sarah Vogel Law Partners..
“Class Representatives” are, or have been, Luke Crasco, Gene Cadotte, Keith Mandan, Porter Holder, George Keepseagle, Marilyn Keepseagle, Claryca Mandan, John Fredericks, Jr., and Basil Alkire.
“Cost Cap” is $20,000,000, and represents the maximum amount of Implementation Costs that the Secretary will pay under this Settlement Agreement.
“Cy Pres Beneficiary” is any non-profit organization, other than a law firm, legal services entity, or educational institution, that has provided agricultural, business assistance, or advocacy services to Native American farmers between 1981 and the Execution Date that will be proposed by Class Counsel and approved by the Court.
“Cy Pres Fund” is a fund administered by Class Counsel designated to hold any leftover funds under paragraph 7 in Section IX.F of this Settlement Agreement.
2

K.
L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S.
888856.5 5

“Debt Relief Award” means elimination by USDA of all of a Debt Relief Award Recipient’s outstanding Farm Loan Obligations, held as of the date of a Track A Award or a Track B Award, subject to an $80,000,000 cap and, therefore, a potential reduction pursuant to Section IX.E of this Settlement Agreement. Elimination of such obligations would not make the Class Member ineligible to be considered for new loans from USDA.
“Debt Relief Award Recipient” is a class member, who prevails under either Track A or Track B, who had any outstanding Farm Loan Obligations during the class period.
“Debt Relief Tax Award” is an award made in recognition of a Class Member’s expected tax liability for his or her Debt Relief Award in an amount equal to 25% of the principal of the Class Member’s Debt Relief Award.
“Designated Account” means any bank account, set up by Class Counsel and held for the benefit of the Class, at a Designated Bank that is (1) insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to the applicable limits, (2) a segregated trust account that is not subject to claims of a bank’s creditors, or (3) invested in U.S. Treasury securities.
“Designated Bank” means a bank that has a Veribanc (www.veribanc.com) rating of Green with three stars and one for which neither the bank nor any of its senior officers appear in the Excluded Parties List System (www.epls.gov), which is a list of entities and individuals suspended or debarred from doing business with the federal government.
“District Court” and “Court” mean the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, unless the context reveals otherwise.
“Effective Date” – is the date upon which, if the Agreement is not voided under Section X, an order providing final approval of this Agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) becomes non-appealable, or, in the event of any appeals, upon the date of final resolution of said appeals. When this Agreement refers to the date on which the Agreement became “Effective,” such date is the Effective Date.
“Execution Date” is the date on which this Settlement Agreement has been signed by or on behalf of all of the Parties.
“Farm Loan Obligation” encompasses only direct operating loans, direct farm ownership loans, emergency loans, economic emergency loans, and all amounts due thereunder, including principal, interest, penalties and charges, and debts restructured through any Part 766 (formerly Part 1951-S) loan or other farm loan program servicing options.
3

T. “Farm Loan Programs” are USDA programs to make and service loans to owners and/or operators, as authorized by statute or pursuant to USDA regulations.

U. “Fee Award” is the total amount approved by the Court for the payment of Attorney’s Fees.

V. “FSA” refers to the Farm Service Agency, an agency of USDA, and FSA predecessor agencies including the Farmers Home Administration.

W. “Final Accounting” is an accounting prepared and signed by the Claims Administrator after all funds in the Designated Account have been disbursed. The Final Accounting shall identify: (1) the number and amount of all awards the Claims Administrator has caused to be paid to Class Members; (2) the Implementation Costs incurred under the Settlement Agreement; and (3) the amount of any leftover funds paid into the Cy Pres Fund. The Final Accounting shall also identify the total amount of implementation funds the Secretary has provided to Class Counsel, for the benefit of the Class, under this Settlement Agreement and the status of these funds.

X. “Final Approval Date” is the date on which the District Court enters an order providing final approval of this Settlement Agreement under Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Y. “Implementation Costs” are the administrative costs associated with implementing this Settlement Agreement, including the fees and costs of the Track A and Track B Neutrals, the Track B Expert, the Claims Administrator, costs incurred under Section IX, and the costs necessary to provide notice of this Settlement Agreement to the Class. With the exception of those specified above, Implementation Costs do not include attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

Z. “Individual Counsel” are counsel, other than Class Counsel, retained by Claimants to represent them in the Non-Judicial Claims Process.

AA. “IRS” is the Internal Revenue Service.

BB. “Native American” means:

888856.5 5

1) any citizen of the United States, United States non-citizen national, or a qualified alien who is enrolled in any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as
4

Indians; or

2) any citizen of the United States, United States non-citizen national, or a qualified alien who is enrolled in any Indian group that has been formally recognized as an Indian tribe by a State legislature or by a State commission or similar organization legislatively vested with State tribal recognition authority; or

3) any citizen of the United States who is enrolled in any Indian tribe or “Native group” according to 43 U.S.C. § 1602.(c) and (d) that had an open letter of intent to petition the United States for Federal recognition; or

4) any citizen of the United States, United States non-citizen national, or a qualified alien who can show that, prior to November 24, 1999, he/she identified himself/herself as Native American. Such self-identification may be established (a) by documentation, such as an application for loan or loan servicing assistance submitted to USDA prior to or within the Class Period, or (b) through a credible written narrative, submitted under penalty of perjury, in which the individual describes in detail the circumstances establishing his/her Native American ancestry sufficient to persuade the Track A or Track B Neutral of its genuineness and authenticity. Such a narrative can include recounting a prior instance in which the claimant identified himself/herself as Native American to a governmental entity, such as the U.S. Census Bureau.

Membership in an Indian tribe for purposes of paragraphs (1) – (3), above, shall be defined by the law or rules of the Indian tribe in which the individual claims to be a member. Such membership can be demonstrated by providing a copy of an official tribal document that states that the individual is a member of an Indian tribe, such as (a) an identification card that states that the person is currently an enrolled member of the Indian tribe, or (b) a letter or statement from the tribal government that states that the person is regarded as a member of the Indian tribe.

CC. “Non-Judicial Claims Process” means the claim processes set forth in Section IX of this Settlement Agreement.

DD. “Parties” means the Plaintiffs and the Secretary.

EE.
888856.5 5

“Plaintiffs” are the individual plaintiffs named in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No.
1:99CV03119 (D.D.C.), the members of the Class, and the Class Representatives. 5

FF. “Preliminary Approval Date” is the date on which the District Court enters a Preliminary Approval Order under Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.

GG. “Preliminary Accounting” is an accounting prepared and signed by the Claims Administrator after receipt of all completed Claim Determination Forms. The Preliminary Accounting shall identify: (1) the number and amount of all Final Track A Liquidated Awards, Final Track A Liquidated Tax Awards, Final Track B Awards, and Debt Relief Tax awards (shown in Part II of the completed Track A and Track B Determination Forms); (2) the Implementation Costs incurred to date; (3) a good faith estimate of Implementation Costs necessary for the Claims Administrator to perform its final duties under this Settlement Agreement; and (4) the amount of the Fee Award.

HH. “Preliminary Accounting Date” is the date that the Secretary receives the Preliminary Accounting.

II. “Preponderance of the evidence” is such relevant evidence as is necessary to prove something is more likely true than not true.

JJ. “Prevailing Claimant” is any individual whose Track A or Track B claim is approved under the Non-Judicial Claims Process set forth in Section IX, together with any co-claimants.

KK. “Secretary” is, individually and collectively, Thomas Vilsack, in his official capacity as Secretary of USDA, his predecessors and successors as Secretary of USDA, USDA, its agencies, instrumentalities, agents, officers, and employees.

LL. “Secretary’s Counsel” is the U.S. Department of Justice.

MM.

“Substantial evidence” is such evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion after taking into account other evidence in the record that fairly detracts from that conclusion. Substantial evidence is a lower standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence.

NN. “Track A” is a non-judicial claims process by which a submitted claim is reviewed by a Track A Neutral based on the criteria delineated in Section IX.C.

OO. “Track A Neutral” is a third party claims adjudication company suggested by Class Counsel and approved by the Court to determine the merits of the claims submitted under Track A. Class Counsel propose JAMS, 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1100, San Francisco, California, to serve as the Track A Neutral.

PP.
888856.5 5

“Track A Award” is a combination of a Track A Liquidated Award and a Track A Liquidated Tax Award. Track A Awards are subject to reduction under paragraph 2, subsection b of Section IX.F. A “Final” Track A Award refers to the amount
6

specified in Part II of a Track A Claim Determination Form. A Final Track A Award is the Award calculated by the Claims Administrator under paragraph 2, subsection b of Section IX.F.

QQ. “Track A Individual Counsel Fee” is a fee negotiated between Claimant and his or her Individual Counsel, subject to the Track A Individual Counsel Fee Cap, which the Claimant agrees to pay to Individual Counsel if he or she obtains a Track A Award and which Individual Counsel agrees to accept in full satisfaction for the fees, expenses, or costs associated with work performed on behalf of the Claimants in obtaining that Award. The Track A Individual Counsel Fee will be paid only from the Final Track A Award, if any, and not from any other funds in the settlement.

RR. “Track A Individual Counsel Fee Cap” is the maximum Track A Individual Counsel Fee set by the Court, not to exceed 2% of a Track A Claimant’s Final Track A Award.

SS. “Track A Liquidated Award” is $50,000 per Track A Prevailing Claimant, regardless of the number of the Prevailing Claimant’s prevailing claims. Track A Liquidated Awards are subject to reduction under paragraph 2, subsection b of Section IX.F. A “Final” Track A Liquidated Award refers to the amount specified in Part II of a Track A Claim Determination Form. A Final Track A Liquidated Award is the Award calculated by the Claims Administrator under paragraph 2, subsection b of Section IX.F.

TT. “Track A Liquidated Tax Award” is an award made in recognition of a Prevailing Claimant’s expected tax liability for his or her Track A Liquidated Award in an amount equal to 25% of the Prevailing Claimant’s Track A Liquidated Award. Track A Liquidated Tax Awards are subject to reduction under paragraph 2, subsection b of Section IX.F. A “Final” Track A Liquidated Tax Award refers to the amount specified in Part II of a Track A Claim Determination Form. A Final Track A Liquidated Tax Award is the Award calculated by the Claims Administrator under paragraph 2, subsection b of Section IX.F.

UU. “Track B” is a non-judicial claims process by which a claim is reviewed by a Track B Neutral based on the criteria delineated in Section IX.D.

VV.
888856.5 5

“Track B Award” is the amount of actual damages, up to $250,000, for which the Track B Neutral determines that a Prevailing Claimant is eligible under the applicable standards for Track B, subject to reduction under paragraph 2 subsection a of Section IX.F. A “Provisional” Track B Award refers to the amount specified by the Track B Neutral in Part II of a Track B Determination Form (Ex. B). A “Final” Track B Award refers to the amount specified in Part II of a Track B Claim Determination Form after the Claims Administrator performs any calculation required under paragraph 2, subsection a of Section IX.F, after receipt of all
7

Provisional Track B awards.

WW. “Track B Cap” is $50,000,000.

XX. “Track B Expert” is an experienced agricultural economist hired by the Track B Neutral to assist the Track B Neutral in assessing economic damage claims made by Class Members.

YY. “Track B Fee” is a fee negotiated between a Claimant and his or her Counsel, whether Class Counsel or Individual Counsel, subject to the Track B Fee Cap, which the Claimant agrees to pay if he or she obtains a Track B Award and which Counsel agrees to accept in full satisfaction for the fees, expenses, or costs associated with work performed on behalf of the individual Claimant in obtaining that Award. The Track B Fee will be paid only from the Final Track B Award, if any, and not from any other funds in the settlement

ZZ. “Track B Fee Cap” is the maximum Track B Fee set by the Court, not to exceed 8% of a Track B Claimant’s Final Track B Award.

AAA. “Track B Neutral” is a third-party claims adjudication company suggested by Class Counsel and approved by the Court to determine the merits of the claims submitted under Track B. Class Counsel propose JAMS, 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1100, San Francisco, California, to serve as the Track B Neutral.

BBB. “United States” is, individually and collectively, the Executive Branch of the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, agents, officers, and employees.

CCC. “USDA” is the United States Department of Agriculture.

III. RECITALS

A. On November 24, 1999, Plaintiffs filed suit against USDA under, inter alia, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f, alleging that USDA discriminated against Native Americans in its farm loan and farm loan servicing programs.

B. On September 28, 2001, the Court issued an order certifying a class for purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief under Rule 23 and defining the class as:

888856.5 5

All Native American farmers and ranchers, who (1) farmed or ranched between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; (2) applied to the USDA for participation in a farm program during that period; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA either individually or through a representative during the time period.
8

C. Between 2004 and 2009, the parties engaged in significant discovery in the Action. This discovery included the exchange and review of millions of pages of hard copy and electronic documents, more than 40 depositions of Plaintiffs’ non-expert witnesses, more than 50 depositions of the Secretary’s non-expert and 30(b)(6) witnesses, the exchange of numerous reports from several experts on both sides, and 8 expert depositions. As of November 2009, discovery in the case was essentially completed.

D. In order to bring the Case to a close FOREVER and FINALLY, the Parties have determined to settle the Case, including all claims that the proposed Class and Class Members have brought or could have brought in the Case.

E. The Plaintiffs believe that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate; that this Settlement Agreement provides substantial benefits to the proposed Class and the Class Members; and that settlement of the Case on the terms set forth in this Settlement Agreement is in the best interests of the proposed Class and the Class Members.

F. The Secretary expressly denies any wrongdoing, as alleged in the Case or otherwise, and does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing or liability in connection with any facts or claims that have been or could have been alleged in the Case. Nonetheless, the Secretary considers it desirable to settle the Case on the terms set forth in this Settlement Agreement because it will avoid disruption to USDA due to the pendency and defense of the Case, and it will avoid the substantial expense, burdens, and uncertainties associated with litigation of the Case.

G. Accordingly, the purpose of this Settlement Agreement is to make a full, complete, and final resolution of all claims and causes of action that have been or could have been asserted against the Secretary by the proposed Class and the Class Members in the Case arising out of the conduct alleged therein.

H. NOW, THEREFORE, in reliance on the mutual promises, covenants, releases, and obligations as set out in this Settlement Agreement, and for good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree to resolve all claims that were or could have been at issue in this matter.

IV. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

A. The Parties agree, for purposes of this Settlement Agreement only, to a Federal Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., opt-out class, as defined supra.

B.
888856.5 5

If this Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, all persons within the Class are bound by its terms, except those Class Members who effectively exercise a right to opt out of the Class and the settlement. Class Members who elect to opt out must
9

do so in writing, in the manner and by the date specified in the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing (Ex. I).

V. NOTICE

A. Attached to this Settlement Agreement is a Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing (“Notice”) in long form (Ex. I) and short form (Ex. J). The Notice contains a brief description of the claims advanced by the plaintiff class and the Secretary’s denial of liability for such claims, a summary of the terms of the proposed settlement, and a notice of a fairness hearing to be held pursuant to Rule 23(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. Should the Court give preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs will issue the Notice to members of the class by the best means practicable, as set forth in Section V.B, below.

B. Plaintiffs intend to contract with Kinsella Media, LLC (“KM”) to provide notice to the Class Members. For this settlement, Plaintiffs have advised USDA and the Court that KM has developed a four-part notice program that includes (1) direct notice to potential class members for whom address information is available pursuant to Section V.C below, (2) paid media (including broadcast, print and Internet advertising), (3) earned media through press releases sent to national print outlets and tribal newsletters, and (4) third party outreach to over 1,100 entities affiliated with the agricultural and/or Native American community to request their participation in the Notice Program. In addition, KM will develop an Informational Web Site to provide a constant source of information and assistance for Class Members.

C. Within 5 days after the Preliminary Approval Date and authorization by the Court for the Secretary to provide the Claims Administrator the information identified in this paragraph, USDA shall prepare and deliver to the Notice Administrator a computer disk (or other electronic format) containing the information needed to facilitate Notice to Class Members. Such information shall include for each loan or loan application included in USDA’s electronic, active PLAS or DLS databases where a borrower or applicant is identified as Native American, the name; social security number; and last-known address of the borrower(s).

D. The Notice and the Informational Web Site will include information on how to obtain a claim form.

VI. DISMISSAL AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

A.
888856.5 5

The Class agrees to the dismissal of the Case with prejudice under Rules 41(a)(1) and 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction as set forth in Section XIII. In accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs will move for dismissal of the
10

Case with prejudice to be effective on the Final Approval Date.

B. The Parties agree to the entry of this Settlement Agreement and will move for entry of the Settlement Agreement to be effective on the Final Approval Date.

VII. FUNDING

A. Class Counsel shall, within seven (7) calendar days of the Preliminary Approval Date, notify the Secretary and the Secretary’s Counsel in writing of the identity of the Designated Account and Designated Bank and provide any and all information necessary and appropriate to direct any and all deposits provided for in this Settlement Agreement.

B. Implementation Costs. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Preliminary Approval Date, the Secretary shall provide the U.S. Department of the Treasury with all necessary forms and documentation to direct a payment of $5,000,000 to Class Counsel for Implementation Costs, for the benefit of the Class, in accordance with and subject to the following conditions:

1. The Secretary shall direct the deposit of these funds into the Designated Account. Class Counsel shall provide the Secretary in writing with the information necessary to direct the deposit;

2. Class Counsel shall use these funds solely for Implementation Costs provided for in this Settlement Agreement; and

3. Class Counsel shall provide the Secretary with monthly written reports related to the expenditure of the funds provided in this Section. The monthly reports, which may be submitted on the Monthly Disbursement Reporting Form (Ex. E), shall identify (a) to whom Class Counsel has paid the funds, (b) the amount of such payment, (c) when the funds were paid, and (d) for what purpose the payment has been made, with reference to this Settlement Agreement.

C. If Class Counsel determines that the $5,000,000 is insufficient to cover the Implementation Costs, Class Counsel may submit additional written requests to the Secretary for up to three additional payments of $5,000,000 each, to be used for Implementation Costs, subject to the conditions in Section VII.B. Class Counsel must submit a separate request for each of the additional payments, and for the final request must explain why the additional funding is warranted.

D.
888856.5 5

The Secretary shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of an additional written request specified in Section VII.C, provide the U.S. Department of the Treasury with all necessary forms and documentation to direct the payment of the requested funds to Class Counsel, for the benefit of the Class, in accordance with and subject to the
11

E. F.
888856.5 5

conditions in Section VII.B.
Attorneys’ Fee Award and Class Representative Service Awards. The Secretary’s Counsel shall, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Effective Date, and subject to the approval of the Court, provide the U.S. Department of the Treasury with all necessary forms and documentation to direct a payment to Class Counsel, for the benefit of the Class, the Fee Award, and to direct payment to the Class Representatives for the Class Representative Service Awards subject to the following conditions:
1. The United States shall direct the deposit of the Fee Award funds into a Designated Account. The United States shall direct the deposit of the Class Representative Service Awards into a separate Designated Account. Class Counsel shall provide the Secretary in writing with the information necessary to direct the deposits; and
2. Class Counsel shall use these funds solely to pay (a) the Fee Award and (b) the Class Representative Service Awards.
Compensation Fund Payment. The Secretary’s Counsel shall, within sixty (60) calendar days of the Effective Date, provide the U.S. Department of the Treasury with all necessary forms and documentation to direct a payment to Class Counsel, for the benefit of the Class, the Total Compensation Fund, which is $680,000,000 minus the Fee Award and the Class Representative Service Awards, subject to the following conditions:
1. The United States shall direct the deposit of these funds into a Designated Account. Class Counsel shall provide the Secretary’s Counsel in writing with the information necessary to direct the deposit;
2. Class Counsel shall use these funds solely to pay Final Track A Liquidated Awards, Final Track A Liquidated Tax Awards, Final Track B Awards, and Debt Relief Tax Awards to, or on behalf of, Class Members pursuant to the Non-Judicial Claims Process; and
3. Class Counsel shall provide the Secretary with written quarterly reports related to the expenditure of the funds provided in this Section. The quarterly reports, which may be submitted on the Quarterly Disbursement Reporting Form (Ex. E), shall identify (a) to whom Class Counsel has paid the funds, (b) the amount of such payment, (c) when the funds were paid, and (d) for what purpose the payment has been made, with reference to this Settlement Agreement. If Class Counsel has expended funds to pay Final Track A Liquidated Awards, Final Track A Liquidated Tax Awards, Final Track B Awards and Debt Relief Tax Awards during the reporting period, Class Counsel shall also identify the number of such awards. 12

G. Once the funds paid by the Secretary’s Counsel under this Settlement Agreement are deposited into the Designated Accounts, the United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguard of the deposited funds, regardless of bank failure, fraudulent transfers, or any other fraud or misuse of the funds.

H. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall limit in any way the duties owed by Class Counsel to the Class under any applicable law, including any law governing counsel’s management or handling of client funds.

I. The funds that the United States pays, and the Debt Relief that the Secretary makes, pursuant to this Settlement Agreement are inclusive of damages and other monetary relief, attorney’s fees, expenses, costs, tax payments, interest, and costs, and are the only funds to be paid by the Secretary and/or the United States under this Settlement Agreement.

J. The limitations on funding in this Settlement Agreement apply notwithstanding a determination by the Class Representatives, the Class, or Class Counsel that the funds made available under this Settlement Agreement are inadequate to pay claims submitted pursuant to the Non-Judicial Claims Process, attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs incurred under this Settlement Agreement, and/or Implementation Costs incurred under this Settlement Agreement.

K. The Class Representatives, the Class, and/or Class Counsel may not terminate this Settlement Agreement because the Class Representatives, the Class, and/or Class Counsel assert that the Cost Cap is inadequate, and neither the Class Representatives nor Class Counsel shall be permitted to amend, alter, or reduce their obligations and duties under this Settlement Agreement in any manner. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel agree to continue with implementation of this Settlement Agreement notwithstanding the amount of Implementation Costs incurred under this Settlement Agreement. The Secretary shall have no responsibility for Implementation Costs above the Cost Cap.

L. The Class will have sole responsibility to comply with their own applicable federal, state, and local tax requirements that arise as a result of this Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel will have sole responsibility to comply with their own applicable federal, state, and local tax requirements that arise as a result of this Settlement Agreement.

VIII. MORATORIUM ON ACCELERATIONS, FORECLOSURES, AND OFFSETS

A.
888856.5 5

Upon preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, FSA farm loan program debts held by borrowers who are identified as Native Americans in the Service Center Information Management System or its successor database, or who file claims pursuant to this agreement, will be considered under review, and USDA shall suspend all collection efforts by FSA as to such debts, including all efforts to
13

seize personal property, requests or renewal of requests for internal administrative offsets of other farm program payments, referrals, or renewal of referrals, to the Department of the Treasury for the Treasury Offset Program or cross-servicing, actions to accelerate loan accounts, and actions to foreclose on real or personal property. Any debt that was referred to the Department of the Treasury prior to the date of the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement remains valid and legally enforceable, and will be collected in accordance with applicable laws. For debts held by those identified persons in the Service Center Information Management System who do not participate in the claims process, this moratorium on collection action will end at the end date of the claims application period.
B. USDA and/or Secretary’s Counsel will within ten (10) days of Preliminary Approval Date, issue written and electronic notice to its Finance Office, all Farm Service Agency state and district offices and FSA Service Centers and to United States Attorney’s Offices and/or the Executive Office of United States Attorneys of the terms of this moratorium on foreclosures, accelerations and offsets. USDA will instruct the Finance Office and FSA offices to immediately implement these provisions.
C. For Claimants, the Secretary agrees to refrain from (1) accelerating, (2) foreclosing, or (3) using administrative offsets, of any FSA Farm Loan Program loan held by each and every Claimant from the date on which the Settlement Administrator informs USDA of that Claimant’s claim until 30 calendar days after the Preliminary Accounting Date or until the claim is denied, whichever is earlier.
D. This Section does not:
1. Prohibit the Secretary from taking any action up to, but not including, acceleration, foreclosure or offset that is necessary to protect his interests or service a loan under applicable law;
2. Prohibit a United States Attorney from proceeding with a foreclosure already referred to him/her by USDA if the United States Attorney determines in his/her sole discretion not to suspend the foreclosure pursuant to this moratorium.

IX. NON-JUDICIAL CLAIMS PROCESS

A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

888856.5 5

1. To obtain a Claim Determination under this Settlement Agreement, a Claimant must submit a Complete Claim Package to the Claims 14

888856.5 5

Administrator by the Claim Deadline, or, for those Claimants who are asked for supplemental information, within 60 days of the date of such notice of an incomplete claim package, or the Claim Deadline, whichever is later. The submission date shall be the date of postmark if the Claim Package is sent via first-class mail, the date of deposit if sent by courier or overnight delivery, and the date of transmission if sent electronically.
2. Election of Remedies: In addition to this case, there are other cases pending in which discrimination in the USDA Farm Loan Program was alleged. Those cases include: Pigford v. Vilsack, No. 97-1978 (PLF) (D.D.C.) (alleging discrimination against African American farmers) , In Re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-0511 (MC) (D.D.C) (also known as “Pigford II”)(alleging discrimination against African American farmers who filed untimely claims), Love v. Vilsack, No. 002502 (RBW) (D.D.C.) (alleging discrimination against women farmers), and Garcia v. Vilsack, No. 00-2445 (RBW) (D.D.C.)(alleging discrimination against Hispanic farmers).
Individuals who filed claims in the Pigford v. Vilsack case are deemed to have elected to pursue their claims in that action and have waived any right to obtain relief through this Settlement. Individuals who filed claims or requests to file late claims in Pigford and were then encompassed by Pigford II, will waive their right to pursue a claim through this Settlement unless they withdraw their claim or their request to file a late claim before the deadline has passed by which claims must be filed through this Settlement. Individuals who file claims in connection with the Love v. Vilsack or the Garcia v. Vilsack cases will waive their right to pursue a claim through this Settlement unless they withdraw their claim before the deadline has passed by which claims must be filed through this Settlement. Individuals who opt out of any of the above-identified cases and have pursued judicial or administrative remedies are deemed to have hereby waived their right to pursue a claim for relief under this Settlement. The United States hereby agrees to settle with members of this case on the premise that only one award will be made to an individual for alleged discrimination under ECOA during the time period of January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999, and that this Settlement is a compromise of all claims. Such individuals will be identified by the Claims Administrator as follows:
a. Once the Court enters an order permitting the United States to disclose the information described in this paragraph, for purposes of identifying persons who have submitted claims in Pigford II, Love or Garcia, the Secretary and/or the Secretary’s Counsel shall provide to the Claims Administrator on a monthly basis a list of
15

888856.5 5

persons who have submitted or do submit claims in those cases, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and the date on which the claim was deemed to be submitted, and will update this list on a monthly basis through the conclusion of the Keepseagle claims process to reflect any withdrawals of claims as well as any additional claims made in those cases.
b. For purposes of identifying persons who submitted claims in Pigford, Class Counsel will provide to the Claims Administrator a list of persons who have submitted claims, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and the date on which the claim was deemed to be submitted.
c. The claim form (Ex. C) will require each Claimant to acknowledge whether they are participants in any of the above-identified cases.
3. “Complete Claim Package” is:
a. A completed Claim Form (Ex. C), and the Claimant’s declaration, under penalty of perjury, that each of the statements provided by the Claimant is true and correct;
b. For a Claimant who seeks Debt Relief, a statement that the Claimant seeks such an award and an executed Authorization to Disclose Debt Information Form (Ex. D);
c. For a Claimant who is deceased, (i) a death certificate, and (ii) either (A) proof of current legal representation, or (B) in a situation in which a legal representative has not yet been appointed, a sworn statement describing why the submitting individual believes he or she will be appointed the legal representative of the Claimant’s estate; and
d. For a Claimant unable to submit a claim on his or her own behalf due to a physical or mental limitation, (i) proof of legal representation or (ii) a sworn statement describing why the Claimant is unable to submit a claim on his or her own behalf and why the submitting individual asserts a right to do so on the Claimant’s behalf.
4. A Claimant may be represented in this Claims Process by Class Counsel or Individual Counsel, or the Claimant may submit a claim without counsel. Class Counsel shall provide Track A Claimants with assistance in preparing and submitting the forms (done by paralegals and/or contract attorneys under the supervision of Class Counsel), unless that Claimant 16

888856.5 5

elects to be represented by Individual Counsel or elects to submit a claim without counsel. For Track A, if a Claimant elects to be represented by Individual Counsel, the Claimant must make separate arrangements to pay Individual Counsel. Such payment shall be subject to the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the Track A Individual Counsel Fee Cap. For Track B, if a Claimant elects to be represented by either Class Counsel or Individual Counsel, the Claimant must make separate arrangements to pay Class Counsel or Individual Counsel. Such payment shall be subject to the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the Track B Fee Cap. An attorney who serves as Individual Counsel consents to the terms of this Settlement Agreement and agrees to abide by all orders of the Court in this Case.
5. In the case of a Claimant who is deceased, the legal representative of the Claimant’s estate may submit a claim on the Claimant’s behalf. If there is no legal representative, any other individual who asserts a right to be the legal representative of the Claimant’s estate may submit a claim on the Claimant’s behalf. If there is no legal representative and more than one individual submits a claim on behalf of the Claimant, the Track A Neutral handling the Claimant’s Claim shall decide which of the individuals is entitled to pursue the claim on the Claimant’s behalf, and this decision shall be final and non-reviewable, subject to paragraph 7 below.
6. In the case of a Claimant who is unable to submit a claim on his or her own behalf due to a physical or mental limitation, the Claimant’s legal representative may submit a claim on the Claimant’s behalf. If there is no legal representative, any other individual who asserts a right to be the legal representative may submit a claim on the Claimant’s behalf. If there is no legal representative and more than one individual submits a claim on behalf of an individual who is unable to submit a claim on his or her own behalf, the Track A Neutral handling the Claimant’s Claim shall decide which of the individuals is entitled to pursue the claim on the Claimant’s behalf, and this decision shall be final and non-reviewable, subject to paragraph 7 below.
7. If a claim submitted under paragraphs 5 or 6 above prevails, and a legal representative for the Claimant or the Claimant’s estate has not yet been appointed, the Claimant’s Track A Award or Track B Award shall be held for up to one year in a separate account established by Class Counsel for the benefit of the Claimant or the estate until a legal representative to whom the funds may be disbursed is appointed. The Claims Administrator may extend this period, up to 180 days, upon receipt of proof that a probate petition is pending in the appropriate Court. Regardless of who the Neutral decides would be permitted to submit the
17

888856.5 5

claim under paragraph 5 or 6, payment will be made on behalf of such successful claims only to a duly recognized legal representative as set forth in this paragraph.
8. A Claimant’s election of Track A is irrevocable and exclusive. A Claimant’s election of Track B is irrevocable and exclusive, except as provided in paragraph 6 of Section IX.B.
9. The Claim Determinations, and any other determinations made under this Non-Judicial Claims Process are final and are not reviewable by the Claims Administrator, the Track A Neutral, the Track B Neutral, the District Court, or any other party or body, judicial or otherwise. The Class Representatives and the Class agree to forever and finally waive any right to seek review of the Claim Determinations, and any other determinations made under this Non-Judicial Claims Process. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall preclude the United States from exercising its lawful authority to investigate or otherwise pursue criminal or civil misconduct arising from the claims process.
10. Except as specified in paragraph 5 of Section IX.B and paragraph 2 subsection a of Section IX.A, the Secretary and/or the United States shall have no role in the Non-Judicial Claims Process.
11. All Track A Liquidated Awards, Track A Liquidated Tax Awards, Track B Awards and Debt Relief Tax Awards shall be paid from the Designated Account. Debt Relief Awards shall be written off directly by the Secretary, and shall not be paid from the Designated Account.
12. The Secretary and/or the United States shall not be liable to pay the Claims Administrator, the Track A Neutral, the Track B Neutral, the Track B Expert, or any of their employees and agents. Subject to the Cost Cap, all fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the Claims Administrator, the Neutrals, the Track B Expert, and any of their employees and agents shall be paid from the Designated Account as Implementation Costs.
13. The Secretary and/or the United States shall have no obligation to provide any information, documents, or discovery to the Class, Class Members, or Class Counsel, except as provided in paragraph 5 of Section IX.B and paragraph 2 subsection a of Section IX.A, or as otherwise required by law.
14. The Claims Administrator shall send all correspondence and all payments to Claimants, Class Members, and/or their Counsel by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
15. Class Counsel, the Claims Administrator, and the Neutrals will take 18

B.
888856.5 5

reasonable steps to protect private personal and financial information submitted to them under this Settlement Agreement.
16. The Claims Administrator and the Track A and B Neutrals shall report periodically to Class Counsel any issues of concern that arise in the course of the execution of their duties.
REVIEW OF THE CLAIM SUBMISSION AND THE CLASS MEMBERSHIP DETERMINATION
1. Upon receipt of a claim, the Claims Administrator shall first determine whether the Claimant’s submission satisfies the Claim Deadline and whether the submission is a Complete Claim Package. The Claims Administrator shall make every reasonable effort to complete this determination within ten (10) days of receipt of the claim.
2. For each Claimant who has submitted an incomplete Claim Package or for each Claim Package that the Claims Administrator is unable to determine whether it is complete, the Claims Administrator shall send to the Claimant and his or her Counsel a completed Your Claim Package is Not Complete Form (Ex. F). A Claimant shall have 60 calendar days from the date of postmark of such a Form, or until the Claim Deadline, whichever is later, to submit, either by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or electronically, a Complete Claim Package. There shall be no exceptions to or extensions of the time frames set forth in this paragraph, and the failure of a Claimant to provide any requested materials within the specified time frames will result in that Claimant’s obtaining a final and unreviewable adverse determination.
3. For each Claimant whose claim is untimely submitted, the Claims Administrator shall return the Claim Package to the Claimant and his or her Counsel with a completed You Have Not Submitted Your Claim On Time Form (Ex. G). This determination is final and not reviewable by the Claims Administrator, the Track A Neutral, the Track B Neutral, the District Court, or any other party or body, judicial or otherwise.
4. For each Claimant who the Claims Administrator determines to have submitted a timely Complete Claim Package and who elects Track A, the Claims Administrator shall complete Part I of a Track A Claim Determination Form (Ex. A) and shall send the Track A Claim Determination Form and the Class Member’s Complete Claim Package electronically to the Track A Neutral.
5. For Class Members seeking Debt Relief who submit an Authorization to Disclose Debt Information Form (Ex. D), the Claims Administrator shall 19

888856.5 5

complete the Authorization to Disclose Debt Information Form received from the Class Member, shall send it, along with the Class Member’s completed Claim Form, to the FSA, and shall request that FSA (i) confirm whether the Class Member has an outstanding Farm Loan Obligation; and (ii) provide a list of all outstanding loans the individual has had and, for all outstanding loans, the applicable loan(s) balances and loan payoff amount(s) for a Debt Relief Award, including the year each loan was issued. Further, FSA shall search PLAS data available through its easilyaccessible electronic data sources and, to the extent such information is contained in such easily-accessible electronic data sources, identify any Class Member who received a prior write-down or write-off of a farm loan program loan within the Class Period and the year(s) that each prior writedown or write-off occurred. Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of the request or as soon thereafter as is practicable, FSA will return the Authorization to Disclose Debt Information Form to the Claims Administrator with the requested information. The Claims Administrator shall submit the completed Authorization to Disclose Debt Information Form to the Track A or Track B Neutral reviewing the Class Member’s Claim, and shall send a copy to the Class Member, and the Class Member’s Counsel, if applicable.
6. Within ten (10) days after the Claim Deadline, for each Claimant who elects Track B, the Claims Administrator shall send the Class Member a notice in writing informing the Class Member of the total number of Class Members who submitted Complete Claims Packages under Track B by the Claim Deadline. For Track B claims received after the Claims Deadline but which are considered timely pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection, this notice shall be sent within ten (10) days of receipt of the Complete Claims Package. Such notification shall also remind each Class Member of: (a) the definition of Track B Awards; (b) the Track B Cap; (c) the evidentiary requirements for Track B claims; and (d) the possibility that a Class Member’s Track B Award will be reduced if the total of all Track B Awards exceeds the Track B Cap. Such notification shall also inform the Class Member that the Class Member may change his or her election to Track A by so notifying the Claims Administrator in writing within thirty (30) days of the postmark of the notification from the Claims Administrator. If a Track B Class Member does not so notify the Claims Administrator, his or her claim shall be treated as a Track B claim.
7. For each Claimant who elects Track B on the Claim Form (Ex. C) and who the Claims Administrator determines to have submitted a timely Complete Claim Package, the Claims Administrator shall complete Part I of a Track B Claim Determination Form (Ex. B) and shall send the Form and the Class Member’s claim electronically to the Track B Neutral.
20

C.
888856.5 5

8. For each Claimant who the Claims Administrator determines to have submitted a timely Complete Claims Package and who elects Track A under on the Claim Form (Ex. C), the Claims Administrator shall follow the procedure in Section IX.C., below.
9. The Claims Administrator shall make every reasonable effort to complete his or her other duties under this Section within sixty (60) days of receipt of a Complete Claim Package.
TRACK A
1. For each Claimant asserting a claim under Track A, the Track A Neutral shall determine whether the Claimant has established, by substantial evidence, that each of the following elements is satisfied:
a. The Claimant is a Native American who farmed or ranched, or attempted to farm or ranch between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999;
b. The Claimant (i) owned or leased, or (ii) attempted to buy or lease (using the loan which is the subject of part c. immediately below), or (iii) had grazing rights on, or authorization to use, farm or ranch land;
c. The Claimant applied, or attempted to apply, for a specific farm credit transaction(s) at a USDA office between January 1, 1981, and November 24, 1999;
d. The farm loan(s) for which the Claimant applied was denied, provided late, approved for a lesser amount than requested, encumbered by a restrictive condition(s), or USDA failed to provide an appropriate loan service(s);
e. At least one instance of conduct defined under sub-paragraph d above, or in paragraph 3 below occurred either during the period January 1, 1981, through December 31, 1996, or during the period November 24, 1997, through November 24, 1999;
f. USDA’s treatment of the loan or loan servicing application(s) led to economic damage to the Claimant; and
g. The Claimant “filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA” as defined in Section II.E of this Agreement, on condition that the complaint was filed during the period January 1, 1981, through June 30, 1997, or during the period November 24, 1997, through 21

888856.5 5

November 24, 1999.
2. For each Claimant, the Track A Neutral must make an additional determination that the Claimant has established, by substantial evidence, that:
a. The Claimant made a bona fide effort to apply for credit or did apply. Such application or bona fide effort may be established by evidence of:
(1) the year in which the Claimant applied or attempted to apply and the general time period within that year (e.g., late fall, early spring, sometime in January, February, or March);
(2) the type and amount of loan or loan servicing for which the Claimant applied or attempted to apply;
(3) how the Claimant planned to use the funds (e.g., identification of crops, equipment, acreage, etc.);
(4) how the Claimant’s plans for a farm operation were consistent with farming operations in that county/area in that year; and
(5) the location where the Claimant made efforts to seek credit assistance.
3. For each Claimant who asserts that he or she attempted to apply for a loan, the Track A Neutral must make an additional determination that the Claimant has established, by substantial evidence, that USDA actively discouraged the application. Examples of evidence of active discouragement include but are not limited to:
a. statements by a USDA official that, at the time the Claimant wanted to apply, there were no funds available and therefore no application would be provided;
b. statements by a USDA official that, at the time the Claimant wanted to apply, there were no application forms available;
c. statements by a USDA official that, at the time the Claimant wanted to apply, USDA was not accepting or processing applications;
22

D.
888856.5 5

d. statements by a USDA official that the Claimant would not qualify for a loan or loan servicing and thus should not bother applying; or
e. statements by a USDA official that a Claimant must seek a loan from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than through FSA.
4. The Track A Neutral’s determination shall be based solely on the materials submitted by the Claimant and, if applicable, the information provided by FSA in response to a completed Authorization to Disclose Debt Information Form.
5. The Claims Administrator shall ensure that the Track A Neutral has access to alternate electronic templates for completing Part II of the Track A Claim Determination Form (“Summary of Claim Determination”) (Ex. A), for Track A claims which are approved (“Track A Approval Version”) and denied (“Track A Denial Version”).
6. If the Track A Neutral determines that the Claimant has satisfied the elements listed above for a credit claim, the Neutral shall complete the Track A Approval Version of Part II Summary of Claim Determination on the Class Member’s Track A Claim Determination Form (Ex. A). If the Track A Neutral determines that the Claimant has not satisfied the elements listed above, the Neutral shall complete the Track B Denial Version of Part II Summary of Claim Determination on the Track A Claim Determination Form (Ex. A). The Neutral shall make every reasonable effort to complete this determination and send the Track A Claim Determination Form electronically to the Claims Administrator within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the claim or within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the Authorization to Disclose Debt Information Form, whichever is later.
TRACK B
1. For each Claimant asserting a claim under Track B, the Track B Neutral shall determine whether the Claimant has established, by a preponderance of the evidence and through documentary evidence admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (subject to paragraph 2 of this Section ), each of the following elements:
a. The Claimant is a Native American who farmed or ranched, or attempted to farm or ranch, between January 1, 1981, and November 24, 1999;
b. The Claimant owned or leased, attempted to own or lease, or had grazing rights on or authorization to use farm or ranch land; 23

888856.5 5

c. The Claimant applied for a specific farm credit transaction(s) at a USDA office between January 1, 1981, and November 24, 1999. An attempt to apply for a farm credit transaction is insufficient;
d. The farm loan(s) or servicing option for which the Claimant applied was denied, provided late, approved for a lesser amount than requested, encumbered by a restrictive condition(s), or USDA failed to provide an appropriate loan service(s);
e. The treatment of the Claimant’s loan or loan servicing application(s) by USDA was less favorable than that accorded a specifically identified, similarly situated white farmer(s) and at least one instance of less favorable treatment occurred either during the period January 1, 1981, through December 31, 1996, or during the period November 24, 1997, through November 24, 1999;
f. USDA’s treatment of the loan or loan servicing application(s) led to economic damage to the Claimant; and
g. The Claimant “filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA” as defined in Section II.E of this Agreement, on condition that the complaint was filed during the period January 1, 1981, through June 30, 1997, or during the period November 24, 1997, through November 24, 1999.
2. Notwithstanding the requirement that each element in Track B be established by a preponderance of the evidence and with documentary evidence admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
a. Any of the following elements may be established by a credible sworn statement based on personal knowledge by an individual who is not a member of the Claimant’s family:
(1) the identity of a similarly situated white farmer; and
(2) that the Claimant filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA.
This sworn statement need not be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence but must establish these facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
b. Proof that Claimant is a Native American shall be consistent with the requirements of Section II.BB, above. If a Claimant is a 24

888856.5 5

member of a federally- or state-recognized tribe, then such membership must be established by documentary evidence as identified in Section II.BB. If a Claimant identified himself/herself as Native American prior to November 24, 1999, such selfidentification may be established (a) by documentation, such as an application for loan or loan servicing assistance submitted to USDA prior to or within the Class Period, or (b) through a credible written narrative, submitted under penalty of perjury, in which the individual describes in detail the circumstances establishing his/her Native American ancestry sufficient to persuade the Track B Neutral of its genuineness and authenticity, as described in Section II.BB.
c. The Claimant’s loan application and supporting documents forming the basis of the Claimant’s claim are deemed admissible upon a sworn statement by the Claimant that the loan application and supporting documents were submitted to FSA contemporaneously with the date of the application. FSA documents that were provided to the Claimant in response to the Claimant’s loan application are also deemed admissible upon a sworn statement by the Claimant that the Claimant received the FSA documents in response to the Claimant’s loan application; and
d. Nothing in this Section precludes a Claimant from submitting expert testimony to explain the documentary evidence submitted by the Claimant with respect to paragraph 1, subsection f of this Section.
3. Once the Claimant has submitted documentary evidence admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence or other evidence as provided for above in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Section on each element, the Track B Neutral may consider the materials submitted by the Claimant, the opinion and analysis by the Track B Expert, and any other information or material deemed appropriate for consideration by the Track B Neutral.
4. The Claims Administrator shall ensure that the Track B Neutral has access to alternate electronic templates for completing Part II of the Track B Claim Determination Form (“Summary of Claim Determination”) (Ex. B), for Track B claims which are approved (“Track B Approval Version”) and denied (“Track B Denial Version”).
5. If the Track B Neutral determines that the Claimant has satisfied the elements listed above, the Neutral shall complete the Track B Approval Version of Part II Summary of Claim Determination on the Claimant’s
25

E.
888856.5 5

Track B Claim Determination Form (Ex. B). If the Track B Neutral determines that the Claimant has not satisfied the elements listed above, the Neutral shall complete the Track B Denial Version of Part II, Summary of Claim Determination on the Track B Claim Determination Form (Ex. B). The Neutral shall make every reasonable effort to complete the determination and send the Track B Claim Determination Form electronically to the Claims Administrator within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the claim.
DEBT RELIEF
1. Each Class Member who receives either a Track A or Track B Award and who has outstanding debt with USDA shall be entitled to a Debt Relief Award as defined in this Settlement Agreement.
2. The Claims Administrator shall determine the amount of the Debt Relief for each Prevailing Claimant entitled to Debt Relief by determining the sum of all outstanding loans identified by USDA pursuant to paragraph 5, Section IX.B.
3. Each Class Member who receives a Debt Relief Award shall be paid a Debt Relief Tax Award in an amount equal to 25% of the amount of the principal extinguished by the Prevailing Claimant’s Final Debt Relief Award. The Claims Administrator shall send to the IRS, on behalf of each prevailing Claimant (Track A or Track B) who receives a Debt Relief Award, the amount of the Class Member’s Debt Relief Tax Award. The Claims Administrator shall provide the Class Member’s counsel, or the Class Member directly if the Class Member has no counsel, notice that such payment(s) has been made. When transmitting payment of Track A Liquidated Tax Awards to the IRS, the Claims Administrator shall provide the IRS with the name, address, and Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number of the Class Member on whose behalf the payment is being made.
4. The total of all Debt Relief Awards under this Settlement Agreement is subject to an $80,000,000 cap. This amount does not include the separate Debt Relief Tax Awards.
5. If the total amount of Debt Relief which all Prevailing Claimants could receive exceeds the $80,000,000 cap, the Claims Administrator shall proceed as follows:
a. The Claims Administrator will identify all Prevailing Claimants who obtained a loan from USDA on or before November 24, 1999 based upon the information provided by FSA pursuant to 26

888856.5 5

paragraph 5, Section IX.B. This will be referred to as the “Pre1999 Group.”
b. The Claims Administrator will identify all Prevailing Claimants who first obtained a loan from USDA after November 24, 1999 based upon the information provided by FSA pursuant to paragraph 5, Section IX.B. This will be referred to as the “Post1999 Group.”
c. Ninety percent of the Debt Relief cap, or $72 million, will be initially allocated to the Pre-1999 Group, and 10%, or $8 million, will be initially allocated to the Post-1999 Group.
d. If the total of all debt outstanding for the Pre-1999 Group is more than $72 million, the Claims Administrator will divide each Pre1999 Group Prevailing Claimant’s total outstanding debt by the sum total of all outstanding debt for the Pre-1999 Group to obtain that Pre-1999 Group Prevailing Claimant’s “pro rata percentage share of debt relief.” Then, the Claims Administrator shall multiply each Prevailing Claimant’s pro rata percentage share of debt relief by $72 million to obtain that Prevailing Claimant’s Debt Relief Award.
e. If the total of all debt outstanding for the Pre-1999 Group is less than $72 million, then each Pre-1999 Group Prevailing Claimant will receive his or her full Debt Relief Award, and any unused Pre1999 Group debt relief funds will be transferred to the Post-1999 Group.
f. If the total of all debt outstanding for the Post-1999 Group is more than $8 million, the Claims Administrator will divide each Post1999 Group Prevailing Claimant’s total outstanding debt by the sum total of all outstanding debt for the Post-1999 Group to obtain that Prevailing Claimant’s “pro rata percentage share of debt relief.” Then, the Claims Administrator shall multiply each Post1999 Group Prevailing Claimant’s pro rata percentage share of debt relief by $8 million to obtain that Prevailing Claimant’s Debt Relief Award.
g. If the total of all debt outstanding for the Post-1999 Group is less than $8 million, then each Post-1999 Group Prevailing Claimant will receive his or her full Debt Relief Award, and any unused Post-1999 Group debt relief funds will be transferred to the Pre1999 Group if the Pre-1999 Group did not receive full Debt Relief Awards. 27

F.
888856.5 5

DISTRIBUTION OF CLAIM DETERMINATIONS AND SETTLEMENT FUNDS
1. On a monthly basis, the Claims Administrator shall provide to the Secretary and to Class Counsel a written report, which may be provided on the Monthly Claim Determination Reporting Form (Ex. H), that includes: (a) the name, address, and Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number of each Class Member who has completed the claims process; (b) the Class Member’s FSA Account Number, and (c) whether the Class Member prevailed.
2. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of all Track A and Track B Claim Determination Explanation Forms, the Claims Administrator shall calculate: (a) the sum of all Track A Liquidated Awards and Track A Liquidated Tax Awards; (b) the sum of all Provisional Track B Awards; (c) the sum of all Final Track A Liquidated Awards, Final Track A Liquidated Tax Awards, and Final Track B Awards, as calculated below; (d) the Implementation Costs incurred to date; and (e) a good faith estimate of Implementation Costs necessary for the Claims Administrator to perform its final duties under this Settlement Agreement.
In order to calculate each Class Member’s Final Award(s), the Claims Administrator shall do as follows:
a. Determine the Track B Awards:
(1) If the sum total of all Track B Awards is less than the Track B Cap of $50,000,000, then the Class Member’s Final Track B Award shall be equal to the Provisional Track B Award.
(2) If the sum total of all Track B Awards exceeds the Track B Cap of $50,000,000,
(a) The Claims Administrator shall divide each Class Member’s Track B Award by the sum total of all Track B Awards to obtain that Class Member’s “Track B Percentage.”
(b) The Claims Administrator shall multiply each Class Member’s Track B Provisional Award by the Track B Percentage to obtain the Class Member’s Final Track B Award.
(3) The Claims Administrator shall calculate the Total Track B 28

888856.5 5

Awards as either the Track B Cap of $50,000,000 or the sum of all Track B Awards to Class Members if the total of all Track B Awards is less than the Track B Cap of $50,000,000.
b. After determining the Total Track B Awards, the Claims Administrator shall calculate the Track A Awards as follows:
(1) The Claims Administrator shall calculate the Available Track A Funds. The Available Track A Funds is $680,000,000 minus the Fee Award, the Class Representative Service Awards, the Total Track B Awards, and the sum of the Debt Relief Tax Awards.
(2) The Claims Administrator shall calculate the sum of Track A Awards by combining the sum of all Track A Liquidated Awards and Track A Liquidated Tax Awards.
(3) If the Available Track A Funds is equal to or greater than the sum of Track A Awards, each prevailing Track A Class Member’s Track A Liquidated Award is deemed to be the Final Track A Liquidated Award and his or her Track A Liquidated Tax Award is deemed to be the Final Track A Liquidated Tax Award.
(4) If the Available Track A Funds is less than the sum of Track A Awards, then the Claims Administrator shall divide the Available Track A Funds by the sum of Track A Awards to obtain a percentage (“the Percentage”). Each prevailing Track A Class Member’s Final Track A Liquidated Award shall be equal to the Percentage multiplied by the Track A Liquidated Award. Each prevailing Track A Class Member’s Final Track A Liquidated Tax Award shall be equal to the Percentage multiplied by the Track A Liquidated Tax Award.
3. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of all Track A or Track B Claim Determination Forms, the Claims Administrator shall:
a. For prevailing Track A or Track B Claims, record the Final Track A Awards, Final Track B Awards, Debt Relief Award, and Debt Relief Tax Award in Part II of the prevailing Class Members’ Track A and Track B Claim Determination Forms. This action shall be limited to the arithmetical computation prescribed under IX.E, if applicable, and paragraph 2 of IX.F, above, and shall not alter the substantive
29

888856.5 5

determination on the merits made by the Track A Neutral or Track B Neutral on any individual Track A or Track B claim;
b. For all Track A or Track B claims, the Claims Administrator shall finalize the formatting of the Track A or Track B Claim Determination Forms;
c. Prepare the Preliminary Accounting and submit it to Class Counsel and the Secretary.
4. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date that the Preliminary Accounting provided for in Section IX.F.3(c) is submitted, the Claims Administrator shall:
a. Send to each prevailing Track A Class Member who retained Class Counsel or proceeded without counsel the Class Member’s Track A Claim Determination Form and a check payable to the Class Member in the amount of the Class Member’s Final Track A Liquidated Award. The Claims Administrator shall also send to the Individual Counsel for each Track A Class Member who retained Individual Counsel the Class Member’s Track A Claim Determination Form and a check jointly payable to the Class Member and his or her Individual Counsel in the amount of the Final Track A Liquidated Award.
b. Send to each prevailing Track B Class Member the Class Member’s Track B Claim Determination Form and a check payable to the Class Member in the amount of the Final Track B Award. The Claims Administrator shall also send to the Individual Counsel for each Track B Class Member who retained Individual Counsel the Class Member’s Track B Claim Determination Form and a check jointly payable to the Class Member and his or her Individual Counsel in the amount of the Final Track B Liquidated Award.
c. Send to each Track A or Track B Class Member who did not prevail, who retained Class Counsel or proceeded without counsel the Class Member’s Track A or Track B Claim Determination Forms. The Claims Administrator shall also send to the Individual Counsel for each Track A or Track B Class Member who retained Individual Counsel the Class Member’s Track A or Track B Claim Determination Form.
d. Send to the IRS, on behalf of each prevailing Track A Class Member, the amount of the Class Member’s Final Track A 30

Liquidated Tax Award. The Claims Administrator shall provide the Class Member’s counsel, or the Class Member directly if the Class Member has no counsel, notice that such payment(s) has been made. When transmitting payment of Track A Liquidated Tax Awards to the IRS, the Claims Administrator shall provide the IRS with the name, address, and Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number of the Class Member on whose behalf the payment is being made.
e. Send to the FSA, on behalf of each prevailing Track A and Track B Class Member, notice of the amount of the Class Member’s Debt Relief Award. The Claims Administrator shall inform the Class Member’s counsel, or the Class Member directly if the Class Member has no counsel, that such notice to the FSA has been made. When transmitting notice of Track A or Track B Debt Relief to FSA, the Claims Administrator shall provide FSA with the name, address, and Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number of the Class Member who received the award as well as the FSA Account Number of the loan to which the credit should be made.
5. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the last payment made by the Secretary pursuant to Section VII.C, the Claims Administrator shall cause to be paid from the Designated Account any outstanding Implementation Costs up to the Cost Cap.
6. All checks distributed under this Section, exclusive of those that are directly deposited, will be valid for 180 calendar days from the date of issue. The funds corresponding to any check that remains uncashed 181 calendar days from its date of issue shall be distributed pro rata to all prevailing Class Members, unless the total amount of uncashed checks is less than $250,000, in which case the unclaimed funds shall be distributed pursuant to paragraph 7, below. The Claims Administrator shall send a check made payable to the Class Member in the amount of the pro rata distribution, if applicable. These checks will be valid for 180 calendar days from the date of issue. Notwithstanding any other provision, no Class Member shall receive a total cash payment of more than his or her Provisional Track A Award or Provisional Track B Award.

888856.5 5

7. In the event there is a balance remaining in the Designated Account after the last check has been cashed, the last check has been invalidated due to passage of time, and after the passage of time set forth in paragraph 7 of
31

Section IX.A, the Claims Administrator shall direct any leftover funds to the Cy Pres Fund. Class Counsel may then designate Cy Pres Beneficiaries to receive equal shares of the Cy Pres Fund. The Claims Administrator shall send to each Beneficiary, via first class mail, postage prepaid, a check in the amount of the Beneficiary’s share of the Cy Pres Fund. Designations shall be for the benefit of Native American farmers and ranchers, upon recommendations by Class Counsel and approval by the Court.
8. Within 200 calendar days of making all payments set forth in this Section, the Claims Administrator shall prepare the Final Accounting and submit it to Class Counsel and the Secretary.

X. THE DUTIES OF CLASS COUNSEL
A. Class Counsel shall:
1. Perform all duties set forth in Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., those ordered by the Court, and those provided for in this Settlement Agreement;
2. Provide assistance without additional charge to Claimants who elect to submit claims under Track A;
3. Provide notice of this Settlement Agreement to Class Members pursuant to Section V;
4. Answer Class Member questions;
5. Provide information to Class Members regarding the status of claims processing or the distribution of the funds provided under this Settlement Agreement; and
6. Perform other such duties as may be incidental to proper coordination of this Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel shall have no obligation to perform any legal work for any Class Member related to the probate of a Class Member’s estate, including the appointment of executors or legal representatives.

XI. AUDIT OF CLAIMS

A. In addition to other measures within the claims process designed to protect against fraud, USDA or a third-party contractor of the agency may audit the claims submitted pursuant to this Agreement. Such audit would not interfere with the timely completion of

888856.5 5

32

the claims process and disbursement of settlement funds in accordance with the schedule prescribed in this Agreement. As a result of any audit conducted, USDA and/or any other government agency may, to the full extent permitted by law, make referrals for investigation or prosecution or prosecute or take other enforcement action to address any evidence of fraud. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall preclude the United States from exercising its lawful authority to investigate or otherwise pursue criminal or civil misconduct arising from the claims process.

XII. PROGRAMMATIC RELIEF

A. THE COUNCIL FOR NATIVE AMERICAN FARMING AND RANCHING

1. Establishing the Council. Subject to and contingent upon meeting all requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), USDA will take steps to establish a Council for Native American Farming and Ranching (“Council”), comprised of Native American leaders and senior officials of the Farm Service Agency and USDA.

2. The Council’s Purpose. The Council is expected to discuss issues related to the participation of Native American farmers and ranchers in USDA farm loan programs and to transmit recommendations concerning any changes to FSA regulations or internal guidance or other measures that would eliminate barriers to program participation for Native American farmers and ranchers.

3. The Council is Subject to FACA. USDA reserves to itself all discretion required by FACA, including, but not limited to, the determination as to whether establishment of the Council is in the public interest, consultation with the General Services Administration (“GSA”), final authority to appoint Council members except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Agreement, and discretionary re-authorization of the Council.

4. Composition and Selection of the Council. The Council will be composed of fifteen members.

888856.5 5

a. Selection of Native American representatives: Of those members, no fewer than eleven will be selected to represent the interests of Native American farmers and ranchers. Class Counsel may nominate up to eleven individuals to fill the slots designated for members who represent the interests of Native American farmers and ranchers. The Secretary will select no fewer than five members of the Council from the individuals nominated by Class Counsel, as long as Class Counsel do not fail to nominate at least
33

B.
888856.5 5

five individuals to serve on the Council and at least five individuals nominated by Class Counsel meet the requirements in FACA and regulations applicable for service on a committee created under FACA. All candidates proposed by Class Counsel will be given due consideration by the Secretary. If any candidate proposed by Class Counsel is disqualified by the Secretary, then Class Counsel shall have the opportunity to nominate a replacement candidate(s).
b. Members who represent the USDA: Council membership shall include the following senior officials of USDA: (1) the Director, Office of Tribal Relations or his or her delegate, (2) the FSA Administrator or his or her delegate, (3) the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights or his or her delegate, and (4) the Deputy Administrator for Farm Loan Programs or his or her delegate. In the event that these job titles change or are eliminated during the Term of this Agreement, these roles will be filled by other senior management officials appointed by the Secretary.
5. Council Meetings and Procedures. USDA will schedule Council meetings no fewer than two times each fiscal year and determine the locations of those meetings. If the USDA or Council determines that a meeting cannot be held as scheduled, the USDA will re-schedule the meeting for a date within the fiscal year if such a date is appropriate. The Council shall establish procedures for its operation.
a. Quorum. A minimum of 8 members shall be present or participating by telephone or other electronic means such as video conferencing to constitute a quorum.
b. Reimbursement of costs and other payments to Council members. In the event that Council meetings require travel, the USDA will reimburse Council members for reasonable travel expenses consistent with federal regulations and agency policy. Council members who represent the interests of Native American farmers and ranchers will be paid an amount not less than $100 per day for time spent away from their employment or farming or ranching operation, subject to the availability of funds. If there is a shortfall of appropriated funds for the Council for the payment of travel expenses or honoraria, USDA will notify Council members as soon as reasonably practicable.
USDA OMBUDSPERSON FOR NATIVE AMERICAN AND OTHER SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS.
34

C.
888856.5 5

1. Establishing an Ombudsperson. USDA will create a USDA Ombudsperson position to address issues relating to Native American farmers and ranchers, as well as other socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.
2. Duties of the Ombudsperson. The Secretary will assign the Ombudsperson such duties as he decides, in his discretion, are appropriate Such duties may include, but are not limited to, reviewing statistics from farm loan program and USDA program data systems; tracking the frequency, type, and location of civil rights complaints; serving as a point of contact and coordination for Federal Advisory Committees, individual producers, the Office of Tribal Relations, and other senior officials at USDA; referring systemic programmatic issues raised by the Council for Native American Farming and Ranching or the Ombudsperson on his or her own initiative to the USDA Office of the Inspector General for audit or investigation; and referring individual complaints of discrimination to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) for processing.
REPORTS & INVESTIGATIONS.
1. In order to aid in its efforts to identify and address areas where its Farm Loan Program might or might not fully and fairly serve Native Americans, the USDA agrees regularly to collect and evaluate data that will permit a comparison between the volume of loans sought by Native Americans and the volume of loans awarded to Native Americans.
a. Data will be collected and evaluated for each State, on a State-wide basis; and
b. For the following States, additional data will be collected on a county-wide basis (in alphabetical order): Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.
2. The results of this collection and evaluation of data, by county and state, will be reported at least semi-annually to the USDA Ombudsperson, to the Council and to Class Counsel. If the Council determines, in its sole discretion, that significant and unexplained disparities exist between the volume of loan sought by, and the volume awarded to, Native Americans as compared with Caucasian applicants who receive loans, the Council may request that USDA investigate the circumstances surrounding the disparity and, if USDA considers any action relative thereto to be
35

warranted, USDA will take whatever action it considers to be appropriate to improve the delivery of service provided to Native Americans. The USDA retains sole discretion whether to investigate and whether to take any actions or actions relative thereto.
3. The USDA may, in its sole discretion, report to the Ombudsperson, to the Council and/or to Class Counsel the results of investigation(s) relative to the matters addressed in paragraph 1 of this subsection, above, and any actions it has taken or proposes to take in response to any such investigation.
4. The Council, or any member, the Ombudsperson and/or Class Counsel may refer to the USDA Inspector General any concerns they may have about any disparity reported relative to the matters addressed in paragraph 1 of this subsection, any investigation by USDA relative to such matters and/or any action taken by USDA in response to any such investigation.

D.
888856.5 5

ENHANCED SERVICES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
1. Enhancing Services. USDA, through efforts of FSA and the Office of Tribal Relations (“OTR”), will enhance the service for Native American farmers and ranchers by establishing 10 to 15 regional venues that will do the following:
a. Teach intensive financial, business and marketing planning skills and understanding of basic and advanced farm and ranch business management skills to Native American farmers and ranchers.
b. Teach leasing requirements for tribal trust and restricted lands to Native American farmers and ranchers in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
c. Support the deployment of tribal agriculture advocates and technical assistance providers in key locations throughout Indian Country, who will serve alongside consolidated sub-offices at Tribal headquarters, tribal agriculture FSA liaisons, third party regional employees, and others.
2. The USDA will develop and release a plain language customer’s guide on how to apply for farm loans and farm loan servicing.
3. Subject to the availability of funds, as determined by USDA, USDA shall fund consolidated sub-offices at Tribal Headquarters on Indian 36

E.
F.
888856.5 5

Reservations, selected by the Secretary after a needs assessment by the Secretary or his delegate. Demonstration of Tribal cultural competency shall be a requirement for employment as a Program Manager or Director in the Tribal sub-offices. Subject to the availability of funds, USDA will employ Program Directors to direct the operations of the sub-offices at Tribal headquarters and, to the extent funds are available, each office will be staffed with a Program Director, Extension Agent, and support staff. USDA will defray the cost of overhead, including the cost of office space. The purpose of the sub-offices shall include, but not be limited to, conducting training, providing technical assistance, and loan outreach and assistance.
4. Reporting on USDA’s Enhanced Services. USDA shall report on the activities of these regional venues to the Council at each of the Council’s meetings.
LOAN SERVICING AND RECEIPT OF FUTURE LOANS.
1. For each Prevailing Claimant who is delinquent in payment on a FSA loan, USDA will offer an additional round of loan servicing to each such claimant within 120 days of (a) the Claims Determination, or (b) the distribution of a Debt Relief Award to each such claimant, whichever date is later.
2. If a Prevailing Claimant has a farm program loan discharged as a result of this Agreement, that discharge shall not adversely affect the claimant’s eligibility for farm program loans or loan servicing in the future.
3. If a Prevailing Claimant previously received a write-down or write-off of a farm program loan pursuant to a debt settlement of a loan issued within the class period that would have been discharged under this Agreement, then the previous debt settlement will not adversely affect the prevailing claimant’s eligibility for farm program loans or loan servicing in the future. The amount of debts settled and/or discharged prior to this Settlement Agreement and referenced in this paragraph do not count against the $80,000,000 cap on debt relief.
REVIEWING USDA’S FARM LOAN PROCEDURES AND POLICIES.
1. Within 90 days after Preliminary Approval of this Agreement by the Court, representatives from FSA and the Office of Tribal Relations will meet twice with Class Counsel to engage in consultation on the contents of FLP Handbooks, instructions and administrative notices.
37

2. The USDA will make whatever revisions or changes to the contents of the FLP Handbooks, instructions and administrative notices, if any, it concludes are warranted.

3. After the Council for Native American Farming and Ranching is appointed, Class Counsel will direct any comments or proposals to revision to FSA handbooks, instructions, or notices to the Council for Native American Farming and Ranching and to the Office of Tribal Relations for further ongoing review and consideration by USDA and the Council.

G. TERM OF PROGRAMMATIC RELIEF

The Programmatic Relief specified in this paragraphs A, B, C, D and F of Section XII, above, shall be provided for a period of five (5) years. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall preclude USDA from maintaining the same, or comparable, programmatic structures and functions for such additional time beyond this five (5) year period as USDA determines, in its sole discretion, to be appropriate.

XIII. COURT SUPERVISION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT & ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

A. Court Supervision. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action beyond the date of final approval of this Agreement only as set forth below and, with respect to paragraphs 1 through 5 below, only for a period of five years from the date of final approval of this Agreement.

1. Non-Judicial Claims Process. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action to supervise the distribution of the Fund and to ensure that Debt Relief Awards issued by the Track A and Track B Neutrals are applied by USDA, subject to both the limitations provided in IX.E of this Agreement and not to exceed the cap of $80 million. This continuing jurisdiction will continue until final payment from the Fund and application of the debt relief. The Court shall have no other role in supervising the provision of debt relief or the methods used to cancel outstanding debt owed to USDA, and shall have no role in resolving any disputes between a Class Member and the United States concerning the provision of debt relief.

888856.5 5

2. Council on Native American Farming and Ranching. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action to ensure that the USDA creates the Council on Native American Farming and Ranching, as set out in Section XII.A of this Agreement, and limited by FACA, and that USDA schedules Council meetings in accordance with the scheduling provisions set out in
38

B.
888856.5 5

paragraph 5 of Section XII.A. The Court shall have no role in supervising the substance of the Council meetings, the composition of the Council, the outcome of the Council meetings, how USDA responds to Council recommendations, or any administrative or budgetary matters involving the Council.
3. Supplemental Services on Indian Reservations. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action to supervise whether the USDA conducts within the term of the Agreement an internal assessment concerning the subject of whether a consolidated sub-office or sub-office(s) at Tribal headquarters on Indian Reservations are needed and where such suboffice(s) should be placed. The Court shall have no role in supervising the content or quality of the internal assessment, requesting or demanding any actions based upon the recommendations contained in the internal assessment, or in supervising USDA office placement or the delivery of USDA services.
4. Customer’s Guide. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action to supervise whether the USDA releases a customer’s guide on how to apply for farm loan programs and farm loan servicing within the term of the Agreement. The Court shall have no role in supervising the content development or quality of the customer’s guide.
5. Moratorium. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action to supervise whether, pursuant to Section VIII of this Settlement Agreement, the Farm Service Agency issued written or electronic notice to its Finance Office and all Farm Service Agency state and district offices and FSA service centers and to the United States Attorneys’ Offices and/or the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys specifically within thirty (30) days of preliminary approval. The Court shall have no role in supervising the administrative implementation of the moratorium and shall have no role in resolving any disputes between a Class Member and Defendants concerning this issue.
Other than the provisions expressly described above and subject to the limitations agreed upon by the parties above, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over any aspect of this action, or in connection with the enforcement of any of its provisions, after the date of the final approval of this Agreement.
Enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. Before seeking any order by the Court concerning any alleged violation of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement that are enforceable by the Court, the parties must comply with the following procedures:
39

1. The party seeking enforcement of any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement that are enforceable by the Court shall serve on the opposing party a written notice that describes with particularity the term(s) of the Settlement Agreement that are alleged to have been violated, the specific errors or omissions upon which the alleged violation is based, and the corrective action sought. The party alleging the violation shall not inform the Court of the allegation at that time.

2. The parties shall make their best efforts to resolve the matter in dispute without the Court’s involvement. If requested to do so, the party who served the notice shall provide to his opponent any information and materials available to the noticing party that support the violation alleged in the notice. Upon receipt of a notice, the counsel for the parties agree to meet and confer, and otherwise to work with their clients within forty-five (45) days to respond to the allegation (or 60 days to respond to an allegation of non-compliance regarding debt relief). If the opposing party fails to respond to a notice of non-compliance within forty-five (45) days (or 60 days in the case of an allegation of non-compliance regarding debt relief), or the parties otherwise cannot resolve the issue, the party who served the notice of violation pursuant to subparagraph (1), above, may move for enforcement of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement that are enforceable by the Court as early as seventy-five (75) days after the date on which the notice was served (or 90 days after the date on which the notice was served in the case of an allegation of non-compliance regarding debt relief). If, and only if, the plaintiffs prevail in securing enforcement of a contested term of the Agreement over which the Court has retained jurisdiction, the Court may award them reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

XIV. PROCEDURES GOVERNING APPROVAL OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

A. Within five calendar days of the Execution Date, the Plaintiffs shall submit this Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits to the District Court along with a motion for its preliminary approval. The Motion shall specifically request that the Court set a hearing on the Motion and be accompanied by a proposed Preliminary Approval Order, a proposed Settlement Notice, and a proposed Settlement Notice Plan. The Motion shall specifically request that the Court:

888856.5 5

1. Certify the claims for monetary relief, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P. in addition to maintaining the class already certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ.P., for the purpose of allowing the pursuit of declaratory and injunctive relief. Class Counsel and Class Representatives as defined in Sections II.F and II.G of
40

B. C. D.
888856.5 5

this Settlement Agreement, respectively, will be appointed to represent the class in its pursuit of monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3);
2. Grant preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement and its attachments and authorize issuance of the notice attached;
3. Approve the Plaintiffs’ selection of a Notice Administrator, Claims Administrator and Neutrals to perform the duties set forth in this Settlement Agreement within the cost limitations set out in this Settlement Agreement.
4. Approve the Parties’ plan for dissemination of notice of this Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.;
5. Set the Track A Individual Counsel Fee Cap and the Track B Fee Cap;
6. Set a date and procedure by which objections from Class Members must be filed;
7. Set a date for the Fairness Hearing at which time the Court will determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be approved under Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.;
8. Authorize the Secretary to disburse to Class Counsel, for the benefit of the Class, the funds specified in Section VII and order that the expenditure of such funds for purposes of this Settlement Agreement are a proper and consistent use of the funds, and that the Secretary shall not be liable in any other context or proceeding for these funds in the event that the Settlement Agreement becomes void or is voided.
No later than three (3) business days before the Fairness Hearing, the Notice Administrator shall file with the District Court a declaration confirming compliance with the Notice procedures approved by the Court.
At the Fairness Hearing, the Parties will jointly request that the District Court finally approve this Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., and order the items in paragraph A of this Section. The Parties agree to take all actions necessary to obtain approval of this Settlement Agreement.
In the event the Court approves the Settlement Agreement as fair and reasonable to the class as a whole pursuant to Rule 23 (e), Fed. R. Civ. P., the parties will ask the Court to enter the Settlement Agreement in order that it may become effective as of the Final Approval Date.
1. Within three business days of the entry of the order approving the
41

Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs will ask the Court to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Rules 41(a)(1) and 23(e), Fed.. R. Civ. P., except to the extent the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction as set forth in Section XIII above.

XV. ATTORNEYS’ FEES, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS, EXPENSES, AND COSTS
A. As part of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will move the Court to approve the Track B Fee Cap and the Track A Individual Counsel Fee Cap and to set the amount of the Track B Fee Cap and the Track A Individual Counsel Fee Cap, except that the amount of the Track A Individual Counsel Fee Cap shall not exceed 2% of a Track A Claimant’s Final Award and a Track B Fee Cap shall not exceed 8% of a Track B Claimant’s Final Award.
B. Plaintiffs will ask the Court to approve an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel, payable as part of the common fund awarded to the Class, with the understanding that the Plaintiffs may seek, and the Court may award, such attorneys’ fees and costs the total amount of which shall be at least 4% and not more than 8% of $760,000,000. The Secretary reserves the right to respond to the petition for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses that the plaintiffs will file in connection with the settlement. In the event the Secretary files a response, it will do so no earlier than the last date on which any objections from class members are due to be filed with the Court.
C. Subject to the Court’s approval, the parties agree that Class Representative Service Awards, referred to in Section VII, may be awarded. Class Counsel intend to recommend awards in the following amounts:
1. Luke Crasco shall receive $100,000.
2. Gene Cadotte shall receive $100,000.
3. Keith Mandan shall receive $100,000.
4. Porter Holder shall receive $100,000.
5. George Keepseagle shall receive $100,000.
6. Marilyn Keepseagle shall receive $100,000.
7. Claryca Mandan shall receive $200,000.

888856.5 5

42

8. Estate of John Fredericks, Jr. shall receive $75,000.
9. Estate of Basil Alkire shall receive $75,000.
The Secretary reserves the right to comment on the amount of the Service Awards.
The receipt of a Class Representative Service Award shall not affect in any way the Class Member’s award or debt relief under Section IX.E.
Any payments awarded to these Class Representatives shall be subject to approval by the Court, and any modification or reduction of any award sought by such a Class Member shall not affect the validity of the other terms of this Decree.
D. The Court’s determination of the Fee Award, the Track A Fee Cap, and the Track B Fee Cap shall be conclusive, and neither the Class, nor Class Counsel, nor the Secretary shall appeal the decision.
E. The Class Representatives, the Class, and/or Class Counsel may not terminate this Settlement agreement because the Class Representatives, the Class, and/or Class Counsel assert that the amount of the Fee Award, the Track A Individual Counsel Fee Cap, or the Track B Fee Cap is inadequate.
F. The Class Representatives, the Class, and Class Counsel release, acquit, and forever discharge any claim that they may have against the United States for attorney’s fees, expenses, or costs associated with their representation of the Plaintiffs, the Class, or any member of the Class in the Case or under this Settlement Agreement. Furthermore, by accepting any payment in connection with services provided in connection with this Agreement, Individual Counsel release(s), acquit(s), and forever discharge(s) any claims that they may have against the United States for attorney’s fees, expenses or costs associated with their representation of the Plaintiffs, the Class, or any Member of the Class in the Case or under this Settlement Agreement.
G. If a person preparing a claim on a Claimant’s behalf seeks the Claimant’s award as a representative of the Claimant’s estate, Class Counsel and Individual Counsel may, but are not required to, represent that Claimant in any probate proceedings. The fee for such probate work is outside the scope of this Settlement Agreement and is not subject to any limitation on attorney’s fees, expenses, or costs contained within this Settlement Agreement.

888856.5 5

43

XVI. CONDITIONS THAT RENDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT VOID OR VOIDABLE

This Settlement Agreement shall be void if it is disapproved by a final Court order not subject to any further review.

XVII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IF VOIDED

A. Should this Settlement Agreement become void,

1. The Secretary will not object to reinstatement of this action in the same posture and form as it was pending immediately before the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.

2. All negotiations in connection herewith, and all statements made by the Parties at or submitted to the District Court during the Fairness Hearing shall be without prejudice to the Parties to this Settlement Agreement and shall not be deemed or construed to be an admission by a Party of any fact, matter, or proposition.

3. The Secretary retains all defenses, arguments, and motions as to all claims that have been or might later be asserted in the Case, and nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be raised or construed by any Plaintiffs, Claimants, the Class Representatives, the Class, or Class Counsel, to defeat or limit any defenses, arguments, or motions asserted by the Secretary. Neither this Settlement Agreement, nor the fact of its having been made, nor any exhibit or other document prepared in connection with this Settlement Agreement, shall be admissible, entered into evidence, or used in any form or manner in discovery in the Case or in any other action or proceeding for any purpose whatsoever if they are objected to by the Secretary.

888856.5 5

4. With the exception of the Release provided in subsection 5, below, Plaintiffs, Claimants, and Class Members shall retain all rights, claims, causes of action, arguments, and motions as to all claims that have been or might later be asserted in the Case, and nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be raised by the Secretary or the Secretary’s Counsel to defeat or limit any rights, claims, causes of action, arguments, or motions asserted by any Claimants and/or the Class. With the exception of the Release provided in subsection 5, below, neither this Settlement Agreement, nor the fact of its having been made, nor any exhibit or other document prepared in connection with this Settlement Agreement, shall be admissible, entered into evidence, or used in any form or manner in discovery, over the objection of any Plaintiffs, Claimants, and/or the Class in the Case or in any other action or proceeding for any purpose 44

whatsoever.

5. The Plaintiffs hereby RELEASE, WAIVE, ACQUIT, and FOREVER DISCHARGE the United States and the Secretary from, and are hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting, any and all claims, causes of action, or requests for any monetary relief, including, but not limited to, damages, tax payments, debt relief, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, and/or interest that, whether presently known or unknown, related to the funds that the Secretary has paid pursuant to Section VII. Neither the Plaintiffs nor Class Counsel shall be obligated to repay any Implementation Costs paid to them by the Secretary under Sections VII.B, VII.C and/or VII.E.

XVIII. RELEASES

The Class Representatives, the Class, and its Members and their heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns (the “Class Releasors”) hereby RELEASE, WAIVE, ACQUIT, and FOREVER DISCHARGE the United States and the Secretary (the “Government Releasees”) from, and are hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting, any and all claims, causes of action, or requests for any injunctive and/or monetary relief, including, but not limited to, damages, tax payments, debt relief, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, and/or interest, whether presently known or unknown, that have been or could have been asserted in the Case by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of, any matters alleged in the Case that the Class Releasors, or any of them, have against the Government Releasees, or any of them.

XIX. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

A. Neither this Settlement Agreement nor any order approving it is or shall be construed as an admission by the Secretary and/or the United States of the truth of any allegation or the validity of any claim asserted in the Case, or of the liability of the Secretary and/or the United States, nor as a concession or an admission of any fault or omission of any act or failure to act, or of any statement, written document, or report heretofore issued, filed or made by the Secretary and/or the United States, nor shall this Settlement Agreement nor any confidential papers related hereto and created for settlement purposes only, nor any of the terms of either, be offered or received as evidence of discrimination in any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, nor shall they be the subject of any discovery or construed by anyone for any purpose whatsoever as an admission or presumption of any wrongdoing on the part of the Secretary and/or the United States, nor as an admission by any Party to this Settlement Agreement that the consideration to be given hereunder represents the relief which could have been recovered after trial.

888856.5 5

1. The Secretary and the United States deny liability and damages as to each of the claims and requests for damages that were or could have been raised 45

in the Case, and this Settlement Agreement does not constitute, and may not be construed as, a determination or an admission of a violation of any law, rule, regulation, policy, or contract by the Secretary and/or the United States, the truth of any allegation made in the Case, or the validity of any claim asserted in the Case. This Settlement Agreement does not constitute, and may not be construed as, a determination or an admission that the Secretary and/or the United States is liable in this matter, that the Class or any Member is a prevailing party, that the Class or any Member was substantially justified in any claim or position, or that any claim, defense, or position of the United States was substantially unjustified.

2. Neither the determination to pay money nor the payment of money under the Non-Judicial Claims Process shall be deemed to be a finding of fact, conclusion of law, or an admission of liability or damages by the Secretary and/or the United States, and any such determination to pay money or the payment of money under the Non-Judicial Claims Process shall not be admissible in any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, nor shall it be construed by anyone for any purpose whatsoever as an admission or presumption of any wrongdoing on the part of the Secretary and/or the United States, nor as an admission by any Party to this Settlement Agreement that the consideration to be given hereunder represents the relief which could have been recovered after trial.

3. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude the use of this Settlement Agreement to enforce the terms thereof.

XX. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE SECRETARY AND FSA

A. The reports, forms, transmissions, accountings, and documentation that must or may be provided to the Secretary under this Settlement Agreement shall be sent via electronic transmission or overnight delivery to (1) Counsel of Record for the Secretary in the Case, and (2) General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.

B. The reports, forms, transmissions, accountings, documentation, and checks that must or may be provided to FSA under this Settlement Agreement shall be sent via electronic transmission or overnight delivery to Deputy Administrator, Farm Loan Programs U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, STOP 0520.

XXI. INTEGRATION

This Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits constitute the entire agreement of the Parties,

and no prior statement, representation, agreement, or understanding, oral or written, that

is not contained herein, will have any force or effect.

888856.5 5

46

XXII. MODIFICATION

This Settlement Agreement may be modified only with the written agreement of the Parties and with the approval of the District Court, upon such notice to the Class, if any, as the District Court may require.

XXIII. DUTIES CONSISTENT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS

Nothing contained in this Settlement Agreement shall impose on the Secretary any duty, obligation, or requirement, the performance of which would be inconsistent with federal statutes or federal regulations in effect at the time of such performance.

XXIV. DUTY TO DEFEND

The Parties to this Settlement Agreement shall defend against any challenges to it in any forum.

XXV. HEADINGS

The headings in this Settlement Agreement are for the convenience of the Parties only and shall not limit, expand, modify, or aid in the interpretation or construction of this Settlement Agreement.

XXVI. SEVERABILITY

Should any non-material provision of this Settlement Agreement be found by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, then (A) the validity of other provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall not be affected or impaired, and (B) such provisions shall be enforced to the maximum extent possible.

XXVII.

COUNTERPARTS

This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts. All executed counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument.

888856.5 5

47

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GEORGE P. KEEPSEAGLE, et al.,

v. ANN VENEMAN,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 99-03119 (EGS) [17] [127]

FILED
Defendant.
DEC 1 2 2001
NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for class

certification. The Court has considered plaintiffs' motion and

proposed order, defendant•s opposition, and plaintiffs' reply

thereto, all pertinent portions of the record, counsels'

representations at oral argument on July 13, 2001, and the

relevant statutory and case law. Plaintiffs have fulfilled all

the requirements to justify class certification of this action.

Accordingly, on September 28, 2001, the Court granted

plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(b)(2). This Memorandum Opinion and Order sets for the

justification for the Court's September 28, 2001 Order, further

orders plaintiffs to file a proposed order outlining appropriate

sub-classes in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion, and

denies defendant's motion for a stay of the Court's September

28, 2001 Order.

Introduction Plaintiffs and the class of Native American farmers and ranchers (hereinafter "farmer(s)") that they seek to represent applied for United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") farm loan and benefit programs between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999. Eight hundred and thirty-eight (838) plaintiffs named in the Fifth Amended Complaint, and the members of plaintiffs' proposed class, make two common claims: (1) USDA discriminated against them on the basis of race in processing their farm program applications; and (2) USDA did not investigate complaints of discrimination. See Pls.' Mot. for Class Cert. at 92. According to the plaintiffs and class members, the USDA discriminated against them by, inter alia, denying them access to the programs or treating them less favorably than non-Native American farmers in processing their applications, servicing loans, and/or administering benefits. See Fifth Am. Compl. at 108-109. The plaintiffs and class members also allege that they complained of this discrimination to USDA, but that USDA failed to properly process and investigate their complaints. See id. The plaintiffs and class members allege that USDA's discrimination against them in the administration of farm loan and benefits programs violates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1691e, the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),
2

and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI"), 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the discrimination in USDA's processing of credit applications and its failure to investigate is a violation of ECOA, and that discrimination in the department's processing of applications for non-credit programs and its failure to investigate such discrimination is a violation of the APA. Pls.' Reply at 7.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Pursuant to the ECOA, plaintiffs request damages and injunctive relief. See Fifth Am. Compl. at 85. Under the APA, plaintiffs pray for "appropriate relief," "including (1) compensation to plaintiffs and Class members for there having been no proper investigation of their complaints, and (2) specific performance with respect to their program benefits." Id. at 86. Plaintiffs also request "appropriate relief" under Title VI, including equitable performance and specific performance of program benefits. Finally, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, plaintiffs request declaratory judgment as to plaintiffs' and class members' "rights under [USDA's] farm programs including their right to equal credit, equal participation in farm programs, and their right to full and timely enforcement of racial discrimination complaints" under the APA. Id. at 84-85.
3

I.BACKGROUND A. USDA's Farm Programs and Determination Process
USDA administers a variety of farm credit and benefit programs. Until 1994, USDA divided its administration of these programs between the Farmers Home Administration ("FmHA") (credit programs) and the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service ("ASCS") (non-credit programs). In 1994, USDA consolidated these programs into the Farm Service Agency ("FSA").
A farmer seeking a farm credit or benefit is required to submit an application pursuant to USDA program policies. The local county committee and USDA staff and officials determine initially if the farmer is eligible for the program, and USDA staff ultimately grants or denies the application. See generally 7 C.F.R. §§ 1910.5, 1910.4(g), 1941.30, 1943.30 (2001). B. USDA's Civil Rights Enforcement Structure and Procedure
Any farmer who believes that USDA denied his or her application for a program loan or benefit on the basis of race, or some other prohibited basis, has the option of filing a civil rights complaint with the Secretary of USDA and/or with the USDA office charged with investigating civil rights violations. From January 1, 1981, through November 24, 1999, a number of USDA offices were involved with civil rights investigations, including, inter alia, the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and Adjudication ("OCREA"). In
4

processing these civil rights complaints, OCREA and the appropriate USDA agency were required to pursue conciliation, perform a preliminary inquiry, and make a final discrimination determination. If the farmer was dissatisfied with the final discrimination determination, the farmer was permitted to sue in federal court under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1691e. See Pigford v. Glickman, 82 F.R.D. 341, 342-344 (D.D.C. 1997). C. Failings of USDA's Civil Rights Enforcement Unit
The plaintiffs and class members allege that USDA dismantled its civil rights enforcement unit in 1983 and has not investigated discrimination complaints since that time. Plaintiffs and class members contend that USDA, in two internal reports, admitted its failure to account for and to investigate these discrimination complaints. See Civil Rights Action Team, United States Department of Agriculture, Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture (1997) (the "CRAT Report"); Office of Inspector General, U. S. Department of Agriculture Evaluation Report for the Secretary on Civil Rights - Phase I Report No. 50801-2-Hq(1) (1997)("OIG Report").
In the CRAT Report, USDA concluded that "[m]inority farmers have lost significant amounts of land and potential farm income as a result of discrimination by FSA programs and the programs of its predecessor agencies, ASCS and
5

FmHA." CRAT Report at 30. The report found that "[t]he process for resolving complaints has failed." Id. at 31. USDA also noted that disparities existed between "non minority loan processing and American Indian loan processing." Id. at 21.
In the OIG Report, USDA found that a significant number of USDA discrimination complaints filed were not processed, investigated or resolved. See OIG Report at 6. USDA concluded that the "program discrimination complaint process at FSA lacks integrity, direction and accountability," and that OCREA "does not have controls in place to monitor and track discrimination complaints." Id. at 9. In March 2000, USDA's Office of Inspector General issued a supplemental report finding that USDA had not made any significant changes in its system of processing discrimination complaints. See Office of Inspector General Audit Report, Office of Civil Rights Status of Implementation of Recommendations Made in Prior Evaluations of Program Complaints, Audit Report 60801-4-Hq, at i. (Mar. 2000). D. Previous litigation involving requests for class
certification by minority farmers alleging discrimination by USDA Two cases involving claims by minority farmers against USDA have already been reviewed by judges of this Court. In Williams v. Glickman, Judge Flannery denied certification to a proposed class of African American and Hispanic American
6

farmers. Memo. Op., Civil Action No. 95-1149 (Feb. 14,
1997). In Williams, the plaintiffs proposed a class of:
All African American or Hispanic American persons who, between 1981 and the present, have suffered from racial or national origin discrimination in the application for or the servicing of loans or credit from the FmHA (now Farm Services Agency) of the USDA, which has caused them to sustain economic loss and/or mental anguish/emotion [sic] distress damages.
Id. at 7.
Judge Flannery held that the class was not readily
ascertainable because the initial determination of who
qualified as a class member would require an individualized
inquiry. Id. at 8. In addition, the court found that the
class did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
because the class was overbroad and did not meet the
standards of commonality and typicality.
In a subsequent case, Pigford v. Glickman, Judge
Friedman certified a class of African American farmers. 182
F.R.D. 341 (D.D.C. 1998). In Pigford, the court first
certified a class for purposes of a liability determination.
Id. at 351. This class included:
All African-American farmers who (1) farmed between January 1, 1983, and February 21, 1997; and (2) applied, during that time period, for participation in a federal farm program with USDA, and as a direct response to said application, believed that they were discriminated against on the basis of race, and filed a written discrimination complaint with USDA in that time period.
Id. at 345. The court distinguished this class from that in
Williams by finding that the "parameters of the proposed
7

class ... are sufficiently clear to make the proposed class administratively manageable." Id. at 346. The parties in Pigford subsequently settled the case. See Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999). The Court is mindful of these cases in reviewing the instant motion for class certification, in particular because defendant relies extensively on Williams, and plaintiffs rely on Pigford.2

II. PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs request that the Court certify this case

as a class action because USDA's failure to properly process,

account for, and/or investigate their complaints of racial

discrimination presents common questions of law and fact. See

Pl.'s Mot. for Class Cert. at 29-31. Plaintiffs also assert

that USDA's alleged discrimination in denying them

1

The court, in approving the parties' Consent Decree, also approved a revised

class definition presented in the decree:

All African American farmers who (1) farmed, or attempted to farm, between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996; (2) applied to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) during that time period for participation in a federal farm credit or benefit program and who believed that they were discriminated against on the basis of race in USDA's response to that application; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint on or before July 1, 1997, regarding USDA's treatment of such farm credit or benefit application.

Pigford, 185 F.R.D. at 92; see also id. at 93 ("None of the substantive changes to the class definition in any way affects the Court's analysis or conclusion that the case properly is certified as a class action.").

2

The Court notes that two additional related cases have been filed

with this Court since the plaintiffs initiated the instant action. In

Love v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 00-02502, plaintiffs are women and

disabled farmers; in Garcia v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 00-02445,

plaintiffs are Latino farmers. The Court has no reason to address these

cases, but notes that there have been no rulings on the issue of class

certification in these cases.

8

access to farm loans and benefits programs and/or treating
them less favorably than non-Native-American farmers presents
common questions of law and fact. Id. Plaintiffs maintain
that class certification is in the best interest of justice
because it will facilitate the efficient enforcement of
rights and will conserve judicial resources by enabling the
plaintiffs to establish USDA's discrimination on a systemic
basis. See Pls.' Proposed Order at 4. Plaintiffs propose a
class defined as:
All Native-American farmers and ranchers who believe that USDA discriminated against them on account of their race in their applications for, or USDA's administration of, USDA farm programs between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999, and who complained of that discrimination to the USDA, individually or through a representative.3
Id. Plaintiffs further propose four subclasses, depending on
whether the applicant had complained orally or in writing,
and whether the complaint is on file with USDA. Id.
3 This is plaintiffs' proposed class definition as found in their proposed order. In Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class and in their Reply, the plaintiffs defined the proposed class as:
All Native American participants in FSA's farm programs who petitioned USDA at any time between January 1, 1981, and November 24, 1999, for relief from acts of racial discrimination visited on them as they tried to participate in such farm programs and who, because of the failings in the USDA civil rights complaint processing system, were denied equal protection under the laws of the United States and deprived of due process in the handling of their discrimination complaints. Pls.' Motion at 5-6; Pls.' Reply, at 5-6.
9

Plaintiffs present seven proposed class representatives.4

All the proposed class representatives are farmers or

ranchers. The representatives include members of four

different tribes, who reside in three different reservations.

See Pls.' Mot. for Class Cert. at 7, 10, 15, 18, 21; Pls.'

Fifth Am. Compl. at 127. Plaintiffs have not categorized the

proposed representatives' claims. However, it appears that at

least five proposed class representatives allege

discrimination in the processing of loan applications. All the

proposed class representatives who are described in

plaintiffs' motion allege that they have "timely filed, either

directly or through [their] Tribal Council, complaints to the

defendant regarding these acts of discrimination." See Pls.'

Mot. for Class Cert. at 9-10, 15, 18, 20-21, 23.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Existence of the Class

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs

any discussion of class certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

While Rule 23 does not formally require plaintiffs to prove

the existence of a class, some courts have found that "this is

a common-sense requirement and ... routinely require it."

________________________

4

Plaintiffs' motion presents five proposed class representatives:

George B. Keepseagle; Gene Cadotte; Luther Crackos; John Fredericks; and

Basil Alkire. Pls.' Motion for Class Cert. at 7-23. However, in

plaintiffs' proposed order, they mention seven "lead plaintiffs" who are

"representative of the class." Pls.' Proposed Order at 8. Presumably,

plaintiffs are including as named representatives Keith and Claryca

Mandan, whose claims are outlined in plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Class

Action Complaint. Pls.' Fifth Am. Compl. at 127-30.

10

Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341, 346 (D.D.C. 1998); see Lewis v. National Football League, 146 F.R.D. 5, 8 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 669 (7th Cir. 1981) ("it is axiomatic that for a class action to be certified a `class’ must exist"). Neither the D.C. Circuit nor the Supreme Court has engaged in this additional step of the class certification analysis. See, e.g., Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613-14, 117 S. Ct. 2231 (1997); General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160-61, 102 S. Ct. 2364 (1982) (reviewing only the prerequisites set out in Rule 23(a)); Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87, 92 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (listing prerequisites for a class action). Nevertheless, the Court is persuaded that some initial review of the proposed class is appropriate to ascertain whether "the general outlines of the membership of the class are determinable at the outset of litigation." Pigford, 182 F.R.D. at 346. This inquiry is one concerned with the court's ability to clearly identify and manage the class, and thus does not involve a "particularly stringent test." Id.
Defendant argues that the proposed class is not readily ascertainable because, like the class proposed in Williams, it will require individualized inquiries into class members' allegations of discrimination. Def.'s Opp'n at 30. The Williams court held that "[b]ecause the Court must answer
11

numerous fact-intensive questions before determining if an

individual may join the class, the proposed class is not

clearly defined." Memo. Op., Civil Action No. 95-1149, at 9

(Feb. 14, 1997). Williams further held that the proposed

class was "overly broad" because it was "not limited to any

specific policy or practice which is alleged to be

discriminatory; instead, the class purports to include those

black and Hispanic farmers who have suffered from any type of

discrimination in their dealings with the FmHA." Id.

Defendant contends that "[t]o the extent that plaintiffs'

proposed class definition is read to encompass their

individual damage claims under ECOA of discrimination in farm

programs administered by USDA, the class is uncertifiable

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23." Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Proposed

Order at 5. The defendant erroneously reads Williams to mean

that "individual damages claims" under ECOA "inherently lack

the commonality" necessary under Rule 23. Id. (citing Mem. Op.

of Feb. 14, 1997, Williams, at 15)). This is an overly broad

reading of Williams because Williams concerned a class that

encompassed any and all forms of discrimination in connection

with processing and servicing of loans. Thus, in order to

determine whether an individual fit within the class, the

court needed to decide the merits of the individual's

discrimination claim.5 Here, as in

5

The Court does not suggest that classes that encompass a variety of

forms of discrimination may never be certified. See Eubanks v.

Billington, 110 F.3d 87, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("Title VII and other civil

rights actions are frequently certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)");

12

Pigford, by limiting the class to plaintiffs who have filed discrimination complaints concerning alleged discrimination in USDA's administration and processing of their applications, the plaintiffs' proposed class has clearly defined parameters.
1. Class Definition The Court sua sponte modifies the proposed class in two ways for clarity and ease of administration. See Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley, Inc. v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1543 n.44 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc) (Spottswood, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (noting that "[f]ederal courts possess ample authority to redefine the class to bring it within acceptable limits," and gathering cases); see also Barney v. Holzer Clinic, Ltd., 110 F.3d 1207, 1213-14 (6th Cir. 1997)(court of appeals sua sponte narrowing class definition and limiting judgment accordingly). First, the Court removes the requirement that members must "believe" that they have experienced discrimination. Plaintiffs' proposed class definition tracks the language of the Pigford class, where the court sua sponte replaced the provision that class members have experienced discrimination with a condition that class members believe that they have experienced discrimination. 182 F.R.D. at 347. In this
_________________________ Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997) (certifying class of children injured by broad range of deficiencies in child welfare services).
13

manner, the court avoided a need to make any initial finding of discrimination in order to determine class membership. However, in the instant matter, plaintiffs propose a class that will be limited to individuals who have complained of discrimination. Thus, the requirement that class members believe that they have experienced discrimination is likely to be superfluous. Furthermore, the Court is apprehensive that such a "belief" requirement will lead to uncertain boundaries of the class. The Court concludes that the limitation imposed by the "complaint" requirement is fully sufficient to permit the Court to identify the class and its members.
Second, the Court follows Pigford's lead in imposing
concrete time periods on the time that class members farmed, the time during which they applied to USDA for participation in a federal farm program, and in which they filed a discrimination complaint with USDA. The plaintiffs' proposed class limits only the time period of participation in a USDA program from January 1, 1981 through November 24, 1999.
This Court, therefore, reviews the following class under Rule 23's requirements for certification:
All Native-American farmers and ranchers, who (1) farmed or ranched between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; (2) applied to the USDA for participation in a farm program during that time period; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA individually or through a representative during the time period.
14

2. In Considering the Motion for Class Certification, the Court Does Not Evaluate the Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims
Defendant argues that plaintiffs' proposed class definition will not entitle them to money damages and that, therefore, the Court should not certify the class. See Def.'s Opp'n to Proposed Order at 5. Specifically, defendant contends that the APA does not permit monetary damages and that the plaintiffs' class, or a part of it, will be barred by the statute of limitations from seeking monetary damages pursuant to ECOA. Id. at 5, 16. In determining whether to certify a class, the Court should not examine the underlying merits of the claims. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78 (1974). The Supreme Court noted in Eisen that, "in determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the ... plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met." Id. at 178.
Defendant notes that plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. The proposed class encompasses members who allege discrimination that occurred between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999. In 1999, Congress passed legislation tolling the statute of limitations for complaints of discrimination against USDA. See Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
15

1999, Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 741, 112 Stat. 2681 (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2297, Notes). The legislation requires that, in order for the statute of limitations to toll, a farmer must have filed his complaint of discrimination with USDA before July 1, 1997. Defendant argues that members of the proposed class will not benefit from this waiver.
In Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, the court recognized that, while the "class action mechanism cannot be used to resurrect stale claims," a "resolution of a statute of limitations issue at the class certification stage would impermissibly intrude upon the merits" of the class representative's claim. 189 F.R.D. 174, 177-78 (D.D.C. 1999). In the course of the Pigford litigation, the court revised the definition of the already certified class in order to reflect the new legislation. 185 F.R.D. at 93. The 1999 legislation may seem sufficiently clear so as to allow this Court to make similar modifications to the class. However, the plaintiff's proposed class includes farmers who have made both "written" and "oral" complaints, a factor which may trigger different statutes of limitations. See Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Proposed Order at 16-17. Thus, it would be impermissible for this Court to revise the definition of the class so as to effectively rule on the merits of class representatives' claims.
Defendant further argues that farmers who have "filed" orally, or whose complaints are not on file with USDA, are
16

not properly included in the class. Plaintiffs' proposed class

would include all Native American farmers and ranchers who

have lodged complaints, in writing or orally, with USDA,

including those on file with USDA and those not on file.6

Individuals who made oral complaints, or whose complaints are

not on file with USDA, may have a more difficult time

succeeding on the merits of their claims. Obviously, an oral

complaint, or one not on file, may also raise different

questions of proof. Nevertheless, individuals making such

complaints are clearly within the proposed class definition,

and any further consideration of defendant's objection would

constitute consideration of the merits. See Eisen, 417 U.S. at

177-78 (1974). Withholding judgment as to whether all class

members are ultimately entitled to relief, the Court finds

that a class including individuals who have filed both oral

and written complaints individually or through a

representative is clearly identifiable.

B. Rule 23(a)

The four prerequisites of Rule 23 (a) require plaintiffs

to demonstrate that:

__________________

6

Given plaintiffs' allegations, it is clear why they seek to include

both written and oral complaints, whether or not they are on file at

USDA. The CRAT Report described the USDA record-keeping of discrimination complaints as "virtually nonexistent." CRAT Report, at 24. Furthermore, the OIG Report further found that there was no

reliable method of processing complaints, was a large backlog of unresolved cases, files could not be located and were "generally disorganized." OIG Report, at 7. The OIG Report also suggests that USDA may have

destroyed some complaints. Id. at 1. Thus, plaintiffs who have filed complaints, or complained in meetings with USDA officials may not have such complaints "on file" with USDA.

17

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); see also General Tel. Co. v. Falcone,

457 U.S. 147, 156, 102 S. Ct. 2364 (1982).

1. Numerosity

Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint identifies 838 Native-

American farmers from more than a dozen states throughout the

United States. See Pls.' Fifth Am. Compl. at 108. Based on farm

census data and discussions with representatives from the

Native-American community, plaintiffs estimate that the class

may approach 19,000 members. Pls.' Mot. at 28. Defendant

counters that plaintiffs' estimate of 19,000 members is based

on "mere belief." Def.'s Opp'n at 33. However, the current

number of plaintiffs fitting the class definition,

approximately 814,7 is sufficient to meet the numerosity

requirement. See Pigford, 182 F.R.D. at 347-48 ("Plaintiffs

have provided the names of four hundred and one named

plaintiffs who they claim fall within the class definition.

That alone is sufficient to establish numerosity, especially

when the class members are located in different states."); see

also Coleman v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 196 F.R.D. 193,

_____________________

7

Plaintiffs have represented that they will remove 24 currently named

plaintiffs, who did not complain of discrimination to USDA. Therefore, the current

number of class members is presumably 814.

18

198 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the numerosity requirement is satisfied where it is clear that joinder would be impracticable).
2. Commonality Plaintiffs have established that common questions of law and fact predominate the determination of liability. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2); Falcon, 457 U.S. at 159 n.15. The primary concern in assessing the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23 (a) is to ensure that "maintenance of a class action is economical and [that] the named plaintiff's claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence." Falcon; 457 U.S. at 157 n.13 (noting that the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge). "The commonality test is met where there is at least one issue, the resolution of which will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members." Lightbourne v. County of E1 Paso, 118 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir. 1997). The existence of factual distinctions differences between the claims of putative class members will not preclude a finding of typicality. See Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1279 n.14 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, USDA's alleged failure to properly process, account for, and/or investigate discrimination complaints affected each
19

class member. The plaintiffs assert three common factual and legal issues arising from that failure:
1. Did the USDA have a legal obligation to process and investigate complaints of discrimination it received?
2. If the USDA had such a duty, was there a systemic failure properly to process complaints in the specified time period?
3. If there was such a systemic failure, do plaintiffs have a private cause of action against the USDA?
Common questions of law and fact are also present in the issues involving USDA’s alleged discrimination in denying the Native-American farmers access to farm loan and benefits programs or treating them less favorably than non-NativeAmerican farmers.
The Pigford court identified common issues almost identical to those presented by plaintiffs. 182 F.R.D. at 348. In contrast, in Williams, the court held that a “common thread of discrimination” did not satisfy the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate the existence of a common legal question. Williams, Me. Op. Of Feb. 14, 1997, at 13 (citing Hartman v. Duffey, 19 F.3d 1459, 1472 (d.c. Cir. 1994) for the proposition that “there is more to a showing of commonality than a demonstration that the class plaintiffs suffered discrimination on the basis of membership in a particular group”). However, plaintiffs need only show a “common thread” underlying the legal issues presented; here, they have alleged the existence of a
20

"unifying pattern of discrimination," which gives rise to their legal claims. Pigford, 182 F.R.D. at 348.
In Marisol A. v. Giuliani, the Second Circuit noted that plaintiffs challenged a variety of aspects of the child welfare system in New York. 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997). The claimed deficiencies ranged from allegations of inadequate training, to failure to investigate reported abuse, to failure to secure adoption placements. Id. The court noted that plaintiffs' claims "implicat[ed] different statutory, constitutional and regulatory schemes." Id. at 377. The district court identified as a common issue of law "whether each child has a legal entitlement to the services of which that child is being deprived ...." Id. On appeal, defendants argued that the district court erred "by conceptualizing the common legal and factual questions at this high level of abstraction." Id. While the Second Circuit held that the creation of subclasses was necessary for efficient management of the class, it affirmed the district court's certification of the class. Id. The Court of Appeals noted that plaintiffs had alleged that their injuries derived from "a unitary course of conduct by a single system," and that the plaintiffs' claims were not so unrelated to one another that class certification was inappropriate. Id.
Plaintiffs' claims are less varied than those presented by the Marisol A. plaintiffs. While it is true that
21

plaintiffs allege a variety of forms of racial discrimination by USDA, the alleged absence of a functioning, effective mechanism for investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination against Native American farmers exacerbates and prolongs any discrimination in the administration of USDA programs. It is clear that the systematic failure to process complaints of discrimination is a unifying characteristic of the class and raises common questions of fact and law.8 3. Typicality
Typicality focuses on the similarity of the legal and remedial theories behind the claims of named representatives and those of the putative class. See Prado-Steiman, 221 F.3d at 1278 n.14. Plaintiffs satisfy typicality if "each class member's claim arises from the same course of events that led to the claims of the representative parties and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability." Baby Neal for and by Kanter v.

8

Defendant’s argument that the court should not certify the class because the

commonality of claims alleged is a “sham” is without merit. See Def.’s Opp’n at 39.

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs have no genuine interest in pursuing claims concerning

the inadequacies of the complaint processing mechanism at USDA. She argues that they seek

class certification on these issues in order to encourage a settlement, an objective that

is misguided because defendant asserts she has no interest in settling plaintiffs' claims.

Id.; Def.'s Opp'n to Proposed Order at 18. Whether plaintiffs have hopes of settlement and

whether defendants are inclined to settle are issues irrelevant to this Court's

consideration of whether plaintiffs have met the requirements for class certification.

Furthermore, even if settlement were a possibility for the parties, the Supreme Court has

cautioned that courts should give "undiluted, even heightened, attention" to class

certification specifications in the context of settlement." Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-20.

The Court also notes that plaintiffs have continued to file Amended Complaints, all of

which include the claim that the system for processing discrimination complaints was

discriminatory, thus supporting a finding that they have not abandoned this claim.

22

Casey, 43 F. 3d 48, 58 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Pigford, 182 F.R.D. at 349.
Plaintiffs' claims arise from the alleged dismantling of USDA's civil rights office, and the conduct of USDA in failing to process complaints of discrimination brought to its attention by the class members. The same course of events were at issue in Pigford, where the court found that plaintiffs' claims were typical. 182 F.R.D. at 349. The allegations set forth by the proposed class representatives clearly fulfill the typicality requirement, as they arise out of the same alleged events and conduct, namely the systematic failure of any mechanism for processing discrimination complaints at USDA.
4. Fair and Adequate Representation Plaintiffs' proposed class meets the fourth prong of Rule 23(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4) . Adequacy of representation refers to both legal counsel and class representatives. This, "the named representative must not have antagonistic or conflicting interests with the unnamed members of the class," and "the representative must appear able to vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel." Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 575 (D.C..Cir. 1997), citing Nat'l Ass'n of Regional Medical Programs, Inc. v. Mathews, 551 F.2d 340, 345 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
23

The proposed class representatives are able to "fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a)(4). In Pigford, the court held that the breadth
of situations and interests presented by the over four hundred
named plaintiffs was an assurance that all class members'
interests would be fairly represented. See Pigford, 182 F.R.D.
at 350. With more than 800 named plaintiffs, plaintiffs'
claims encompass a breadth of issues. However, Rule 23(a)(4)
is concerned with the named representatives, and here
plaintiffs have proposed seven representatives. Plaintiffs
assert that the claims of the lead plaintiffs are
representative of the class. Pls.'. Proposed Order at 8.
Specifically, plaintiffs claim:
[A]s to all plaintiffs in this case, the allegations are similar, if not identical, to the allegations and causes of actions of the first five plaintiffs. Simply put, each and every plaintiff/class representative was denied a loan or program benefit or was denied a loan or program benefit on terms similar to those offered to white farmers, or was paid too late to properly farm, or was not given any assistance in the completion of FmHA forms/applications; and then each plaintiff complained on grounds of discrimination, but such discrimination complaint was never resolved pursuant to the law; and all of these events occurred during the period 1981-1999.
Pls.' Motion at 23. The Court does not have before it the
factual allegations of all plaintiffs. Nevertheless, after a
review of the 357 short questionnaires provided by plaintiffs,
Exhibits 8-9, Pls.' Reply, and the allegations of the seven
proposed class representatives contained in plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, the Court finds
24

that the proposed representatives present a broad range of alleged discrimination. The Court finds no disparity of interest between the representatives and the class as a whole.
The proposed class representatives have also demonstrated that they are able to actively prosecute the interests of the class through competent counsel. The D.C. Circuit has held that counsel's failure to communicate with class members may constitute inadequate representation. Twelve John Does, 117 F.3d at 576-77 (class dissenters alleged that class counsel was out of touch with class members). There have been no allegations of inadequate consultation in the instant case. Defendant asks the Court to consider counsel's other cases and concerns about quality of representation raised in those cases. The Court, however, finds no fault with plaintiffs' counsel in the instant matter, and will not engage in the speculation about potential future problems urged by defendant. In fact, the Court notes that lead counsel in this action, Alexander J. Pires, Jr. and Philip L. Fraas, successfully prosecuted Pigford v. Glickman, obtaining a settlement for class members that resulted in approximately $1 billion in damages and debt forgiveness to class members. Joining Mr. Pires and Mr. Fraas as of counsel are also several other distinguished attorneys. The Court concludes that
25

plaintiffs’ counsel is fully able to fairly and adequately
represent the class in this matter.
C. Subclasses
The plaintiffs request that the Court approve four
subclasses, defined as follows:
1. Native-American farmers and ranchers who complained of USDC’s discrimination to USDA orally and whose discrimination complaint is on file with USDA;
2. Native-American farmers and ranchers who complained of USDA’s discrimination to USDA in writing and whose discrimination complaint is on file with USDA;
3. Native-American farmers and ranchers who complained of USDA’s discrimination to USDA orally and whose discrimination complaint is not on file with USDA; and
4. Native-American farmers and ranchers who complained of USDA’s discrimination to USDA in writing and whose discrimination complaint is not on file with USDA.
Pls.’ Proposed Order at 4-5.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) requires the court to treat
each subclass as a separate class and determine whether it
independently meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4); see also 7B Charles A. Wright,
Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil § 1790 (1986). The class representatives
must also have standing in their own right to bring the
claims of any identified subclasses. See Prado-Steiman, 221
F.3d at 1280.
26

As attachments to their Reply Brief, plaintiffs include questionnaires showing the type of complaints made by named plaintiffs' concerning race discrimination by USDA. Pls.` Reply at 32. According to the plaintiffs, the questionnaires demonstrate that 64 plaintiffs made written complaints to USDA, 191 made oral complaints to USDA, and 78 complained to their Tribal Council." Presumably, plaintiffs intend the complaints to the Tribal Council to constitute complaints relayed to USDA through a "representative." However, it is unclear how many, if any, complaints fit into each of the four proposed sub-classes. For example: are any of the complaints "on file"; are the complaints presented through the Tribal Council written or oral complaints? Thus, the Court can not determine whether each of the sub-classes individually meets the numerosity requirements of Rule 23(a).
Further, class representatives are not identified for each of the sub-classes. "[A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury' as the class members." East Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S. Ct. 1891 (1977), quoted in Amchem, 521 U.S. at 625-26

9

Exhibits 8 and 9 of Pls.' Reply are questionnaires completed by

plaintiffs named in the Second Amended complaint and additional

plaintiffs. At the time of this order, the plaintiffs have filed a

Fifth Amended Complaint, joining several more plaintiffs.

10

An additional 24 plaintiffs did not complain of discrimination;

plaintiffs represent that these individuals will be removed as plaintiffs.

PIS.' Reply at 32 n.7.

27

(internal citations omitted). Without identified sub-class representatives, it is unclear to the Court how plaintiffs hope to demonstrate adequate representation pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4). The Court’s study of the questionnaires proffered by plaintiffs reveals that only one proposed representative, Gene Cardotte, completed a questionnaire, wherein he indicates that he had filed a written complaint with USDA. In addition, Keith and Claryca Mandan, proposed class representatives whose claims are outlined in the Fifth Amended Complaint but not in the Motion for Class Certification, allege that they complained to various USDA officials. See Pls.’ Fifth Am. Compl. At 130. The remaining four proposed class representatives simply allege that they complained, in writing or orally, individually or through a representative.
Plaintiffs have offered nothing that demonstrates to this Court which proposed class representatives are in a position to represent the four proposed sub-classes. Thus, plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the sub-classes are adequately represented, and the sub-classes fail to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a).
Furthermore, while it is clear that each of the named representatives has standing to bring the claims raised by the class, this Court can not ascertain whether the named representatives have standing to raise the claims of the proposed subclasses. See Prado-Steiman, 221 F.3d at 1280
28

(remanding case to the district court, directing it to identify “at least one named representative of each class or subclass,” who had standing for the claim of the class or subclass).
The Court, however, finds that sub-classes are necessary for the administration of this class. In Amchem Products v. Windsor, the Supreme Court found that the absence of subclasses in a class of individuals exposed to asbestos resulted in “no structural assurance of a fair and adequate representation for the diverse groups and individuals affected.” 521 U.S. at 626; see also Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 859 n. 33, 119 S. Ct. 2295 (1999) (holding that a conflict between sub-classes made a class untenable, but not reaching the question of whether “properly represented subclasses” would have resolved the conflicts).
The proposed subclasses should be clearly defined, administratively feasible, and facilitate discovery, mediation and trial. See Pigford, 182 F.R.D. at 346 (citing Marisol A. v. Guiliani, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997)). This Court is convinced that, with over 800 named plaintiffs, sub-classes are essential to an organized, efficient and fair hearing of class members’ claims. However, the current sub-classes do not independently meet the requirements of Rule 23, as outlined above. The Court, therefore, orders plaintiffs to define sub-classes that meet the prerequisites
29

Of Rule 23(a), and to identify sub-class representatives with standing to bring the claims of each sub-class. D. The Rule 23(b) Requirements
The Court finds that plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).
1. Rule 23(b)(2) Rule 23(b)(2) provides that a class may be certified where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on rounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). As described above, plaintiffs contend that the defendant, by allegedly failing to enforce the civil rights laws, acted on grounds applicable to the whole class because the civil rights laws apply to each class member. See Eubanks, 110 F.3d at 92 (“Although the defining characteristic of the (b)(2) class is that it seeks declaratory or injunctive relief applicable to the class as a whole, it is not uncommon in employment discrimination cases for the class also to seek monetary relief, at least where the monetary relief does not predominate.”). Plaintiffs seek to remedy USDA’s alleged racial discrimination through injunctive and declaratory relief, as contemplated by Rule 23(b)(2). The plaintiffs and class members request:
30

Declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Injunctive and declaratory relief under the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691e (a)&(d);
Equitable relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. C. § 706 (2) (A); and
Equitable relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq.
See Fifth Am. Compl. at 11 150-64. Should plaintiffs and class members prove their
allegations, a declaration that USDA discriminated on a classwide basis against Native-American farmers in the administration of USDA's farm programs and suitable injunctive relief would be proper. Plaintiffs point to the injunctive relief that African-American farmers obtained through a consent decree in Pigford, which included "priority status for lending, an affirmative bar against further discrimination, and the creation of the Office of the Monitor to oversee that the Consent Decree is properly executed." See Pigford Consent Decree at 19-20. In the instant matter, plaintiffs seek to give Native-American farmers the benefits of such injunctive relief and "any additional measures needed to ensure" the eradication of discrimination against Native Americans in the application/processing procedures at USDA. See Marisol A., 126 F.3d at 378 (finding that, although children in New York's welfare system had suffered different harms requiring
31

individual remedies, the system’s deficiencies stemmed from

central failures, and a 23(b)(2) class was appropriate).

Rule 23(b)(2) may not be invoked, however, where “the

appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly

to money damages.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), Adv. Comm. Note

(1966). Where monetary damages are incidental to a claim for

injunctive relief, certification pursuant to subsection (b)(2)

may be appropriate. See Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d

1000, 1003 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

In Pigford, Judge Friedman held that injunctive relief

predominated plaintiffs’ claims, even though they also sought

substantial damages. 182 F.R.D. at 351. However, the Pigford

class was certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) for purposes of

“liability,” with the court reserving the issue of damages for

a later time.

Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief

may clearly be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).11 Plaintiffs

allege that USDA has failed to provide a mechanism for

processing discrimination claims, essentially leaving

plaintiffs with no remedy for perceived discriminatory conduct

by USDA. The Court certifies the

____________________

11

Plaintiffs bring claims under the ECOA, Title VI and the APA, and seek

declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief. The Fifth Circuit has held that a

class should be certified on a claim-by-claim basis. See Bertulli v. Independent Ass’n of Continental Pilots, 242 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir. 2001) (reviewing RLA and

LMRDA claims independently under Rule 23's requirements for certifications).

While not adopting the Fifth Circuit’s approach, the Court notes that the hybrid

approach outlined in Eubanks may allow for a class to qualify for injunctive

relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and for damages under Rule 23(b)(3), thus

suggesting that certification of a class may limit the class to a type of remedy.

32

Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) for purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief.
2. The Possibility of Certification as a Hybrid Class Plaintiffs urge the Court to certify their class as a “hybrid” class. In Eubanks v. Billington, the D.C. Circuit noted that “variations in individual class members’ monetary claims may lead to divergences of interest that make unitary representation of a class problematic in the damages phase.” 110 F.3d at 95. The D.C. Circuit described a situation where a court has concluded “that the assumption of cohesiveness for purposes of injunctive relief that justifies certification as a (b)(2)b class is unjustified as to claims that individual class members may have for monetary damages.” 110 F.3d at 96. The Circuit held that, in light of such a finding, a district court may adopt a hybrid approach and certify “a (b)(2) class as to the claims for declaratory or injunctive relief, and a (b)(3) class as to the claims for monetary relief, effectively granting (b)(3) protections including the right to opt out to class members at the monetary relief stage.” Id.; see also Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“conclud[ing] that Amchem did not affect [the court’s] holding in Eubanks”). Before certification of a hybrid class is appropriate, the district court must find that the assumption of cohesiveness underlying a Rule 23(b)(2) class action does
33

Not apply to the individual claims for monetary damages.

Thomas, 139 F.3d at 236-37. Furthermore, a hybrid class

action must meet the requirements of both subsections (b)(2)

and (b)(3). See id. at 234; Eubanks, 110 F.3d at 96; see

also Thomas v. Powell, 247 F.3d 260, 265 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

(“By finding that a hybrid class action was unjustified, we

necessarily found that the claims did not meet (b)(3)’s

criteria for an opt out class action.”).

In Pigford, the court concluded that a “hybrid” approach

might be appropriate,12 and that, following a determination of

liability pursuant to a Rule 23(b)(2) certification, the

court might re-certify the class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)

for purposes of determining remedies. See 182 F.R.D. at 346.

The characterization of the hybrid class as one

distinguishing liability from remedies is misleading. As

Eubanks explained, use of a hybrid is appropriate when the

cohesion of the class certified for one remedy - injunctive

relief - breaks down as to individual damages claims.

The Court today certifies plaintiffs’ class pursuant to

Rule 23(b)(2) only as to plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory

and injunctive relief. Without a developed factual record

and without clear representation of subclasses, it is

impossible for the Court to make a finding that claims for

__________________

12

The Pigford court did not certify the class as a hybrid, but simply noted

that a hybrid class might be appropriate. 182 F.R.D. at 346. Thus, the court

made no findings as to whether the class met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

34

Individual compensatory relief will destroy the class

cohesion. Similarly, the Court can not ascertain whether,

should it permit class certification on plaintiffs’ claims

for all forms of requested relief, the claims for monetary

damages would overshadow those for declaratory and injunctive

relief. The Court maintains the power to revisit the

definition of the class at any point, and in fact, has a

continuing obligation to be vigilant and to ensure that the

class is properly defined and manageable. Therefore, in the

event that, after the completion of discovery and the

identification of appropriate sub-class representatives,

plaintiffs are able to demonstrate to the Court the existence

of a class properly certifiable as a hybrid class or pursuant

to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court will consider its certification

at that time.13

E. Notice

Rule 23(c)(2) requires that “individual notice be sent

out to all class members who can be identified with

reasonable effort” to inform them of the class certification.

Eisen, 417 U.S. at 177. The Court directs that notice be

provided to all class members regarding the institution of

this class action. In view of the fact that USDA has

computerized records for most of the potential

_____________________

13

The Court is mindful of Eubanks’ advice that district courts address

questions of the need for notice and opt-out under Rule 23(b)(3) at an early stage in the proceedings, in order to permit the parties to ascertain whether class

members intend to exercise their right to opt-out of a Rule 23(b)(3) class. 110

F.3d at 95. However, certification of a hybrid class is not currently appropriate.

class members, the Court orders USDA to provide plaintiffs with

a list of all Native American farmers who applied for USDA farm

programs between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999.

CONCLUSION

The Court has considered plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification and proposed order, the response and reply

thereto, counsels’ representations at oral argument, defendant’s

motion for a stay of the Court’s September 28, 2001 order and

the response and reply thereto, and the relevant statutory and

case law. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification

[17-1] is GRANTED. The Court certifies the following class for

plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2):

All Native-American farmers and ranchers, who (1) farmed or ranched between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; (2) applied to the USDA for participation in a farm14 program during that time period; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA individually or through a representative during the time period.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file a

proposed order by no later than January 28, 2002, which outlines

appropriate subclasses in accordance with this memorandum and

identifies class representatives for each of the named

subclasses; and it is

__________________

14

The September 28, 2001 Order of this Court mistakenly identifies the

relevant programs as “federal,” instead of “farm” programs.

36

FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall file its response to the proposed subclasses by no later than February 28, 2002; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file its reply to defendant's response by no later than March 15, 2002; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for a stay of the Court's September 28, 2001 Order [127) is DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that USDA shall provide plaintiffs, by no later than January 28, 2002 a list of all Native American farmers who applied for USDA farm programs between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file a proposed "Notice of Pendency of Class Action" for the Court's review by no later than January 28, 2002.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________ DATE

________________________________ Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge

37

Notice to: Alexander John Pires, Jr., Esquire Suite 700 Conlon, Frantz, Phelan & Pires 1818 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036
Counsel for plaintiffs Phillip L. Fraas, Esquire Suite 407W Tuttle, Taylor & Heron 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007
Counsel for plaintiffs Joseph Marc Sellers, Esquire Suzette Marie Malveaux, Esquire Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. Suite 500 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005-3934
Counsel for plaintiffs Carol Federighi, Esquire Jean Lin, Esquire P.O. Box 883 Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice 901 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20530
Counsel for defendant
38

 </s> Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 42 Filed 08/31/00 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED

)

GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE. et aL,

)

)

PlaintitTs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DAN GLICKMAN, Secretary of

)

Agriculture

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________)

AUG 3 1 2000
NANCY MAY£R mllTTINGTON, CLERK U.S 0/STRtCT COURT
C.A. No. 99-3119 (WBB)

ORDER Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and the opposition thereto, it is hereby, ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

AuJ Date:

c.Sf- .7:,?I.fL".)-OCICI

'_:=::::::<"William B.gyy;nt Senior United States District Judge

 </s> Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

GEORGE P. KEEPSEAGLE, et al., )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

ANN VENEMAN,

)

Defendant.

)

______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 99-3119 (EGS)

OPINION & ORDER This class action suit is brought by and on behalf of Native American ranchers and farmers who applied for United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA” or “the Agency”) farm loans and benefit programs between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999. The class makes two claims: (1) that USDA discriminated against them on the basis of race in processing their farm program applications; and (2) that USDA did not investigate their complaints of discrimination. Plaintiffs bring their claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691, et seq., the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq., the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, et seq., and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The government moves for judgment as a matter of law as to all but one of plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Upon consideration of the defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, the opposition and reply thereto, the

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 2 of 28
relevant statutory and case law, and the oral arguments heard in open court on December 3, 2004, and for the following reasons, the Court concludes that defendant’s motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I. BACKGROUND
Congress established the USDA with a mission “to foster and encourage the family farm system of agriculture in this country.” See 7 U.S.C. § 2266(a). According to plaintiffs, because of this mission the Agency, through the Farmers Home Administration (“FmHA”) and later the Farm Service Administration (“FSA”), is the lender of last resort for farmers and ranchers unable to obtain credit elsewhere.
The Agency is authorized to make: farm ownership loans to enable farmers to acquire, enlarge or improve farms; operating loans for annual crop production expenses and the purchase of equipment; and emergency loans to alleviate the effects of losses suffered in disasters and emergencies. See 7 C.F.R. §§ 1943.2, 1941.2,1945.2. FSA operates its loan programs through its state offices, district directors, and county offices. See Def.’s Motion at 6. Individual applications for loans are submitted and processed at the county level. Id. At all times relevant to this case, the FSA county supervisor submitted completed loan applications to a county committee, composed of three local, peer-elected farmers, for a recommendation on the applicant’s eligibility for the requested loan. Id.
2

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 3 of 28
Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint (“complaint”) alleges
extensive and deliberate discrimination against Native American
farmers by USDA. The complaint cites a number of reports and
findings in support of these allegations, including a 1997 report
by the Civil Rights Action Team at USDA, Civil Rights at the
United States Department of Agriculture (“CRAT Report”). That
report detailed the obstacles and opposition that minority and
impoverished farmers have faced in seeking USDA loans:
The minority or limited-resource farmer tries to apply for a farm operating loan through the FSA county office well in advance of planting season. The FSA county office might claim to have no applications available and ask the farmer to return later. Upon returning, the farmer might receive an application without any assistance in completing it, then be asked repeatedly to correct mistakes or complete oversight in the loan application. Often those requests for correcting the application could be stretched for months, since they would come only if the minority farmer contacted the office to check on the loan processing. By the time processing is completed, even when the loan is approved, planting season has already passed and the farmer either has not been able to plant at all, or has obtained limited credit on the strength of an expected FSA loan to plant a small crop, usually without the fertilizer and other supplies necessary for the best yields. The farmer’s profit is then reduced.
See Pl. Complaint at ¶ 103 (citing CRAT Report at 15). The
report also described the disturbing impact the USDA’s
discrimination ultimately had on minority farmers’ livelihoods.
If the farmer’s promised FSA loan finally does arrive, it may have been arbitrarily reduced, leaving the farmer without enough money to repay suppliers and any mortgage or equipment debts. In some cases, the FSA loan never arrives, again leaving the farmer without means to repay debts. Further operating and disaster
3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 4 of 28
loans may be denied because of the farmer’s debt load, making it impossible for the farmer to earn any money from the farm. As an alternative, the local FSA official might offer the farmer an opportunity to lease back the land with an option to buy it back later. The appraised value of the land is set very high, presumably to support the needed operating loans, but also making repurchase of the land beyond the limitedresource farmer’s means. The land is lost finally and sold at auction, where it is bought by someone else at half the price being asked of the minority farmer. Often it is alleged that the person was a friend or relative of one of the FSA county officials.
See Pl. Complaint at ¶ 104 (citing CRAT Report at 16). The
report’s findings are echoed in the named-plaintiffs’ individual
experiences. See Pl. Complaint at ¶¶ 3-67.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) if the moving party can demonstrate that
there are no material facts in dispute and it is therefore
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Stewart v. Evans,
275 F.3d 1126, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Peters v. Nat’l R.R.
Passenger Corp., 966 F. 2d 1483, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). In
deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court must
“‘accept as true the allegations in the opponent’s pleadings’ and
‘accord the benefit of all reasonable inferences to the non-
moving party.’” See Stewart, 275 F.3d at 1132 (quoting
Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245, 1249 n.11 (D.C. Cir.
1987)). Pursuant to Rule 12(c), if matters outside the pleadings
are considered by the court, the motion is treated as one for
summary judgment and decided in accordance with Rule 56.
4

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 5 of 28
III. DISCUSSION A. Equal Credit Opportunity Act In 1974, Congress enacted ECOA to prevent discrimination in
the field of consumer credit. The Act makes it “unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction ... on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a). “Creditor” is defined under the statute to include “any person who regularly extends, renews, or continues credit.” Id. at § 1691a(e). “Person” includes a “government or governmental subdivision or agency.” Id. at § 1691(f).
ECOA creates a private right of action against creditors who violate its antidiscrimination provisions. Id. at § 1691e. Under the statute, a private action must be brought within two years of the occurrence of the alleged violation.1 Id. at § 1691e(f). In 1998, however, after it came to light that USDA had dismantled its civil rights division in 1983, Congress enacted remedial legislation, cited as § 741, that temporarily extended the statute of limitations for civil actions based on claims previously asserted in complaints filed with USDA. See Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, P.L. 105277, Div. A., § 101(a) [Title VII, § 741], 112 Stat. 2681-30
1 There are some exceptions to this time bar that are not applicable here.
5

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 6 of 28
(Oct. 21, 1998) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2279). See also Pl. Compl. at ¶¶ 131-139; Def.’s Motion at 11.
Pursuant to § 741, a civil action seeking relief with respect to discrimination alleged in an “eligible complaint” could be brought within two years after the enactment of the amendment (in other words, before October 21, 2000). For purposes of this waiver of the statute of limitations, an “eligible complaint” is defined as
a nonemployment related complaint that was filed with the Department of Agriculture before July 1, 1997 and alleges discrimination at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1981 and ending December 31, 1996 –
(1) in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) in administering –
(A) a farm ownership, farm operating, or emergency loan funded from the Agricultural Credit Insurance Program Account[.]
§ 741(e). Thus, under Section 741, otherwise time-barred ECOA actions could be commenced on or before October 21, 2000, so long as the plaintiff had “filed with the Department of Agriculture before July 1, 1997,” a “nonemployment related complaint” alleging discrimination under ECOA during the period January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1996.
Defendant contends that as the party invoking federal jurisdiction under § 741's waiver of sovereign immunity, plaintiffs “must allege in [their] pleading the facts essential to show” that they filed “eligible complaints” within the prescribed time frame. See generally McNutt v. Gen. Motors
6

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 7 of 28
Acceptence Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Tavoulareas v. Comnas, 720 F.2d 192, 195 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction, and it must appear on the face of the complaint.”) (citations omitted). Defendant maintains that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over these claims because “none of the seven class representatives have alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that their preNovember 1997 ECOA claims come within the limitations period authorized by § 741.
Defendant points out the well-established principle that the court need not “conjure up unpled facts to support conclusory allegations,” Hurney v. Carver, 602 F.2d 993, 995 (1st Cir. 1979) (internal citations ommitted). Instead, they submit, a complaint must contain a sufficient level of specificity to provide the defendant with “fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds on which it rests,” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Without such specificity, a plaintiff fails to state a claim. See Material Supply Int’l, Inc. v. Sunmatch Industrial Co., 62 F. Supp. 2d 13, 19 (D.D.C. 1999) (“[c]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions” ... “will not suffice to state a claim.”)(quoting 2 Moore’s Fed. Practice, s. 12.34[1][b] at 12-61 to 12-62).
Defendant further maintains that any alleged oral discrimination complaints are not “eligible” for Section 741's purposes. In support of this assertion, defendant notes that
7

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 8 of 28
Section 741 refers to “eligible complaint” as one previously “filed” with USDA and that numerous courts have held that “filed” means “written.” See Greene v. Whirlpool Corp., 708 F.2d 128, 130 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding that § 626(d) of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), “by requiring a charge to be filed, implies that it must be written”); Woodward v. Western Union Tel. Co., 650 F.2d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 1981) (“The necessity of a writing is fairly implicit in the requirement of the statute that the notice be ‘filed.’”); Reich v. Dow Badische Co., 575 F.2d 363, 368 (2d Cir. 1978) (“The statute does not say that the notice of an intent to file an action must be written, but ... by requiring that it be filed, implies that the notice must be written.”); Ritter v. United States, 28 F.2d 265, 267 (3d Cir. 1928) (“The statute and regulations prescribed that a claim must be filed. This means a written claim, and not an oral one[.]”).
According to defendant, USDA has long-standing, internal management guidelines that prohibit discrimination in the administration of its direct programs and activities. See 7 C.F.R. Part 15d. These internal guidelines include an administrative mechanism under which USDA accepts written complaints of discrimination in any USDA program, including the credit programs cited by plaintiffs in this case. Id. Under 7 C.F.R. 15d, participants in FSA programs who believe they have been victims of discrimination may, within 180 days of the alleged discrimination, file a written complaint with USDA’s
8

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 9 of 28
Office of Civil Rights. Defendant also argues that construing “eligible complaint”
to require a complaint made in writing directly to USDA accords with Section 741's statutory purpose to eliminate prejudice to individuals who had properly filed an administrative complaint with USDA but who did not file a civil suit within ECOA’s twoyear limitations period because they were awaiting a response from the Agency. Defendant submits that the potential for such prejudice exists only as to those individuals who properly filed an administrative complaint, however, because only those complaints were subject to processing, and thus to potential misprocessing. In other words, because USDA’s regulations for resolving discrimination complaints have always required written complaints and only a complaint made in writing would trigger agency action under USDA’s discrimination regulations, it only makes sense, defendant argues, to require the same for a complaint to trigger Section 741. “Anyone who failed to make a previous complaint in writing would not have had a reasonable expectation for action by the agency, and, thus, they would not have the excuse for failing to bring a timely suit to court that Congress recognized by enacting § 741.” Def.’s Motion at 21.
Defendant also argues that USDA’s own interpretation of Section 741, which is intimately tied up with its administrative process, is entitled to deference. See Independent Ins. Agents of America v. Hawke, 211 F.3d 638, 643 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
9

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 10 of 28
Finally, because Section 741 effects an expansion of the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, defendant argues, any ambiguity in its terms must be resolved in favor of the government. See, e.g., Dep’t of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 261 (1999)(a waiver of sovereign immunity must be “strictly construed, in terms of scope, in favor of the sovereign.”). To construe the language “eligible complaint” “filed” with USDA to include oral complaints would expand the meaning of those terms well beyond the plain language of their definitions and, as a result, greatly increase the number of suits for damages that could be brought against the government, defendant posits. Moreover, given the impermanent nature of oral complaints, the boundaries of any suits predicated upon them would be inherently difficult to pin down – particularly where, as here, such complaints must be recalled decades after they were allegedly made. In support of this argument, defendant quotes one court’s comments in the ADEA context:
Written notice supplies a greater degree of certainly than does oral notice; a written charge of discrimination serves as a permanent reminder and proof that the grievant initiated the process. Oral notice does not; it is subject to the vagaries of memory, and therefore injects a substantial and needless incertitude into the system. Schroeder v. Copley Newspaper, 691 F. Supp. 1127, 1129 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Therefore, defendant maintains, construing “eligible complaint” to include oral grievances would run doubly afoul of the rule that a waiver of sovereign immunity is to be strictly
10

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 11 of 28
construed: not only would such an interpretation extend the waiver beyond the statute’s plain terms, but the resulting expansion of the government’s potential exposure to liability would be particularly open-ended given the inherent ambiguities in determining whether a plaintiff ever made an oral complaint and, if so, what its content was.
Thus, defendant avers, all of plaintiffs’ ECOA claims are time-barred with the exception of one of Plaintiff Keepseagle’s claims. After five amendments to their complaint, defendant submits, plaintiffs have not adequately pled that they filed an administrative complaint that met Section 741's timing requirement (i.e., was filed before July 1, 1997), its content requirement (i.e., alleged an ECOA violation that occurred during the period 1981-1996), and its requirement that complaints be made in writing to USDA.
Plaintiffs dispute defendant’s contentions. They argue the Court must generously construe allegations in the complaint in plaintiffs’ favor, that the complaint alleges that all plaintiffs filed “timely” claims of discrimination, and identifies those complaints with particularity sufficient to meet the liberal notice pleading standards of the federal rules. See Pl. Compl. at ¶¶ 10, 25, 34, 45, 53, 67.2 See also Grogan v. Gen. Maint.
2 Five of the six paragraphs in the complaint to which Plaintiffs cite, state, for each class representative, “Mr. [class representative] timely filed, either directly or through his Tribal Council complaints to the defendant regarding these acts of discrimination, which complaints were never acted on
11

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 12 of 28
Serv. Co., 763 F.2d 444, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“[A] complaint must be read broadly to determine whether it provides defendant with fair notice.”). Therefore, plaintiffs contend, having alleged that plaintiffs’ claims to USDA were timely, they have fulfilled the pleading requirement and no dismissal is warranted.
Plaintiffs also submit that at the time Section 741 was drafted and continuing to the present, USDA has accepted oral complaints. See “How to File a USDA Program Discrimination Complaint,” USDA Office of Civil Rights, at http://www.usda.gov/cr/OCR/Program.htm (July 29, 2004) (describing two ways to make a “program discrimination complaint” - by telephone or by letter); USDA-Farm Service Agency Handbook, par. 253 at 9-2 (1997) (“Employees receiving written or verbal complaints must forward the complaint to the appropriate officials”) (emphasis added). Moreover, although plaintiffs concede that USDA’s regulations require written complaints, they counter that this is of little moment when USDA’s actual practice, both before and after the passage of Section 741, has been to accept complaints orally – and it is this practice upon which plaintiffs and class members relied.
pursuant to the applicable law, causing him substantial damage.” The exception is the Mandans claims, which state “Between 1983 and 1990, the Mandans complained of discriminatory treatment to the ASCS staff, FmHA staff, Odell Ottmar - Chief of Reservation Programs, Bob Zimmerman – North Dakota Head of Farm Loan Programs, Ralph Leet – State Director of FmHA, Marshall Moore – State Director of FmHA, U.S. Congressman Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad and Glen English, Al Spang – BIA Superintendent, and Jerry Jaeger – BIA Area Director.”
12

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 13 of 28
Plaintiffs argue that because USDA accepted oral complaints, farmers who lodged such complaints were equally in compliance with USDA procedures as farmers who submitted written complaints, and thus are entitled to the same measure of relief. They contend there is no indication that Congress intended to close the courthouse doors to victims of USDA’s discrimination who justifiably relied on USDA’s own internal complaint procedures.
As to USDA’s argument that the Court must require written complaints because Section 741 effected a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus must be narrowly construed, plaintiffs counter that while courts may not expand the waivers of sovereign immunity, it is equally true that courts may not “assume the authority to narrow the waiver [of sovereign immunity] that Congress intended, or construe the waiver unduly restrictively.” See Bowen v. New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986) (internal citations omitted). The plain language of Section 741 does not require written complaints, and thus there is no justification to read in such a requirement.
In Love v. Veneman, Judge Robertson faced this issue in deciding the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In a memorandum opinion, he wrote
...Congress extension of the statute of limitations for complaints of discrimination in the administration of USDA loan programs “at any time” between 1981 and 1996 was a waiver of sovereign immunity. Courts must neither enlarge such waivers beyond what the statutory language requires, Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318 (1986), nor narrow them by unduly restrictive interpretation, Bowen v. City of New York,
13

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 14 of 28
476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986). Fortunately, the language of Section 741 is plain. It does not support defendant’s interpretation. It does not require “written” complaints (although the reference to “filing” them strongly suggests Congress’ expectation that complaints would be made formally and in writing). It does not mention the Office of Civil Rights (in view of the legislative accord that gave rise to § 741, the omission may have been deliberate, see supra n.7). And it makes no mention of Part 15d or its predecessor regulation.
Thus, a complaint filed anywhere in the USDA before July 1, 1997, would qualify for § 741's extended statute of limitations if it charged discrimination in the administration of loan programs with the USDA.
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25201, *14-15.
In its reply brief, defendant reiterates that USDA’s
regulations require written complaints and note that USDA’s
practice and policy dictated that employees receiving oral
complaints of discrimination would fill out an intake form for
the complainant’s signature. See Declaration of M. Farook Sait,
attached to Def.’s Reply as Exhibit 1. If the oral complaint was
received by telephone, defendant claims, the employee would mail
the intake form to the complainant with instructions to sign and
return the form and indicating that the complaint would be
considered filed on the date of the oral complaint if the
complainant signed and returned the form within the specified
time period. Thus, defendant claims, oral claims were never
accepted unless associated with a written complaint.
Defendant goes on to argue that plaintiffs have not provided
any documents showing that any of the class representatives filed
a claim of discrimination during the class period and that USDA
14

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 15 of 28
“ha[s] searched their files and have not found any such documents.” See Declaration of Frederick D. Isler, attached to Def.’s Reply as Exhibit 2.
Section 741, however, is a remedial remedy passed because USDA’s Office of Civil Rights was disbanded and failed to act on complaints (written or oral) for years, unbeknownst to the public. In fact, there is evidence that written complaints were lost or thrown away – so there is no guarantee that had plaintiffs filed written complaints the defendant would find them. Written complaints that were filed clearly did not “trigger” USDA action during the years in question - as is evident from the CRAT report and other evidence – so the defendant’s argument that they be required under Section 741 is misplaced. See, e.g., Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82, 88 (D.D.C. 1999) (“All the evidence developed by the USDA and presented to the Court indicates, however, that this system was functionally nonexistent for well over a decade. In 1983, OCREA [Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and Adjudication] essentially was dismantled and complaints that were filed were never processed, investigated or forwarded to the appropriate agencies for conciliation. As a result, farmers who filed complaints of discrimination never received a response, or if they did receive a response it was a cursory denial of relief. In some cases, OCREA staff simply threw discrimination complaints in the trash without ever responding to or investigating them. In other
15

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 16 of 28
cases, even if there was a finding of discrimination, the farmer never received any relief.”) (emphasis added).
Finally, given the egregious allegations in the complaint and cited in the CRAT report, there is no reason to believe that USDA was following its own policy and informing people who made oral complaints that they needed to submit something in writing or to believe that USDA staff was following up telephone complaints with a form mailed for the complainant’s signature.
When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court will accept as true all allegations in the plaintiffs’ pleadings and give plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Considering that ECOA does not specify that complaints must be “written,” and that waivers of sovereign immunity are not to be unduly narrowed, and in light of USDA’s apparent policy of accepting oral complaints during this time period, the Court finds that the defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ ECOA claims.
B. Administrative Procedure Act Defendant argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiffs’ APA claims because APA review is precluded where a party already has an adequate remedy at law available. Defendants assert that ECOA provides an adequate remedy at law and therefore plaintiffs’ APA claims must be dismissed. Plaintiffs respond that ECOA does not provide an
16

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 17 of 28
adequate remedy for their claims for relief based on the Agency’s failure to investigate their discrimination claims.
On September 27, 2004 and December 2, 2004, Judge Robertson of this Court granted plaintiffs in two cases similar to the Keepseagle case leave to file interlocutory appeals “on the question of whether plaintiffs’ allegations of failure to investigate civil rights complaints state claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) 15 U.S.C. § 1591 et seq., or both.” See Garcia, et al. v. Veneman, No. 00-2445 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2004)(order granting interlocutory appeal) and Love, et al. v. Veneman, No. 00-2502 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2004)(same).
On December 16, 2004, after the briefings on the defendant’s motion in this case were submitted and the oral argument on the motion was held in this Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Garcia and Love plaintiffs permission to take those interlocutory appeals. See In re: Rosemary Love, et al., No. 04-8010 (D.C. Cir.)(order granting permission to take an interlocutory appeal) and In re: Guadalupe L. Garcia, For himself and on behalf of G.A. GARCIA and SONS FARM et al., No. 04-8008 (D.C. Cir.)(same).
This Court, therefore, will deny defendant’s motion as to the APA claims without prejudice to a motion for reconsideration pending the outcome of those appeals. The Court will also stay discovery on the APA claims while those appeals are pending.
17

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 18 of 28
C. Declaratory Judgment Act Defendant argues that the plaintiffs’ DJA claims must be dismissed as a matter of law because the Act does not provide an independent waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity. In support, defendant cites Benvenuti v. Dept. of Defense, 587 F. Supp. 348 (D.D.C. 1984) and Planned Parenthood of Cent. Texas v. Sanchez, 280 F. Supp. 2d 590 (W.D. Tex. 2003). In Benvenuti, an army physician brought suit against the Department of Defense, alleging tort and constitutional violations. The court noted that “a damages suit against the United States or its agencies cannot be maintained unless there exists an ‘unequivocally expressed’ statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. ... None of the statutes cited by plaintiff – the general federal question provision ... and the All Writs and Declaratory Judgment Acts ... – nor the constitution itself – operates as such waivers.” 587 F. Supp. at 352. The court went on to discuss the Federal Tort Claims Act, which does provide a waiver of sovereign immunity, but found it inapplicable to the facts of the case. Id. at 352. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s damages claims. Nonetheless, the court remanded as to plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. In Planned Parenthood v. Sanchez, the plaintiff family planning and abortion providers challenged a Texas legislature’s rider that prohibited Medicaid and other federal funds from going to any health care providers who performed abortions, even though
18

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 19 of 28
those funds would not be used to perform abortions. 280 F. Supp. 2d at 593. The defendant Texas Commissioner of Health challenged the federal court’s jurisdiction over the case. The court stated, “Section 2201, the Declaratory Judgment Act, likewise does not give the Court jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit has held this statute cannot be an independent source of jurisdiction but merely permits an award of declaratory judgment when a court has another basis for jurisdiction.” Id. at 602 (citing Jones v. Alexander, 609 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1980).
Plaintiffs respond to USDA’s argument that the DJA does not separately waive sovereign immunity by noting that the DJA is not a jurisdictional statute and instead merely expands the scope of remedies available to plaintiffs who seek redress for violations of other statutes. Therefore, plaintiffs maintain, if the Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ ECOA and/or APA claims pursuant to a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court also has jurisdiction to provide plaintiffs relief under the DJA pursuant to that same waiver and plaintiffs may seek declaratory relief under the DJA for violations of those statutes.
Defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiffs’ DJA claim. First, the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits for money damages absent a waiver of immunity. See Marshall & Gordon, P.C. v. United States International Development-Cooperation Agency, 557 F. Supp. 484, 488 (D.D.C. 1983)(“The dispositive factor in determining the
19

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 20 of 28
applicability of sovereign immunity is the practical effect of the judgment or decree sought by the plaintiff. ... Generally, if ‘the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration,’ ... then the suit is barred.”) Thus, to the extent plaintiffs are seeking non-monetary relief, sovereign immunity is not an issue. Plaintiffs clarified during oral argument that they are not seeking monetary relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. See Tr. at 10.
Moreover, the cases defendant cites do not support its contention that in this case the DJA claim must be dismissed. The Benvenuti court merely held that the DJA does not itself contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and the Sanchez case merely held that the DJA does not itself grant the federal court jurisdiction over a cause of action. The ECOA and the APA statutes contain waivers of sovereign immunity that allow suit against the United States government (in certain circumstances) and therefore, if plaintiffs prevail under one or both of those statutes, the plaintiffs may also be entitled to relief under the DJA.
D. Title VI Defendant submits that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits federally assisted programs or activities from discriminating against benefit applicants or recipients on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. §
20

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 21 of 28
2000d. Defendant argues Title VI does not apply to programs, like those at issue here, that are conducted directly by the federal government. Plaintiff contends that there is a division of authority on this issue. Compare Dorsey v. United States Dept. of Labor, 41 F.3d 1551, 1552-53 (D.C. Cir. 1994) with Doe v. Attorney General, 941 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1991), judgment vacated by, Reno v. Doe by Lavery, 518 U.S. 1014 (1996).
During oral argument on the defendant’s motion, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that in this jurisdiction, the controlling case law provides no Title VI claim against the Federal Government and plaintiffs’ counsel stated that they plead the Title VI claim only to preserve their right to challenge that precedent before an en banc panel in the Court of Appeals for this Circuit. See Tr. at 24-25.
Therefore, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Title VI claims is granted.
E. Res Judicata
Finally, defendant urges the Court to dismiss three of the seven class representatives’ claims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
‘[T]he parties to a suit and their privies are bound by a final judgment and may not relitigate any ground for relief which they already have had an opportunity to litigate – even if they chose not to exploit that opportunity – whether the initial judgment was erroneous or not.’ The judgment bars any further claim based on the same ‘nucleus of facts,’ for ‘it is the facts surrounding the transaction or occurrence which operate to constitute the cause of action, not the legal theory upon which a litigant relies.’
21

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 22 of 28
See Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984)(quoting Hardison v. Alexander, 655 F.2d 1281, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (2nd Cir. 1977)).
Defendant contends class representative John Fredericks filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota against the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of the then National Appeals staff, and several other FSA and USDA employees, in which Mr. Fredericks alleged, among other things, that USDA had wrongfully taken a security interest in his cows, had wrongfully denied certain loan applications and loan servicing rights and inappropriately denied him access to certain programs. Defendant submits these are nearly the same allegations as those found in the Fifth Amended Complaint in this case. Ultimately, the court in North Dakota granted partial summary judgment to Mr. Fredericks. Defendant argues that because his 1994 action was litigated to a final judgment, he is barred from relitigating any claims based on the same nucleus of facts. Therefore, defendant argues, regardless of the legal theories Fredericks presented to the court in North Dakota in 1994, his current discrimination claim is barred by res judicata.
Defendant contends the same is true for class representatives Crasco and Alkire, who previously secured bankruptcy protection. Defendant submits that the same USDA loans at issue in this case would have been at issue in those
22

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 23 of 28
proceedings and any claims as to those debts could have been asserted in those bankruptcy proceedings, whether as an objection to USDA’s proof of claim, see Fed. R. Bank. P. 3007, or, even more clearly, as an adversary proceeding under Part VII of the Bankruptcy Rules, see Fed. R. Bank. P. 7001. Craso and Alkire’s final releases from bankruptcy, defendant believes, must bar their assertion of such claims now. Defendant notes the fact that the earlier proceeding was one in bankruptcy does not vitiate the res judicata effect of the prior judgment. See SureSnap Corp. v. State Street Bank & Trust, 948 F.2d 869, 875 (2d Cir. 1991) (finding that claim for tortious infliction of emotional distress against creditors should have been brought as part of bankruptcy proceeding and was therefore barred by res judicata).
Plaintiffs counter that none of the class representatives’ claims are barred by res judicata. They contend Mr. Fredericks suit in 1994 was litigated before Congress enacted Section 741, extending the statute of limitations on Mr. Fredericks ECOA claims. Thus, according to plaintiffs, Mr. Fredericks did not have a fair and full opportunity to litigate the claims he now brings before this Court. Plaintiffs cite Page, 729 F.2d at 820, for the proposition that claims are not barred if they are based on facts not yet in existence at the time of the first action – here, plaintiffs argue, Section 741 was a fact not in existence at the time Mr. Fredericks original claim was litigated.
23

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 24 of 28
As to Plaintiffs Crasco and Alkire’s claims, plaintiffs argue these, too, are not barred by res judicata. First, both plaintiffs bankruptcy claims were filed well before the enactment of Section 741 and therefore plaintiffs were in no position to seek relief under ECOA at the time of their bankruptcy actions. Second, plaintiffs submit, prior to the enactment of Section 741, both plaintiffs sought investigation and adjudication of their credit discrimination claims pursuant to the USDA’s administrative complaint procedure. Given USDA’s continuous representations between 1981 and 1996 that a complaint of discrimination could be remedied by lodging an internal agency complaint, these plaintiffs can hardly be expected to have simultaneously filed discrimination claims in the bankruptcy court. Moreover, plaintiffs point out, having invited plaintiffs to utilize its own dysfunctional internal complaint procedure and assured them of its effectiveness, USDA cannot now be heard to complain that these plaintiffs also failed to seek relief in another forum. It is this reliance, plaintiffs submit, that distinguishes this case from Sure-Snap Corp. v. State Street Bank & Trust. In Sure-Snap, the court refused to allow a corporation to bring a lender liability cause of action against its creditors after the institution of bankruptcy proceedings, because the corporation plainly could have brought the same action previously. Id. at 873.
In its reply brief, defendant responds that the fact that
24

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 25 of 28
Congress had not yet enacted Section 741 when the class representatives brought their prior claims does not excuse their failure to raise these claims in the earlier proceedings. Defendant contends the fact that defendant in those actions may have had an affirmative defense – the statute of limitations – against the ECOA claims does not excuse plaintiffs’ failure to bring them. The defendant notes the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that is waived if not raised. See Canady v. S.E.C., 230 F.3d 362, 364 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Therefore, defendant avers, plaintiffs were obligated to raise the claims subject to the defendant’s subsequent raising of the statute of limitations defense.
Further, defendant continues, although Plaintiff Crasco’s claims were brought before enactment of Section 741, his bankruptcy case was not finally discharged until October 1999, approximately one year after Section 741's enactment. Thus, defendant argues, pursuant to Chapter 12's bankruptcy proceedings, a debtor must list all assets of the bankruptcy estate, including any assets that the debtor acquires after the commencement of the bankruptcy case but before the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 521, 541, 1207. Because Section 741 resurrected Crasco’s ECOA claims while his bankruptcy case was still pending, defendant submits, Crasco had a further opportunity to raise any ECOA claims that became available to him once Section 741 came
25

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 26 of 28
into effect. These include his claims alleged in the Fifth
Amended Complaint.
Defendant’s argument that these plaintiffs should have
raised ECOA claims in their earlier suits despite the fact that
those claims would clearly be barred by the statute of
limitations (prior to Section 741) is unconvincing. While the
statute of limitations is an affirmative defense subject to
waiver, if defendant’s logic is to be followed, a lawyer would
have to plead each and every claim and statute pursuant to which
there might be a claim, even knowing the statute of limitations
had long passed. This not only seems inefficient and
impractical, but at some point might violate the rules against
bringing frivolous claims.
Judge Robertson addressed this issue in Wise v. Glickman,
where defendants had argued to have one of the class member’s
claims barred by res judicata.
There is no question that Chamblee’s claims in this suit arise from the same “nucleus of facts,” Page, 729 F.2d at 820, as the claims made in her previous suits; all three suits are based on the 1989 suspension of her application for loan servicing and a net recovery buyout. However, it is questionable whether Chamblee could have raised the discrimination claims she raises here in her initial suit, as that suit sought to have the government process her administrative appeal, so any other claims made at that time may have been deemed premature. Furthermore, Congress had not yet tolled the statute of limitations for discrimination claims against USDA at the time she filed her first suit. Neither had Congress tolled the statute of limitations when Chamblee filed her second suit, in 1997, so she could not have brought her current claims for relief then, either. As she has never had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her discrimination claims, they
26

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 27 of 28
will not be dismissed now. Wise, 257 F. Supp. 2d 123, 131 (D.D.C. 2003).
Similarly, in this case Plaintiffs Frederick, Crasco and Alkire’s claims will not be dismissed as a matter of law under the doctrine of res judicata. IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; it is further ORDERED that defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiffs’ claims brought pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; and it is further ORDERED that defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claims at this time, but that the Court denies that aspect of defendants’ motion without prejudice to a motion for reconsideration following resolution of the interlocutory appeals in Garcia, et al. v. Veneman, No. 00-2445 (D.D.C.) and Love, et al. v. Veneman, No. 00-2502 (D.D.C.); and it is further ORDERED that defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiffs’ Declaratory Judgment Act claims; and it is further ORDERED that defendant is granted judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiffs’ Title VI claims; and it is further ORDERED that defendant is not entitled to judgment as a
27

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 275 Filed 03/31/05 Page 28 of 28
matter of law based on res judicata as to Plaintiffs Frederick, Crasco and Alkire’s claims; and it is further
ORDERED that discovery on plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims is stayed pending resolution of the interlocutory appeals in Garcia, et al. v. Veneman, No. 00-2445 (D.D.C.) and Love, et al. v. Veneman, No. 00-2502 (D.D.C.).

Signed:

EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge March 31, 2005

28

 </s> Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

GEORGE P. KEEPSEAGLE, et al.,)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary,

)

United States Department

)

of Agriculture

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

Case No. 99-3119 (EGS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is the Ft. Berthold Movants’(hereinafter “movants”) fifth motion to opt out and plaintiff’s motion for class certification of economic relief claims. A motions hearing was held on November 10, 2005. The Court considered the motions, the oppositions and replies thereto, the entire record and the relevant statutory and case law. On November 10, 2005, the Court found the movants’ claims to be sufficiently distinct from those of the plaintiff class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the holding of Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87 (D.C. Cir. 1997) and granted

1

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 14
movants’ motion for leave to opt out of the plaintiff class. The Court also denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification of economic relief claims without prejudice to refile at the conclusion of discovery. The Court issued a minute order memorializing the Court’s findings on the same day. This Memorandum Opinion articulates the justification for the Court’s November 10, 2005 Order. I. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND 1. The Existing Plaintiff Class
The plaintiff class of Native American farmers and ranchers (hereinafter “farmer(s)”) allegedly applied for United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) farm loan and benefit programs between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999. The eight hundred and thirty-eight (838) plaintiffs named in the Sixth Amended Complaint, and the absent class members, make three common claims: (1) USDA discriminated against them on the basis of race in processing their farm program applications; (2) USDA did not investigate complaints of discrimination and (3) USDA discriminated against them on the basis of race in the operation of USDA’s loan servicing programs. See Sixth Am. Compl. at 2. According to the plaintiffs and class members, the USDA discriminated against them by, inter alia, denying them access to the programs or treating them less favorably than non-Native American farmers in processing their applications, servicing
2

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 14
loans, and/or administering benefits. See id. The plaintiffs and class members also allege that they complained of this discrimination to USDA, but that USDA failed to properly process and investigate their complaints. See id.
The plaintiffs and class members allege that USDA’s discrimination against them in the administration of farm loan and benefits programs violates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and 15 U.S.C. § 1691e and the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In particular, plaintiffs allege that the discrimination in USDA’s processing of credit applications and its failure to investigate is a violation of ECOA, and that discrimination in the department’s processing of applications for non-credit programs and its failure to investigate such discrimination is a violation of the APA. Sixth Am. Compl. at 3.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the ECOA. See Sixth Am. Compl. at 41. Under the APA, plaintiffs pray for “appropriate relief,” including “an accounting of discrimination complaints made to the USDA, whether orally or in writing, by members of the Class, investigation and redress of such complaints, and such changes to the civil rights complaint system as are necessary to bring it into compliance with the APA.” Id.
3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 14
2. The Movants The movants are a group of twenty-seven registered tribal
members of the Three Affiliated Tribes, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, located in north central North Dakota. Each of the movants has farmed, owned or leased land on the Reservation between 1981 and 2005. Mov.’s 5th Mot. to Opt Out at 3. Movants have contended since the inception of this lawsuit that they are distinct from the plaintiff class. Like plaintiffs, movants claim that USDA discriminated against them in the administration of its lending programs and failed to process their discrimination complaints. Movants also submit, however, that they are entitled to pursue their claims against the USDA administratively under Section 741 of the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999, codified as 7 U.S.C. § 2279. (Hereinafter “Section 741”) See Mov.’s 5th Mem. at 3. The conditions for making Section 741 claims are specified in regulations promulgated as 7 C.F.R. 15f.1 et seq. Movants contend that they, unlike plaintiffs, have met the numerous requirements imposed by the regulations and, therefore, are eligible for administrative relief. Chief among these is the requirement of evidence of a discrimination complaint filed with USDA prior to January 1, 1997 and further filings requesting adjudication of that complaint prior to October 21, 2000. Movants submit that
4

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 5 of 14
under this statutory scheme, they are entitled to an “accelerated administrative settlement and adjudication process” otherwise unavailable to plaintiff class members. See Mov.’s 5th Mem. at 57. Movants claim that their involuntary inclusion in the plaintiff class is a barrier to the expedient adjudication of their claims against the USDA, and they request leave to opt out of the class. Plaintiffs have dropped their opposition to movants’ motion. See Pl.’s Mem. at 21 n.15. Defendants continue to oppose movants’ request, although their opposition is now relegated to a footnote. See Def. Opp. at 36 n. 33. 3. Requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs all issues of class certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) require plaintiffs to demonstrate that:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition to the above requirements, putative classes must also show that they meet the specific requirements of at least one of three distinct class categories outlined in Rule 23(b), namely, either the (b)(1) action, the (b)(2) action, or the (b)(3) action. The three categories are not
5

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 6 of 14
mutually exclusive, and a class may be certified under more than one category. Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87, 91-92 (D.C. Cir. 1997)(internal citations omitted). This Court certified the plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) in its Order of September 28, 2001 finding that the putative plaintiff class satisfied both the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and the specific requirements for class certification under 23(b). 4. Rule 23(b)2 Certification of Plaintiff Class
Rule 23(b)(2) provides that a class may be certified where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). See Eubanks, 110 F.3d at 92. While courts have generally allowed plaintiff classes to seek monetary relief under each of the three categories, there are important procedural distinctions between the (b)(1) and (b)(2) actions and the (b)(3) action. Id. “Rule 23(c)(2) provides that all class members in a (b)(3) action are entitled to notice and an opportunity to exclude themselves from the class and the preclusive effect of any judgment by opting out of the lawsuit. The rule has no comparable provision for (b)(1) and (b)(2) classes.” Id. Because there is not a corresponding opt out provision,(b)(1) and (b)(2) actions are
6

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 7 of 14
known as “mandatory” class actions, as their relief is intended to apply to the entire class without exception.
In its September 28, 2001 Order, the Court declared that the plaintiff class had satisfied the necessary requirements and certified the plaintiff class as a (b)(2) action. The primary issue before the Court today is not the propriety of that certification, but rather whether the movants can legally opt out of this (b)(2) action.1 For the following reasons, the Court finds that they can. II. DISCUSSION 1. The D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of Rule 23
In Eubanks v. Billington, the D.C. Circuit definitively held that “the language of Rule 23 is sufficiently flexible to afford district courts discretion to grant opt out rights in (b)(1) and (b)(2) class actions.” 110 F.3d at 94. Rule 23 does not expressly preclude opt out rights in non-(b)(3) actions; rather Rule 23(d) has an inherent “procedural flexibility” that
1 In their opposition to the movants’ request, defendants contend, as they have throughout this litigation, that the plaintiff class fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) or 23(b) and should be decertified. See Def.’s Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Class Cert. of Economic Relief Claims at 21-35. However, defendants have failed to present any compelling reason why the Court should reconsider its 2001 certification order and, thus, it declines to do so.
7

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 8 of 14
supports a wide range of judicial choice. Id.2 Although opt outs should not be permitted if it would undermine the policies behind (b)(1) or (b)(2) certification, “where both injunctive and monetary relief are sought, the need to protect the rights of individual class members may necessitate procedural protections beyond those ordinarily provided under (b)(1) and (b)(2).” Id. at 94-95.
The Eubanks Court detailed at least two ways that a district court may exercise its discretion when class members seeking monetary and injunctive or declaratory relief want to opt out of a (b)(2) action. First, the court may create a hybrid class, “certifying a (b)(2) class as to the claims for declaratory or injunctive relief, and a (b)(3) class as to the claims for monetary relief, effectively granting (b)(3) protections including the right to opt out to class members at the monetary relief stage.” Id. at 96. See also Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1154-60 (11th Cir. 1983)(explaining the form and potential functions of class actions certified as hybrids
2 The district court: may make appropriate orders ... (2) requiring, for the protection of the members of the class or otherwise for the fair conduct of the action, that notice be given in such manner as the court may direct to some or all of the members of any step in the action, or of the proposed extent of the judgment, or of the opportunity of members to signify whether they consider the representation fair and adequate ... [or] (5) dealing with similar procedural matters...”
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(d)(quoted in Eubanks, 110 F.3d at 94 n.11).
8

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 9 of 14
under both (b)(2) and (b)(3)). The Circuit also gave a second
example, where “the court may conclude that the claims of
particular class members are unique or sufficiently distinct from
the claims of the class as a whole, and that opt outs should be
permitted on a selective basis.” Id. The Eubanks court adopted
the view of the Second Circuit, declaring “Rule 23(d)(5) to be
broad enough to permit the court to allow individual class
members to opt out of a (b)(1) or (b)(2) class when necessary to
facilitate the fair and efficient conduct of the litigation.” Id. 3
2. Movants meet Eubanks’ standard for selective opt out rights
3 District Courts in our circuit have relied on this understanding of Eubanks to exercise discretion in certification decisions. See Taylor v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 205 F.R.D. 43 (D.D.C. 2002) (denying defendant employer’s motion to dismiss, holding that “D.C. Circuit case law… emphasizes an ad-hoc approach and does not treat compensatory damages claims as per se incompatible with 23(b)… [D]istrict courts have ample discretion to implement hybrid certification under Rule 23(d)(5), which allows them to "make appropriate orders ... requiring for the protection of the members of the class or otherwise for the fair conduct of the action." This rule is "broad enough to permit the court to allow ... (b)(2) opt outs ... when necessary to facilitate the fair and efficient conduct of the litigation.”)(quoting Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87, 96 (D.C. Cir, 1997), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(5)(internal citations omitted)). See also Pate v. United States, 328 F. Supp. 2d 62, 71 (D.D.C. 2004)(interpreting Eubanks to allow flexible accommodation of opt out requests at the discretion of the trial judge, based on principles of “basic fairness” and upon an affirmative request by the party).
9

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 10 of 14
Because the movants have presented “sufficiently distinct claims from the class as a whole,” the Court finds that movants satisfy the second Eubanks option. 110 F.3d at 96. The movants have detailed significant ways in which their claims differ from those of the plaintiff class. See Mov.’s Mem. at 12. At a minimum, movants seek relief under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in addition to ECOA, they seek non-economic as well as economic damages, and they filed their administrative claims with USDA several years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Id. Movants further contend that their claims are different because they are documented in a way that uniquely brings them under the Section 741 remedy created by Congress, a remedy they contend is not available to the plaintiff class as a whole. Id. Plaintiffs have conceded that the movants present broader claims than those sought by the class and support invoking the Court’s discretion under Rule 23(d) to let the movants opt out.
Defendants have dedicated the great majority of their briefing on this issue to advocating the decertification of the class as a whole. Defendants appear to adopt the contradictory position that, on the one hand, the movants are so different from the plaintiffs that the class fails to meet Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement, and, on the other hand, that movants’ differences are insufficient to satisfy the opt out requirements under 23(d). Adopting defendants contradictory arguments would
10

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 11 of 14
relegate the movants to a procedural no man’s land, where movants’ claims are sufficiently different to destroy class cohesion but insufficiently unique to free them from this action’s preclusive effects. Defendants do not contend USDA will suffer prejudice if the movants opt out; rather they address movants’ arguments only as examples of why they believe the entire class is not viable. Defendants point to movants’ desire to leave the class, their dissatisfaction with class counsel, and the conflicts of interest and claims between the two groups as examples of why the class should be decertified. Yet ironically, defendants conclude that these differences are not enough to satisfy the opt out requirements under Eubanks. See Def. Opp. at 36 n.33.
Defendants rely on a narrow reading of Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1998), to support their contention that movants’ pending administrative claims are “simply not enough” to justify opting out on a selective basis under Eubanks. Def. Opp. at 36 n.33. In Thomas, the D.C. Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision to allow plaintiff class members to opt out at settlement because the District Court made no findings that the dissident plaintiffs were sufficiently different from the plaintiff class. Thomas, 139 F.3d at 236. The dissident plaintiffs argued that they stood to be under-compensated by the
11

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 12 of 14
settlement, an argument rejected by Eubanks as sufficient reason for allowing opt outs. Id. at 236 (holding that an opt out cannot be justified simply because “appellants received less under the settlement agreement than they might have expected to receive had they prevailed in individual lawsuits . . . as no party can reasonably expect to receive in a settlement precisely what it would receive if it prevailed on the merits.”). The dissidents had also argued that they should be allowed to opt out because several of them had pending individual discrimination claims against the defendant State Department. The Circuit found, however, that “one may not, by first filing an administrative charge and then affirmatively joining a class action as a named plaintiff or an intervenor, obtain the option to see whether the result in the class suit is satisfactory and, if not, then to take up the administrative charge again.” Id (emphasis added).
The Court recognizes the Thomas Court’s concern that by indiscriminately granting opt out rights, plaintiffs could potentially ride out a class action lawsuit only to return to a pending administrative complaint if the settlement is not as favorable as they had hoped. These circumstances are not present in this case.
Unlike other dissident plaintiffs who attempt to leave an
12

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 13 of 14
action after a disappointing settlement, the movants have persistently pursued a right to opt out since the inception of this litigation. In contrast to the Eubanks plaintiff who failed to avail himself of a statutory remedy, and the Thomas plaintiff who argued only that he was unhappy with his compensation as a class member, the movants argue that forcing them to remain in this class will rob them of a “meaningful opportunity to present the merits of their individual claims.” Eubanks, 110 F.d at 97.
Unlike the dissident plaintiffs in both Thomas and Eubanks, in the present case, movants are not named plaintiffs or intervenors in the Keepseagle action. Cf. Thomas, 139 F.3d at 236 (rejecting named plaintiff’s motion to opt out of (b)(2) action at settlement). Rather than defecting from a failing cause, movants have always contended that they are “trapped” in an action they do not support, which was filed years after they initiated their administrative claims, and which advanced different legal theories, and employed counsel to whom they object. See Mov.’s Mem. at 14. Movants are a discrete group of claimants attempting to avail themselves of a statutory remedy created by Congress to rectify the USDA’s admitted failure in processing discrimination claims. Movants have been, and continue to be, represented by their own counsel.
The Court finds that the substantive and procedural
13

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 376 Filed 03/23/06 Page 14 of 14

differences that separate the movants from the plaintiffs are precisely the circumstances contemplated by the Eubanks Court and, therefore, permit movants to opt out under Rule 23(d). III. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of movants’ motion for leave to opt out, the response and reply thereto, counsels’ representations at oral argument, and the relevant statutory and case law, the movants’ motion is GRANTED.

Signed:

EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge March 23, 2006

14

 </s> <<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 1 of 11

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued September 6, 2002 Decided October 29, 2002
No. 02-5021
In re: Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, Petitioner
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 99cv03119)
Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Robert M. Loeb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice.
Joseph M. Sellers argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Suzette M. Malveaux, Alexander Pires, Jr., David Frantz, and Phillip L. Fraas.
Michael L. Foreman, Elaine R. Jones, Norman J. Chachkin, Paul M. Smith, Ian Heath Gershengorn, and John Dossett were on the brief for amici curiae in support of respondents.

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 2 of 11

Before: Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Tatel.
Tatel, Circuit Judge: Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits certification of class actions not "exclusively or predominantly [for] money damages." This petition for interlocutory review presents the following question: In a case involving requests for both monetary and equitable relief, may a district court certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class as to equitable relief only without first determining whether, looking at the complaint as a whole, plaintiffs' monetary claims predominate over their equitable claims? Although this issue is both unsettled and fundamental-factors that may justify interlocutory review pursuant to Rule 23(f)--we nevertheless deny the petition because the critical questions required to resolve it are entirely unbriefed and because we are satisfied that the issue will not escape appellate review.
I.
The United States Department of Agriculture administers several farm credit and benefit programs under the direction of its Farm Service Agency ("FSA"). See Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. s 1921 et seq.; 7 C.F.R. s 2.42(28). Farmers seeking FSA loans or subsidies apply to local county committees made up of farmers elected by other farmers. Pigford v. Veneman, 206 F.3d 1212, 1214 (D.C. Cir. 2000). If the county committee approves the application, the farmer receives the benefit. If the committee denies the application, the farmer may appeal to a state committee and then to a federal review board. Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341, 343 (D.D.C. 1998). Farmers believing that their applications have been denied on the basis of race can file complaints either directly with the FSA or with the Department. Id.
Alleging that the Department discriminated against them on the basis of race in its administration of these programs, seven Native-American farmers filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 3 of 11

themselves and others similarly situated. The lawsuit followed the Department's release of a self-critical report that had been prompted by longstanding accusations of racial discrimination in the administration of agricultural programs. Civil Rights Action Team, USDA, Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture 2-3 (1997), available at http://www.usda.gov/news/civil/cr_next.htm. Noting that "discrimination in program delivery ... continues to exist to a large degree unabated," id. at 2, the report found significant disparities between the Department's treatment of minority and nonminority farmers, such as "lower participation and lower loan approval rates for minorities in most [agency] programs," and substantial inequalities in loan processing rates, including "disparities between nonminority loan processing and American Indian loan processing" in certain states, id. at 21. Since "complaints [were] processed slowly, if at all," id. at 25, farmers found "little relief" in the Department's complaint process, "which, if anything, often ma[de] matters worse," id. at 22. According to the report, Department officials did little to improve the Department's record of civil rights enforcement; indeed, "during the early and mid-1980's USDA leaders had effectively dismantled USDA's civil rights apparatus," and "numerous reorganizations" since that time had left "civil rights at USDA ... in a persistent state of chaos." Id. at 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). Minority farmers, the report concluded, "have lost significant amounts of land and potential farm income as a result of discrimination by [USDA] programs." Id. at 30.
Proceeding under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. ss 1691-1691f, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. s 2000d et seq., the farmers, seeking both equitable and monetary relief, allege discrimination in the Department's handling of applications and in its failure to investigate and process their discrimination complaints. Four similar suits have been filed: An action on behalf of African-American and Latino farmers was dismissed, Williams v. Glickman, No. 95-1149 (D.D.C. filed June 16,

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 4 of 11

1995); another action brought by a class of African-American farmers has been settled, see Pigford v. Veneman, 292 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2002); and actions on behalf of Latino farmers, Garcia v. Veneman, No. 00-2445 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 13, 2000), and female and other farmers alleging discrimination on the basis of age, sex, marital status, race, color, national origin, or religion, Love v. Veneman, No. 00-2502 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 19, 2000), remain pending in district court.
In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, the Department argued (among other things) that the farmers' claims regarding its failure to process their complaints were actionable under neither the APA nor the ECOA. The district court denied the motion without prejudice, and the farmers moved to certify a class consisting of "[a]ll Native-American farmers and ranchers who believe that USDA discriminated against them on account of their race in their applications for, or USDA's administration of, USDA farm programs ... and who complained of that discrimination to the USDA."
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class can be certified if it meets Rule 23(a)'s four requirements--numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation-and if it falls into one of the three categories of class actions described in Rule 23(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b); Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613-16 (1997). Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3)--the two categories at issue in this case-have different requirements depending primarily on the nature of the relief sought. Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate where plaintiffs seek declaratory or injunctive relief for class-wide injury. Such certification is particularly wellsuited for civil rights actions where "a party is charged with discriminating unlawfully against a class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) advisory committee notes. According to the Advisory Committee Notes, however, (b)(2) certification is not proper where "the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to money damages." Id.
In contrast to Rule 23(b)(2), class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate even where plaintiffs seek only

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 5 of 11

monetary damages so long as "questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and ... a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), however, comes with certain procedural requirements: Because members of a class seeking substantial monetary damages may have divergent interests, due process requires that putative class members receive notice and an opportunity to opt out. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2); Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2001). By contrast, Rule 23(b)(2) imposes no similar requirements because a class seeking primarily equitable relief for a common injury is assumed to be a cohesive group with few conflicting interests, giving rise to a presumption that adequate representation alone provides sufficient procedural protection. See Robinson, 267 F.3d at 165 (noting the presumption that an adequate class representative in a (b)(2) action "will generally safeguard absent class members' interests and thereby satisfy the strictures of due process").
Seeking both equitable and monetary relief, the farmers asked the district court to certify a so-called "hybrid" class: a (b)(2) class for their equitable claims and a (b)(3) class for their monetary claims. In support of this request, the farmers relied on language in Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87 (D.C. Cir. 1997), which held that district courts may grant opt-out rights in (b)(2) class actions either by certifying a (b)(3) class as to claims for monetary relief or by exercising their discretion under Rule 23(d)(5) to allow opt-outs from the (b)(2). Id. at 96. The district court, however, certified only a (b)(2) class and--central to this case--instead of determining whether plaintiffs' monetary claims predominate over their equitable claims, the district court limited the class to pursuing equitable relief, explaining that it lacked a sufficiently developed factual record to rule on the appropriate treatment of the monetary claims. Keepseagle v. Veneman, No. 99-3119, mem. op. at 36 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001). Also, the class the district court certified--all Native-American farm-

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 6 of 11

ers and ranchers who filed a discrimination complaint with the Department between January 1, 1981, and November 24, 1999--was narrower than the one the farmers had sought. Keepseagle v. Veneman, mem. op. at 36.
Proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), which allows courts of appeals, "in their discretion," to entertain interlocutory appeals of class certification decisions, the Department now mounts two challenges to the district court's class certification decision. First, the Department claims that the farmers' complaint-processing allegations fail Rule 23(a)'s commonality and typicality requirements. Second, the Department argues that the district court lacked authority to certify a (b)(2) class without first determining whether the "appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominately to money damages." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) advisory committee notes.
II.
Before considering the merits of the Department's petition, we must address the farmers' argument that we lack jurisdiction because the petition was untimely. Rule 23(f) gives litigants ten days to petition the court of appeals for review of an order granting or denying class certification. In this case, the Department filed its 23(f) petition on October 12, fourteen calendar days after the district court issued its class certification order. Citing Fed. R. App. P. 26(a), which requires inclusion of all calendar days when computing filing periods, the farmers contend that the Department's petition was late.
Although we agree that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the filing of Rule 23(f) petitions, the farmers rely on the wrong rule. Rule 5(a), which governs petitions for permission to appeal, does not refer to Rule 26(a), but instead instructs litigants to file their petitions within "the time specified by the statute or rule authorizing the appeal." In this case, the rule "authorizing the appeal" is Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The civil rules have their own time-computation rule, which excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays when "computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by [the civil] rules."

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 7 of 11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Because Rule 23(f) is a rule of civil procedure, Rule 6(a) governs the timing of 23(f) petitions, as every one of our sister circuits to have considered the matter has held. See Shin v. Cobb County Bd. of Educ., 248 F.3d 1061, 1065 (11th Cir. 2001); see also In re Sumitomo Copper Litig., 262 F.3d 134, 137 n.1 (2d Cir. 2001); Lienhart v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 255 F.3d 138, 142 n.1 (4th Cir. 2001); Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 1999).
Under Rule 6(a), the petition was timely. Although the Department filed it fourteen calendar days after the district court issued its class certification order, those fourteen days included four weekend days, and 14 - 4 = 10.
III.
This brings us to the question of whether to exercise our discretion under Rule 23(f) to entertain the Department's challenges to the district court's class certification order. In this circuit, interlocutory review of class certification decisions pursuant to Rule 23(f) is ordinarily appropriate in three circumstances: (1) when a "questionable" class certification decision creates a "death-knell situation" for either party; (2) when the certification decision presents "an unsettled and fundamental issue of law relating to class actions ... that is likely to evade end-of-the-case review"; and (3) when the certification decision is manifestly erroneous. In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 289 F.3d 98, 105 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Even if a case falls into none of these categories, we will grant 23(f) interlocutory review in "special circumstances," though we have cautioned that such review should be "granted rarely." Id. at 105-06.
If the Department had challenged only the district court's application of Rule 23(a), we would have no trouble rejecting the petition, for it falls into none of the Lorazepam categories. Beginning with the first category, we do not see how the certification of a class limited to injunctive and declaratory relief can create the sort of high-stakes situation that puts "substantial pressure on the defendant to settle independent of the merits of the plaintiffs' claims." Id. at 102 (citing

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 8 of 11

Blair, 181 F.3d 832 at 834). The Department insists that the district court's limitation of the class to equitable relief is "irrelevant" because "this case is, at bottom, about compensatory relief for past wrongs," creating a "threat of 'hydraulic' pressure to settle." Petitioner's Reply Br. at 12. As this case now stands, however, the farmers may not seek compensatory relief, so the Department faces no possibility of a massive damage judgment. A "death knell" will come, if at all, when and if the district court authorizes the class to proceed with its monetary claims.
Nor do we see anything either novel or manifestly erroneous (the second and third Lorazepam categories) about the district court's conclusion that the farmers' allegations concerning the Department's "failure to properly process, account for, and/or investigate discrimination complaints," which "affected each class member," satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality and typicality requirements. Keepseagle, mem. op. at 19-20. According to the Department, the farmers' complaint-processing allegations are a sham: the farmers, it says, designed those allegations "solely to manufacture the illusion of commonality" for class-certification purposes and "have no intention of actually litigating this claim." Petitioner's Opening Br. at 29-30. As the district court observed, however, nothing so far bears out the Department's dire predictions, Keepseagle, mem. op. at 22 n.8, and we think that the district court is in a far better position than we to evaluate claims of this sort. The Department's concern that the farmers will one day abandon their complaint-processing claim is too speculative to justify Rule 23(f) review.
In support of its challenge to the district court's 23(a) findings, the Department also argues that the farmers' complaint-processing claim is actionable under neither the ECOA nor the APA. But this argument, which the Department also made in its unsuccessful motion for judgment on the pleadings, has no bearing on the question of class certification. As the Supreme Court has long held, courts may not examine whether "plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits" in order to determine whether class certification is appropriate. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 9 of 11

417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To entertain the Department's claims concerning ECOA and APA coverage, now dressed up as challenges to class certification, would "inappropriately mix the issue of class certification with the merits." Lorazepam, 289 F.3d at 107.
The Department's challenge to the district court's application of Rule 23(b) presents a closer question. According to the Department, the district court lacked authority to certify only some of the plaintiffs' claims while leaving the rest "in limbo--not dismissed, but merely deferred." Petitioner's Reply Br. at 27. Unlike the other questions the Department raises in its petition, the question of whether district courts may certify a (b)(2) class solely for purposes of equitable relief without first determining if plaintiffs' claims for monetary relief predominate over their equitable claims is both unsettled--we know of no circuit that has addressed that issue--and fundamental. It is not, however, likely to evade end-of-the-case review. And while we might nonetheless regard the case as presenting "special circumstances," Lorazepam, 289 F.3d at 106, we think the question inappropriate for 23(f) review because the parties have failed to raise the issues critical to its resolution.
Rule 23(c)(4)(A), which authorizes certification of class actions "with respect to particular issues," would at first glance seem to provide authority for the district court's order in this case. The issue, however, is not so clear. To begin with, Department counsel pointed out at oral argument that the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 23(b)(2) provide that certification "does not extend to cases in which the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to money damages." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) advisory committee notes (emphasis added). If by using the word "cases," the Advisory Committee meant to refer to the entire set of issues that a complaint raises, then partial certification under 23(c)(4)(A) could occur only after the district court makes the (b)(2) predominance determination. But if, as counsel for the farmers contended at oral argument, the phrase "appropriate final relief," not the word "cases," functions as the operative portion of the Advisory Committee Notes, then where the district court limits the class to seeking injunctive and declar-

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 10 of 11

atory relief (as the district court did here), the appropriate final relief in the "case" is equitable, not monetary.
More important, the introduction to subsection (c)(4) provides that certification "with respect to particular issues" may be ordered only "where appropriate." As the court observed at oral argument, whether partial certification is "appropriate" turns at least in part on its effect on two concerns surrounding Rule 23 class actions: first, how class certification affects the due process rights of absent class members to have their own day in court, and second, whether parties are bound to the judgment. As to the first point, the Supreme Court established in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), that (1) before a court can bind absent class members "concerning claims wholly or predominantly for money damages," due process requires that they receive adequate notice and an opportunity to opt out of the action, id. at 811-13, and (2) the defendant in such an action has a right ("standing") to demand that adequate notice be given to class members, so as to avoid a situation where the defendant would be bound by a loss yet class members would not be bound by its win, id. at 804-06. To complicate matters further, the Supreme Court has expressly left open the question of whether a judgment in a no-opt-out class action (like the one the district court certified here) can ever preclude absent class members from bringing their own individual lawsuits for monetary damages. Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Brown, 511 U.S. 117 (1994) (per curiam) (raising, without deciding, the question of whether due process forbids enforcing a class-action judgment against an absent plaintiff who wishes to bring her own individual lawsuit for money damages, where the class was properly certified as a no-opt-out class action). Second, the constitutional concerns raised in Shutts and Ticor may also implicate the concerns underlying Rule 23. The drafters of the 1966 amendments, which gave rise to the rule as we know it today, were concerned with the binding effect of class actions and the due process protections required for parties to be bound. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee notes (noting the need to "assure procedural fairness, particularly giving notice to members of the class, which

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #02-5021 Document #710510

Filed: 10/29/2002 Page 11 of 11

may in turn be related in some instances to the extension of the judgment to the class"). They drafted the rule to clarify that "all class actions maintained to the end as such will result in judgments including those whom the court finds to be members of the class, whether or not the judgment is favorable to the class." Id.
Because of the importance of these issues to the interpretation of Rule 23 and because their implications for this case are entirely unbriefed, we think it best to decline to exercise our Rule 23(f) discretion to consider the Department's arguments at this time. Following full briefing in the district court and any revised order issued by that court, the Department remains free to seek appellate review, either in another 23(f) petition or otherwise.
The Department's petition is denied.
So ordered.

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________

)

MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 99-3119 (EGS)

)

TOM VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. )

Department of Agriculture,

)

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case places the Court in the unenviable position of

enforcing a five-year-old bargain that nobody likes. The bargain

at issue is not any old contract; rather, it is a settlement

agreement that resolved a major civil-rights class action, was

approved by the Court in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and was made final by that approval and the

lack of appeal therefrom. The story that led this case to its

current posture is as unique as it is disappointing. In brief,

the $680,000,000 in damages that were awarded under the

settlement agreement was intended to compensate Native American

farmers who alleged that the United States Department of

Agriculture discriminated against them personally. The agreement

created a claims process for distributing this money, but the

claims process failed and $380,000,000 remains undistributed.

The scope of this failure is monumental; the reasons for it remain unclear.
The agreement was finalized before the claims process began, so no one anticipated such a large amount of excess funds. But the parties did anticipate that some money might be leftover, so they included in their settlement agreement a cy pres provision, which directs that all leftover funds be distributed in equal shares to a group of charities that serve Native American farmers and ranchers that were to be chosen by Class Counsel. Now, faced with the prospect of over half of the plaintiffs’ damages being distributed in equal shares to charities nominated by Class Counsel, many class members regret that part of their agreement and want to change it. Principal among those class members is Marilyn Keepseagle, who has asked the Court to modify the agreement to create a renewed claims process to distribute more of the money to individual class members. Others, including Class Counsel, ask to modify only the charitable-distribution procedures to accommodate the large amount of money to be distributed by: (1) allowing it to be distributed in unequal shares scaled to an organization’s capacity; (2) spreading the distribution over twenty years; and (3) placing distribution decisions in the hands of a trust run by Native American leaders.
2

Unless there is a legal basis for this Court to modify the agreement, the Court must enforce the agreement reached in 2011. Doing so would frustrate all parties’ goals. Contrary to the Keepseagles’s wishes, the funds would remain entirely for charitable distribution. Contrary to the goals of Class Counsel and the government, that charitable distribution would be pursuant to the arguably inefficient procedures that were designed to handle a much smaller amount of money. This result could be viewed as both unjust and inefficient. Over half of the class’s damages would be distributed to third parties, despite the relative ease with which class members could be identified, the claims process reopened, and previously successful claimants permitted to prove that they suffered damages in excess of the compensation they have obtained.
The Court’s role is not to craft a new compromise based upon the Court’s own views about the appropriate amount of compensation due to class members who alleged decades-long, and, in many cases, life-altering discrimination at the hands of their federal government. Nor is it to create a preferred process for distributing the funds to charity. Before the Court is a simple question: Are any of the narrow circumstances in which a court’s final judgment may be modified present in this case?
3

The avenues proposed by the parties for unilateral modification—Class Counsel’s attempt to realign the charitabledistribution procedures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), and the Keepseagles’s attempt to reopen the claims process pursuant to the legal doctrine governing unclaimed funds as well as Rules 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6)—are simply inapplicable, as the Court discusses in detail in Parts II.A and II.B of this Opinion. Absent a way to modify the agreement unilaterally, the parties must come to a consensus themselves, which their settlement agreement defines as “the written agreement of the Parties.” As the Court finds in Part II.C, this language requires more than the agreement of Class Counsel and the government, over the objection of at least one class representative and many class members, which is what is presented by Class Counsel’s proposed modification. It also requires more than an alignment between Class Counsel, the class representatives, and members of the class, who would all prefer that the money be distributed directly to class members. Because there is no consensus within the meaning of the agreement, and because the parties’ proposals for unilateral modification are legally insufficient, the Court DENIES both pending motions for modification of the settlement agreement. The Court expects that there will be review of the legal conclusions reached in this Opinion by appellate courts. Upon resolution of appellate
4

proceedings, if this Court’s legal conclusions are undisturbed,
the Court will grant the Parties a period of time to negotiate
an agreement that they may jointly present to the Court.
* * *
Before beginning its legal analysis, the Court makes some
observations regarding the government’s arguments. The
government has chosen to oppose any modification of the
settlement agreement that would alter the cy pres nature of the
funds in any way, based upon concerns that class members might
receive a “windfall” in excess of the damages they suffered and
that reopening the claims process would undermine the
government’s interest in the finality of court judgments.
The Executive Branch’s narrow position today stands in stark
contrast to the messages of respect and reconciliation it
expressed upon the settlement of this case. Upon announcement of
the settlement in 2010, the President issued the following
statement:
Today, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice announced a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the Keepseagle class action lawsuit. This suit was originally filed in 1999 by Native American farmers alleging discrimination in access to and participation in USDA’s farm loan programs. With today’s agreement, we take an important step forward in remedying USDA’s unfortunate civil rights history.
I applaud Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Holder for their hard work to reach this settlement–a settlement that helps strengthen the nation to nation
5

relationship and underscores the federal government’s commitment to treat all citizens fairly.
Statement by the President on Settlement Agreement in the Native
American Farmers Lawsuit Against USDA, White House Office of the
Press Secretary (Oct. 19, 2010), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2010/10/19/statement-president-settlement-
agreement-native-american-farmers-lawsuit. A statement issued by
Secretary Vilsack and then-Attorney General Holder expressed
similar sentiments:
“Today’s settlement can never undo wrongs that Native Americans may have experienced in past decades, but combined with the actions we at USDA are taking to address such wrongs, the settlement will provide some measure of relief to those alleging discrimination,” Vilsack said. “The Obama Administration is committed to closing the chapter on an unfortunate civil rights history at USDA and working to ensure our customers and employees are treated justly and equally.”
“The settlement announced today will allow USDA and the Native American farmers involved in the lawsuit to move forward and focus on the future,” said Attorney General Holder.
* * *
Under Secretary Vilsack’s leadership, USDA is working to address past civil rights complaints and today’s announcement is a major step in that effort. The Secretary and his leadership team are committed to addressing allegations of discrimination, and shortly after he took office he sent a memo to all USDA employees calling for “a new era of civil rights” for the Department.
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Holder
Announce Settlement Agreement with Native American Farmers Who
Claim to Have Faced Discrimination by USDA in Past Decades, USDA
6

Office of Communications (Oct. 19, 2010), http://www.usda.gov/ wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2010/10/0539.xml&printable =true&contentidonly=true.
The Court is sympathetic to the government’s legal argument that the settlement is a final judgment and that respect for final judgments is a cornerstone of our legal system. Indeed, that argument ultimately binds the Court. That is the Court’s role: To resolve legal disputes, not make policy decisions, even when the law dictates a result the Court may disfavor. The Executive Branch, however, has a broader role: To defend itself in litigation, for sure, but also to seek justice on a broader stage. It is for that reason, the Court presumes, that the government sometimes settles cases that implicate deep-seated interests of justice, even where the government’s legal defense may be relatively strong.
This case was not an abstract legal dispute. It was a major class-action seeking to remedy what many felt was the latest chapter in the federal government’s sordid history of mistreating Native Americans. The statements of the President, Secretary Vilsack, and then-Attorney General Holder make clear that the government in 2010 understood this dimension of the case. The government’s position lately evinces a failure to grapple with that dimension. The government would do well to remove its legalistic blinders.
7

The result is that $380,000,000 of taxpayer funds is set to be distributed inefficiently to third-party groups that had no legal claim against the government. Although a $380,000,000 donation by the federal government to charities serving Native American farmers and ranchers might well be in the public interest, the Court doubts that the judgment fund from which this money came was intended to serve such a purpose. The public would do well to ask why $380,000,000 is being spent in such a manner.
Because these considerations move beyond the realm of the law and into the realm of politics and policy, this Court can only make observations, bound as it is to the final judgment in this case and the narrow legal doctrines for modifying a final judgment. This Court has confronted an analogous situation before and its words are equally applicable here: “Were this Court empowered to judge by its sense of justice, the heartbreaking accounts of” life-altering discrimination suffered by members of the class at the hands of their federal government “would be more than sufficient justification for granting all the relief that they request.” Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 195 F. Supp. 2d 140, 145 (D.D.C. 2002). As in Roeder, however, the authority to grant such relief lies with another branch of government and “[t]he political considerations that
8

must be balanced prior to such a decision are beyond both the expertise and the mandate of this Court.” Id. I. Background
A. The Case is Hard Fought from 1999 to 2010. On November 24, 1999, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the Secretary of Agriculture on behalf of a class of Native American farmers and ranchers who applied to the United States Department of Agriculture’s farm loan and benefits programs between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999. The plaintiffs alleged that the Department of Agriculture discriminated against them in a variety of ways in connection with these applications and its treatment of complaints of discrimination arising therefrom. The plaintiffs alleged that these actions violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691e; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. On December 12, 2001, this Court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See Keepseagle v. Veneman, No. 99-3119, 2001 WL 34676944 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001). Upon finding that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 had been met, the Court:
[C]ertifie[d] the following class for plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2): All Native–American
9

farmers and ranchers, who (1) farmed or ranched between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; (2) applied to the USDA for participation in a farm program during that time period; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA individually or through a representative during the time period.
Id. at *15. The Court did not address certification of
plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief:
Without a developed factual record and without clear representation of subclasses, it is impossible for the Court to make a finding that claims for individual compensatory relief will destroy the class cohesion. Similarly, the Court can not ascertain whether, should it permit class certification on plaintiffs’ claims for all forms of requested relief, the claims for monetary damages would overshadow those for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Id. at *14. Accordingly, the Court stated that it would consider
certification of the plaintiffs’ monetary claims “in the event
that, after the completion of discovery and the identification
of appropriate sub-class representatives, plaintiffs are able to
demonstrate to the Court the existence of a class properly
certifiable as a hybrid class or pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).” Id.
The D.C. Circuit declined the government’s petition for
interlocutory review of the Court’s class-certification order.
See In re Veneman, 309 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
For nearly ten years, the parties engaged in extensive and
contentious discovery and motions practice. A recounting of the
full history of this phase is unnecessary at this time, but this
nearly decade-long battle resulted in a narrowing of the
10

plaintiffs’ claims. The Court granted in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the plaintiffs’ Title VI claim, which the plaintiffs had ultimately conceded was barred by the law in this jurisdiction at that time. See Opinion & Order, ECF No. 275. Plaintiffs filed a series of Amended Complaints, and ultimately rested in their Eighth Amended Complaint on their Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim. Eighth Am. Compl., ECF No. 460 ¶¶ 131–36. Discovery on this claim was completed by November 2009. With certification of the plaintiffs’ monetary claims still a hotly contested issue, the parties jointly sought to stay briefing on December 3, 2009, representing that “given the current status of the litigation, settlement discussions are appropriate at this time.” Joint Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 548 at 2. The case was in settlement discussions for most of 2010.
B. The Parties Reach a Settlement Agreement. On October 19, 2010, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement. See Notice, ECF No. 570. Three days later, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of that settlement. See Mot. for Prelim. Approval, ECF No. 571. In connection with this motion, the plaintiffs noted that their expert witness had come to a conclusion that the damages suffered by the class were approximately $776,000,000, making
11

the $680,000,000 settlement award nearly 90% of the plaintiffs’
estimated total damages. See Pls.’ Suppl. Br., ECF No. 572 at 4.
On November 1, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement. See Order, ECF No. 577. In so doing, the Court
affirmed its prior certification of the class’s injunctive
claims and also certified the class’s claims for monetary relief
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). See id. at 2.
The Court also approved the parties’ plan for disseminating
notice of the Agreement, required that objections to the
Agreement and requests to opt out be postmarked by no later than
February 28, 2011, and scheduled a fairness hearing for April
28, 2011. See id. at 3.
The relevant provisions of the settlement agreement were
described in a prior Opinion of this Court:
The Agreement created a Compensation Fund (“the Fund”) of $680,000,000 “for the benefit of the Class.” [Agreement, ECF No. 621-2] ¶ VII.F (p. 7).1 The Fund was to be used in part to cover the attorney-fee award and individual awards to those who served as class representatives. See id. Primarily, however, the Fund
1 In 2012, the Agreement was modified to alter provisions related to the distribution of certain awards. See Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 621 at 1; Amended Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 621–2. This modification was done without opposition from any party. See Minute Order of August 1, 2012. For clarity, the Court refers throughout this Opinion to the version of the Agreement as modified in 2012, as it has in prior Opinions. The amended agreement contains typographical errors that resulted in duplicative paragraph numbering. As the Court has in prior Opinions, the Court refers in its citations to the listed paragraph number as well as the page number on which the cited material appears. 2 An appeal of one of these decisions is currently pending before
12

would “pay Final Track A Liquidated Awards, Final Track A Liquidated Tax Awards, Final Track B Awards, and Debt Relief Tax Awards, to, or on behalf of, Class Members pursuant to the Non-Judicial Claims Process.” Id.
The Agreement described how leftover funds, if any, would be disbursed: “In the event there is a balance remaining . . . the Claims Administrator shall direct any leftover funds to the Cy Pres Fund.” Agreement ¶ IX.F.9 (p. 37). “Class Counsel may then designate Cy Pres Beneficiaries to receive equal shares of the Cy Pres Fund.” Id. These designations “shall be for the benefit of Native American farmers and ranchers.” Id. The Agreement made eligibility as a recipient contingent upon being “recommend[ed] by Class Counsel and approv[ed] by the Court.” Id. Potential recipients were also only “non-profit organization[s], other than a law firm, legal services entity, or educational institution, that has provided agricultural, business assistance, or advocacy services to Native American farmers between 1981 and [November 1, 2010].” Id. ¶ II.I (pp. 6–7).
The Class received notice of all relevant provisions of the Agreement. The Claim Form provided to potential claimants contained a section that required the claimant to acknowledge that “[y]ou . . . forever and finally release USDA from any and all claims and causes of action that have been or could have been asserted against the Secretary by the proposed Class and the Class Members in the Case arising out of the conduct alleged therein.” Ex. C to Agreement, ECF No. 576–1 at 63. The Agreement, moreover, provided that the Class “agrees to the dismissal of the Case with prejudice.” Id. ¶ VI.A (p. 15). The Claim Form also notified Track A claimants that they would be “eligible for . . . [a] cash award up to $50,000.” Ex. C to Agreement, ECF No. 576–1 at 63. The Notice that was sent to the Class similarly described the $50,000 maximum under Track A and the fact that participation would result in a resolution of the individual’s legal claim, and stated that “[i]f any money remains in the Settlement Fund after all payments to class members and expenses have been paid, then it will be donated to one or more organizations that have provided agricultural, business assistance, or advocacy
13

services to Native Americans.” See Ex. I to Agreement, ECF No. 576–1 at 87, 88, 92.
Keepseagle v. Vilsack (“Keepseagle I”), No. 99-3119, 2014 WL
5796751, at *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2014) (alterations in original).
The Court has also summarized the proceedings that followed:
On March 18, 2011, Class Counsel filed copies of thirty-five letters raising objections to the Agreement. See Notice, ECF No. 585. Class Counsel filed their motion seeking final approval of the Agreement, which also responded to those objections, on April 1, 2011. See Mot. for Final Approval, ECF No. 589. Only two written objections related to cy pres. See id. at 62–63. One objector requested that his organizations be granted cy pres funds. See Kent Objection, ECF No. 585–2 at 7–8. Class Counsel noted that this request was premature. See Mot. for Final Approval, ECF No. 589 at 62. Another objector indicated his preference that excess funds be used for outreach purposes and not be limited to groups that already existed in 1981. See Givens Objection, ECF No. 585–4 at 19–20. Class Counsel noted that this desire was entirely consistent with the existing cy pres provisions. See Mot. for Final Approval, ECF No. 589 at 62–63.
The Court held a fairness hearing on April 28, 2011. See Minute Entry of April 28, 2011. The issue of cy pres was not raised by any objector. See generally Transcript of April 28, 2011 Fairness Hearing, ECF No. 609. After hearing from all who attended the fairness hearing, the Court found that the Agreement was fair and reasonable and approved it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). See Order, ECF No. 606. No appeal was filed from the Court’s approval of the Agreement.
Id. at *3.
14

C. The Settlement Fund is Distributed, Leaving $380,000,000 Leftover.
By design under the Agreement, the Court was largely uninvolved in the distribution process that followed final approval of the Agreement, with one exception. Over the course of the distribution, a handful of potential claimants petitioned this Court for relief from allegedly erroneous determinations made during the Non-Judicial Claims Process. See Smith Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 622; LaBatte Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. No. 635; Jones Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 693. The Court rejected these requests for similar reasons. See Order Denying Smith Mot., ECF No. 633; Order Denying LaBatte Mot., ECF No. 692; Order Denying Jones Mot., ECF No. 720.
Because this case had settled, the Court’s jurisdiction was limited. See Order Denying LaBatte Mot., ECF No. 692 at 7–8. The putative intervenors had to rely on the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction, but “[a]ncillary jurisdiction . . . is a relatively limited source of jurisdiction[,] aris[ing]: ‘(1) to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent . . . and (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.’” Id. at 8 (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 379–80 (1994)). Neither criterion was
15

satisfied, however. The first was inapplicable because the facts alleged by each putative intervenor—erroneous determinations during the Non-Judicial Claims Process—were distinct from the underlying claims of discrimination. See, e.g., id. The second was inapplicable because “‘[d]istrict courts enjoy no freeranging ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction to enforce consent decrees, but are instead constrained by the terms of the decree and related order.’” Id. at 8–9 (quoting Pigford v. Veneman, 292 F.3d 918, 924 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). “The Agreement sharply limits the circumstances under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction,” and although the Court retained jurisdiction “‘to supervise the distribution of the Fund and to ensure that Debt Relief Awards issued by the Track A and Track B Neutrals are applied by USDA,’” “that provision is limited by a more specific provision of the Agreement precluding the Court from reviewing any ‘Claim Determinations, and any other determinations made under th[e] Non-Judicial Claims Process.’” Id. at 9 (quoting Agreement, ECF No. 621-1 ¶¶ V.A.7 (p. 40), IX.A.9 (p. 19)). These provisions, the Court held, are reconciled by “foreclos[ing] judicial review of certain decisions as to who is entitled to receive an award, while permitting judicial supervision over distribution of the Fund . . . after those decisions have been made.” Id. (quoting Order Denying Smith Mot., ECF No. 633 at 8).2
2 An appeal of one of these decisions is currently pending before
16

The Court previously described what occurred at the end of the
distribution process:
On August 30, 2013 Class Counsel filed a status report, notifying the Court that nearly all distributions from the Fund had been made and approximately $380,000,000 remained leftover. See Status Report, ECF No. 646 at 3.3 Class Counsel asserted that this “render[ed] some of the conditions for cy pres distribution impractical.” Id. at 5. Class Counsel also outlined a potential modification of the Agreement, which would have involved the endowment of a new foundation “which could fund non-profit organizations serving the needs of Native American
the D.C. Circuit. See Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 14-5223 (D.C. Cir. filed Sept. 11, 2014).
3 It remains unclear why such a large amount was left over. Class Counsel proposes four causes: (1) “many of the farmers and ranchers who were otherwise eligible to participate in the settlement were deceased by the time the claims process began in mid-2011,” and although their heirs could file claims on behalf of their estate, “the heirs simply lacked sufficient information in order to complete the claim form”; (2) “[s]ome Native American farmer[s] and ranchers who believed they had been denied loans for discriminatory reasons regarded it futile to lodge complaints with the USDA,” so they were unable to prove their claim in the Non-Judicial Claims Process (which required some proof of having filed such a claim); (3) “the USDA’s historic failure to conduct sufficient outreach to much of the Native American farming and ranching community,” which, Class Counsel asserts, meant “that otherwise eligible Native Americans never applied or attempted to apply for loans” (such individuals were “included in the expert analysis of people eligible for loans,” but could not make a claim under the Agreement because they had never applied for a loan); (4) “there were some potential claimants who were so distrustful of the federal government for historic reasons, that they did not have confidence in the validity of the settlement process, and thus did not submit claims.” Class Counsel’s Status Report, ECF No. 646 at 5 n.3. The government has proposed an additional explanation: “[T]he simplest [explanation] is that there are simply fewer people with claims than Plaintiffs originally argued.” Gov’t Opp. to Keepseagle Mot. to Modify, ECF No. 786 at 8 n.5.
17

farmers and ranchers.” Id. at 8. The Department of Agriculture opposed this proposal. See Response to Status Report, ECF No. 649.

The filing of the August 30, 2013 status report prompted the [Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and its affiliated Jones Academy Foundation] and [a group of class members calling themselves the] Great Plains Claimants to move to intervene. See Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 647; Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 654. These motions, however, sought to intervene in proceedings that did not yet exist. No one had proposed any modification to the Court and the hypothetical proposal outlined by Class Counsel was opposed by the defendant. Accordingly, the Court allowed the parties additional time to come to an agreement on whether and how to modify the Agreement.

On September 24, 2014, Class Counsel filed an unopposed motion to modify the Agreement. See Mot. to Modify, ECF No. 709. The modification proposes that 10% of the Cy Pres Fund be distributed immediately to non-profit organizations “proposed by Class Counsel and approved by the Court” that must also meet the following criteria:

(1) they must have “provided business assistance, agricultural education, technical support, or advocacy services to Native American farmers or ranchers between 1981 and November 1, 2010 to support and promote their continued engagement in agriculture”; and

(2) they must be “either a tax-exempt

organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of

the Internal Revenue Code . . . educational

organization

described

in

Section

170(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Code; or an

instrumentality of a state or federally

recognized tribe, including a non-profit

organization chartered under the tribal law of a

state or federally recognized tribe, that

furnishes assistance designed to further Native

American farming or ranching activities.”

Proposed Addendum to Agreement, ECF No. 709–2 ¶ II.A.

18

The modification utilizes the remainder of the Cy Pres Fund to create a trust “for the purpose of distributing the cy pres funds” which “shall seek recognition as a non-profit organization under § 501(c)(3).” Id. ¶ II.B. The trust would be required “to distribute the funds over a period not to exceed 20 years” and would be charged with disbursing the funds to “not-for-profit organizations that have served or will serve Native American farmers and ranchers.” Mot. to Modify, ECF No. 709–1 at 1. The Trust would be authorized to make grants subject to the following restrictions:
(i) “grants must be to a tax-exempt organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code; educational organization described in Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Code; or an instrumentality of a state or federally recognized tribe, including a non-profit organization chartered under the tribal law of a state or federally recognized tribe, that furnishes assistance designed to further Native American farming or ranching activities”; and
(ii) “the organization must use the funds to provide business assistance, agricultural education, technical support, and advocacy services to Native American farmers and ranchers, including those seeking to become farmers or ranchers, to support and promote their continued engagement in agriculture.”
Proposed Addendum to Agreement, ECF No. 709–2 ¶ II.B.
Shortly before the motion to modify the Agreement was filed, the Great Plains Claimants filed a renewed motion to intervene. See Second Great Plains Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 705. On September 18, 2014, the Court denied without prejudice the earlier motions to intervene of the Great Plains Claimants and the Choctaw Movants and set a schedule for the briefing of renewed motions to intervene. See Minute Order of September 18, 2014. The Choctaw Movants filed a renewed motion to intervene on October 1, 2014. See Second Choctaw Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 714.
Keepseagle I, 2014 WL 5796751, at *3–4.
19

D. The Court Denies Requests to Intervene. On November 7, 2014, the Court issued an Opinion denying both requests to intervene for lack of standing, which the Court found was a prerequisite for intervention as of right and for permissive intervention. See id. The Choctaw Movants lacked Article III standing “because any injury [they may face] will arise only if a multitude of speculative events occur.” Id. at *6. Their purported economic injury was conjectural: “The Choctaw Movants have no existing involvement with the Cy Pres Fund. They have not received a cy pres distribution, been approved to receive one, or had their eligibility assessed. Accordingly, modification of the cy pres provision would not affect them in the direct ways described in the cases they cite.” Id. It was unclear whether they would even satisfy the requirements for obtaining a cy pres distribution under the existing agreement as the Choctaw Nation was a tribal government and “the Agreement does not include tribal governments as potential recipients of cy pres distributions.” Id. at *7. In any event, the Choctaw Movants had not yet been recommended by Class Counsel to receive a distribution, which was “problematic for standing, as the Supreme Court is ‘reluctant to endorse standing theories that require guesswork as to how independent decisionmakers will exercise their judgment.’” Id. at *8 (quoting Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, 133 S.
20

Ct. 1138, 1150 (2013)). The Court also noted the “highly speculative” nature of predicting what amount the Choctaw Movants might receive if they were approved under the Agreement. See id. “These twin uncertainties—whether the Choctaw Movants would receive an award at all and, if so, how large an award they would receive—render[ed] it highly speculative to assert that the proposed modification would harm them.” Id. At the same time, it was hypothetical at best to say that the procedures as modified would harm, rather than help, the Choctaw Movants’s ability to receive a cy pres distribution and to say whether they would be likely to receive a larger or smaller amount if they were approved. See id. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the Choctaw Movants would suffer a lost opportunity to compete, as they “lose no opportunity to compete under the modification” and their ability to compete under the original Agreement appeared to be “illusory.” Id.
The Choctaw Movants also independently lacked prudential standing because they sought to “assert a legal right to compete under the existing procedures for cy pres distribution that were created by a settlement (which has nothing to do with them), to be distributed for the benefit of a class (of which they are not a part), to remedy claims of discrimination (which they did not suffer).” Id. at *9. “In doing so, they assert rights under the Agreement that do not belong to them.” Id. Because the Choctaw
21

Movants could not show that they were in any way intended beneficiaries they could not seek to enforce rights purportedly created by that Agreement. See id. at *9–10. The Court rejected their argument that the Agreement created a trust of which the Choctaw Movants were intended beneficiaries: Both the purpose of cy pres and the text of the Agreement itself “confirm[ed] that [the cy pres provision’s] purpose was geared toward the Class.” Id. at *10.
The Court also found that the Great Plains Claimants lacked Article III standing. Those individuals were all class members who had successfully pursued claims under the Agreement. See id. at *12. Although none had objected to the cy pres provision when the Agreement was approved and none had filed an appeal from that approval, they sought to intervene to undo the cy pres provision, on the ground that they had a legally protected interest in the leftover funds. Id. The Court noted, however, that the class members had “intentionally satisfied their legal claims” by entering into the Agreement and thereby gave up any legal claim they may have had. See id. This Court also surveyed the law governing unclaimed settlement funds, which counseled strongly in favor of finding that “‘neither the class members nor the settling defendants have any legal right to unclaimed or excess funds.’” Id. (quoting Diamond Chem. Co. v. Akzo Nobel
22

Chems. B.V., 517 F. Supp. 2d 212, 217 (D.D.C. 2007)).
Accordingly, the Court held:
The Great Plains Claimants have received the full value of their claims pursuant to the Agreement and thereby fully satisfied those legal claims. The fact that their claims, if ultimately successful at trial, could have resulted in higher damages awards changes nothing. As the Court emphasized during the April 28, 2011 fairness hearing: “There are risks in litigation as we all know. This case could have gone to trial, presumably, and the Plaintiffs not recovered anything. Class certification was not a foregone conclusion, and you’re aware, I’m sure, of other cases in this court, not before this judge, wherein class certification issues were not as successful as the class members would have liked. . . . So there were no guarantees that this case went forward at all.”
Id. at *13 (quoting Transcript of April 28, 2011 Fairness
Hearing, ECF No. 609 at 24:9–18). In sum, the Court found that
the Great Plains Claimants “cannot now claim a property right in
funds that were intended to pay the claims of other class
members who did not claim their award.” Id.
The Choctaw Movants timely appealed the Court’s intervention
decision. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 746. Their appeal
remains pending before the D.C. Circuit, Keepseagle v. Vilsack,
No. 15-5011 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 20, 2015), and they have
indicated that they will not move to stay proceedings before
this Court unless and until the Court grants any motion for
modification of the Agreement. See Choctaw Mot. to Extend
Deadline for Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 750 at 2. The Great Plains
Claimants did not appeal the Court’s decision.
23

E. Ms. Keepseagle Obtains Separate Counsel.
Shortly before the Court issued its Opinion denying the
motions to intervene, the Court scheduled a status hearing for
December 2, 2014 and informed the parties that once the
intervention issue was resolved, the Court would address the
following issues:
(1) whether the Court must direct notice to the Class and hold a fairness hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); (2) whether, if Rule 23 does not permit the Court to require such notice and a hearing, the Court may nonetheless exercise discretion to direct notice to the class and to permit class members to give their thoughts on the proposed modification during a status hearing or motion hearing; and (3) what content and form any notice— whether required by Rule 23(e) or permitted by the Court’s discretion—should take.
Minute Order of October 20, 2014.
In advance of the December 2, 2014 status hearing, the Court’s
staff was contacted by individuals on behalf of class
representative Marilyn Keepseagle, who indicated that Ms.
Keepseagle would attend the December 2, 2014 hearing, and
requested an opportunity to be heard by the Court. A recent
Opinion of this Court summarized what transpired next:
The Court began the status hearing by permitting Ms. Keepseagle to speak. Ms. Keepseagle discussed her opposition to Class Counsel’s proposed modification and her support for a proposal under which the cy pres funds would instead be distributed to members of the class. See Transcript of Dec. 2, 2014 Hearing, ECF No. 756 at 5:12–8:5, 9:19–10:3. The Court responded:
24

I’m not suggesting at all by any stretch of the imagination that the theory has legal support. I don’t know. But I very clearly heard [Ms. Keepseagle] tell me in her words very eloquently, as she is, that she wants relief from this judgment which sounds like a Rule 60(b) motion. So, the thought then is, what should the Court do at this juncture to enable her to develop her theory? I’m not going to lose sight of the fact that she’s without individual counsel, from what I can determine based on our brief discussion in open court.
Id. at 12:25–13:18. Accordingly, the Court held further proceedings in abeyance, and granted Ms. Keepseagle time to secure legal representation. See id. at 22:4–9.
Keepseagle v. Vilsack (“Keepseagle II”), No. 99-3119, 2015 WL
1851093, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 23, 2015).
Ms. Keepseagle’s new attorneys entered their appearances on
February 9, 2015 and indicated their desire to file two
preliminary motions before proceeding to address the settlement-
modification issue. See id. Over the objection of Class Counsel
and the government, the Court set an expedited schedule for
separate adjudication of those motions. See id. One motion
sought “a Court Order removing Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan
as class representatives” on the grounds that they were
inadequate because they supported Class Counsel’s proposed
modification, while the other motion sought “an Order compelling
Class Counsel to produce certain materials” related to public
gatherings at which Class Counsel discussed their proposed
modification with members of the class. Id.
25

On April 23, 2015, the Court denied both motions. See id. The Court found that Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan remained adequate class representatives because their position—while unpopular with many class members—was a principled outgrowth of their representation of the entire class and consideration of various litigation risks. See id. at *5–8. In any event, the Court found that it would lack the authority to remove class representatives at this stage of litigation because Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and 23(c)(1)(C) do not “permit the Court to modify the class certification order in light of allegedly inadequate representation by a class representative . . . where post-judgment actions will not affect class members’ legal rights.” Id. at *3. This was such a situation, as “the class members in this case have no legal right to the Cy Pres Fund,” and thus “the proposed modification would not implicate a class member’s legal right.” Id. at *5. As for the motion to compel, the Court found that the Keepseagles failed to supply an appropriate legal basis for such discovery at this stage of proceedings. See id. at *8–11.
F. The June 29, 2015 Hearing and the Pending Modification Proposals.
Having resolved all pending requests for intervention, Ms. Keepseagle’s representation status, and the preliminary motions filed by her counsel, the Court set a schedule for the
26

simultaneous briefing of the Keepseagles’s motion to modify and Class Counsel’s motion to modify. See Order, ECF No. 771 at 1–2. The Court also scheduled a hearing on these motions for June 29, 2015. See id. at 2.
In anticipation of this hearing, the Court resolved the last preliminary issue: the applicability of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Agreeing with the government and Class Counsel, the Court found Rule 23(e) inapplicable to Class Counsel’s proposed modification. See Keepseagle v. Vilsack (“Keepseagle III”), No. 99-3119, 2015 WL 1969814, at *4–8 (D.D.C. May 4, 2015). The Court first held that Rule 23(e) “applies only when a modification materially hinders a class member’s legal right.” Id. at *4. This is so because the entire purpose of Rule 23—and in particular Rule 23(e)—is to provide procedural protections at various stages of class-action litigation to ensure that the rights of absent class members are appropriately protected. See id. Unless a proposed modification would hinder such a class member’s legal right in some way—whether by expanding the scope of the res judicata effect of the judgment or otherwise limiting the remedy available to a class member—there would be no need for such protections. See id. at *5–6. The Court found—for reasons similar to its findings that the Great Plains Claimants lacked a legal interest in the Cy Pres Fund and that the Keepseagles could not remove class representatives at this stage
27

of proceedings—that Class Counsel’s proposed modification would not have such an effect. See id. at *6–7. Notwithstanding this finding, the Court held that it had the authority, under both Rule 23 and the Agreement itself, to order Class Counsel to provide notice to the class of its motion to modify and of the June 29, 2015 hearing, and also to permit class members to speak during the hearing to provide their perspectives on the issue. See id. at *7–9. The Court’s Order provided that class members could submit written comments to the Court’s chambers—which have been posted on the docket—and could also speak during the June 29, 2015 hearing. See Order, ECF No. 775.
The June 29, 2015 hearing lasted the entire day in the Court’s Ceremonial Courtroom. After hearing extensive argument from counsel, the Court was able to hear oral statements from all individuals who wished to give them. See generally Transcript of June 29, 2015 Hearing, ECF No. 806. Many individuals spoke in favor of a proposal akin to Ms. Keepseagle’s, under which the excess funds would be distributed to class members directly. Many also shared the heart-wrenching stories of discrimination they allegedly suffered at the hands of the federal government, and the lasting effects of that discrimination.
The motions for modification of the settlement agreement are now ripe for resolution. As described above, Class Counsel seeks a modification of the procedures for the cy pres distribution,
28

and the government does not oppose that motion. See Class
Counsel Mot., ECF No. 709. The Keepseagles request a
modification that would either provide pro rata distribution to
class members who were successful under the initial Claims
Process or, in the alternative, provide for a second claims
period for those who were not successful under the original
process and then distribute the remainder pro rata to all who
were successful in either round of the distribution process. See
Keepseagle Mot., ECF No. 779. The Court has received amicus
curiae briefs from three groups—(1) the Association of American
Indian Farmers, (2) the Great Plains Claimants, and (3) the
Indian Land Tenure Foundation and Intertribal Agriculture
Council. See Assoc. of Am. Indian Farmers Br., ECF No. 740;
Great Plains Claimants Br., ECF No. 784; Indian Land Tenure Br.,
ECF No. 787. Finally, the Court has received extensive
correspondence from class members and others expressing their views on the proposals.4
4 See First Set of Letters, ECF No. 780; Second Set of Letters, ECF No. 789; Third Set of Letters, ECF No. 790; Fourth Set of Letters, ECF No. 791; Fifth Set of Letters, ECF No. 794; Sixth Set of Letters, ECF No. 795; Seventh Set of Letters, ECF No. 796; Eighth Set of Letters, ECF No. 797; Ninth Set of Letters, ECF No. 798; Tenth Set of Letters, ECF No. 799; Eleventh Set of Letters, ECF No. 800; Twelfth Set of Letters, ECF No. 801; Thirteenth Set of Letters, ECF No. 802; Fourteenth Set of Letters, ECF No. 803; Fifteenth Set of Letters, ECF No. 804; Sixteenth Set of Letters, ECF No. 805; Seventeenth Set of Letters, ECF No. 807.
29

II. Analysis The Court begins with the undisputed proposition that the
Agreement is a final judgment. As this Court has noted on two recent occasions, “[a]n agreement between the parties dismissing all claims is the equivalent of a decision on the merits and thus claims settled by agreement are barred by res judicata.” Chandler v. Bernanke, 531 F. Supp. 2d 193, 197 (D.D.C. 2008); see Keepseagle II, 2015 WL 1851093, at *4; Keepseagle I, 2014 WL 5796751, at *12. The Supreme Court has made this issue clear with regard to consent decrees similar to the Agreement in this case. “A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992); see also Pigford, 292 F.3d at 923 (treating a settlement of a very similar case involving the claims of African-American farmers under Rufo’s standard for consent decrees).
Because the Agreement is a final judgment, the Court’s authority is circumscribed. “[D]istrict courts enjoy no freeranging ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction to enforce consent decrees, but are instead constrained by the terms of the decree and related
30

order.” Pigford, 292 F.3d at 924 (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381). “As our court of appeals has rhetorically asked: ‘Who would sign a consent decree if district courts had free-ranging interpretive or enforcement authority untethered from the decree’s negotiated terms?’” In re Black Farmers Discrim. Litig., 950 F. Supp. 2d 196, 200 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Pigford, 292 F.3d at 925). Indeed, the importance of respecting the finality of a judgment is deeply embedded in our legal system. See, e.g., Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003) (noting “the law’s important interest in the finality of judgments”). Any party seeking to overrule, modify, or rescind the Agreement therefore bears the burden of demonstrating a legal basis for doing so. Three avenues have been raised by one or more of the parties: (1) the law governing the disposition of unclaimed settlement funds; (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b); and (3) the modification provision of the Agreement itself. The Keepseagles rely upon the first and second avenues, while Class Counsel relies upon the second and third.
A. The Law Governing the Disposition of Unclaimed Settlement Funds Does Not Override the Mandatory Language of the Agreement.
The Keepseagles focus a large portion of their arguments—both in favor of their proposal and in opposition to Class Counsel’s proposal—on the legal doctrine governing the distribution of excess funds. Their argument is that this doctrine has become
31

increasingly inhospitable to the use of cy pres except as a last resort. They assert that the current circumstances of this case do not render other distribution methods unworkable, so the Court should not utilize a cy pres remedy. Class Counsel and the defendant note that the Keepseagles are eliding an important fact that renders this case unique: The question is not which distribution method the Court should choose in a vacuum; rather, the Court is presented with specific and mandatory language in a final settlement that was never challenged or appealed.
1. Questions Have Arisen Regarding the Legal Rules Applicable to Cy Pres Remedies.
Courts in this Circuit have approved generally of the use of cy pres in distributing leftover settlement proceeds. See Democratic Cent. Comm. of D.C. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n, 84 F.3d 451, 455, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1996); In re Living Social Marketing & Sales Practice Litig., 298 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2013); Diamond Chem. Co., 517 F. Supp. 2d 212; Diamond Chem. Co., Inc. v. Akzo Nobel Chems. B.V., Nos. 1-2118, 2-1018, 2007 WL 2007447 (D.D.C. July 10, 2007). The Keepseagles are not wrong to suggest that cy pres has fallen out of favor in recent years, however. In a statement concurring in the denial of certiorari, Chief Justice Roberts summarized the many legal issues lurking to be decided:
Granting review of this case might not have afforded the Court an opportunity to address more fundamental
32

concerns surrounding the use of such remedies in class action litigation, including when, if ever, such relief should be considered; how to assess its fairness as a general matter; whether new entities may be established as part of such relief; if not, how existing entities should be selected; what the respective roles of the judge and parties are in shaping a cy pres remedy; how closely the goals of any enlisted organization must correspond to the interests of the class; and so on. This Court has not previously addressed any of these issues. . . . In a suitable case, this Court may need to clarify the limits on the use of such remedies.
Marek v. Lane, 134 S. Ct. 8, 9 (2013) (Roberts, C.J.). The
American Law Institute has also set forth principles to govern
the use of cy pres, which limit the circumstances in which a
court may choose cy pres over other distribution methods:
• (a) If individual class members can be identified through reasonable effort, and the distributions are sufficiently large to make individual distributions economically viable, settlement proceeds should be distributed directly to individual class members.
• (b) If the settlement involves individual distributions to class members and funds remain after distributions (because some class members could not be identified or chose not to participate), the settlement should presumptively provide for further distributions to participating class members unless the amounts involved are too small to make individual distributions economically viable or other specific reasons exist that would make such further distributions impossible or unfair.
• (c) If the court finds that individual distributions are not viable based upon the criteria set forth in subsections (a) and (b), the settlement may utilize a cy pres approach. The court, when feasible, should require the parties to identify a recipient whose interests reasonably approximate those being pursued by the class. If, and only if, no recipient whose interests reasonably approximate those being pursued
33

by the class can be identified after thorough investigation and analysis, a court may approve a recipient that does not reasonably approximate the interests being pursued by the class. Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation § 3.07 (2010). The Keepseagles urge the Court to follow these Principles and thereby decline to utilize a cy pres remedy in this case because individual distributions to class members would not be especially difficult. Their argument is reasonable: This is not a case where further distribution of unclaimed funds to the class would be terribly inefficient. The large amount of money remaining to be distributed, combined with the large number of identifiable potential claimants would make further distributions relatively straightforward. Those who were unsuccessful during the previous claims process could be put through a renewed process, while those who previously received compensation could prove that they suffered damages in excess of the award they already received. Were this case in a traditional posture, the issue would be relatively clear. 2. This Case Involves the Unique Circumstance in which a
Cy Pres Remedy Has Already Been Approved and Neither Objected to Nor Appealed from. In urging the Court to resort immediately to the ALI Principles—which address whether to use a cy pres remedy in the first place—the Keepseagles gloss over a key fact that places this case in a unique posture: “[T]his is not a case where
34

parties seek to . . . address whether cy pres is appropriate in the first instance,” Keepseagle I, 2014 WL 5796751, at *1, nor is it one in which the Court is presented with a settlement agreement that contains a cy pres provision and must assess whether it is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” before approving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); cf. Keepseagle III, 2015 WL 1969814, at *6 (“The question . . . is not whether choosing to utilize a cy pres remedy in the first instance would alter the class’s legal rights if the Settlement Agreement were silent on the disposition of excess funds (that ship sailed in 2011).”). If the Court were presented with such a blank slate and asked to decide how to distribute $380,000,000 in leftover funds, the Keepseagles would likely be correct that of the four general options available to a court considering how to distribute unclaimed funds—(1) allowing the funds to revert to the defendant; (2) pro rata distribution to class members who filed claims; (3) escheat to the state or federal government; or (4) cy pres distribution—the Court would choose a pro rata distribution. See Newberg on Class Actions § 12:28 (5th ed. 2015) (as a general matter, “a court’s goal in distributing class action damages is to get as much of the money to the class members in as simple a manner as possible”).
35

As Professor Rubenstein notes in Newberg on Class Actions, the
existence of mandatory language in a final settlement agreement
cannot be ignored:
[T]he parties’ settlement agreement will typically include a provision expressing the settling parties’ preference with regard to unclaimed funds. The Court will review that provision at final approval to ensure it is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate’ from the perspective of the class; if it is, the court will enforce the provision and follow its distributional instructions, even if the court (or objectors) might have chosen a different path.
Id. The Keepseagles ignore the fact that a final judgment speaks
directly to the issue in this case and mandates the use of a cy
pres remedy. The Court, however, must recognize the powerful
force of a final judgment agreed upon by all parties, approved
by the Court, and neither objected to nor appealed from, “even
if the court (or objectors) might have chosen a different path”
knowing what is known now. Id.
3. Most Case Law Regarding the Use of Cy Pres Does Not Address the Circumstance in Which Cy Pres Has Already Been Finally Approved.
The authorities on which the Keepseagles rely for the
proposition that a cy pres distribution is inappropriate in this
case largely addressed situations in which no final settlement
agreement spoke to the issue. See, e.g., In re Baby Prods.
Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d 163, 169, 172, 173 (3d Cir. 2013)
(reviewing objector’s direct appeal of the district court’s
approval of a settlement that directed excess funds to “one or
36

more charitable organizations proposed by the parties and selected by the Court,” finding “that a district court does not abuse its discretion by approving a class action settlement agreement that includes a cy pres component directing the distribution of excess settlement funds to a third party to be used for a purpose related to the class injury,” but vacating the approval of the settlement because the district court “did not have the factual basis necessary to determine whether the settlement was fair to the entire class”—namely, the district court’s approval came before it was informed of the unexpectedly high amount of unclaimed funds because “counsel did not provide this information to the Court”); Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1037–38 (9th Cir. 2011) (reviewing objector’s direct appeal of a district court’s approval of a settlement in which no damages would go to the class and would instead be distributed entirely as cy pres); Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 473 F.3d 423, 428, 435–36 (2d Cir. 2007) (reviewing objector’s direct appeal of a district court’s approval of a settlement that provided that if there were excess funds “the Court shall, in its discretion, determine the disposition . . . after hearing the views of the parties hereto as to such disposition” and reversing insofar as the district court viewed its hands as tied in rejecting a request for an
37

award of treble damages to the class, in lieu of cy pres).5 Two decisions warrant a more detailed review, as they frame the
fact-specific inquiry that is required when assessing whether cy pres is mandated or permitted by a settlement.
In the case In re Lupron Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 677 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012), a class of “medical
patient consumers . . . alleging fraud in overcharging for the medication Lupron” reached a settlement agreement which the district court approved. Id. at 23–24. A fairness hearing was
held, at which time a group of dissident class members—one of whom had been allowed to intervene to “participat[e] in the process established by the court for the evaluation of the proposed settlement”—objected “that the amount of the settlement
allocated to the class of consumer purchasers of Lupron was inadequate.” Id. at 25. After the district court approved the settlement over objection, the dissidents “said they would
pursue appeals of the settlement agreement unless they received more,” so the parties negotiated an “implementation agreement”
5 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 628 F.3d 185, 196–98 (5th Cir. 2010) is wholly distinct. That decision declined to consider “whether a cy pres distribution of the settlement fund, without any monetary distribution would be fair, reasonable, and adequate” as such a decision “would be premature” and later found that a proposed notice of class-action settlement was inadequate because it failed to inform class members of the possibility that excess funds would be distributed cy pres. The notice in this case did not suffer from such deficiencies. See Keepseagle I, 2014 WL 5796751, at *2.
38

which increased the payments available to the consumer class in exchange for the withdrawal of the objectors’ appeals and objections. See id. at 26. The district court approved the settlement and the implementation agreement. See id. After a four-year-long claims period, over $11,000,000 remained in unclaimed funds. See id. The district court heard proposals on the disposition of those funds and ultimately “decided to make a cy pres award of all of the unclaimed settlement funds” to a hospital. See id. at 27. Three of the dissidents noted an appeal of this decision. See id. at 28. The First Circuit affirmed the decision to use cy pres because class members had received the full amount of their damages and the class’s relief “was established for the benefit of all consumer purchasers of Lupron, not just the 11,000 who filed claims.” Id. at 34. Although the First Circuit found that application of the ALI Principles was appropriate at that stage, it was presented with a settlement agreement, unlike the one before this Court, that directed that unclaimed funds “shall be distributed in the discretion of the Settlement Court as it deems appropriate,” noting that “[i]f all or part of any unclaimed funds is distributed to one or more charitable organizations,” the defendant reserved the right to claim a tax deduction. Id. at 26. Thus, unlike the Keepseagle settlement, the district court in Lupron had to make a threshold determination whether to
39

utilize cy pres or another distribution mechanism. Were the Court presented with such a circumstance, this case would be very different.
The issue is therefore very fact-specific when it arises in a case resolved by a settlement agreement, as the Fifth Circuit explained in Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 658 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2011). In Klier, the Fifth Circuit was presented with a class-action settlement resolving “claims of persons assertedly injured by the toxic emissions of an industrial plant near Bryan, Texas.” Id. at 471. The settlement created three subclasses and allocated monetary relief among them. See id. One subclass—of individuals who did not yet have medical conditions resulting from the emissions—obtained medical monitoring as relief. See id. at 472. Another class included individuals “suffering serious injuries,” who received direct payments. See id. at 470, 472. Upon completion of the medical-monitoring, the funds allocated to that subclass were not exhausted, but the fund for the subclass of individuals who suffered injury was exhausted. See id. at 473. The district court then granted the defendant’s request to distribute the funds as cy pres, and a class member opposed the proposal, arguing “that an additional distribution to members of [the injury subclass] was economically feasible and would be equitable since the members of [that subclass] had been found to suffer [serious injuries]
40

that are compensable under the settlement.” Id. The Fifth
Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to utilize a cy
pres remedy, focusing on the fact that the settlement agreement
itself contained no such remedy and in fact contained three
interrelated provisions that counseled in favor of
redistribution to members of the other subclass. See id. at 476–
77 (one provision required “that any money left over in any
subclass fund ‘shall be distributed pro rata to all Claimants in
that subclass,” another provision permitted the court to “make
changes to the terms of this protocol as necessary for the
benefit of the Settlement Class Members,” and a third provision
allowed the settlement administrator to petition the court “for
reallocation of available funds among the [subclasses] on a
showing of good cause if . . . he determines that considerations
of equity and fairness require reallocation”) (alterations in
original). The Fifth Circuit emphasized a district court’s role
in administering a class-action settlement:
Because a district court’s authority to administer a class-action settlement derives from Rule 23, the court cannot modify the bargained-for terms of the settlement agreement. That is, while the settlement agreement must gain the approval of the district judge, once approved its terms must be followed by the court and the parties alike. The district judge must abide the provisions of the settlement agreement, reading it to effectuate the goals of the litigation. This is not a free exercise of cy pres, but a determination of how the settlement agreement’s many provisions define the class’s property interests and allocate those interests once created. The terms of
41

the settlement agreement are always to be given controlling effect. Id. at 475–76; see also id. at 476 (“This is not a case where the settlement agreement itself provides that residual funds shall be distributed via cy pres.”). 4. The Eighth Circuit’s Decision in In Re Bank America
Corporation Securities Litigation Is Unpersuasive. Only one decision cited by the Keepseagles addressed the situation in which a settlement agreement mandated the use of cy pres. That decision found it appropriate to overrule an agreement that had been approved by a district court and affirmed as fair by the Eighth Circuit, all without objection to the cy pres provision. In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation (“BankAmerica II”), 775 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2015) involved a settlement of a securities-fraud class action, resulting in a $333,200,000 fund for a subclass of shareholders of NationsBank. See id. at 1062. A class representative objected that the class should receive more money because of the strength of its claims. See id. That objection was overruled, and the objector appealed. See id. at 1069. “At that time[, the objector] did not raise any objection to . . . the provision that settlement funds remaining after one or two distributions ‘may be contributed as a donation to one or more non-sectarian, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organizations as determined by the Court in its sole discretion.’” Id. (emphasis
42

in original). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of the settlement agreement, which included that term. See In re BankAmerica Secs. Litig. (“BankAmerica I”), 350 F.3d 747, 752 (8th Cir. 2003). A round of distributions occurred in 2004 and another took place in 2009, after which approximately $2,400,000 remained. See BankAmerica II, 775 F.3d at 1062. In 2012, class counsel moved, over objection of the same objector who brought the appeal in BankAmerica I, to distribute the remainder as cy pres, and the district court agreed and ordered the funds distributed to Legal Services of Eastern Missouri. See id. The objector appealed from that determination and the Eighth Circuit reversed. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit discussed extensively the ALI Principles and the Court’s belief that cy pres was inappropriate in the case. See id. at 1063–66.
The Eighth Circuit addressed only briefly the fact that the language of the final settlement agreement, to which the very same objector had failed to object originally and failed to mention in his prior appeal, “stat[ed] that the balance in the settlement fund ‘shall be contributed’ to non-profit organizations ‘determined by the court in its sole discretion.” Id. at 1066. The Eighth Circuit’s reasoning for ignoring the settlement agreement was as follows:
In the first place, the agreement and order stating that a cy pres distribution would be made in the district court’s ‘sole discretion’ was contrary to our
43

controlling decisions in Airline Tickets I and Airline Tickets II; that provision was void ab initio. See In re Lupron, 677 F.3d at 38 (“Distribution of funds at the discretion of the court is not a traditional Article III function.”). More importantly, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that “[a] proposed cy pres distribution must meet [our standards governing cy pres awards] regardless of whether the award was fashioned by the settling parties or the trial court.” Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1040. In arguing to the contrary [Class Counsel] misstates the holding of Klier, which overturned the district court’s cy pres award because ‘a cy pres distribution to a third party of unclaimed settlement funds is permissible only when it is not feasible to make further distributions to class members.” 658 F.3d at 475.
Id. The Court is not persuaded by this reasoning.
First, the Court is not persuaded that it has any authority to
declare void portions of an agreement that was negotiated by the
parties, approved by the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and finalized on appeal (either by affirmance of
the Court of Appeals or by the lack of any timely appeal). The
Eighth Circuit’s finding that the cy pres provision with which
it was presented was nonetheless “void ab initio” is difficult
to square with this reality, and the Eighth Circuit cited no
authority for the proposition that courts may line-item-veto
final settlements in this manner.6 To the extent that the Eighth
6 Even if this reasoning were persuasive, the D.C. Circuit does not appear to have any precedent that would have rendered the cy pres provisions of the Keepseagle settlement void ab initio. Furthermore, the Keepseagle settlement does not devote the cy pres distribution to the Court’s discretion; rather, it mandates that the funds be transmitted to a cy pres fund by the claims administrator, makes Class Counsel responsible for soliciting
44

Circuit relied upon In re Lupron for such authority, this Court is unconvinced. The general statement in Lupron cited by the Eighth Circuit—that “[d]istribution of funds at the discretion of the court is not a traditional Article III function”—does not establish the authority for a court to find a provision of a settlement agreement void after that very court had approved the agreement. Lupron, moreover, affirmed the application of cy pres consistent with the ALI Principles when dealing with a settlement that gave the district court discretion in discerning how excess funds should be distributed. 677 F.3d at 30–36.
Second, the Eighth Circuit’s reliance on a decision of the Ninth Circuit for the proposition that cy pres distributions must comply with legal standards governing whether cy pres is appropriate “regardless of whether the award was fashioned by the settling parties or the trial court,” Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1040, is unhelpful because that decision was a direct review of a district court’s approval of a settlement agreement, so it was the Ninth Circuit’s job to confirm whether the entire settlement, including the cy pres provision, was fair, reasonable, and adequate in the face of objections. At that stage, a court obviously must apply the doctrine governing the appropriate disposition of unclaimed funds. Nachshin does not
applications and making recommendations, and places the Court in a minor administrative role of approving those recommendations.
45

address a court’s role after final approval and affirmance on appeal (or when no appeal is filed).
Third, the final sentence of the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning on this point criticizes class counsel in that case for “misstat[ing] the holding of Klier, which overturned the district court’s cy pres award because ‘a cy pres distribution to a third party of unclaimed settlement funds is permissible only when it is not feasible to make further distributions to class members.” 658 F.3d at 475. Klier, however, is a paean to the sanctity of class-action settlement agreements. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit in that case found that the applicable settlement agreement not only failed to provide affirmatively for a cy pres distribution, but actually contained provisions indicating that pro rata distribution to another subclass was appropriate. See id. at 476–77. The Fifth Circuit specifically distinguished the circumstance presented in BankAmerica II and in this case: “This is not a case where the settlement agreement itself provides that residual funds shall be distributed via cy pres.” Id. at 476. And the Fifth Circuit could not have been clearer on the importance of following the settlement agreement’s terms:
Because a district court’s authority to administer a class-action settlement derives from Rule 23, the court cannot modify the bargained-for terms of the settlement agreement. That is, while the settlement agreement must gain the approval of the district judge, once approved its terms must be followed by the court and the parties alike. The district judge must
46

abide the provisions of the settlement agreement, reading it to effectuate the goals of the litigation. . . . The terms of the settlement agreement are always to be given controlling effect. Id. at 475–76. In this Court’s view, the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning for overruling a final settlement is unpersuasive. Courts are appropriately bound by the language of final settlement agreements and may deviate from them only when authorized by law. In the context of class actions, settlement agreements reflect the considered judgment of the class, its counsel, the defendant, and the Court, after following extensive procedural protections. The truly terrible facts of the case before this Court arguably cry out for a resolution that does not result in $380,000,000 being distributed as cy pres where class members are readily identifiable and may either prove their previously unsuccessful claims or prove that they suffered damages in excess of what they already received. Notwithstanding this reality, the Court must resist the temptation to allow these bad facts to make bad law. Following the Eighth Circuit’s holding would make bad law by undermining the finality of a judgment without a clear legal basis for doing so.
* * * For these reasons, the Court is bound to the final judgment proposed by the parties and approved by the Court after full
47

compliance with Rule 23 procedures—an approval to which no class
member objected in relevant part or appealed from at all.
Whether the cy pres doctrine as it exists in 2015 may bar a
finding that a cy pres provision like the one approved by this
Court in 2011 is fair, reasonable, and adequate is not an issue
before the Court.7
7 This case should serve as a cautionary tale to litigants in complex class actions. It should be the rare case where a major settlement agreement is completely finalized, only to find that a massive amount of unclaimed funds are leftover due to starkly lower-than-expected turnout by members of the class. Parties must do a much better job of predicting turnout and facilitating class-member participation in settlements. Such settlements are presented to district courts in a non-adversarial posture unless there are vocal objectors, making district courts especially ill-equipped to assess the reasonableness of a settlement’s predictions for class-member participation.
That does not leave district courts at the mercy of the accuracy of the parties’ predictions, however. To reduce the chances of the circumstances of this case repeating themselves, the Court suggests one of two paths. One option is “to withhold final approval of a settlement until the actual distribution of funds can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.” In re Baby Prods., 708 F.3d at 174; see also In re Living Social, 298 F.R.D. at 14 (giving final approval to a settlement that included a cy pres remedy only after the claims process had completed, at which point the court knew that $1,900,000 would be distributed to class members while $2,500,000 would be distributed as cy pres). This could allow the parties to modify certain portions of the preliminary settlement to reflect especially high or low turnout. Another option is for parties to include in the settlement terms that would be triggered in the event of a larger-than-expected excess to ensure that, similar to the result in Klier, class members who did participate are able to benefit, so long as that benefit would not exceed their actual damages. See In re Baby Prods., 708 F.3d at 174 (“[A] court may urge the parties to implement a settlement structure that attempts to maintain an appropriate balance between payments to the class and cy pres awards.”). These approaches would have
48

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) Does Not Provide a Method for Modifying the Agreement.
The parties each seek modification of the Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Class Counsel relies upon Rule 60(b)(5), while the Keepseagles invoke Rules 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6). Under Rule 60(b)(5), both parties argue that the far-larger-than-expected amount of excess funds is a changed circumstance that renders prospective application of the Agreement inequitable. Under Rule 60(b)(6), the Keepseagles argue that the issue is so important that it meets the extraordinary-circumstances test necessary for application of that Rule. Neither party has a convincing argument.
“‘[T]he decision to grant or deny a Rule 60(b) motion is committed to the discretion of the District Court.’” Green v. AFL-CIO, 287 F.R.D. 107, 109 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Kareem v. FDIC, 811 F. Supp. 2d 279, 282 (D.D.C. 2011)) (alteration in original). “‘The movant has the burden to establish that [he is] entitled to relief under Rule 60(b).’” Cohen v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of D.C., No. 14-754, 2014 WL 6890705, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2014) (quoting F.S. v. District of Columbia, No. 10– 1203, 2014 WL 4923025, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2014)) (alteration in original). Ultimately, “under Rule 60(b) the trial judge must
prevented the result in this case. Unfortunately, because this issue arose after final judgment, the ability of the parties and the Court to rectify the problem is much more limited.
49

strike a ‘delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.’” Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (alteration omitted; emphasis in original).
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) Does Not Apply Because the Cy Pres Provision Is Not Prospective and Circumstances Have Not Changed in a Manner Warranting Relief.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) provides: “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding [when] the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” The parties rely only on the final clause—when prospective application of the judgment is inequitable due to changed circumstances. Two elements are inherent in this clause: (1) that the judgment has prospective application; and (2) that circumstances have changed to make that application inequitable. Neither element is satisfied here.
a. The Cy Pres Provision Does Not Have Prospective Effect.
“Rule 60(b)(5) allows a court to amend any judgment that has prospective effect.” Kapar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 2cv-78, 2015 WL 2452754, at *3 (D.D.C. May 22, 2015) (quotation
50

marks omitted). “Although the principal significance of this portion of the rule is with regard to injunctions, it is not
confined to that form of relief, nor even to relief that historically would have been granted in courts of equity.” 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2863 (3d ed. 2015)). A judgment may also be
prospective only in part, in which case Rule 60(b)(5) could permit modification only of the portion of the judgment that has prospective effect. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont
Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431 (1855) (in a decision that forms the foundation for the changed-circumstances doctrine, the Supreme Court found that a prior judgment ordering the removal of a particular bridge could be reconsidered insofar as the
prior judgment “direct[ed] the abatement of the obstruction,” but portions of the judgment regarding payment of costs were not subject to reconsideration).
The D.C. Circuit has described the prospective-effect requirement as follows:
Virtually every court order causes at least some reverberations into the future, and has, in that literal sense, some prospective effect; even a money judgment has continuing consequences, most obviously until it is satisfied, and thereafter as well inasmuch as everyone is constrained by his or her net worth. That a court’s action has continuing consequences, however, does not necessarily mean that it has ‘prospective application’ for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(5).
51

Twelve John Does, 841 F.2d at 1138. Reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision in Wheeling & Belmont, as well as a subsequent decision, United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106 (1932), the D.C. Circuit concluded that “the standard we apply in determining whether an order or judgment has prospective application within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(5) is whether it is ‘executory’ or involves ‘the supervision of changing conduct or conditions.’” Twelve John Does, 841 F.2d at 1139; see Swift, 286 U.S. at 114 (“A continuing decree of injunction directed to events to come is subject always to adaptation as events may shape the need,” but will be found to be continuing only if it “involve[s] the supervision of changing conduct or conditions and [is] thus provisional and tentative”). Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit concluded that an order dismissing the Attorney General as a party to a prison-conditions lawsuit involving District of Columbia inmates “did not have the requisite prospective application”: “The order did not compel him to perform, or order him not to perform, any future act; it did not require the court to supervise any continuing interaction between him and the other parties to the case; rather, it definitively discharged the Attorney General from any further involvement in the case.” Twelve John Does, 841 F.2d at 1139. By contrast, a prototypical example of a consent decree that is prospective under Rule 60(b)(5) is one that resolved a church’s challenge to the denial
52

of building permits by allowing construction with limitations: “[I]t imposes ongoing restrictions on Northridge’s ability to build or undertake various activities, all of which are supervised by the district court.” Northridge Church v. Charter Twp. of Plymouth, 647 F.3d 606, 613 (6th Cir. 2011).
The application of these principles to the case at bar is somewhat novel. “The consensus among Courts of Appeal, including the D.C. Circuit, is that a claim for money damages is not ‘prospective’ for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(5).” Kapar, 2015 WL 2452754, at *3; see also, e.g. Twelve John Does, 841 F.2d at 1138; Stokors S.A. v. Morrison, 147 F.3d 759, 762 (8th Cir. 1998); Marshall v. Bd. of Educ., 575 F.2d 417, 425 (3d Cir. 1978); Ryan v. U.S. Lines Co., 303 F.2d 430, 434 (2d Cir. 1962). The cy pres provision of the Agreement addresses the final step in the payment of damages. Thus, in one sense, it is an execution of the award of money damages, not a prospective judgment.
The cy pres provision arguably has some characteristics of a prospective order, however, insofar as the distribution process requires Class Counsel to solicit and recommend cy pres recipients and creates an administrative task for the Court to approve the recommendations. In that regard, Class Counsel pointed the Court to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Pigford, 292 F.3d 918, in which the D.C. Circuit applied Rule 60(b)(5) to a
53

damages-distribution process very similar to the Non-Judicial Claims Process in this case. The D.C. Circuit did not discuss the prospective-effect requirement in applying Rule 60(b)(5) in Pigford, but it was dealing there with a request to reconsider deadlines that very clearly had prospective effect. If those deadlines were not modified, they would have barred a number of class members from participating in the claims process under the settlement, even though their failure to meet deadlines was due to their counsel’s apparent malpractice. See id. at 925–27. Ultimately, the cy pres provision in this case lacks this type of binding effect on a party’s future behavior that makes a judgment prospective within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(5). It does not, in the language of the D.C Circuit, “compel [anyone] to perform, or order [anyone] not to perform, any future act; it d[oes] not require the court to supervise any continuing interaction between [anyone] and the other parties to the case.” Twelve John Does, 841 F.2d at 1139. Although Class Counsel has a limited responsibility to propose recipients under the Agreement, that is not the same thing as a party to the case being subject to limitations on future conduct, and courts have emphasized the need for such limitations if a judgment is to be considered prospective. See, e.g., Comfort v. Lynn Sch. Comm., 560 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 2009) (“[W]e have limited the provision’s application to injunctions and consent decrees that
54

involve long-term supervision of changing conduct or
conditions.”) (quotation marks omitted). The cy pres portions of
the Agreement are thus akin to unpaid damages: The mere fact
that they have yet to be paid out, leaving some administrative
responsibilities to be executed, does not render them
prospective. See Kapar, 2015 WL 2452754, at *3; Marshall, 575
F.2d at 425 n.7 (“A ‘prospective’ injunction envisions a
restraint of future conduct, not an order to remedy past wrongs
when the compensation payment is withheld from the beneficiaries
until some subsequent date.”).8 The Court therefore finds that
the cy pres provision of the Agreement is not prospective within
the meaning of Rule 60(b)(5), making that Rule inapplicable.
b. The Parties Have Not Demonstrated Changed Circumstances Within the Meaning of Rule 60(b)(5).
Even if the cy pres provision was prospective, it is not clear
that the larger-than-expected excess is the type of factual
8 It is telling that Class Counsel and the government have argued repeatedly that the modification proposed by Class Counsel would have no binding effect on the legal rights of any class member. That argument, which the Court accepted, served to support findings that class members lacked standing to intervene, Keepseagle I, 2014 WL 5796751, at *11–14; that Rules 23(a)(4) and 23(c)(1)(C) did not apply to police the adequacy of a class representative at this stage of proceedings, Keepseagle II, 2015 WL 1851093, at *3–5; and that Rule 23(e) did not require the provision of renewed notice and the holding of another fairness hearing, Keepseagle III, 2015 WL 1969814, at *4–7. That the proposed modification would have no binding effect on the legal rights of class members in the future is consistent with the Court’s finding that the cy pres provision it sought to modify has no prospective effect.
55

change that warrants relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(5) requires truly changed circumstances, not a difference in degree of what was expected that renders a judgment less efficient, and certainly not mere disagreement with the judgment: “We are asking ourselves whether anything has happened that will justify us now in changing a decree. The injunction, whether right or wrong, is not subject to impeachment in its application to the conditions that existed at its making. We are not at liberty to reverse under the guise of readjusting.” Swift, 286 U.S. at 119. The inquiry is twofold: “[A] party seeking modification . . . bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision. . . . If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383. The initial factor may be met “by showing either a significant change . . . in factual conditions or in law.” Id. at 384.
A change in factual conditions—the only change pressed here— may support modification when it “make[s] compliance with the decree substantially more onerous,” when “a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles,” or “when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest.” Id. For example, where a state agency was under a consent decree regarding housing
56

facilities, modification of that decree was warranted where it was not possible to find appropriate housing facilities for certain patients. See id. (citing N.Y. State Ass’n for Retarded Children v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 969 (2d Cir. 1983)). Another example cited by the Supreme Court was where modification of a prison-conditions decree was necessary to avoid the need to release individuals accused of violent felonies. See id. at 385 (citing Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756, 759–61 (7th Cir. 1985)). Unlike in these decisions, nothing about the need to distribute significantly more money via a cy pres provision is unworkable or against the public interest. To be sure, it may be difficult to distribute under the existing cy pres provision and it may result in an inefficient distribution in view of the need to distribute the funds all at once and in equal shares, but the essence of the provision would still be served: The leftover funds would go to the types of organizations the parties initially contemplated when they entered the Agreement.
The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Pigford, 292 F.3d 918 illustrates this distinction. There, the Court addressed the application of Rule 60(b)(5) to a substantially similar settlement of the claims of African-American farmers. Class counsel in that case had failed adequately to represent the many class members whom it was obliged to assist in proving their claims under that settlement’s claims process. Id. at 925. The
57

failure to assist the class through that process was “an ‘unforeseen obstacle’ that makes the decree ‘unworkable’” because it resulted in many class members missing the deadline for filing claims. Id. at 927. In Pigford, the very purpose of the settlement—distributing damages to class members—was totally undermined by the lawyers’ actions. The larger-than-expected excess in this case does not undermine the purpose of the settlement in the same way, even if a modification would make the settlement more efficient. Accordingly, circumstances have not changed in a manner that would trigger the application of Rule 60(b)(5).
c. If The Parties Had Demonstrated Changed Circumstances, the Keepseagles’s Proposal Is Not Tailored to that Change.
It is not enough simply to show that the judgment has prospective effect and that circumstances have changed. “Once a moving party has met its burden of establishing either a change in fact or in law warranting modification of a consent decree, the district court should determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 391. A change in circumstances is not a free pass to rewrite a consent decree; rather “the focus should be on whether the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances.” Id. The D.C. Circuit has applied this rule stringently, rejecting an attempt
58

in Pigford to correct Class Counsel’s failure to represent class members through the claims process by “vesting arbitrators with generic authority to revise deadlines ‘so long as justice requires.’” Pigford, 292 F.3d at 927. “Whatever tailoring method the district court ultimately adopts,” the Circuit held, “must preserve the essence of the parties’ bargain.” Id.
Under this standard, even if the cy pres provision were prospective and the parties had demonstrated changed circumstances under Rule 60(b)(5), the Keepseagles’s proposals would be inappropriate subjects of a Rule 60(b)(5) motion. The changed circumstances cited by the parties are the fact that far more money is leftover than was expected. This would render application of the judgment inequitable, if at all, by virtue of the difficulty it causes under the existing cy pres distribution plan, which requires an immediate distribution in equal shares to a limited set of entities. Neither of the Keepseagles’s proposals—an immediate pro rata distribution to successful claimants or a second claims process followed by a pro rata distribution—are tailored to those changed circumstances. Although the Court is very sympathetic to the perspective of class members that the larger-than-expected excess provides an opportunity to distribute more compensation to class members, the goal of Rule 60(b)(5) is to “preserve the essence of the parties’ bargain,” while accommodating the changed circumstance.
59

Pigford, 292 F.3d at 927. If, as the D.C. Circuit held, it was not properly tailored in Pigford for a court to respond to class counsel’s representational failings that caused missed deadlines by permitting the arbitrators to extend the deadlines as justice required, id., it is surely not tailored to respond to a largerthan-expected excess by deleting the entire cy pres provision that the parties included in the Agreement, did not object to, and did not appeal from, and replace it with a term directing a very different disposition of the leftover funds. Whether due to concern with ensuring that excess funds would be used to provide some indirect benefit to those who did not participate in the claims process, or the government’s concern that a distribution process that could result in Track A claims exceeding $50,000 in the event of a surplus might lead to pressure to provide similarly higher compensation to participants in the settlements involving other farmers, the parties specifically agreed upon a cy pres remedy for the disposition of excess funds. Whatever the reasons for the provision initially, the Court would not be empowered to undo the bargain entirely, even if Rule 60(b)(5) were otherwise applicable.
2. The Keepseagles Have Not Demonstrated the Extraordinary Circumstances Necessary to Invoke Rule 60(b)(6).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) provides: “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
60

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any other reason that justifies relief.” To avoid allowing this exception to swallow the rule, “[r]elief under Rule 60(b)(6) . . . require[s] a showing of ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Kapar, 2015 WL 2452754, at *3 (quoting Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788, 791 (D.C. Cir. 2007)); see also Twelve John Does, 841 F.2d at 1140 (Rule 60(b)(6) “should be only sparingly used”) (quotation marks omitted). Such extraordinary circumstances have been found due to “an adversary’s failure to comply with a settlement agreement that was incorporated into a court’s order, fraud by the ‘party’s own counsel, by a codefendant, or by a third-party witness[,]’ or ‘when the losing party fails to receive notice of the entry of judgment in time to file an appeal.’” More v. Lew, 34 F. Supp. 3d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2864 (3d ed. 2015)) (alterations in original); see also, e.g., Austin v. Donahoe, No. 5-1824, 2014 WL 6779132, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2014) (finding extraordinary circumstances where a party “asserts that [her counsel] not only was negligent in failing to oppose the [defendant’s] motion, resulting in the dismissal of her case, but that he consistently misled her into believing that her case was progressing when, in fact, it had long since been removed from the Court’s docket”). Finally, “[c]laims under Rule
61

60(b)(6) must not be ‘premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).’” Green, 287 F.R.D. at 109 (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988)).
The Keepseagles appear to rely on the same argument they made under Rule 60(b)(5)—that the larger-than-expected excess is extraordinary. This is simply insufficient for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which cannot be premised on the bases enumerated in other portions of the Rule. See Green, 287 F.R.D. at 109. Even if the larger-than-expected excess were a cognizable reason for modification under Rule 60(b)(6), all parties to this case chose the terms of the Agreement, which included the cy pres terms. That they no longer like those terms because of factual developments does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance, and Rule 60(b)(6) “may not be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be improvident.” Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1110, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). There has been no suggestion of the kinds of extraordinary representational failings or complete lack of notice that has animated prior grants of relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, Rule 60(b)(6) does not provide an avenue for modification.
62

C. The Settlement Agreement Permits Its Own Modification Only with the Consent of “the Parties,” Not Just Class Counsel and the Defendant.
The final legal avenue that was proposed lies in the Agreement itself. The Agreement’s modification provision states: “This Settlement Agreement may be modified only with the written agreement of the Parties and with the approval of the District Court, upon such notice to the Class, if any, as the District Court may require.” Agreement ¶ XIV (p. 49). The government does not oppose the use of this provision for Class Counsel’s proposed modification, so Class Counsel asks the Court to rely on it to grant its motion.
The Court briefly notes that, as all parties appear to agree, the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this provision. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. As the Court has analyzed previously, the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction over the Agreement is limited. See Order Denying LaBatte Mot., ECF No. 692 at 8 (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379–80). “[D]istrict courts enjoy no free-ranging ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction to enforce consent decrees, but are instead constrained by the terms of the decree and related order.” Pigford, 292 F.3d at 924. Although the Agreement’s retention-of-jurisdiction provision did not specifically mention the modification provision, Agreement ¶¶
63

V.A–B (pp. 40–42), the modification provision can only be used with Court involvement and approval, id. ¶ XIV (p. 49), so any interpretation of the Agreement as withholding jurisdiction to enforce the modification provision would render that provision a complete nullity. Unlike the requests for review of determinations made during the Non-Judicial Claims Process, moreover, exercising jurisdiction over requests for modification would not contradict another of the Agreement’s terms. See Order Denying LaBatte Mot., ECF No. 692 at 9–12. Therefore, although the Court’s jurisdiction at this stage of proceedings is limited, that jurisdiction extends to approving a modification that is properly reached.
Class Counsel’s “unopposed” motion does not meet the substantive requirements for obtaining modification under the Agreement, however. Although the modification provision requires consent of “the Parties,” the three represented groups—the government, Class Counsel, and the Keepseagles—all seem to have operated under the assumption that the provision requires consent of Class Counsel and the government alone. The Agreement, however, defines “the Parties” as “the Plaintiffs and the Secretary,” Agreement ¶ II.DD (p. 10), and further defines “the Plaintiffs” as “the individual plaintiffs named in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 1:99CV03119 (D.D.C.), the members of the Class, and the Class Representatives.” Id. ¶ II.EE (p. 10).
64

The plain language of the Agreement, therefore, does not support a reading that would allow Class Counsel to enter unilaterally into an “unopposed” agreement to modify. Here, the Court is presented with stark disagreement, including a class representative and named plaintiff who has obtained separate counsel and specifically opposed the proposed modification.
The Court raised this issue during the June 29, 2015 hearing and gave the parties time to review the Agreement before responding. The parties’ responses were unconvincing. The Agreement plainly does not say that a modification may be approved as “unopposed” when a class representative—who happens to be the named plaintiff who gives this lawsuit its name—has expressed written opposition through separate counsel.9 Class Counsel and the government ultimately rested on the position that Class Counsel serves as a representative of the entire class and may therefore enter into an Agreement on behalf of “the Plaintiffs.” This certainly squares with the general nature of representative litigation, and the usual case would involve a modification proposal by Class Counsel to which no class member raised any objection. In that circumstance, the Court could—as it did in 2012—approve the modification. But the posture of this
9 Indeed, Class Counsel’s response to certain of the Court’s questions made clear the vital status of, at a minimum, the class representatives, as “parties” to this case. See Transcript of June 29, 2015 Hearing, ECF No. 806 at 41:16–47:17.
65

case demonstrates that Class Counsel’s view does not represent
the view of even all of the class representatives. The parties
in drafting this Agreement chose to require the consent of “the
Parties,” defined to include more than just Class Counsel and
the government. This choice must be given effect, much as Class
Counsel and the government have argued strenuously that the
Court must give effect to the Agreement’s cy pres provision.
As the Court’s discussion with Class Counsel regarding another
provision of the Agreement illustrated, even the
representational nature of class-action litigation counsels in
favor of recognizing that the class representatives must also be
on board with a proposal:
MR. SELLERS: Okay. In the middle of that paragraph it says, “Class counsel and class representatives, as defined earlier, will be appointed to represent the class in its pursuit of monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3),” which is consistent with the introduction I mentioned, that is, we and the class representatives have been appointed to represent the class, whether the class is individually or separately or collectively in connection with this agreement and the pursuit of monetary relief.
THE COURT: All right. Does that mean that all class representatives must agree?
MR. SELLERS: Do all class representatives, as opposed to the individuals?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. SELLERS: Um...
THE COURT: Ms. Keepseagle was a class representative, correct?
66

MR. SELLERS: Right.
* * *
THE COURT: So does this mean, then -- putting aside parties and plaintiffs, putting aside that plain language -- does this plain language mean that all class representatives must, indeed, approve a request for modification?
MR. SELLERS: I don’t think so, because the –
THE COURT: What number must approve it, then, if not all, and where does it say so?
MR. SELLERS: I don’t think it contemplates a majority or minority. It treats them as a group.
THE COURT: Which begs the question, then: Do all members of that group need to approve?
MR. SELLERS: Right.
THE COURT: And the answer is?
MR. SELLERS: The answer is: I don’t think the agreement provides that they all have to agree.
Transcript of June 29, 2015 Hearing, ECF No. 806 at 66:10–67:19
(discussing Agreement, ECF No. 621-2 ¶ VI.A.7 (p. 43).10
The Court agrees that the modification provision would be
absurd were it to recognize the consent of “the Parties” only
10 It is telling that Class Counsel could not clearly answer the following question about how the Court could interpret the modification provision: “So the Court would have to say something like this: Notwithstanding the plain language of the agreement that identifies plaintiffs as the individual plaintiffs named in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, the members of the class and class representatives, notwithstanding that, comma, the true plaintiffs are -- now how would you finish that sentence?” Transcript of June 29, 2015 Hearing, ECF No. 806 at 54:21–55:1.
67

upon written consent from every single member of the Class. The
Agreement, as Class Counsel argued, is representational in
nature. But the representational nature of the case does not end
with Class Counsel. This Court appointed class representatives
for a reason, and the breadth of the modification provision
counsels in favor of requiring their consent, as do the other
portions of the Agreement cited by Class Counsel during the June
29, 2015 hearing. Were the Court presented with an agreement to
which all class representatives agreed, Class Counsel’s
assertions regarding the representational nature of this
litigation would be convincing. Because the Court is not
currently presented with such an agreement, it cannot grant
relief under the Agreement’s modification provision at this time.11
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the pending
motions for modification of the Agreement. The Agreement speaks
11 The Keepseagles indicated in one of their pleadings that they may ultimately prefer Class Counsel’s proposal to the existing Agreement, if the choice comes down to the two options alone. See Keepseagle Opp., ECF No. 785 at 15–20. This conditional statement is not, in the Court’s view, sufficient to constitute consent of “the Parties.” During the June 29, 2015 hearing, moreover, one of the Keepseagles’s attorneys expressed openness to renewed negotiations with the government and Class Counsel, and also seemed to hint at potential appellate proceedings. In the event the case returns to this Court with this Opinion’s legal conclusions intact, the Parties will be permitted time to present whatever agreement they deem appropriate.
68

directly to this issue and existing doctrine regarding cy pres cannot overrule a final agreement that was neither objected to nor appealed from. Rule 60(b)(5) cannot be used to alter the Agreement because the cy pres provision does not have prospective effect and circumstances have not changed such that the provision is inequitable. Rule 60(b)(6) does not apply because the Keepseagles have not cited any “extraordinary circumstance” that could trigger its application. Finally, on the current record, the Court cannot grant Class Counsel’s motion under the Agreement itself because the Agreement requires consent of more than just Class Counsel and the government.
These legal rulings are not the end of the matter, however. Over the past year, the Court has issued four published Opinions that addressed a number of legal issues. Some of these conclusions will likely be reviewed by appellate courts. The simplest resolution, however, is the same path that took this case from one of the hardest-fought cases on this Court’s docket to one of the more monumental civil-rights settlements in recent memory. The Parties have the ability to reach a compromise that the Court can approve and which would give this case finality. In considering this option, the Executive Branch would do well to consider the remarks of President Obama, given in June 2014 while on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation (the tribe to which Marilyn Keepseagle and many other class members belong):
69

I know that throughout history, the United States often didn’t give the nation-to-nation relationship the respect that it deserved. So I promised when I ran to be a President who’d change that -- a President who honors our sacred trust, and who respects your sovereignty, and upholds treaty obligations, and who works with you in a spirit of true partnership, in mutual respect, to give our children the future that they deserve.
* * *
We’ve responded and resolved longstanding disputes. George Keepseagle is here today. (Applause.) A few years ago, my administration reached a historic settlement with George and other American Indian farmers and ranchers.
* * *
There’s no denying that for some Americans the deck has been stacked against them, sometimes for generations. And that’s been the case for many Native Americans. But if we’re working together, we can make things better. We’ve got a long way to go. But if we do our part, I believe that we can turn the corner. We can break old cycles.
Remarks by the President at the Cannon Ball Flag Day
Celebration, The White House (June 13, 2014), https://www.
whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/06/13/president-
obama-speaks-cannon-ball-flag-day-celebration#transcript.
* * *
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge July 24, 2015
70

 </s> Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________

)

MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 99-3119 (EGS)

)

TOM VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. )

Department of Agriculture,

)

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to modify the cy pres provisions of the Settlement Agreement (Agreement) that was entered in this case in 2011. The Agreement created a $680,000,000 fund and included precise terms regarding the distribution of this fund to individual class members who could prove their claims in a non-Judicial Claims Process. In 2013, after the entire distribution process had been completed, class counsel notified the Court that approximately $380,000,000 remained in the fund. The Agreement mandates that any excess be distributed pursuant to a cy pres provision.
The proposed modification (Addendum) before the Court: (1) provides a supplemental monetary award to every claimant who had filed a successful claim in the initial claims distribution

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 29
process; (2) subjects the remaining funds to an amended cy pres distribution procedure; and (3) provides a supplemental service award to three of the nine original class representatives for their assistance in reaching an agreement on the proposed Addendum. Although the motion is entitled “unopposed,” Keith Mandan, a class representative and prevailing claimant, obtained independent counsel and filed an objection to the motion to modify the Agreement. Class member William Smallwood, Jr. filed an identical objection. Marilyn Keepseagle, lead plaintiff and class representative, filed separate pleadings supporting the proposed Addendum.
Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, oral argument heard on February 4, 2016, the oral and written submissions of class members, the applicable law, and the entire record, the pending motion to modify the Agreement is GRANTED.1
1 Following the February 4, 2016 hearing, the Court received an “Opposition to Unopposed Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement or in the Alternative Remand for Further Negotiations with Instructions from the Court” filed by attorneys representing class members Blake Larmon, Jason Cole Larmon, Jana J. Haynes, Larry A. Million, Alfred R. Million, Garry Million, Vernon D. Sellers, J.R. Sellers, Anthony Snell, Justin Earp, Jamie Earp, Edward Crittenden, and Curtis Snell. This motion is addressed in Part III, infra.
2

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 29
I. Background The facts of this case have been fully recounted in prior
opinions of this Court, see e.g., Keepseagle v. Vilsack (“Keepseagle IV”), 118 F. Supp. 3d 98, 105-114 (D.D.C. 2015), but relevant facts are summarized below.
A. The 2011 Settlement Agreement On November 24, 1999, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against Native Americans in its provision of farm loans and benefits programs. Id. at 105. The Court certified the matter as a class action as to the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief on December 12, 2001. See Keepseagle v. Veneman, No. 99CIV-3119, 2001 WL 3467944, at *15 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001). After nearly ten years of significant discovery and motions practice, on October 19, 2010, the parties informed the Court they had reached a settlement. See Notice of Settlement and Proposed Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 570. Among other provisions, the Agreement created a $680,000,000 compensation fund for the benefit of the class. See id. at 15. This award amounted to nearly 90% of the total damages estimated by the plaintiffs’ experts. Pls.’ Supp. Br., ECF No. 572 at 4. Class members participating in the claims process acknowledged that they “forever and finally release[d] USDA from any and all
3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 29
claims and causes of action that have been or could have been
asserted . . . in the Case arising out of the conduct alleged
therein.” Notice of Filing, ECF No. 576-1 at 63. The Agreement
also provided that leftover funds, if any, would be distributed
pursuant to a cy pres provision, which reads as follows:
In the event there is a balance remaining in the Designated Account after the last check has been cashed, the last check has been invalidated due to passage of time, and after the passage of time set forth in paragraph 7 of Section IX.A, the Claims Administrator shall direct any leftover funds to the Cy Pres Fund. Class Counsel may then designate Cy Pres Beneficiaries to receive equal shares of the Cy Pres Fund. The Claims Administrator shall send to each Beneficiary, via first class mail, postage prepaid, a check in the amount of the Beneficiary’s share of the Cy Pres Fund. Designations shall be for the benefit of Native American farmers and ranchers, upon recommendations by Class Counsel and approval by the Court.
Agreement, ECF No. 621-2 at 33-34. The Agreement defines cy pres
beneficiaries as:
[A]ny non-profit organization, other than a law firm, legal services entity, or educational institution, that has provided agricultural, business assistance or advocacy services to Native American farmers between 1981 and the Execution Date [of the Agreement].
Id. at 2-3. The Agreement provided that the Court would retain
limited supervisory jurisdiction over the case only with respect
to five specifically-enumerated areas, and “only for a period of
five years from the date of final approval” of the Agreement.
4

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 5 of 29
Id. at 40-42. After notice to the class members, and a fairness hearing held on April 28, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the Agreement and entered a final order and judgment on April 29, 2011. See ECF Nos. 606, 607. No party appealed the Court’s decision.
B. Previous Motions to Modify the Agreement The Agreement left the Court largely uninvolved in the claims process following the entry of final judgment. On August 30, 2013, however, class counsel filed a status report notifying the Court that the claims process had concluded and that approximately $380,000,000 remained available for cy pres distribution. Status Report, ECF No. 646 at 3. Thereafter, class counsel filed a motion to modify the settlement agreement’s cy pres provisions. See Pl.’s Unopposed Mot. to Modify the Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions, ECF No. 709. Class counsel stated that “[w]hile the cy pres funds would go to nonprofit organizations serving Native American farmers and ranchers under both the original agreement and the proposed Addendum, changes in the mechanism for distributing funds, and refinement in the eligible groups, will better accomplish the aims of the original agreement.” Id. at 1. Marilyn and George Keepseagle, lead named plaintiffs and class representatives, opposed class counsel’s proposed modification. The Keepseagles retained counsel and filed their
5

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 6 of 29
own motion to modify the settlement agreement wherein they proposed that
the Court order a pro rata distribution of the remaining settlement funds to successful claimants, or, in the alternative re-open the claims process for class members that did not receive payment in the initial claims process and, upon completion of this claims process, provide a pro rata distribution to all successful claimants. Marilyn and George Keepseagle’s Mot. to Modify the Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 779. After a day-long hearing on the two pending modification proposals on June 29, 2015, the Court denied the motions in a Memorandum Opinion issued July 24, 2015. See generally Keepseagle IV, 118 F. Supp. 3d 98 (D.D.C. 2015). Though sympathetic to the concerns of both class counsel and Mrs. Keepseagle, the Court concluded that there was no basis to approve the modifications under the law governing the disposition of unclaimed settlement funds nor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6). Id. at 114-31 (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 379-80 (1994); Pigford v. Venemen, 292 F.3d 918, 924 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Because class counsel asserted that its proposal could be approved based on the modification provision in the Agreement itself, the Court briefly addressed that argument, but concluded that there was no consensus on the two proposed unilateral modifications pending
6

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 7 of 29
before the Court within the meaning of the Agreement. See Keepseagle IV, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 103.
C. The Pending Motion to Modify the Agreement On December 11, 2015, class counsel, counsel for Mrs. Keepseagle, and counsel for the government informed the Court that after engaging in protracted yet constructive discussions, they had reached an agreement on a proposed Addendum to the Agreement that would modify the existing Agreement’s cy pres provision. Thereafter, class counsel filed the “Unopposed Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement” now pending before the Court. See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 824. According to class counsel, at the time the motion was filed, Mr. Mandan had not stated whether he agreed with the proposed Addendum. Transcript of Feb. 4, 2016 Hearing, ECF No. 854 at 36. Thereafter, Mr. Mandan filed his Opposition to the Motion. See Class Representative Mandan Comments, ECF No. 833.
D. Terms of the Proposed Addendum The proposed Addendum is a compromise between class counsel’s and Mrs. Keepseagle’s prior proposals. It would provide for: (1) a supplemental award to claimants who prevailed in the original claims process; and (2) an amended process through which the cy pres funds will be distributed. Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 824 at 4.
7

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 8 of 29
1. Supplemental Award The proposed Addendum provides for a supplemental payment of $18,500 to all 3,605 prevailing claimants, plus $2,775 in direct payments to the Internal Revenue Service on each prevailing claimant’s behalf. Id. This supplemental payment totals approximately $77,000,000.
2. Cy Pres Distribution and Creation of a Trust The proposed Addendum modifies the cy pres distribution process by creating a Trust to help ensure the remaining funds are “distributed in an effective and accountable way.” Id. at 5. Because it will take a certain amount of time to set up the Trust, an initial distribution of $38,000,000 would be made to “eligible non-profit groups after approval by the Court and upon recommendation by class counsel within 180 days of the Court’s approval of this process.” Id. at 8. The remaining funds -- about $265 million or 70% of the cy pres funds available -- would endow a Trust which would distribute the funds over a period not to exceed 20 years. Id. at 5-6, 9. The mission of the Trust would be “to make grants to Eligible Grant Recipients . . . to fund the provision of business assistance, agricultural education, technical support, and advocacy services to Native American farmers and ranchers to support and promote their continued engagement in agriculture.”
8

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 9 of 29
Trust Agreement, Pls.’ Ex. B, ECF No. 824-4, § 7. The proposed Addendum expands the types of organizations eligible to receive grants to include, among other things, organizations that may not have existed when the Agreement was initially executed in 2010. Id. § 8. Additionally, certain instrumentalities of tribal governments would be eligible to receive distributions from the Trust so long as the funds are used for charitable and educational purposes in support of Native American farmers and ranchers. Id. § 8(a)(4).
There would be between nine and sixteen Trustees. Id. § 13. At least two-thirds of the Trustees must “have substantial knowledge of agricultural issues, the needs of Native American farmers and ranchers, or other substantive knowledge relevant to accomplishing the Trust’s Mission.” Id. At least one Trustee must have professional finance and investment experience, and another professional grant making experience. Id. The Trustees would hold staggered terms and no Trustee could serve more than two consecutive terms, or three terms overall. Id. Class counsel has nominated fourteen initial Trustees. Id. Following these initial nominations, any subsequent Trustees appointed to fill vacancies would be appointed by the existing Trustees by majority vote. Id.
9

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 10 of 29
3. Service Awards to Three Class Representatives
The Addendum also provides for service awards of $100,000 to be paid to class representatives Marilyn Keepseagle, Claryca Mandan, and Porter Holder. Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 824 at 8. The factual basis for the service awards is as follows:
Each of these Class Representatives has devoted countless hours to addressing the disposition of the cy pres funds, including: (a) joining numerous phone calls with Class Counsel as [Class Counsel was] evaluating what could be done and negotiating with the USDA; (b) responding to dozens, if not hundreds, of phone calls from class members interested in the decision, and (c) participating in several of the meetings held throughout the summer of 2014 at which class members were invited to attend to learn about the possible trust for cy pres funds, and to express their views. Id.
4. The Court’s Continuing Jurisdiction
Under the proposed Addendum, the Court would retain jurisdiction over this action for an additional 180 days following final approval of the Agreement by the Court solely for the purpose of: (1) supervising the distribution of supplemental awards; (2) supervising distribution to the Initial Cy Pres Beneficiaries; and (3) ruling on appointment of Trustees or any other matter regarding the initial implementation of the cy pres fund. Addendum to Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 824-2 at 1.
10

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 11 of 29
E. February 4, 2016 Hearing Without deciding or expressing any opinion about whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) applied to the resolution of this motion, see generally Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 102 F. Supp. 3d 306 (D.D.C. 2015), the Court directed class counsel to provide the class with notice of the proposed Addendum, allowed class members to submit written comments to the Court, and scheduled a hearing for February 4, 2016 to hear argument from counsel and oral statements from class members. See Order, ECF No. 825; Amended Order, ECF No. 828. The Court received many submissions from class members; those timely received were reviewed and uploaded to the Court’s docket. See Letters, ECF Nos. 835-839, 842-850, 865. Many class members expressed their support for the proposed Addendum, but many did not. See generally id. Of those who opposed the proposed Addendum, there were two main objections. First, many class members stated that all of the remaining funds should be distributed to the class members who filed successful claims during the initial claims period and that none of the remaining funds should be distributed to non-profit entities. Id. Second, many individuals who were unsuccessful during the initial claims period stated that the claims process should be reopened to allow them another opportunity to submit claims. Id.
11

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 12 of 29
On February 4, 2016, the Court held a second day-long hearing in the Court’s Ceremonial Courtroom. Once again, everyone present who wished to address the Court was given an opportunity to do so. See generally Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854. The Court heard many more disturbing accounts of alleged discrimination suffered by class members and their families. See generally id. Many class members asked the Court to reject the proposed Addendum, stating that successful claimants from the initial claims process should be entitled to a larger supplemental award than that in the proposed Addendum, if not a pro rata distribution of the entire remaining funds. Id.
At the close of the hearing, Mrs. Keepseagle’s attorney pointed out that the comments made at the hearing reflected two points of agreement: First, the commenters agreed there should be a second distribution of funds, although they disagreed on the amount –- whether it should be the $21,500 in the proposed Addendum or $100,000, which would be the approximate pro rata distribution of the remaining funds to the successful claimants. Second, no one defended the status quo under which the entire $380,000,000 would be distributed pursuant to the existing cy pres provision. Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 211-212.
12

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 13 of 29
II. Discussion To resolve the pending motion to modify the Agreement, the
Court must address two questions: (1) whether the proposed Addendum was properly reached pursuant to the modification provision of the Agreement,2 and if so; (2) whether the proposed Addendum is fair, reasonable and adequate.
A. The Proposed Addendum Was Properly Reached The plaintiffs move the Court to approve the proposed Addendum pursuant to the modification provision of the Agreement, which provides as follows: "This Settlement Agreement may be modified only with the written agreement of the Parties and with the approval of the District Court, upon such notice to the Class, if any, as the District Court may require." Agreement, ECF No. 621-2 at 53. The Agreement defines the "Parties" as "the Plaintiffs and the Secretary." Agreement, ECF No. 621-2 at 9. The Agreement further defines the "Plaintiffs" as the "individual plaintiffs named in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 1:99CV03119 (D.D.C.), the members of the Class, and the Class Representatives." Agreement, ECF No. 621-2 at 9.
2 As the Court noted in Keepseagle IV, the Court's jurisdiction extends to approving a modification to the settlement agreement that is properly reached. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 118 F. Supp. 3d 98, 129 (D.D.C. 2015). “‘[D]istrict Courts enjoy no free-ranging ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction to enforce consent decrees, but are instead constrained by the terms of the decree and related order.’” Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 815 F.3d 28, 33 (D.C. Cir. 2016)(citations omitted).
13

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 14 of 29
The plaintiffs argue that because the Court can approve a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit over the objections of class representatives and class members, this “[a]greement cannot be read to require the consent of individual Class Representatives as a condition of modifying the Agreement.” ECF No. 853 at 2-3. At the hearing, class counsel argued that the “parties” are “counsel representing the class and the USDA” because Rule 23(g) provides that class counsel is “ultimately responsible for representing the interest of the class.” Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 39.
Class counsel also informed the Court that although there were nine class representatives when the Agreement was approved in 2011, only four remain active today. See Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 33-35. Class counsel explained that of the five who are no longer active, three are deceased, one is incapacitated, and one ceased to be a class representative. Id. Further, class counsel stated that class representatives Marilyn Keepseagle, Claryca Mandan, and Porter Holder support the proposed Addendum. See id at 7: 11-18; Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 824-1 at 21.3
3 Mr. Mandan asserts that Mrs. Keepseagle and Ms. Mandan’s support for the proposed Addendum is “tepid at best.” Class Representative Mandan Points and Authorities, ECF No. 851 at 4. Mrs. Keepseagle refutes Mr. Mandan’s assertions with a declaration in which she explains her role in the negotiations that culminated in the proposed Addendum. Specifically, Mrs. Keepseagle states “While I had proposed a larger supplemental distribution, I support the proposed Addendum because it is the
14

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 15 of 29
Mr. Mandan opposes the proposed Addendum, asserting that it “is not in the best interest of the Prevailing Claimants and that the remaining funds should be distributed to the Prevailing Claimants in equal amounts.” Class Representative Mandan Comments, ECF No. 833 at 1. Mr. Mandan argues that the Court is in the same position that it was in July 2015 when it declined to approve the then-pending class counsel proposal over the objections of at least two class representatives. Class Representative Mandan Points and Authorities, ECF No. 851 at 14. Thus, according to Mr. Mandan, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the Court should reach the same result here. Id. at 45. Mr. Mandan also asserts that “his consent is required” to amend the agreement. Keith Mandan’s Reply, ECF No. 867 at 4. At the February 4, 2016 hearing, Mr. Mandan’s counsel informed the Court that “anything less than the total distribution per capita to the prevailing claimants is unacceptable. And if that is something that influences this Court to deny the proposed addendum, he’s willing to live with the consequences and stand on those principles.” Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 230.
best available compromise and the best option available for improving the terms of the Settlement Agreement in a timely manner.” Marilyn Keepseagle’s Response to Points and Authorities Submitted by Keith Mandan, ECF No. 856 at 2; ECF No. 856-1, ¶ 7.
15

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 16 of 29
Contrary to Mr. Mandan’s assertions, the Court’s decision in Keepseagle IV does not dictate how the Court must interpret the Agreement’s modification provision.4 In Keepseagle IV, the Court was asked to amend the terms of the Agreement in response to two competing unilateral proposals. Because class counsel invoked the Agreement’s modification provision as a ground for approving its unilateral proposal, the Court briefly addressed that argument. The motion pending before the Court today is entirely different. It seeks approval of a proposal negotiated and agreed to by three of the four remaining class representatives and the defendant. Whether this proposed Addendum was properly reached under the Agreement has now been briefed and the issue is squarely before the Court.
Class counsel’s position is that “the parties” means class counsel and the USDA. While class counsel plays a critical role in class action lawsuits, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Agreement does not define the parties to include class counsel. The Court therefore rejects this reading of the Agreement.
4 The Agreement’s modification provision was also invoked in 2012 when the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the settlement agreement to make certain changes to the distribution of a portion of the funds. Pls.’ Expedited Unopposed Mot. to Amend the Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 621. There was no opposition to that motion, and the Court approved the modification. Minute Order, Aug. 1, 2012.
16

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 17 of 29
Mr. Mandan’s position is that “the parties” have not agreed to
the terms of the proposed Addendum because the class
representatives have not unanimously agreed to the proposed
Addendum. For the reasons explained below, the Court does not
accept Mr. Mandan’s reading of the Agreement.
The Agreement is a contract between the parties and as with
any contract the meaning of the provision at issue depends upon
the intention of the parties at the time it was signed
consistent with applicable legal principles. RICHARD A. LORD,
WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 30.2 (4th ed. 2012). Thus the question is,
given that the Agreement settled a class action lawsuit, what
did the parties intend when they agreed that the Agreement could
be modified only with the written agreement of the parties.5
Because the Agreement settled a class action lawsuit, the
modification provision must be construed within the context of
the representational nature of class actions:
Class actions are a form of representative litigation. One or more class representatives litigate on behalf of many absent class members, and those class members are bound by the outcome of the representative's litigation. Ordinarily, such vicarious representation would violate the due process principle that "one is not bound by a judgment
5 “To be effective a modification requires assent of all parties to the agreement” because “there is no such thing as a unilateral modification.” HOWARD O. HUNTER, MODERN LAW OF CONTRACTS § 5.20 (2016 Edition). The proposed modification is not unilateral because it has been agreed to by all but one of the remaining active class representatives and the defendant.
17

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 18 of 29
in personam in a litigation in which he has not been made a party by service of process." However, the class action serves as an exception to this maxim so long as the procedural rules regulating class actions afford absent class members sufficient protection. WILLIAM B. RUBENSTEIN, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 1:1 (5th ed. 2015). With these principles in mind, the Court is aware that it can approve a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit over the objection of one or more class representatives. See Lazy Oil Co. v. Witco Corp., 166 F.3d 581, 589 (3rd Cir. 1999)(noting that "In many class actions, one or more class representatives will object to a settlement.”); Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227, 232 (D.C. Cir. 1998)(settlement can be fair even if “a significant portion of the class and some of the named plaintiffs object to it”); Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 864 F. Supp. 1422, 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)(“To empower the Class Representatives with what would amount to an automatic veto over the Proposed Settlement does not appear to serve the best interests of Rule 23 and would merely encourage strategic behavior ‘designed to maximize the value of the veto rather than the settlement value of their claims.’”) Thus, "a class representative cannot alone veto a settlement." MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (4th) § 21.642 (2015). Unanimity among the class representatives is thus not required at a critical stage of class action proceedings –- the point at which the Court
18

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 19 of 29
determines whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and not the product of collusion between the parties.
In view of the representational nature of class action lawsuits and noting that unanimity among class representatives is not necessary for a court to approve a class action settlement agreement, the Court declines to construe the modification provision at issue here to require unanimous consent of the class representatives. The Court finds that the parties did not intend to give a single class representative veto power over a modification to the Agreement. Just as it could not reasonably have been the intent of the parties to construe the modification provision to require the consent of all class members to any modification, it also could not reasonably have been the intent of the parties to construe the modification provision to require the unanimous consent of the class representatives. The Court therefore finds that the proposed Addendum was properly reached pursuant to the modification provision in the Agreement.
B. The Proposed Addendum is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate
Having determined that the proposed Addendum was properly reached, the Court now turns to whether the proposed Addendum is fair, reasonable, and adequate. See, e.g., Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v. Ford Motor
19

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 20 of 29
Co., No. 07-CIV-14845, 2009 WL 3757040, at *12 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2009))(the "fair, reasonable, and adequate" standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) "applies when considering an amendment to a previously-approved class settlement agreement" and collecting cases). “[T]he district court must consider the objections raised by the named plaintiffs . . . It is the obligation of the district court . . . to evaluate the fairness of the settlement to the class as a whole.” Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d at 233.
1. Arguments Presented to the Court The plaintiffs argue that the Court should approve the proposed Addendum because: (1) the supplemental distribution will benefit prevailing claimants as they will receive a supplemental distribution; (2) the supplemental service awards to class representatives are supported by legal authority and the factual record; and (3) the cy pres distribution will be more effective, accountable, transparent, and beneficial. Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 824-1 at 13-14. With regard to the cy pres distribution, plaintiffs state that
[u]se of a Trust governed by community leaders and authorized to distribute the cy pres funds over an extended time period better serves the interests of the Class than the current terms of the Settlement Agreement that provide that the funds be disbursed in equal amounts and within a brief period of time to recipients selected by Class Counsel.
20

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 21 of 29
Id. at 14. Plaintiffs argue that this structure for distributing the remaining funds “serves the same goal as the Keepseagle litigation” because
Whereas many Native American farmers and ranchers currently receive little or no assistance with their businesses, the resources that they would receive from the Trust over a multi-year period could dramatically change that dynamic and ensure that Native American farmers and ranchers have a significant and sustained connection to national, regional, and local non-profit groups that deliver critically needed services education, advocacy and assistance. Id. at 16. Plaintiffs also note that case law supports the proposition that the Court may approve a class action settlement agreement over the objection of named plaintiffs. Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 8241 at 16-21. According to class counsel, in deciding whether to approve the proposed Addendum, the Court’s role is to “tak[e] into account the recommendations of the parties, which we view as the class counsel representing the class and USDA, and the views of the class representatives, each of them individually.” Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 40. Furthermore, according to class counsel, as there is no list of the members of the class, the Court cannot undertake a mathematical calculation to determine the amount of support for and opposition against the proposed Addendum, nor
21

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 22 of 29
does the Court need to do so under applicable law. Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 40.
Mr. Mandan6 asks the Court to reject the proposed Addendum, objecting to any modification that allows for payment to “third parties who have not suffered any injury and who have no claims against the United States” and noting that “despite the existence of undistributed settlement funds that could easily and equitably be distributed to Prevailing Claimants, the government is refusing to do so without valid reasons.” Class Representative Mandan Comments, ECF No. 833 at 3. Mr. Mandan is concerned that: (1) the proposed Addendum “does not disclose the total amount of remaining undistributed funds;” (2) “does not disclose the amount of interest that has accrued on those funds;” and (3) “newly formed organizations with no experience or track record assisting Native Americans” will be eligible to receive funds thereby “creat[ing] an incentive for new organizations to be formed with the objective of capturing the available funds rather than assisting Native Americans.” Id. at 2-3.
6 Class member Smallwood’s opposition is identical to that of Mr. Mandan, having been filed by the same counsel. See Class Member Smallwood Comments, ECF No. 834.
22

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 23 of 29
Mrs. Keepseagle, through her own counsel, voices her support for the proposed Addendum, and, among other things, argues that Mr. Mandan’s position is irrational:
Mr. Mandan, via counsel, advised the Court that if all remaining settlement funds are not distributed on a pro rata basis, then he prefers to implement the cy pres provisions of the original Settlement Agreement. This would result in no supplemental payments to class members and distribution of more than $380 million in equal shares to charities selected by Class Counsel and approved by the Court. He is the only class member that has advocated this position. Marilyn Keepseagle’s Response to Points and Authorities Submitted by Keith Mandan, ECF No. 856 at 5. Mr. Mandan responds that “[i]n advocating for a per capita distribution of the remaining funds to Prevailing Claimants, Mr. Mandan seeks continued negotiations between the parties, not a return to the status quo of the original Keepseagle Settlement Agreement.” Keith Mandan’s Reply, ECF No. 867 at 3. The government does not oppose class counsel’s motion and states that “[t]he proposed addendum strikes a fair balance between compensating the subset of the class comprised of successful claimants and providing relief to other members of the class through the cy pres funds . . .” Gov’t Resp., ECF No. 859 at 4.
23

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 24 of 29
2. Findings This case was settled five years ago and the Court approved the Settlement Agreement and entered a final judgment. See Final Order and J., ECF No. 607. The Court retained continuing jurisdiction for a period of five years for the limited purposes set forth in the Agreement. See id. Those limited purposes do not include authorizing the Court to fashion a different resolution such as ordering that the remaining funds be paid to prevailing claimants on a pro rata basis. Nor do those limited purposes authorize the Court to order the parties to conduct additional negotiations.7 If the Court were to find that the proposed Addendum is not fair, reasonable, and adequate, then the provisions of the original Agreement would remain in place and the entire $380,000,000 of remaining funds would be distributed pursuant to what everyone now agrees is an unworkable cy pres provision. With this context in mind, the Court turns to the terms of the proposed Addendum and finds that those terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and not the product of collusion between the parties.
7 As the Court observed, not a single person during the day long February 4, 2016 even raised the option of returning to the bargaining table. Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 204.
24

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 25 of 29
First, the proposed Addendum provides for an additional payment to each prevailing claimant. While the amount of the payment is not as high as the class representatives and many class members would prefer, it is an additional payment that was not contemplated in the existing Agreement pursuant to which claimants agreed that the terms set forth would settle “forever and finally” their claims against the USDA. The Court finds that the additional payment to prevailing claimants is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Second, the Trust created to distribute the bulk of the remaining funds is intended to serve the interests of the class as a whole: The mission of the Trust is “to make grants to Eligible Grant Recipients . . . to fund the provision of business assistance, agricultural education, technical support, and advocacy services to Native American farmers and ranchers to support and promote their continued engagement in agriculture.” Trust Agreement, Pls.’ Ex. B, ECF No. 824-4 § 7. The Trustees, who are empowered to decide which entities will receive the funds, are required to “have substantial knowledge of agricultural issues, the needs of Native American farmers and ranchers, or other substantive knowledge relevant to accomplishing the Trust’s Mission.” Id. § 13. A new process for distributing the funds is necessary because the existing cy pres provision is unworkable due to the unexpectedly large amount of
25

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 26 of 29
remaining funds. The Court finds that with the creation of this Trust, governed by community leaders with relevant expertise, the process for distributing those funds will be fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Finally, the proposed Addendum provides for supplemental service awards to three of the class representatives who worked on the negotiations that lead to the proposed Addendum. The Court credits class counsel’s representations and finds that the service awards are justified based on these class representatives’ service to the class. Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 42-43. The Court also notes that Mr. Mandan did not wish to participate in the service award. Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 854 at 71.
It is clear that the proposed modification is a compromise that was reached after hard-fought negotiations, and is certainly not the product of collusion between the parties. It is also clear that not everyone agrees with the proposal. As Mrs. Keepseagle’s attorney observed at the hearing, ”You’re not going to get 3,605 people to agree.” Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 354 at 59. Many who submitted letters and who spoke at the hearing support a pro rata distribution of the remaining funds to the 3,605 successful claimants and many also disagree with the creation of the Trust to distribute the remaining funds. While the Court is sympathetic to the position of the successful claimants, under the terms of the Agreement, the Court is not
26

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 27 of 29
authorized to fashion a different resolution. Further, the Court is obligated “to evaluate the fairness of the settlement to the class as a whole.” Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d at 233. The Court finds that the proposal is a compromise designed to serve the class as a whole. The 3,605 successful claimants, out of as many as 30,000 members of the class, will receive an additional distribution of funds that was not contemplated in the original Agreement. Further, the initial cy pres distribution of $38,000,000 and the creation of the Trust will result in the settlement funds being made available to serve the class as a whole.
III. Larmon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement Following the February 4, 2016 hearing, the Court received
an “Opposition to Unopposed Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement or in the Alternative Remand for Further Negotiations with Instructions from the Court” filed by attorneys representing class members Blake Larmon, Jason Cole Larmon, Jana J. Haynes, Larry A. Million, Alfred R. Million, Garry Million, Vernon D. Sellers, J.R. Sellers, Anthony Snell, Justin Earp, Jamie Earp, Edward Crittenden, and Curtis Snell (“the Larmon plaintiffs”). See Larmon Motion, ECF No. 852. The Larmon plaintiffs ask the Court to void the 2011 Settlement Agreement or in the alternative to “remand” the case to engage in further settlement negotiations with limitations. Id.
27

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 28 of 29
In their motion, the Larmon plaintiffs make a number of unsubstantiated allegations that the Court rejects largely for the reasons set forth in Mrs. Keepseagle’s response, see generally, Marilyn Keepseagle’s Response, ECF No. 857, as well as the Plaintiffs’ response, see Reply in Support of Modification, ECF No. 858 at 11-25.
To the extent the Larmon plaintiffs ask the Court to void the 2011 Agreement nearly five years after the entry of final judgment, the Court finds that there is no basis in the record of this case to do so. As for the Larmon Plaintiffs’ alternative request that the Court “remand” this action for further negotiations, as explained supra, the Court lacks the authority to order the parties to conduct additional negotiations. Finally, to the extent the Larmon Plaintiffs request that the Court sua sponte order the distribution of a greater percentage of the cy pres funds to the class members, the Court has explained supra that it is unable to do so.
28

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 872 Filed 04/20/16 Page 29 of 29

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs’

motion to modify is hereby GRANTED, and the Larmon Plaintiffs’

motion to reject the initial settlement, the proposed addendum

or in the alternative remand for further negotiations is hereby

DENIED. An appropriate order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge April 20, 2016

29

 </s> Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 824-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 8
Exhibit A

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 824-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant.

) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:99CV03119 ) (EGS) ) ) ) Judge: Emmet G. Sullivan ) Magistrate Judge: Alan Kay ) )

ADDENDUM TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an addendum to the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court in Keepseagle v. Vi/sack, No. 1:99CV03119 (D.D.C.) on April 29, 2011, as revised by the parties and approved by the Court on August 1, 2012. Except where otherwise specified and defined herein, all terms used in this Addendum shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The purpose of this Addendum is to modify the cy pres provisions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Thus, the provisions of this Addendum will govern in place of the following portions ofthe original and revised Settlement Agreement: sections 11.1, II.J, IX.F.6 and IX.F.7 (original Settlement Agreement), IX.F.9 (revised Settlement Agreement).
This Addendum also modifies Settlement Agreement section XIII.A. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action until 180 days after the Effective Date set forth below solely for the purpose of (a) supervising the distribution of supplemental awards described in section III below; (b) supervising distribution to Initial Cy Pres Beneficiaries pursuant to section IV.A below; and (c) ruling on appointment of Trustees or any other matter arising with respect to implementation of sections IV.B and C below. In all other respects the Court's jurisdiction is limited as set forth in section XIII.A of the Settlement Agreement.
This addendum shall be operative and binding on the parties as if its terms had been included in the Settlement Agreement referenced above upon execution (in one document or in counterparts) by counsel for the parties on the signature lines set forth below and approval by the Court.
II. DEFINITIONS
A. "Initial Cy Pres Beneficiary" is any non-profit organization that (i) has provided
2077389.3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 824-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 8
business assistance, agricultural education, technical support, or advocacy services to Native American farmers or ranchers between January 1, 1981 and November 1, 2010 to support and promote their continued engagement in agriculture, (ii) is either a tax-exempt organization described in Section 501(c)(3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code ("Code"); educational organization described in Section 170(b)(I )(A)(ii) of the Code; or an instrumentality of a state or federally recognized tribe, including a non-profit organization chartered under the tribal law of a state or federally recognized tribe, that furnishes assistance designed to further Native American farming or ranching activities, provided, however, that the use of any grant funds by such grant recipient shall be restricted exclusively to charitable and educational purposes described in Section 170(c)(2)(B) ofthe Code; and (iii) is proposed by Class Counsel and approved by the Court.
B. "Primary Cy Pres Beneficiary" is a trust created for the purpose of distributing the cy pres funds after the distribution of Supplemental Liquidated Awards to the Prevailing Claimants. The trust (referred to as "The Trust" or the "Native American Agriculture Fund") shall seek recognition as a non-profit organization under §50l(c)(3). The trust document is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Establishment of the trust will be dated as of six months after the Court approves this Addendum, including the Trust Agreement, and the time to appeal expires without appeal of the order approving the Addendum, or any appeal from that order is finally resolved without further opportunity for appeal. The initial members of the Board of Trustees for the Trust, as well as the Executive Director, shall be nominated by Class Counsel and approved by the Court.
C. A "Prevailing Claimant" is one of the people who received either a Track A or Track B Liquidated Award pursuant to the original Settlement Agreement or the Revised Settlement Agreement, or the Legal Representative of the Estate of any prevailing claimant who is deceased. If a prevailing claimant has died since the last payments were issued, the Legal Representative of the Estate shall be determined in the manner set forth in Section, IX. A. 7 of the original agreement, and the Estate will have the same right to any further payment as the prevailing claimant would have.
D. "Supplemental Liquidated Award" is a payment of $18,500 to each Prevailing Claimant.
E . "Supplemental Liquidated Tax Award" is a payment equal to 15% of the Prevailing Claimant's Supplemental Liquidated Award, or $2775.
F. "Effective Date" is the date upon which an order providing final approval of this Addendum becomes non-appealable, or, in the event of any appeals, upon the date of final resolution of said appeals.
III. DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL LIQUIDATED AWARDS
2
2077389.3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 824-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 8
A. Within fourteen calendar days after this Addendum is approved by the Court, the Claims Administrator shall prepare an accounting of all payments made to Prevailing Claimants and submit it to Class Counsel and the Secretary. Class Counsel will have fourteen calendar days to serve on the Settlement Administrator any objections to the accuracy ofthe list of Prevailing Claimants, after which the accuracy of the accounting will be deemed confirmed.
B. Within 60 days ofthe Effective Date ofthis Addendum, the Claims Administrator shall send to each Prevailing Claimant a check payable to the Prevailing Claimant in the amount of the Supplemental Liquidated Award, paid from the funds remaining in the Total Compensation Fund. All checks distributed under this Section will be valid for 180 calendar days from the date of issue. The funds corresponding to any check that remains uncashed 181 calendar days from its date of issue will be added to the Trust.
C. For each Prevailing Claimant who receives a Supplemental Liquidated Award, the Claims Administrator shall send a payment of the individual's Supplemental Liquidated Tax Award from the funds remaining in the Total Compensation Fund to the IRS. The Claims Administrator shall provide the Prevailing Claimant notice that such payment has been made by issuing a Form 1099. Along with payment of the Supplemental Liquidated Tax Awards to the IRS, the Claims Administrator shall provide to the IRS the name, address, and Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number of each Prevailing Claimant on whose behalf the payment is being made.
D. Subject to the Court's approval, the parties agree that Supplemental Class Representative Service Awards may be awarded. Class Counsel intend to recommend awards from the Total Compensation Fund in the following amounts:
1. Porter Holder shall receive $100,000.
2. Marilyn Keepseagle shall receive $100,000.
3. Claryca Mandan shall receive $100,000.
The Secretary reserves the right to comment on the amount of the Service Awards. Any payments awarded to these Class Representatives shall be subject to approval by the Court, and any modification or reduction of any award sought by such a Class Member shall not affect the validity of the other terms of this Agreement.
E. The Claims Administrator shall be compensated for this additional distribution from the remaining Settlement Administration Fund to the extent the amount of funds in that Fund is sufficient for such compensation. To the extent the amount of funds in that Fund is not sufficient for such compensation, any costs for such compensation that cannot be covered by the funds currently in that Fund shall be paid from interest accrued on the Cy Pres Fund.
3
2077389.3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 824-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 8
IV. DISTRIBUTION OF CY PRES FUND
A. Within 180 days after this Addendum is approved by the Court, Class Counsel will propose awards to Initial Cy Pres Beneficiaries which, in the aggregate, will total $38 million from the Total Compensation Fund. Awards to Initial Cy Pres Beneficiaries shall be for the benefit ofNative American farmers and ranchers, upon recommendation by Class Counsel and are subject to approval by the Court. Awards to Initial Cy Pres Beneficiaries may not be used for litigation, lobbying, or political activity as those terms are defined by the Internal Revenue Code. Once the Court has approved the Initial Cy Pres Beneficiaries, the Claims Administrator shall send to each Initial Cy Pres Beneficiary, via secure method of disbursement (either wire transfer or a check sent via overnight, trackable, delivery) the amount of the Beneficiary's share of the Cy Pres Fund.
B. After payments described in section III and in section IV.A are made, and after the Court approves the Trust Document and the Trust's first Board of Trustees and Executive Director, the remainder of the Total Compensation Fund except for any unspent interest that accrued on the settlement funds, will be transferred to the Native American Agriculture Fund (also referred to herein as the Trust).
C. Interest earned on the Total Compensation Fund or Cy Pres Fund, prior to such funds being transferred to the Primary Cy Pres Beneficiary, may be used to pay any outstanding expenses associated with management of the Total Compensation Fund as well as the administrative and operating expenses of the Trust until the funds referred to in paragraph IV.B above are transferred to the Trust. Until such time as all expenses and taxes associated with creation of the Trust and management of the Total Compensation or Cy Pres Fund have been paid, the interest will be retained in a separate account in order to defray such outstanding expenses, after which the remaining interest will be transferred to the Trust. In the event counsel seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs for work involved in establishing the Trust and modifying the Agreement, such award may be made from interest that has accrued from the Total Compensation Fund, and may only be with approval by the Court upon a properly noticed motion. The Secretary reserves the right to oppose or respond to any motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and in particular reserves the right to address the entitlement to fees, the amount of fees, or both entitlement and amount, in any opposition or response. After payment of any funds awarded and/or due under this subparagraph are made, any balance in the Total Compensation Fund will be transferred to the Native American Agriculture Fund (also referred to herein as the Trust).
V. PROCEDURES
A. Upon execution of this Addendum, the plaintiff class and Ms. Keepseagle will withdraw their pending appeals.
4
2077389.3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 824-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 8

B. Concurrent with the presentation of this Addendum to the Court for approval, class counsel will submit to the Court for approval the Trust Document and the nominees to serve on the first Board of Trustees for the Trust, as well as an Initial Executive Director.
C. Class counsel will request that the District Court finally approve this Addendum pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree to take all actions necessary to obtain approval ofthis Addendum.

December 14, 2015
For the Plaintiffs:
By~~~~~~~~~~~ Josep . Sellers Clu·i tine E. Webber, Bar No. 439368 COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, EastWest Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 jseller @cohenmilstein.com cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
David J. Frantz, Bar No. 202853 CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN 1740 N Street, N.W., Suite One Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 331-7050 Facsimile: (202) 331-9306 d!i·antz@conlonfrantz.com

Respectfully submitted,
Paul M. Smith, Bar No. 358870 Carrie F. Apfel, Bar No. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001-4412 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 Facsimile: (202) 639-6066 psmith@jenner.com
Phillip L. Fraas LAW OFFICES OF PHILLIP L. FRAAS 888 Sixteenth St., NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC, 20006 Telephone: (202) 280-2411 Facsimile (202) 355-1399 phil@phillipfraaslaw.com

5
2077389.3

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 824-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 8

For the Secretary of Agriculture:
8ETII 8RINKMAl\N Deputy Assistant Attorney General
CHi\ NING D. PI IILLIPS United States Attorney
JUDRY L. SUBAR Assistant Director Federal Programs Branch
:*sfoJ~ISiin ~i4n88ilio!4 ~
AMY POWELL JU STIN S/\NDBER Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civi l Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts /\vc., N.W. Room 7302 Washington. D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-5838 justin.saml bl'rg(a .usJoj.!.!O\ Counsel lor Defendant

!lllorneysfor Plaint(fj'C'Iass
~tudfl
Stewart D. Fried John U. Dillard OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ. P.C. 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW, #500 Washington, DC 20037 sfricd d:ofwlaw.com 202-789-1212
Attorneysfhr Mari~yn Keepseagle

6
21177JS<J.2

Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 824-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 8 of 8
Dated: _ / !-1/__'/_L:,-
7
2077389.2

 </s> USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 1 of 78

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 13, 2017

Decided May 16, 2017

No. 16-5189

MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, ET AL., APPELLEES

v.

SONNY PERDUE, APPELLEE

DONIVON CRAIG TINGLE, SILENT CLASS MEMBER, APPELLANT

Consolidated with 16-5190

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:99-cv-03119)
William A. Sherman argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Reed D. Rubinstein and James W. Morrison.
D. Craig Tingle filed the briefs for appellant.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 2 of 78

2
Joseph M. Sellers argued the cause for appellees Porter Holder; CLARYCA Mandan, on behalf of themselves and the plaintiff class. With him on the brief were Christine E. Webber, Paul M. Smith, Jessica R. Amunson, and Amir H. Ali.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, and Charles W. Scarborough and Carleen M. Zubrzycki, Attorneys, were on the brief for federal appellee.
Marshall L. Matz and John G. Dillard were on the brief for plaintiff-appellee Marilyn Keepseagle. Phillip L. Fraas, David J. Frantz, Stewart D. Fried, and Sarah M. Vogel entered appearances.
Before: BROWN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS.
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge BROWN.
EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge: In 1999, a class of Native American farmers and ranchers filed suit against the United States Department of Agriculture (“the Department”), contending that the Department discriminated against Native American applicants in their claims under farm credit and benefits programs. After more than a decade of contentious litigation, the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) in 2011 that created a $680 million compensation fund for the benefit of class members who participated in a non-judicial, administrative claims process.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 3 of 78

3
At the conclusion of the claims process, $380 million still remained in the compensation fund. Under the terms of the Agreement, any leftover funds were to be distributed to cy-près beneficiaries – i.e., non-profit organizations that provided services to Native American farmers. Because the parties had not anticipated such a large remainder, they entered into negotiations to modify the Agreement. The parties’ initial attempt at modification was unsuccessful. However, a second effort resulted in an addendum to the Agreement that is the subject of the dispute in this case. Under the terms of the addendum, the cy-près process would be reformed to distribute funds more efficiently and supplemental payments would be awarded to class members who had successfully recovered from the compensation fund.
The District Court approved the addendum to the Agreement, concluding that it was “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) (“Rule 23”). The District Court found that the addendum reflected a compromise between two competing goals: paying out more funds to claimants who successfully recovered through the claims process, and maintaining the cy-près distributions for the benefit of the class as a whole.
Two class members – class representative Keith Mandan (“Appellant Mandan”) and class member Donivon Craig Tingle (“Appellant Tingle”) – appealed to this court, raising four principal arguments. First, Appellant Mandan claims that under the Agreement’s modification clause, the proposed addendum cannot be approved without his assent. Second, Appellant Mandan disputes that the addendum is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Third, Appellant Mandan asserts that the cy-près provision of the Agreement is unconstitutional, in violation of the Appropriations Clause, and unlawful under

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 4 of 78

4
the Judgment Fund Act. Fourth, Appellant Tingle alleges that class counsel and class representatives breached their fiduciary duties to class members. Both Appellants, who successfully obtained payments through the claims process, contend that all of the $380 million still remaining in the compensation fund should be distributed pro rata to the successful claimants.

We affirm the judgment of the District Court. We reject the claim that the modification clause requires Appellant Mandan’s assent before the Agreement can be amended. We further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the addendum was fair, reasonable, and adequate. We decline to reach the merits of Appellant Mandan’s legal challenges to the cy-près provision because these claims were explicitly waived before the District Court. The claims were also forfeited because Appellant Mandan never raised any legal challenges to the cy-près provision before the District Court despite clear opportunities to do so. And there are no good reasons at this late date in the litigation for this court to entertain Appellant Mandan’s legal challenges to the cy-près provisions in the first instance. Finally, we find no merit in Appellant Tingle’s breach of fiduciary duty claims.

I.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, over two hundred Native American farmers and ranchers filed a class-action suit against the United States Department of Agriculture, contending that the Department discriminated against Native American applicants in their claims for credit and benefits under various government programs. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2001, the District Court found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), and certified a class of

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 5 of 78

5
[a]ll Native–American farmers and ranchers, who (1) farmed or ranched between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; (2) applied to the [the Department] for participation in a farm program during that time period; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint with the [the Department] individually or through a representative during the time period.
Keepseagle v. Veneman, No. 99-cv-3119, 2001 WL 34676944, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001). The District Court declined to decide whether certification under Rule 23(b)(3), for monetary relief, was appropriate at the time. Id. at *14. However, the court noted that it “maintain[ed] the power to revisit the definition of the class at any point.” Id.
A. The Initial Settlement
After more than a decade of extensive discovery practice, the parties reached agreement in 2010 and drew up a settlement agreement for the District Court’s approval. See Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010), ECF No. 571. The proposed Settlement Agreement provided both programmatic and monetary relief. See Settlement Agreement §§ IX, XII, Judicial Appendix (“JA”) 405–23, 424–29. The programmatic relief included establishing the Council for Native American Farming and Ranching, requiring the Department to collect and evaluate data pertaining to its Farm Loan Program, and enhancing services and education for Native American farmers and ranchers. Id. § XII, JA 424–29. To provide monetary relief, the Agreement sought certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out class. Id. § IV(A), JA 400. The Agreement established a $680 million compensation fund financed by the Department of the

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 6 of 78

6
Treasury. Id. § VII(F), JA 403. Under an administrative claims process set forth in the Settlement Agreement, claimants would receive either $50,000, if they had “substantial evidence” of certain circumstances required in the Agreement, or up to $250,000, if they met a higher evidentiary standard. See id. § II(SS), (VV), JA 398 (setting out the dollar amounts of awards); § IX, JA 405–23 (outlining the non-judicial claims process). Claimants were given 180 days from the effective date of the agreement to submit their claims. Id. § II(B), JA 392. Some funds were also allocated to the named class representatives as “service awards.” Id. § XV(C), JA 433–34.
In the event that the $680 million compensation fund was not exhausted during the claims process, the Agreement contained a cy-près provision. Id. § IX(F)(7), JA 422–23. That provision created a “Cy Pres Fund,” defined as “a fund administered by Class Counsel designated to hold any leftover funds” from the claims process. Id. § II(J), JA 393. The Cy Pres Fund was to be distributed in equal shares to cy-près beneficiaries designated by class counsel. Id. § IX(F)(7), JA 422–23. The Agreement limited cy-près beneficiaries to “any non-profit organization, other than a law firm, legal services entity, or educational institution” that served Native American farmers. Id. § II(I), JA 393.
The Agreement also contained a provision permitting modification of the settlement, but “only with the written agreement of the Parties and with the approval of the District Court, upon such notice to the Class, if any, as the District Court may require.” Id. § XXII, JA 438. The Agreement defined “Parties” as “the Plaintiffs and the Secretary,” and “Plaintiffs” as “the individual plaintiffs named in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, . . . the members of the Class, and the Class Representatives.” Id. § II(DD), (EE), JA 396.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 7 of 78

7
The District Court received thirty-five letters objecting to the proposed Agreement. See Notice of Filing Objections and Opt Out Requests, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2011), ECF No. 585. Neither Appellant Mandan nor Appellant Tingle submitted objections. Three letters related to the Cy Pres Fund: one objector offered up organizations he had started as potential cy-près beneficiaries, id. at Exhibit 2; another recommended that cy-près awards be used for outreach to farmers, id. at Exhibit 33; a third cautioned that it was “simply wrong” to distribute remaining funds to cyprès beneficiaries “as determined by class counsel,” id. at Exhibit 32.
Class counsel responded to the objections in a motion seeking final approval of the settlement, and the District Court held a fairness hearing on April 28, 2011. The District Court found that the terms of the settlement were fair and reasonable and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e), and approved the Agreement. See Order, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2011), JA 589–91. The District Court entered final judgment dismissing the case, but retained continuing jurisdiction for five years for the limited purposes of overseeing compliance with the programmatic relief and the administrative claims process. See Final Order and Judgment, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2011), JA 592–93. No party appealed from the District Court’s final order.
The administrative claims process proved to be less than satisfactory. Far fewer people made claims than anticipated. At the conclusion of the claims process, only $300 million of the $680 million settlement fund had been paid out. Although the Agreement originally directed the remaining $380 million to be distributed to cy-près beneficiaries, class counsel informed the District Court that such a large cy-près disbursement was

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 8 of 78

8
“not contemplate[d]” by the original Agreement and would be “impractical.” Status Report at 4–5, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2013), ECF No. 646. The parties agreed to confer over possible solutions.
B. The First Modification Attempt
In September 2014, class counsel filed an unopposed motion to modify the Settlement Agreement, citing Rule 60(b)(5) and the modification clause of the Agreement. See Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99cv-3119 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2014), ECF No. 709. Counsel proposed to act promptly to distribute $38 million of the leftover funds to non-profit organizations, and to use the remaining $342 million to create a trust that would distribute the latter sum, over 20 years, to non-profit organizations serving Native Americans. While class counsel and the Department agreed to the proposed modification, one of the class representatives – Marilyn Keepseagle – did not, and filed her own motion to modify the settlement. See Marilyn and George Keepseagle’s Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. May 19, 2015), ECF No. 779. Keepseagle proposed a pro rata distribution of the leftover funds to the successful claimants – a supplemental payment of around $100,000 each. The District Court held a hearing at which many class members testified in support of Keepseagle’s proposal. Neither Appellant Tingle nor Appellant Mandan testified.
The District Court denied both class counsel and Keepseagle’s motions to modify. See Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 118 F. Supp. 3d 98 (D.D.C. 2015), JA 1098–1167 (“First Modification Decision”). The court found that neither class counsel nor Keepseagle had met the requirements of Rule 60,

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 9 of 78

9
in part because, in the court’s view, the larger-than-expected remaining funds did not constitute “truly changed circumstances” warranting relief. Id. at 55–62, JA 1152–59. The court also found that class counsel’s motion did not have the “agreement of the Parties,” as required by the modification clause, because Keepseagle, a class representative, opposed the motion. Id. at 67–68, JA 1164–65. The District Court implored all parties to continue negotiating. Id. at 69, JA 1166.
C. The Second Modification Attempt
Class counsel, the Department, and Keepseagle reached a compromise in December 2015, and submitted a motion to amend the Agreement pursuant to the modification clause. See Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99cv-3119 (D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2015), ECF No. 824. The proposed compromise provided for an additional $18,500 payment to each of the 3,605 successful claimants and a corresponding payment to the Internal Revenue Service on each claimant’s behalf. See Memorandum Opinion at 8, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2016), JA 1454 (“Second Modification Decision”). Then, $38 million would be promptly distributed to non-profit organizations proposed by class counsel and approved by the District Court. After the named representatives received additional “service awards” for their work in negotiations, the remaining funds (estimated to be $265 million) would be placed in a trust, to be paid out over twenty years, as contemplated by class counsel’s previous motion.
The District Court directed class counsel to provide notice of the proposed modification to the class, reviewed written comments from class members, and held a hearing on February 4, 2016, at which many class members testified.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 10 of 78

10
Appellant Tingle wrote in opposition, claiming that the trustees of the proposed trust would enrich themselves instead of benefiting class members. See Letter from D. Craig Tingle (Jan. 4, 2016), JA 1201–02. Appellant Mandan also filed a letter with the District Court, arguing that the remaining funds should all go to successful claimants, who are “easily identifiable,” and not to “third parties who have not suffered any injury and who have no claims against the United States.” See Comments of Class Representative Keith Mandan (Jan. 20, 2016), JA 1197–99. Appellant Mandan also filed a separate submission arguing that the District Court could not approve the proposed modification without his assent, because the modification clause requires the “agreement of the Parties.” Points and Authorities of Law at 1, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2016), ECF No. 851. Appellant Mandan’s objection cited the District Court’s decision rejecting the first proposed modification and claimed that his objection presented “the same issue” as Keepseagle’s objection. Id. at 3.
Counsel for Appellant Mandan, and Appellant Mandan himself, testified in support of fully distributing the remaining funds to successful claimants. See Tr. of Mot. Hr’g Proceedings at 68–74, 175, JA 1270–76, 1377. At the February 4, 2016 hearing, District Court Judge Sullivan, who had been presiding over the case, asked Appellant Mandan’s counsel about a separate lawsuit that he had filed on behalf of a different class member, William Smallwood. Id. at 21, JA 1223. Judge Sullivan noted that three days earlier, on February 1, 2016, Appellant Mandan’s counsel had filed a complaint in the District Court challenging the legality of the proposed cy-près distribution. Id. Judge Sullivan stated that the complaint was initially marked as “related” to the Keepseagle proceeding, but had been reassigned to Judge Walton because the complaint

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 11 of 78

11
challenged the initial settlement agreement, the merits of which were resolved in 2011. Id. at 21–22, JA 1223–24.
Even though the matter had not been raised in the Keepseagle proceeding, Judge Sullivan responsibly invited counsel to offer his views on whether Smallwood’s challenges to the legality of the cy-près provision should be heard by the District Court in the Keepseagle proceeding as a related case. Id. at 22, JA 1224. Counsel declined this invitation, stating that he was “completely satisfied with where the case sits at this particular point.” Id. at 70, JA 1272. Thereafter, counsel never raised, briefed, or otherwise pressed any legal challenges to the cy-près provision in the Keepseagle proceeding, and the District Court did not further address it. In the separate case, Judge Walton granted the Department’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing on January 30, 2017. Smallwood v. Yates, No. 16-cv-161, 2017 WL 398334 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2017). An appeal was filed in that case on April 12, 2017.
The District Court approved the proposed compromise modification on April 20, 2016. See Second Modification Decision, JA 1447–75. The District Court declined to construe the original Agreement’s modification clause “to require unanimous consent of the class representatives.” Id. at 19, JA 1465. The District Court also determined that the proposed modification was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” as required by Rule 23(e)(2). Id. at 19–27, JA 1465–73. Appellants Tingle and Mandan now appeal the District Court’s grant of class counsel’s motion to modify the settlement.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 12 of 78

12
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
We review the District Court’s interpretation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement de novo. See Nix v. Billington, 448 F.3d 411, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2006). And we review the District Court’s approval of the modification to the Settlement Agreement for abuse of discretion. See Pigford v. Johanns, 416 F.3d 12, 16 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
B. The District Court’s Interpretation of the Modification Provision
The District Court correctly interpreted the modification provision in the Agreement because a “reasonable person in the position of the parties” would not have thought that the provision requires unanimous approval by class representatives. See Richardson v. Edwards, 127 F.3d 97, 101 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The modification provision states that the Agreement “may be modified only with the written agreement of the Parties.” Settlement Agreement § XXII, JA 438. We find that “written agreement of the Parties” cannot reasonably be construed, as Appellant Mandan urges, to require the unanimous assent of class representatives.
“We interpret a settlement agreement under contract law.” Gonzalez v. Dep’t of Labor, 609 F.3d 451, 457 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing T Street Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje, 586 F.3d 6, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). We must first “determine whether the disputed language is unambiguous.” Armenian Assembly of Am., Inc. v. Cafesjian, 758 F.3d 265, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2014). If we find that the relevant clause is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, we consider “what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought the

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 13 of 78

13
disputed language meant.” Id. (quoting Tillery v. D.C. Contract Appeals Bd., 912 A.2d 1169, 1176 (D.C. 2006)).
We acknowledge that “the written agreement of the Parties” is ambiguous because “agreement” is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction. Nevertheless, in the context of this class action settlement, we do not believe that agreement means unanimous agreement, because such an interpretive gloss would yield absurd results. See United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 907 (1996) (avoiding interpretation of contract that “would be absurd”); Am. First Inv. Corp. v. Goland, 925 F.2d 1518, 1521 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (avoiding interpretation that would “produce an absurd result”).
The Agreement defines “Parties” as “the Plaintiffs and the Secretary,” and defines “the Plaintiffs” as “the individual plaintiffs named in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, . . . the members of the Class, and the Class Representatives.” Settlement Agreement § II(DD), (EE), JA 396. The terms of the Agreement allow modification upon the written agreement of the individual plaintiffs named in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, the members of the Class, the Class Representatives, and the Secretary. Id. § XXII, JA 438. If “agreement” were construed to require unanimous assent, the Settlement Agreement could be modified only if every single class member – upwards of thousands of people – assented. There is no good reason to believe that the parties intended to impose such a stringent barrier to modification. The modification provision would become meaningless, which would make little sense. See Beal Mortg., Inc. v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 85, 88 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (describing “the cardinal interpretive principle that we read a contract to give meaning to all of its provisions” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). In order to avoid such an absurd construction and to give effect to the parties’ intentions,

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 14 of 78

14
we reject the argument that “the agreement of the Parties” was meant to require unanimity.
Furthermore, a central interpretive goal “in construing a contract is to give effect to the mutual intentions of the parties.” NRM Corp. v. Hercules, Inc., 758 F.2d 676, 681 (D.C. Cir. 1985). To effectuate the parties’ intent, we must consider the “context.” Id. at 681 n.10. Here, it is noteworthy that the Agreement resolved a class action. “Class actions are a form of representative litigation. One or more class representatives litigate on behalf of many absent class members, and those class members are bound by the outcome of the representative’s litigation.” WILLIAM B. RUBENSTEIN, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 1:1 (5th ed. 2016). Various class action procedures protect class members from being taken advantage of by class representatives, including the requirement that class representatives “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4), and the requirement that a court ensure that any settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(2).
These structural protections for class members diminish the need for unanimous decisionmaking in a class action. Requiring unanimity among class members, apart from being virtually impossible to achieve in a case of this sort, also invites gamesmanship by giving any class member the power to “hold out” and threaten to veto to seek a payoff. See Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Group Consensus, Individual Consent, 79 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 506, 508 (2011) (“The holdout problem arises when defendants condition settlement on nearly unanimous consent . . . . [A hold out] threatens to derail the entire deal unless those claimants receive a disproportionately high payoff.”). With these considerations in mind, we conclude that the modification provision, read in context – an Agreement

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 15 of 78

15
resolving a representational proceeding – permits amendment of the Agreement without unanimous assent.
Finally, we can discern no good reason why the parties would require unanimity to modify the Settlement Agreement, when unanimity was not required to approve the settlement in the first instance. As we noted in Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227, 232 (D.C. Cir. 1998), “a settlement can be fair even though a significant portion of the class and some of the named plaintiffs object to it.” Indeed, in this case, the District Court approved the original settlement over the objections of thirty five class members. We doubt that the parties intended for modification to be more difficult than approval. Thus, the District Court correctly found that
[j]ust as it could not reasonably have been the intent of the parties to construe the modification provision to require the consent of all class members to any modification, it also could not reasonably have been the intent of the parties to construe the modification provision to require the unanimous consent of the class representatives.
Second Modification Decision at 19, JA 1465.
We are not persuaded by Appellant Mandan’s one argument to the contrary. He claims that the District Court was bound by its decision rejecting the first modification proposal because it was the “law of the case.” Br. for Mandan at 48. This claim is simply mistaken. The District Court’s initial decision was not binding because it was not embodied in any final judgment. “When there are multiple appeals taken in the course of a single piece of litigation, law-of-the-case doctrine holds that decisions rendered on the first appeal should not be revisited on later trips to the appellate court.” LaShawn A. v.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 16 of 78

16
Barry, 87 F.3d 1389, 1393 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, the law-of-thecase doctrine “does not apply to interlocutory orders . . . for they can always be reconsidered and modified by a district court prior to entry of a final judgment.” First Union Nat’l Bank v. Pictet Overseas Tr. Corp., 477 F.3d 616, 620 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
C. The District Court’s Fairness Determination
The District Court reasonably determined that the modified agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Appellants have not met their “burden on appeal of making a ‘clear showing’ that an abuse of discretion has occurred” in the District Court’s approval of the modified settlement. Pigford v. Glickman, 206 F.3d 1212, 1217 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Moore v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, 762 F.2d 1093, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).
The record reveals that the District Court conducted an impressive and thorough review of the proposed addendum. The District Court “directed class counsel to provide the class with notice of the proposed Addendum, allowed class members to submit written comments to the Court, and scheduled a hearing . . . to hear argument from counsel and oral statements from class members.” Second Modification Decision at 11, JA 1457. During an eight-hour hearing in the ceremonial courtroom, which was used to accommodate the large number of class members present, the District Court heard testimony from over thirty class members. See JA 1203–1437 (transcript of hearing).
Following the hearing, the District Court concluded that the proposed addendum was a fair compromise. The addendum reformed the cy-près distribution provisions, which all parties agreed were unworkable. The initial Settlement Agreement

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 17 of 78

17
required an equal distribution of funds to a restricted class of non-profit organizations approved by class counsel; the addendum eliminated the equal distribution requirement and expanded the class of non-profits eligible for the funds. See Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions at 6–8, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2015), ECF No. 824. Most notably, the addendum placed the bulk of the cy-près funds in a trust overseen by trustees with “substantial knowledge of agricultural issues, the needs of Native American farmers and ranchers, or other substantive knowledge relevant to accomplishing the Trust’s Mission.” Trust Agreement § 13(f)(1), Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2015), ECF No. 824-3. And, rather than distributing all of the funds at once, the addendum established a process for the trust to be paid out over 20 years. Id. § 10. As the District Court explained, these reforms, which offered greater flexibility and expertise in the management and distribution of funds, were necessary because of the “unexpectedly large amount of remaining funds.” Second Modification Decision at 25–26, JA 1471–72.
The addendum also reflected a compromise regarding additional payments to class members who recovered in the first claims process. The two contending groups – one favoring distribution of all remaining funds to successful claimants, and one favoring no additional distribution – conceded to a middle ground: a limited distribution to successful claimants. The compromise provided for an additional $18,500 payment to successful claimants as well as a direct payment to the Internal Revenue Service to cover tax liability. As the District Court recognized, “[w]hile the amount of the payment is not as high as the class representatives and many class members would prefer, it is an additional payment that was not contemplated in the existing Agreement.” Id. at 25, JA 1471.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 18 of 78

18
As we have previously noted, “[a] claim that individual dissenters are entitled to more money is not, by itself, sufficient to reject the overall fairness of the settlement; . . . a settlement necessitates compromise.” Thomas, 139 F.3d at 232. We have no good reason to second-guess the District Court’s conclusion that, in providing both supplemental payments and reforming the cy-près process, the negotiated compromise fairly balances the parties’ competing positions.
Appellant Mandan raises several procedural challenges to the District Court’s fairness determination. He argues that the District Court erred by failing to recognize that it had the “equitable power” to distribute all of the funds marked for cyprès beneficiaries to the prevailing claimants. Br. for Mandan at 32–35. In a related argument, Appellant Mandan claims that the District Court should not have approved the modified settlement “without first determining whether the prevailing claimants were readily identifiable and whether further distributions to them were economically viable.” Id. at 35 (capitalization altered). Appellant Mandan’s final procedural challenge is that the District Court did not provide a “reasoned explanation” for its approval of the modified settlement. Id. at 42. We find no merit in these claims.
First, the District Court was correct in finding that it was not authorized “to fashion a different resolution such as ordering that the remaining funds be paid to prevailing claimants,” Second Modification Decision at 24, JA 1470, because the District Court’s jurisdiction was limited to accepting or rejecting the proposed settlement agreement that was before it. “[D]istrict courts enjoy no free-ranging ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction to enforce consent decrees, but are instead constrained by the terms of the decree and related order.” Pigford v. Veneman, 292 F.3d 918, 924 (D.C. Cir.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 19 of 78

19
2002). In a previous decision in this case, we said: “The District Court’s jurisdiction is drawn exceedingly narrowly . . . .” Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 815 F.3d 28, 36 (D.C. Cir. 2016). We recognized that the Agreement grants ongoing jurisdiction to the District Court only for specifically delineated, and narrow, circumstances, none of which apply here. Settlement Agreement § XIII, JA 429–30. District courts do not have freewheeling jurisdiction to modify settlements. “Who would sign a consent decree if district courts had free-ranging interpretive or enforcement authority untethered from the decree’s negotiated terms?” Pigford, 292 F.3d at 925.
Second, the District Court did not err in approving the addendum without determining whether the prevailing claimants were identifiable and whether paying out funds to them was feasible. As discussed above, this argument misconceives the role and authority of the District Court, which is very limited. Appellant Mandan’s argument also misreads our case law. There is no precedent in this circuit to support the assertion that parties cannot negotiate a settlement providing for cy-près distribution where prevailing claimants are identifiable and dispersal of funds is feasible. In support of this claim, Appellant Mandan cites Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, 84 F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 1996). However, the decision in that case did not limit cy-près awards to situations where prevailing claimants are not easily identifiable. Rather, the decision merely stated a definition of cy-près – “permit[ting] such funds to be distributed to the ‘next best’ class when the plaintiffs cannot be compensated individually” – that “some courts have applied.” Id. at 455. It does not limit cy-près distributions to certain prescribed circumstances.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 20 of 78

20
The cases from other circuits cited by Appellant Mandan are inapposite. See Br. for Mandan at 38. Appellant Mandan primarily points to decisions in which district courts sua sponte made cy-près awards, not cases (like the one here) in which the parties’ negotiated settlement agreement included a cy-près provision. Indeed, in a decision from the Third Circuit, the court explained that “a district court does not abuse its discretion by approving a class action settlement agreement that includes a cy pres component directing the distribution of excess settlement funds to a third party.” In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d 163, 172 (3d Cir. 2013). That decision distinguished cases in which the parties “agreed to” the cy-près distribution from cases in which trial courts imposed a cy-près distribution “over the objections of the parties.” Id. at 172 n.7. This case falls in the former category because the Settlement Agreement includes a cy-près provision. See Settlement Agreement § IX(F)(7), JA 422–23.
The other cases cited by Appellant Mandan involving decisions from our sister circuits are also plainly distinguishable. See, e.g., In re Lupron Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 677 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (agreement gave district court full discretion to select recipients of cy-près fund); Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (cy-près beneficiaries were completely unrelated to the objectives of the class action); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 628 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2010) (agreement provided for appointment of special master to dispose of any remaining funds without any guidelines). All of these cases involved situations that are very different from this case.
Finally, Appellant Mandan’s argument that the District Court failed to give a reasoned explanation for its acceptance of the addendum is belied by the record. As discussed above, throughout the extensive settlement process that was

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 21 of 78

21
supervised by the District Court, as well as in its opinion disposing of this case, the court showed admirable patience, fairness, and good judgment in weighing the competing proposals for modification. See Second Modification Decision at 25–27, JA 1471–73 (explaining the court’s reasoning). We not only do not reverse the District Court, we applaud its good efforts in bringing this case to conclusion.
D. The Waived and Forfeited Claims Relating to the Appropriations Clause and the Judgment Fund Act
The lawsuit in this case was filed in 1999. The parties reached settlement in 2010. The District Court approved the settlement in 2011. No appeal was taken by any party. And at no time during this twelve-year period did any party challenge the legality of the cy-près provision in the Agreement.
The initial Agreement contained a cy-près clause providing that “the Claims Administrator shall direct any leftovers funds to the Cy Pres Fund.” Settlement Agreement § IX(F)(7), JA 422–23. Neither Appellant Mandan nor any other interested party objected to this provision. Quite the contrary, Appellant Mandan accepted the settlement and received a payout from the administrative claims process. See Comments of Class Representative Keith Mandan at 1 (Jan. 20, 2016), JA 1197 (“Keith Mandan, is both a Class Representative and a Prevailing Claimant . . . .”).
Appellant Mandan (and other parties) had a second opportunity to challenge the legality of the cy-près provision in the Agreement during the first proceedings to modify the Agreement. At this point in the litigation, the claims process had concluded, leaving $380 million remaining to be directed to the cy-près fund. The issue regarding the distribution of funds pursuant to the cy-près provision was front-and-center at

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 22 of 78

22
this stage of the proceedings before the District Court. Yet, neither Appellant Mandan nor any other interested party raised any objection to the legality of the cy-près provision in the Agreement.
Appellant Mandan’s third opportunity to challenge the legality of the cy-près provision came when the District Court considered the second proposal to modify the Agreement. Appellant Mandan contested the cy-près distribution, but he did not contest the legality of the cy-près provision. See Comments of Class Representative Keith Mandan at 3 (Jan. 20, 2016), JA 1199. Appellant Mandan’s counsel clearly knew during the second modification proceeding that he could raise any constitutional or legal challenges to the cy-près provision. He knew because he explicitly declined to pursue any such challenges.
In February 2016, a few days before the District Court’s fairness hearing concerning the second proposed modification, counsel for Appellant Mandan filed a new, separate lawsuit, on behalf of a different class member, challenging the legality of the cy-près provision. See Complaint, Smallwood v. Lynch, No. 16-cv-161 (D.D.C. Feb. 1, 2016), ECF No. 1. In that complaint, counsel for Appellant Mandan marked the case as related to the Keepseagle case, but the District Court determined that it did “not appear to be related within the meaning of our local rules.” Tr. of Mot. Hr’g Proceedings at 22, JA 1224. However, at the February 2016 fairness hearing, Judge Sullivan, who was presiding over the Keepseagle proceeding, offered counsel for Appellant Mandan the opportunity to present his challenges to the legality of the cy-près provision. The District Court told counsel that the case “was reassigned to one of my colleagues, Judge Walton. He and I have not discussed this, and maybe I should have heard from counsel first as to whether the Court should keep the case and resolve it itself or not. I’m interested

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 23 of 78

23
in your views about that.” Id. But Appellant Mandan’s counsel refused Judge Sullivan’s invitation to raise the issue and explicitly declined to present his argument to the District Court, stating that “we are completely satisfied with where the case sits at this particular point.” Id. at 70, JA 1272. Judge Sullivan then told counsel that the case is “before Judge Walton, and so you can make your arguments to him.” Id. at 71, JA 1273.
Counsel for Appellant Mandan thereafter argued before Judge Walton in the separate case challenging the legality of the cy-près provision. Judge Walton dismissed the complaint for lack of standing on January 30, 2017. See Smallwood v. Yates, No. 16-cv-161, 2017 WL 398334 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2017). The matter was never raised again in conjunction with the Keepseagle case until Appellant Mandan filed his appeal with this court. Judge Sullivan never had occasion to address the issue because Appellant Mandan’s counsel explicitly declined to pursue the matter in this case. This procedural history, which Appellant Mandan did not mention in his briefs to this court, reveals that he knowingly declined to raise his claims with the District Court in the matter now under review in this court.
Appellant Mandan now advances, for the first time in this case, constitutional and statutory challenges to the Settlement Agreement’s cy-près provision. He argues that the provision violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 7, because it proposes to expend Treasury funds without a specific appropriation by Congress. Br. for Mandan at 21–32. And he contends that the provision violates the Judgment Fund Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1304(a)(3), because cy-près beneficiaries are “uninjured non-parties” who would not be able to recover judgments against the United States. Br. for Mandan at 26. In Appellant Mandan’s view, these claims are inexorably tied together and they are presented together in his brief. See, e.g.,

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 24 of 78

24
id. at 19. As noted above, these claims were never raised with the District Court. We therefore decline to review the claims because they were waived or forfeited.
In Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243–44 (2008), the Supreme Court explained why appellate courts should be loath to address issues that were not raised with the district court in the first instance:
In our adversary system, in both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal, we follow the principle of party presentation. That is, we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present. To the extent courts have approved departures from the party presentation principle in criminal cases, the justification has usually been to protect a pro se litigant’s rights. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381–383 (2003). But as a general rule, “[o]ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.” Id., at 386. (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As cogently explained:
“[Courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties. Counsel almost always know a great deal more about their cases than we do . . . .” United States v. Samuels, 808 F.2d 1298, 1301 (C.A.8 1987) (R. Arnold, J., concurring in denial of reh’g en banc).

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 25 of 78

25
554 U.S. at 243–44.
“Although jurists often use the words interchangeably,” Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 458 n.13 (2004), waiver is the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right,” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and “forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right.” Id. In this case, Appellant Mandan waived his claims and he forfeited any right that he might have had to raise the matters on appeal. Application of the waiver doctrine, alone, is sufficient to dispose of these issues.
Appellant Mandan explicitly waived his claims when his counsel told the District Court Judge that he did not wish to pursue any challenges to the cy-près provision. He did this after Judge Sullivan invited him to raise whatever concerns he had. “[A]fter expressing [a] clear and accurate understanding of the . . . issue, [Counsel] deliberately steered the District Court away from the question . . . . In short, [Counsel] . . . chose, in no uncertain terms, to refrain from interposing [any] ‘challenge’ [to the cy-près provision].” Wood v. Milyard, 132 S. Ct. 1826, 1835 (2012). In these circumstances, Appellant Mandan’s claims regarding the legality of the cy-près provision were waived and they cannot be raised on appeal.
On the record before us, there is no doubt that Appellant Mandan waived his claims regarding the legality of the cy-près provision. Even if we take a different tack and consider whether Appellant Mandan forfeited (rather than waived) his claims, the result is the same. The case law is clear that he is foreclosed from belatedly challenging the legality of the cyprès provision for the first time on appeal because he never raised his claims with the District Court in the first instance.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 26 of 78

26
“It is well settled that issues and legal theories not asserted at the District Court level ordinarily will not be heard on appeal.” District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 1984). We have explained the reasons for this general principle: “Enormous confusion and interminable delay would result if counsel were permitted to appeal upon points not presented to the court below. Almost every case would in effect be tried twice under any such practice. While the rule may work hardship in individual cases, it is necessary that its integrity be preserved.” Id. at 1084–85 (quoting Johnston v. Reily, 160 F.2d 249, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1947)).
Thus, under well-established law, a party forfeits a claim by failing to raise it below when the party “knew, or should have known” that the claim could be raised. Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 740 F.2d 1071, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In this case, Appellant Mandan knew, or should have known, that his constitutional and statutory claims could have been raised in 2011, when the District Court approved the Settlement Agreement containing the cy-près provision. Appellant Mandan does not dispute this.
By 2015, after the claims process concluded and the remaining funds were slated for cy-près distribution, there can be no doubt that Appellant Mandan was once again on notice of the opportunity to put forward his constitutional and statutory theories. As detailed above, during the February 2016 fairness hearing, Judge Sullivan offered counsel for Appellant Mandan the opportunity to present his legal challenges to the cy-près provision. Counsel expressly declined and thereafter never pursued the claims with the District Court in this case.
In light of this record, it would be extraordinary for an appellate court to address these claims for the first time on

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 27 of 78

27
appeal. As the Supreme Court said in Greenlaw, in “our adversary system . . . we follow the principle of party presentation. . . . [Appellate courts] should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” 554 U.S. at 243–44 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
It does not matter that Appellant Mandan’s belated claims involve constitutional issues. The doctrines of waiver and forfeiture apply to constitutional objections. See Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 143 (1967) (“[I]t is . . . clear that even constitutional objections may be waived by a failure to raise them at a proper time . . . .” (citing Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 99 (1955)); see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 794 F.2d 710, 717 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (finding that “appellants waived their constitutional claims by failing to raise them on their initial appeal to this court”); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944); (“No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.”).
We would not only pervert the adversary process by addressing Appellant Mandan’s newly raised claims, we would also be required to engage in unduly weighty and cumbersome decision-making without a decent record from the District Court. See Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d at 1085 (pointing out the “serious problems” that would be encountered if the court entertained complex issues on appeal “without prior consideration by the trial court”).
Appellant Mandan’s theories are novel and they rest on his view of legislative history that is beyond the record of this case.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 28 of 78

28
See Br. for Mandan at 26–29 (citing, e.g., Proposal to Expedite the Payment of Judgments against the United States: Hearing Before the Subcomm. of the Comm. on Appropriations, 84th Cong. 883 (1956)). While some of Appellees’ briefs touch on the merits of some of Appellant Mandan’s claims, see, e.g., Br. for Appellee Vilsack at 19–24, we lack the robust record necessary to properly evaluate the substance of these arguments. Indeed, as far as we can discern, Appellant Mandan’s arguments have never been addressed by any federal appellate court, and they have been explored only tangentially in a single law review article. See Paul F. Figley, The Judgment Fund: America’s Deepest Pocket and its Susceptibility to Executive Branch Misuse, 18 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 145, 194–97 (2015).
Even giving Appellant Mandan the benefit of the doubt, we certainly cannot say that “the proper resolution [of his claims] is beyond any doubt.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976). If anything, his arguments regarding the Judgment Fund Act appear to be misguided. See Availability of Judgment Fund in Cases Not Involving a Money Judgment Claim, 13 Op. O.L.C. 98, 103 (1989) (focusing on the “underlying cause” leading to settlement, and not on the identity of the parties receiving settlement funds (citation omitted)).
Indeed, it is noteworthy that Appellant Mandan’s arguments regarding the Judgment Fund Act stem principally from his policy concerns over the use of cy-près provisions, and not from any clear statutory mandate. See, e.g., Br. for Mandan at 28–29 (“Cy pres is a troublesome concept generally.”). “This being so, injustice [is] more likely to be caused than avoided” if this court were to address the issues in the first instance before they have been properly raised and tried in the District Court. Singleton, 428 U.S. at 121.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 29 of 78

29
Given the novelty and complexity of Appellant Mandan’s claims, the materials that he asks us to review, and the policy arguments that he raises, it would be entirely inappropriate for this court to address the merits of his claims without the benefit of a full record, including a decision from the District Court in the first instance. As then-Judge Scalia explained,
[t]he premise of our adversarial system is that appellate courts do not sit as self-directed boards of legal inquiry and research, but essentially as arbiters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties before them. . . . Failure to enforce this requirement will ultimately deprive us in substantial measure of that assistance of counsel which the system assumes—a deficiency that we can perhaps supply by other means, but not without altering the character of our institution.
Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see also Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941) (“[It] is essential . . . that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant to the issues which the trial tribunal is alone competent to decide . . . .”). Departing from our established “principle of party presentation” would deprive the parties of a full opportunity to present their arguments and would place this court in the unsuitable position of deciding novel legal issues in the first instance. This is not our role.
We understand that, in “exceptional circumstances,” an appellate court may exercise discretion to address an issue that is subject to forfeiture. Roosevelt v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 958 F.2d 416, 419 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court said as much in Singleton, 428 U.S. at 121. But the Court made it clear that this is the exception, not the rule, and it should be limited to situations “as where the proper resolution is beyond any doubt,” or where “injustice might otherwise

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 30 of 78

30
result.” Id. (citation omitted). The record in this case does not come close to establishing exceptional circumstances that would militate in favor of this court considering, in the first instance, Appellant’s legal challenges to the cy-près provision.
The truth here is that the “exceptional circumstances” exception to forfeiture is of little moment in this case because, before the District Court, Appellant Mandan explicitly waived the claims that he now seeks to raise with this court. And contrary to what the dissent implies, there is no authority to support a suggestion that Appellant Mandan's Appropriations Clause claims raise an Article III concern or call into question the jurisdiction of this court. The simple point here is that Appellant Mandan’s Appropriations Clause claims were waived before the District Court and that is the end of the matter.
E. Appellant Tingle’s Arguments
Appellant Tingle’s arguments overlap significantly with Appellant Mandan’s, and are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. However, Appellant Tingle raises two unique arguments: first, that “[c]lass counsel had a conflict of interest and breached its fiduciary duty,” Br. for Tingle at 30; and, second, that “[t]he class representatives breached their fiduciary duties,” id. at 35. We reject both claims because Appellant Tingle offers no evidence in support of his allegations. He asserts that “divergent interests emerged within the class” such that class counsel “was simultaneously representing clients with conflicting interests.” Id. at 31. He does not explain what those divergent interests were and how they resulted in breaches of fiduciary duties. Class representatives often must weigh competing claims in weighing the best interests of the class as a whole. This, without more, does not give evidence of a breach of fiduciary

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 31 of 78

31
duties. Likewise, Appellant Tingle alleges that trusteeships overseeing the proposed trust were promised to certain class representatives “to incentivize a change in position.” Id. at 36. Nothing in the record supports this accusation. Lastly, Appellant Tingle takes aim at the “incentive fees” (or service awards) provided by the Agreement for the class representatives’ work in negotiating the Agreement and its modification. Id. at 37. However, “incentive awards have often been used to compensate a class representative,” Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2015), and nothing in the record of this case suggests that the service awards served any nefarious purposes.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 32 of 78

WILKINS, Circuit Judge, concurring: I join the majority opinion in its entirety. I write separately to emphasize a few brief points.
The dissent spins a tale of corruption and conspiracy, in which the plaintiffs and the Government were complicit in bilking the nation’s taxpayers to pay a political ransom. While this narrative may have been advanced in news accounts and scholarly articles, most of those statements and opinions have not been validated by the solemnity of the oath and “testing in the crucible of cross-examination,” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61 (2004); nor are they found in the record, and it is the record upon which our decision must be based. Fed. R. App. P. 10(a).
What the record shows is that the District Court expressly found that the settlement “was attained following an extensive investigation of the facts and the law . . . [and] resulted from vigorous arms’-length negotiations, which were undertaken in good faith.” Order, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2011), JA 589-91. Unless we find clear error in the District Court’s conclusion – and even the dissent does not claim to do so – that finding stands.
It is true that more than half of the settlement fund was not distributed through the claims process and is now poised to be distributed via the cy-près provision. But this was an unanticipated state of affairs, not an intended result. See Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 118 F. Supp. 3d 98, 102 (D.D.C. 2015) (“[N]o one anticipated such a large amount of excess funds.”). As represented to the District Court, “the parties contemplated that no more than several million dollars in settlement funds would be unclaimed,” based on an expectation that “over ten thousand class members would likely file . . . claims, and that most of those claims would be successful.” J.A. 718 & n.2. Instead of 10,000 claims, only 5,191 were received. J.A. 596.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 33 of 78

2
The reason for this discrepancy is “unclear,” Keepseagle, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 102, but the difference in the number of actual, versus estimated, claimants correlates closely with the amount of surplus settlement funds. The parties have offered several possible explanations, including that the deaths of eligible claimants (the claims process began 30 years after the first year covered by the settlement) left heirs with insufficient information to complete claim forms or that, perhaps, there were “simply fewer people with claims than Plaintiffs originally argued.” Id. at 108 n.3. In addition to falling short of the expected number of claims, a large number of submitted claims were unsuccessful. Most strikingly, out of 146 Track B claimants, only fourteen were successful. Compare J.A. 596, with J.A. 716.
Regardless of the cause of this “monumental” failure in the claims process, Keepseagle, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 102, there is no occasion for considering the newly-resurrected claim that the cy-près provision – a feature of the Settlement Agreement since it was first unveiled seven years ago – violates the Appropriations Clause. The dissent apparently concedes that Appellant Mandan waived this claim before the District Court when he was asked whether he wished to pursue it. Yet, the dissent relies exclusively on cases involving forfeiture – not waiver – to argue that “exceptional circumstances” permit an appellate court to nevertheless consider the claim. The Supreme Court, though, has been clear: “Waiver is different from forfeiture.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993). While “[m]ere forfeiture . . . does not extinguish an error,” waiver may. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Of course, some errors cannot be waived – subject matter jurisdiction chief among them. In an attempt to shoehorn this case into that category, the dissent hints that a federal court may be without jurisdiction to approve a settlement agreement that

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 34 of 78

3
requires the Executive to make an unappropriated expenditure. No authority is cited for that proposition and the legal signposts in this area instead point in the opposite direction. See Local No. 93 v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 523 (1986) (“[T]he mere existence of an unexercised power to modify the obligations contained in a consent decree does not alter the fact that those obligations were created by agreement of the parties rather than imposed by the court.”); cf. Authority of the United States to Enter Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion, 23 Op. O.L.C. 126, 128 (1999) (“We do not believe . . . that Article III bars federal courts from entering consent decrees that limit executive branch discretion whenever such decrees purport to provide broader relief than a court could have awarded pursuant to an ordinary injunction.”).
Even if the “extraordinary circumstances” standard cited in the dissent were applicable, its terms are not met. The dissent claims that the “proper resolution is not in doubt” because we are presented with a “fully briefed, purely legal question.” See Dis. Op. at 16-17. But, of course, the proper resolution of even fully briefed, purely legal questions can be doubtful. Circuit splits happen.
Moreover, the question presented here is not purely legal. Congress has appropriated funds for the Executive to settle “claims . . . for defense of imminent litigation or suits against the United States . . . [which] shall be settled and paid in a manner similar to judgments in like causes.” 28 U.S.C. § 2414. Concededly, the nonprofit organizations that will receive cyprès distributions out of leftover settlement funds may not possess any claims against the United States. But there is no denying that the Settlement Agreement did in fact settle claims against the United States; namely, the claims of the members of the class. The question of whether this settlement was supported by a congressional appropriation turns on whether

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 35 of 78

4
providing for cy-près distribution of unclaimed settlement funds is “similar to judgments in like causes.” Id. That requires answering at least two questions that are not “purely legal”: What are “like causes” to this one? And how are judgments in such causes settled and paid? The record offers no answers to these questions, nor should it, because Appellant Mandan told the District Court that this issue was off the table. Not only has there been no fact-finding on these questions, there has been no adversarial presentation; these questions are not “fully briefed.” Nor can we say, without a proper factual record, that the proper resolution of the merits question is, in fact, “beyond any doubt,” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976).
These conclusions are not the product of “schadenfreude” or disrespect for the importance of separation of powers. Rather, they are mandated by a commitment to the proper role of the appellate court and the system of adversarial presentation. When properly presented in a case or controversy, courts vindicate the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. Otherwise, allegations of trespass onto Congress’ constitutional curtilage must be addressed by Congress – not the courts – and Congress has ample weaponry with which to defend its turf.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 36 of 78

BROWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: $380,000,000 is, to use the late Senator Dirksen’s wry phrase, “real money.” That is what has been left on the table for private disbursement in this case. Perhaps one day, I will possess my colleagues’ schadenfreude toward the Executive Branch raiding hundredsof-millions of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury, putting them into a slush fund disguised as a settlement, and then doling the money out to whatever constituency the Executive wants bankrolled. But, that day is not today.
The Constitution’s Appropriations Clause ensures the People’s elected representatives “hold the purse.” See THE FEDERALIST NO. 58, p. 357 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (J. Madison). “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The Executive Branch may wish to favor certain interests on the taxpayer’s dime. It may wish to use the Judicial Branch’s enforcement of settlement agreements to avoid asking Congress for an appropriation. But the Constitution’s design gives the People’s elected representatives a means to thwart these “overgrown prerogatives.” See THE FEDERALIST NO. 58, p. 357 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (J. Madison). By limiting the “judicial Power” to resolving “Cases” and “Controversies,” U.S. CONST. art. III §§ 1–2, the Constitution ensures the Judicial Branch has “no influence over . . . the purse.” See THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, p. 464 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (A. Hamilton). Expenditures toward the fulfilment of public policy are integral to policymaking itself, and policymaking is left to the legislature. See id. at 464, 467. In short, congressional control over the People’s purse is a structural limit on both the Executive and Judicial Branches. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 451 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“Money is the instrument of policy and policy affects the lives of citizens. The individual loses liberty in a real sense if that instrument is not subject to traditional constitutional constraints.”).

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 37 of 78

2
But this case exposes a peril to the public fisc with which the drafters never reckoned: cy pres. Originating from the law of trusts and estates, cy pres refers to a court’s power to reform the terms of a trust or gift that is otherwise impossible to effectuate. Rather than revert the unclaimed money or gift back to the defendant, a court may distribute the unclaimed sum for a purpose “as near as possible” to the objectives underlying the trust or gift. See generally Martin H. Redish, Peter Julian & Samantha Zyontz, Cy Pres Relief and the Pathologies of the Modern Class Action: A Normative and Empirical Analysis, 62 FLA. L. REV. 617, 624 (2010) [hereinafter Redish]. Cy pres seeped its way into class actions after a 1972 article proposed that courts distribute unclaimed settlement dollars to whatever non-parties fulfill the litigation’s “purpose.” See id. at 631–32. Cy pres took the judiciary “to the utmost verge of the law” even before it was applied to class actions. See Jackson v. Phillips, 96 Mass. 539, 574 (1867) (quoting the English jurist Lord Kenyon). Now in “class action litigation,” its mere presence raises “fundamental concerns” about the nature of judicial power. See, e.g., Marek v. Lane, 134 S. Ct. 8, 8–9 (2013) (statement of Roberts, C.J., respecting denial of certiorari).
Here, Congress only appropriated money for the Executive Branch to pay settled claims against the United States via the Judgment Fund Act. See 31 U.S.C. § 1304(a) (Judgment Fund Act); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2414 (authorizing the Justice Department to pay settled litigation claims using funds appropriated via the Judgment Fund Act). Those claims have already been paid—every Native-American farmer who filed a viable claim of discrimination by the United States has been compensated. And yet, more than half of the Judgment Fund appropriation for this case—more than $380,000,000— remains. The Executive Branch and class counsel have devised

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 38 of 78

3
a cy pres distribution scheme to send these taxpayer dollars to “nonprofits” and “charities” with no claims against the United States. But, the Executive Branch and class counsel tell us not to worry. According to their distribution scheme, these unidentified non-parties fulfill the “purpose” of having “provided agricultural, business assistance, or advocacy services to Native American farmers,” JA 393 (Original Settlement Agreement, II.I.), and are thus entitled to receive the remaining taxpayer money. Congress, however, never appropriated money for this expense.
Unfortunately, no party before the Court really cares what Congress authorized. Cy Pres gives the Executive Branch a win-win: By agreeing to a settlement amount that vastly overstated the claimants’ monetary damages, the Executive can use a large dollar amount to reap the political benefits of photoop compassion towards a discriminated minority group. At the same time, the Executive’s agreement to an overstated damages sum ensures enough money is left in the fund to pay favored third parties after the claimants are compensated. See, e.g., Paul F. Figley, The Judgment Fund: America’s Deepest Pocket and Its Susceptibility to Executive Branch Misuse, 18 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 145, 200 (2015) (explaining that the Keepseagle settlement was part of an Obama administration strategy “to neutralize the argument that the government favors black farmers over . . . Native American[s] . . . and to court key constituencies”) [hereinafter Figley, The Judgment Fund]. Class counsel gets a piece of the action too: By agreeing to cy pres distributions, the size of the settlement fund is inflated. The larger the settlement’s size, the larger class counsel’s fee award—regardless of how much of the settlement actually pays injured parties (better known as class counsel’s clients). Even Appellant’s protest of the cy pres scheme is not entirely altruistic. He wants the remaining money distributed to already-compensated class members, not returned to the U.S.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 39 of 78

4

Treasury. In short, everyone apparently presumed a bloodied-

shirt party could be thrown at the taxpayer’s expense. Why risk

Congress being a killjoy? See generally Sharon LaFraniere,

U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination, N.Y.

TIMES,

(Apr.

25,

2013),

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/farm-loan-bias-

claims-often-unsupported-cost-us-millions.html [hereinafter

LaFraniere, Spigot].

Nevertheless, the Constitution’s limitations on judicial power remain, even if “the parties” before a court “cannot be expected to protect” them. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 851 (1986). Judicial restraint becomes judicial abdication when the parties keep making mistakes and we keep them from being corrected. Cf. 33 G.K. CHESTERTON, The Blunders of Our Parties, in THE COLLECTED WORKS OF G.K. CHESTERTON 312, 312–16 (1990). Like the Constitution’s other structural features, “[n]either Congress nor the Executive can agree to waive” the Appropriations Clause. See Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868, 880 (1991). When the Constitution’s “structural principle[s]” limiting judicial power are “implicated in a given case, . . . notions of consent and waiver cannot be dispositive.” Schor, 478 U.S. at 850–51.

If the Government wishes to achieve certain purposes by expending taxpayer money to people with no monetary claims against the United States, a legislative appropriation is required. No such appropriation exists here. Neither authorizing nor policing a cy pres distribution scheme in a class action settlement with the United States is consistent with constitutional limitations. Because the money was appropriated to pay claims, and those claims have been compensated, the more than $380,000,000 that remains here should be returned to the American People. But, cy pres permits the judiciary to take more than half the taxpayer money

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 40 of 78

5
Congress authorized to pay claims in this case and appropriate the money for something else. This is not justice. It is not even law. I respectfully dissent.
I.
The Constitutionality of Cy Pres Distributions Is Before Us
The majority averts its gaze from the Constitution by invoking the waiver doctrine. But waiver is not proper simply because “[q]uestions may occur which we would gladly avoid.” Cf. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821) (per Marshall, C.J.). Waiver is a proper conclusion when we follow the doctrine’s guideposts. If those guideposts tell us “we cannot avoid” a difficult question, then we must “exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously . . . perform our duty.” See id. Here, the waiver doctrine provides no security blanket keeping us from cy pres’s constitutional problems.
There are two primary reasons why waiver is inapposite here: (1) this case presents “exceptional circumstances;” and (2) this case raises structural, jurisdictional limitations on judicial power that cannot be waived.
Some background information is essential to grasping this case’s exceptional circumstances and the structural constitutional limitations it raises:
The Keepseagle case is one of several class actions attempting to capitalize on successful litigation under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), where African-American farmers were treated unfairly in loan programs, crop payments, and disaster payments run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Congress facilitated these cases by amending

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 41 of 78

6
ECOA’s statute of limitations. See Stephen Carpenter, The USDA Discrimination Cases: Pigford, In re Black Farmers, Keepseagle, Garcia, and Love, 17 DRAKE J. AGRIC. L. 1, 15– 16 (2012) (discussing the statute of limitations problem in Pigford I). The class litigation involving African-American farmers was incredibly successful—leading to, most notably, Congress appropriating a settlement payout of $2,000,000,000 for resolving the Pigford II litigation. See, e.g., Figley, The Judgment Fund, 18 U. PA. J. CONST. L. at 189–92 (detailing the African-American farmers’ class litigation).
The success of the African-American class litigation owed more to politics than law. See, e.g., id. at 193 (“President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama favored the farmers’ claims, and their political appointees actively supported the settlements over the objections of some career officials.”); LaFraniere, Spigot (quoting Congressman Steve King, who explained Congress’s appropriation by saying, “[n]ever underestimate the fear of being called a racist”). But, no matter how political the Executive’s litigation strategy may have been, “the [settlement] payments were made in a manner that respected the Judgment Fund.” Figley, The Judgment Fund, 18 U. PA. J. CONST. L. at 193. Congress “allowed” the AfricanAmerican class litigation when it expanded ECOA’s statute of limitations, and it “appropriated money . . . with full knowledge of the terms of the agreement” settling Pigford II. See id; see also Todd David Peterson, Protecting The Appropriations Power: Why Congress Should Care About Settlements at the Department Of Justice, 2009 B.Y. U. L. REV. 327, 362 (2009) (“Rather than leaping over or subverting the limitations imposed by Congress’s control over the circumstances in which money judgments may be obtained against the United States, the Department of Justice went to Congress for the appropriate authority before it settled the case.”).

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 42 of 78

7
Keepseagle, however, has all of these political motivations but none of the respect for Congress’s control over the purse. The Executive Branch neither sought a specific appropriation for this case, nor did Congress ever authorize the Executive to send taxpayer money appropriated for settled lawsuits to noninjured third-parties with no claims against the United States. See Figley, The Judgment Fund, 18 U. PA. J. CONST. L. at 194– 97. Why, you may ask, would the Executive Branch avoid asking Congress for a specific appropriation for Keepseagle? Congress, in writing a multi-billion dollar appropriation for Pigford II, demonstrated its willingness to pay large sums to resolve discrimination claims against the United States. But, the difference with Keepeseagle is the purpose of the settlement. This settlement—as the more than $380,000,000 remaining for cy pres distribution now confirms—went far beyond compensating injured Native-American farmers; it sought to ensure favored “nonprofits” and “charities” were flushed with cash.1
1 Even outside its cy pres provisions, the Keepseagle settlement is generally less focused on compensating class members—and more focused on enacting agriculture policy and compensating class counsel—than the Pigford consent decree. See Carpenter, The USDA Discrimination Cases, 17 DRAKE J. AGRIC. L. at 25–26 & n.261 (explaining that, unlike Pigford, the Keepseagle settlement provides for “programmatic relief” that will: create a Federal Advisory Committee called the Council for Native American Farming and Ranching; create sub-offices within the Agriculture Department on Indian Reservations; provide for a review of loan making within the Agriculture Department in consultation with class counsel; require the Agriculture Department to collect data regarding Native American farming loans to identify disparities; and create an Ombudsman that will address concerns of “socially disadvantaged” farmers and raise them with the Council. Class counsel also received a bigger benefit in Keepseagle—the settlement allows class counsel’s fee award to come from a percentage of the common

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 43 of 78

8
As the majority acknowledges, when the Keepseagle class was first certified in 2001, it was certified only for injunctive relief—the district court deferred the question whether the class deserved monetary relief. See Keepseagle v. Veneman, 1:99cv-03119, 2001 WL 34676944, at *14 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001). Yet the Judgment Fund does not apply to injunctive relief. Without class certification for monetary relief, a large settlement payout was impossible; the Keepseagle plaintiffs would have to individually litigate any claims for monetary damages. But the claims of the class claimants were quite facile, and individually-litigated cases are seldom as lucrative as class actions. See LaFraniere, Spigot (“Depositions had revealed many of the individual farmers’ complaints to be shaky. And federal judges had already scornfully rejected the methodology of the plaintiffs’ expert, a former Agriculture Department official named Patrick O’Brien, in the [female farmers’] case.”); see also Garcia v. Veneman, 224 F.R.D. 8, 16 (D.D.C. 2004) (“The history of the Pigford (black farmers) class action litigation amply demonstrates that . . . it is the questions affecting only individual members that predominate.”); Barry Sullivan & Amy Kobelski Trueblood, Rule 23(f): A Note on Law and Discretion in the Courts of Appeals, 246 F.R.D. 277, 279 (2008) (“Where a class is not certified, the plaintiffs (and their lawyer) may not have the will—or the resources—to continue with a litigation that [may] yield only a small recovery and little basis for an award of substantial attorneys’ fees.”).
settlement fund, rather than a flat fee credited against the class award). These arrangements gave class counsel an incentive to inflate the class claimants’ damages, while incentivizing the Executive Branch to drop its strong legal arguments and settle in favor of enacting agriculture policy.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 44 of 78

9
For most of this lawsuit’s history, the Executive Branch was not helping class counsel out of this little conundrum. From the lawsuit’s filing in 1999 to December 2009, the Executive Branch “hotly contested” the mere existence of monetary damages. See Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 118 F. Supp. 3d 98, 105–06 (D.D.C. 2015). Even after “nearly ten years” of “extensive and contentious discovery and motions practice,” the Executive Branch insisted on the non-existence of money damages. See id. Discovery gave the Executive good reason to remain insistent—“this nearly decade-long battle resulted in a narrowing of the plaintiffs’ claims.” See id. In fact, in October 2009, the Executive Branch went so far as to tell the district court that the narrowing of Plaintiffs’ “theory of the case and supporting law” was so “considerabl[e]” that it “call[ed] into question the previous class definition.” See Gov’t Mem. in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Mot. for Order Regarding the Establishment of Class Membership at 4, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 1:99-cv-03119 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2009), ECF 541. Yet, a mere six weeks later, even as the deadline for the Executive Branch’s submission of a rebuttal expert report on damages approached, the Justice Department agreed to stay the case—concluding that “settlement discussions are appropriate at this time.” See Joint Mot. to Stay at 2, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 1:99-cv-03119 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2009), ECF 548.
In late 2009, the Executive Branch went from disputing the existence of money damages to embracing a settlement agreement that pays the Plaintiffs “nearly 90%” of their “estimated total damages,” $776,000,000, $680,000,000 of which came from the Judgment Fund. See Keepseagle, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 106. Given the $380,000,000 remaining from the Judgment Fund appropriation after class claimants were compensated, we now know Plaintiffs’ money damage

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 45 of 78

10
estimates were wildly off-base.2 Class counsel, though, received a $60,800,000 payday—roughly four times class counsel’s actual expenses.3 None of this should have surprised
2 The dearth of class claimants that actually qualified to receive money damages confirms the inflation. As the Executive Branch acknowledges here, “[t]he claims process . . . allowed claimants to obtain substantial recoveries by submitting minimal evidence.” Gov’t Br. 27 (emphasis added). All that was required to “obtain $50,000 plus $12,500 in tax relief [under Track A]” was “a written statement without any further supporting documentation (save proof of Tribal membership, if applicable).” Id. at 27–28. Under Track B, a claimant could “obtain a cash payment of up to $250,000 by meeting a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard in an entirely non-adversarial process (meaning that any showing of discrimination went unrebutted even if the government could have rebutted the claim had it proceeded to litigation).” Id. at 28. Moreover, the Agriculture Department forgave any outstanding federal farm loan debt for any claimant that prevailed under either Track A or Track B, even if “the value of that debt relief far exceeded claimants’ cash recoveries.” Id. Short of giving the settlement money away without any process at all, it is difficult to see how the Executive Branch could have made it any easier for class members to collect. Nevertheless, only 3,601 individuals prevailed in this process—a sliver of the more than 19,000 claimants predicted by the class complaint. See Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint at 163 ¶ 143, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 1:99-CV-03119, 2001 WL 35985330 (D.D.C. June 27, 2001). 3 Even the Executive Branch could not, initially, swallow the size of class counsel’s fee award. In contesting this award, the Executive Branch acknowledged it was willing to pay attorney fees that roughly doubled its estimate of class counsel’s actual expenses to settle the case, but it was not comfortable paying what class counsel ultimately received. See, e.g., Gov’t Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Att’y Fees and Expenses and to Pls.’ Mot. for Approval of Class Representative Incentive Awards at 2, 7, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 1:99-cv-03119 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2011), ECF No. 586; see id. at 9 (“It is possible

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 46 of 78

11
the Executive Branch. When it came before this Court to contest the deferral of class certification on monetary damages, the Justice Department said the following: “‘This case is, at bottom, about compensatory relief for past wrongs,’ creating a threat of ‘hydraulic’ pressure to settle” for a large sum. See In re Veneman, 309 F.3d 789, 794 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting the Justice Department). Moreover, the Government’s damages expert, Economics and Statistics Professor Gordon C. Rausser of the University of California, Berkeley, “produced a 340page report stating that [Plaintiffs’ expert’s damages] conclusions were based ‘in a counter-factual world’ and that Native Americans had generally fared as well as white male farmers.” LaFraniere, Spigot. “‘If they had gone to trial, the government would have prevailed,’ he said. ‘It was just a joke,’ he added. ‘I was so disgusted. It was simply buying the support of the Native-Americans.’” Id. By settling, however, the Executive Branch never filed its rebuttal expert report.
Both the original settlement agreement and the addendum appealed here require court approval of the cy pres recipients class counsel will propose. See JA 393 (Original Settlement Agreement, II.I); JA 1170 (Proposed Settlement Agreement Addendum, II.A–B). Court approval is also required for the “awards” class counsel proposes that these cy pres recipients receive. See JA 423 (Original Settlement Agreement, IX.7); JA 1172 (Proposed Settlement Agreement Addendum, IV.A). No adjudicative standard is set forth for approving either the cy pres recipients or their distributions, other than that these recipients fulfill the “purpose” of having “provided agricultural, business assistance, or advocacy services to
that Plaintiffs’ billing records provide adequate support for the claimed expenditures, but it is difficult to imagine, for example, how money spent on ‘conferences’ or ‘media services’ is a reasonable and necessary litigation expense at that time, and none of the travel expenses are justified or described beyond ‘travel.’”).

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 47 of 78

12
Native American farmers,” e.g., JA 393 (Original Settlement Agreement, II.I). The proposed addendum adds an equallyfraught twist: The “primary cy pres beneficiary” will be a newly-created “Native American Agriculture Fund.” JA 1170 (Proposed Settlement Agreement Addendum, II.B). Class counsel will select the Trust Fund’s Board of Trustees and its Executive Director, and a court will be tasked with approving those selections. See id.
Nothing prohibits class counsel from serving on the Trust Fund’s Board (or as its Executive Director), nor is the Executive Branch in any way prevented from “suggesting” names for class counsel’s nomination (nor, presumably, is a court so limited). Moreover, this Trust Fund will be tasked with using its taxpayer-funded cy pres money to, among other things, “educate the public on agricultural issues, the needs of Native American farmers and ranchers, and other matters related to the Trust’s Mission, including by advocating for a particular position or viewpoint” (the Trust Fund does purport to be a non-political nonprofit, however). JA 1180.
The settlement agreement here strongly suggests its exorbitant sum is not the result of, as the Executive Branch preposterously contends, “the level of sophistication and effectiveness of the lawyers representing the class’s interests[,] . . . as well as the legal backdrop against which the parties negotiated.” Gov’t Br. 23. Rather, political calculations explain the settlement. Cf. Keepseagle, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 104 (suggesting the Government settled this case because it “implicate[s] deep-seated interests of justice” even if “the government’s legal defense may be relatively strong”). An internal memorandum within the Department of Agriculture from March 2010 says Keepseagle was part of an Obama administration effort “to neutralize the argument that the government favors black farmers over Hispanic, Native

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 48 of 78

13

American or women farmers.” LaFraniere, Spigot; see also id.

(“Sweeping settlements with the three groups, [Tony] West

[Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil

Division], argued, would eliminate legal risks and smooth

relations between the Agriculture Department and important

constituencies.”); Press Release, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack

and Attorney General Holder Announce Settlement Agreement

with Native American Farmers Who Claim to Have Faced

Discrimination by USDA in Past Decades, Release No.

0539.10

(Oct.

19,

2010)

https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid

=2010/10/0539.xml&printable=true&contentidonly=true

(“[S]hortly after [Secretary Vilsack] took office he sent a

memo to all USDA employees calling for ‘a new era of civil

rights’ for the Department. In February 2010, Secretary

Vilsack announced the Pigford II settlement with black

farmers; the Keepseagle settlement continues as part of that

new era. Meanwhile, Secretary Vilsack continues to pursue the

resolution of all claims of past discrimination against USDA.”).

Reporting also indicates “the payouts pitted [the Secretary of

Agriculture] and other political appointees against career

lawyers and agency officials, who argued that the legal risks

did not justify the costs” to the taxpayer. LaFraniere, Spigot.

My colleague suggests we should ignore this case’s context because it is not “found in the record.” Concurrence at 1. Of course, the district court not only acknowledged this context—it expressed sympathy with the Executive Branch’s preference for political largess over legal defense.4 See

4 Moreover, the insistence that we must be willfully blind to context unless it is “test[ed] in the crucible of cross-examination” is especially puzzling. Concurrence at 1. The context of this case is not examined to make a factual determination—it helps explain why “exceptional circumstances” exist to address Mandan’s

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 49 of 78

14
Keepseagle, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 104 (“The statements of the President, Secretary Vilsack, and then-Attorney General Holder make clear that the government in 2010 understood this dimension of the case. . . . The government[’s] [lawyers] would do well to remove [their] legalistic blinders.”); but see Authority of the United States to Enter Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion, 23 Op. O.LC. 126, 137 (1999) (“The Attorney General generally possesses the congressionally conferred power to settle on terms that would serve the best interests of the United States, but the considerations and terms that inform and structure a settlement must be traceable, nonetheless, to a discernible source of statutory authority.” (emphasis added)) [hereinafter Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion]. Despite the district court’s obvious sympathy, it still questioned whether the Judgment Fund Act permitted a cy pres distribution:
The result is that $380,000,000 of taxpayer funds is set to be distributed inefficiently to thirdparty groups that had no legal claim against the government. Although a $380,000,000 donation by the federal government to charities serving Native American farmers and ranchers might well be in the public interest, the [c]ourt doubts that the judgment fund from which this money came
constitutional arguments. It makes no sense to insist on a trial when, by design, “exceptional circumstances” are only invoked on appeal to consider an argument not raised below.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 50 of 78

15
was intended to serve such a purpose. The public would do well to ask why $380,000,000 is being spent in such a manner.
Keepseagle, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 104. But the district court reasoned the parties’ consent to the final judgment put the cy pres issue “beyond the realm of the law and into the realm of politics and policy.” Id; see also id. at 121 (“[T]he [c]ourt is not persuaded that it has any authority to declare void portions of an agreement that was negotiated by the parties, approved by the [c]ourt pursuant to [Rule] 23, and finalized on appeal (either by affirmance of the Court of Appeals or by the lack of any timely appeal).”). In considering the cy pres amendment at issue here, both the district court and the majority continue to treat the parties’ consent as a means to circumvent constitutional limitations on judicial power.
A.
Exceptional Circumstances Are Present
“[A] federal court is more than ‘a recorder of contracts’ from whom parties can purchase [relief].” Local Number 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525 (1986). Congress did not create the Judgment Fund for the Executive to dispense political favors, but to pay lost or settled litigation claims against the United States. See 31 U.S.C. § 1304(a) (appropriating money “to pay final judgments, awards, [and] compromise settlements,” and limiting that appropriation to when: payment is not authorized by another source; the Treasury Department has certified the payment; and “the judgment, award, or settlement is payable” under a statute Congress designated for such payment). “The Framers fully recognized that nothing would so jeopardize the legitimacy of

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 51 of 78

16
a system of government that relies upon the ebbs and flows of politics to ‘clean out the rascals’ than the possibility that those same rascals might perpetuate their policies simply by locking them into binding contracts.” U.S. Tr. Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 45 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Even the Executive Branch has acknowledged that, despite its “sweeping” power to settle lawsuits, “the Attorney General must, as a general matter, exercise her broad settlement discretion in a manner that conforms to the specific statutory limits that Congress has imposed upon its exercise.” Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion, 23 Op. O.LC. at 136.
When exceptional circumstances are present, “the courts of appeals” possess “the discretion” to decide “what questions may be taken up and resolved for the first time on appeal.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976). Exceptional circumstances are present when “the proper resolution is beyond any doubt, or where injustice might otherwise result.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Here, such circumstances exist, justifying us in addressing Appellant’s challenge to the settlement agreement’s cy pres provisions.
i.
The Proper Resolution Is Not In Doubt
The Appellant, Keith Mandan (“Mandan”), argues that cy pres distribution violates the Appropriations Clause and the Judgment Fund Act. This is his lead argument within his opening brief. Both the Executive Branch and the PlaintiffAppellees briefed this issue too. Moreover, the Executive Branch is right when it claims Mandan’s argument challenges cy pres distributions in class action settlements with the United States generally—not just the cy pres distribution scheme proposed within the addendum to this settlement agreement.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 52 of 78

17
See Gov’t Br. 18; cf. Appellant Opening Br. 22–29. Poignantly, the Executive Branch set forth the proper remedy within its own brief. See Gov’t Br. 24 (“If the remaining $3[8]0 million in taxpayer money indeed remains part of the public fisc and need not be distributed according to the terms of the 2011 settlement agreement, then the most appropriate disposition of this unexpectedly large sum would be for it to revert to the Treasury.” (emphasis added)). This is, therefore, not a case where “the opposing party los[t] its opportunity to contest the merits,” or where “an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues” is at risk. See Se. Mich. Gas Co. v. FERC, 133 F.3d 34, 42 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The result and issue are squarely raised before us.
“Deciding fully briefed, purely legal questions is a quotidian undertaking for an appellate court.” See Ass’n of Am. R.R. v. U.S. Dep’t. of Transp., 821 F.3d 19, 26 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The concurrence claims the proper resolution of a fully briefed legal issue can still be in doubt, so “exceptional circumstances” cannot be invoked on that ground. See Concurrence at 3. This view does not follow from our precedent. See Hodge v. Talkin, 799 F.3d 1145, 1171 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“The district court . . . did not reach Hodge’s vagueness challenge. . . . Here, we find it appropriate to consider Hodge’s vagueness claim. Not only does he ask us to address the challenge, but it raises pure questions of law. And the government joins issue with Hodge’s arguments on the merits rather than suggesting that we forbear on the matter.”). To be sure, the Executive Branch argues waiver. But as noted above, the Executive Branch also set forth a detailed response on the merits and identified the proper remedy. This is thus unlike the circumstance in which we declined addressing constitutional issues surrounding cy pres. Cf. Democratic Cent. Comm. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n, 84 F.3d 451, 455 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (declining to address the “controversial” use of cy pres

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 53 of 78

18
distributions in class actions against the United States because, unlike here, “[t]his case . . . is not a class action; the constitutional challenges mentioned above are not at issue here.”). We cannot be transgressing our discretion by resolving this issue.
ii.
Invoking Waiver Results In Injustice
By failing to consider Mandan’s cy pres challenge, we permit a fundamental injustice: cy pres allows the Executive Branch to circumvent checks on its own power with the Judicial Branch’s imprimatur. The acceptability of circumventing the congressional appropriations process under the guise of Article III is “extraordinarily important and deserves a ‘definitive answer.’” See Al Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757, 760 n. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (quoting Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1, 62 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc) (Brown, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part)). This issue raises the proper relationship of our Federal Government’s three branches when dealing with the People’s money. Moreover, “other cases in the pipeline require a clear answer to [this] question.” See id. As Chief Justice Roberts recently noted, “[c]y pres remedies . . . are a growing feature of class action settlements.” Marek, 134 S. Ct. at 9 (statement of Roberts, C.J., respecting denial of certiorari). Other legal commentators have also noted this trend. See Redish at 661 (“[T]he prevalence of class action cy pres awards has increased steadily by decade since the 1980s and has accelerated noticeably after 2000.”). Additionally, cy pres distribution in this case is not merely dispensing a “residual” amount—it will dispose of more than half of this settlement fund. Even by cy pres standards (such as they are), this is exceptional. See, e.g., In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig.,

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 54 of 78

19
708 F.3d 163, 174 (3d Cir. 2013) (“Barring sufficient justification, cy pres awards should generally represent a small percentage of [the] total settlement funds.”).
In sum, if these circumstances are not exceptional, I do not know what defines “exceptional circumstances.”
B.
Structural Constitutional Objections Are Present
The source of the “exceptional circumstances” here is its own basis for not invoking waiver: a “neither frivolous nor disingenuous” “constitutional challenge” to “the validity of the . . . proceeding that is the basis for th[e] litigation.” See Freytag, 501 U.S. at 879. Specifically, the structural issue before us is the district court’s power to approve and police a cy pres distribution scheme without congressional appropriation.
The fact that Mandan consented to the 2011 agreement is immaterial. “[C]onsent” cannot “excuse an actual violation of Article III,” see, e.g., Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1945 n.10 (2015), and that is what Mandan’s Appropriations Clause claim presents. 5 We must be willing to
5 Mandan does not detail the Appropriations Clause’s implications for judicial power to the same extent he does for cy pres distributions under the Judgment Fund Act. Still, Mandan does fully brief the implications of cy pres distributions for the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers. See, e.g., Appellant Opening Br. 22– 29. We are thus well within our purview to detail the particular implications for judicial power. See Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., 500 U.S. 90, 99 (1991) (“When an issue or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 55 of 78

20
assess claims that the Judicial Branch acted with power entrusted to another branch of the Federal Government. See Freytag, 501 U.S. at 879 (“[T]he disruption to sound appellate process entailed by entertaining objections not raised below does not always overcome what Justice Harlan called ‘the strong interest of the federal judiciary in maintaining the constitutional plan of separation of powers.’” (internal citation omitted)).6
Our Founders “lived among the ruins of a system of intermingled legislative and judicial powers.” Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 219 (1995). Judges were under the King’s thumb, while legislatures were often
advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law.”); Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (clarifying a panel is “not precluded from supplementing the contentions of counsel through [its] own deliberation[s] and research” (emphasis added)). 6 The concurrence dismisses the cases saying structural, jurisdictional limitations on Article III are always before us, because those cases “involv[e] forfeiture—not waiver.” Concurrence at 2. The concurrence says “[t]he Supreme Court . . . has been clear” on the difference between the two concepts. See id. I beg to differ. See Freytag, 501 U.S. at 894 n.2 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by O’Connor, Kennedy, & Souter, JJ.) (“[O]ur cases have so often used them interchangeably that it may be too late to introduce precision. . . . I shall try not to retain the distinction between waiver and forfeiture throughout this opinion, since many of the sources I shall be using disregard it.”). What is clear, however, is the Supreme Court’s admonition in Schor: constitutional limits on Article III are not to dangle at the mercy of artfully parsed relinquishment concepts. See 478 U.S. at 850–51 (“notions of consent and waiver cannot be dispositive” if Article III limitations are at issue (emphasis added)).

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 56 of 78

21
obstructed in their ability to make policy. See generally THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776). In response, the Founders created a judiciary “truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive.” THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, p. 465 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (A. Hamilton). The “judicial [p]ower” was limited to “render[ing] dispositive judgments” in “cases” or “controversies” within the scope of federal jurisdiction. See Plaut, 514 U.S. at 218–19. The judiciary thus received “no influence over . . . the purse.” THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, p. 464 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (A. Hamilton). As the Constitution gave the appropriations power to the American People’s elected representatives, our founding document “assure[s] that public funds will be spent according to the letter of the difficult judgments reached by Congress as to the common good and not according to the individual favor of Government agents or the individual pleas of litigants.” OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 427–28 (1990); cf. Freytag, 501 U.S. at 880 (“The structural interests . . . are not those of any one branch of Government but of the entire Republic.”).
Cy pres distribution schemes in class actions against the United States confound judicial power; reverting us to the time when the King could circumvent the People’s representatives through the judiciary. Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld described the problem of cy pres in class actions rather ominously given Keepseagle’s facts:
A defendant may prefer a cy pres award to a damages award, for the public relations benefit. And the larger the cy pres award, the easier it is to justify a larger attorneys’ fees award. The incentive for collusion may be even greater where . . . there is

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 57 of 78

22
nothing to stop [the lawyers for both sides] from managing the [cy pres recipient(s)] to serve their interests . . . .
Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 834 (9th Cir. 2012) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting).7 Some circuits recognize this potential for conflicting interests and promise “careful scrutiny” of cy pres provisions. See, e.g., In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d at 175; Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 356 F.3d 781, 785–86 (7th Cir. 2004). Other circuits attempt to implement cy pres distributions only where “it is not possible to put those funds to their very best use: benefitting
7 This reality of aligned interest bespeaks a broader problem of collusion within class actions—often at the expense of individual class members. See MAYER BROWN, DO CLASS ACTIONS BENEFIT CLASS MEMBERS? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF CLASS ACTIONS 9 (2013), https://www.mayerbrown.com/files/uploads/Documents/PDFs/2013 /December/DoClassActionsBenefitClassMembers.pdf (“Cy pres awards and injunctive relief serve primarily to inflate attorney’s fee awards—and benefit third parties with little or no ties to the putative class.”); see also Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614, 617–18 (1997) (describing the class action device as “adventuresome” and fraught with questions of proper judicial administration). The class action device is supposed to be nothing more than a mere “species” of joinder. See Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 408 (2010). When class actions attempt to circumvent the underlying substantive law, the device has gone beyond its strictures. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 367 (2011) (“[T]he Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rule 23 to abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right . . . .”). By breaking the bonds of a case or controversy, cy pres in a class action against the United States comes at the expense of the underlying substantive law meant to restrict Government action: Our Constitution.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 58 of 78

23
the class members directly.” Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am. Inc., 658 F.3d 468, 475 (5th Cir. 2011); Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 473 F.3d 423, 436 (2d Cir. 2007); In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 588 F.3d 24, 35 (1st Cir. 2009). But the fact remains: “It is inherently dubious to apply a doctrine associated with the voluntary distribution of a gift to the entirely unrelated context of a class action settlement, which a defendant no doubt agrees to as the lesser of various harms confronting it in litigation.” Klier, 658 F.3d at 480 (Jones, C.J., concurring) (emphasis added). The reality Judge Jones identified is at play here. The Executive Branch saw an opportunity to exploit a large settlement award without having to ask Congress for money, class counsel saw the promise of a large fee award, and, suddenly, doubtful claims for monetary damages became a class action worth more than half-a-billion taxpayer dollars.
Both the district court and Mandan consider the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation to set forth “reasonable” criteria to police cy pres’s use in class actions. See Keepseagle, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 116–17; PlaintiffAppellant Opening Br. 39–40 (citing Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation § 3.07 (2010) (“ALI Principles”)). Yet these principles suggest what the Appropriations Clause and Article III require: Cy pres should never be used in class action settlements with the United States.
The ALI Principles presume, first and foremost, a settlement fund’s outstanding monies will fully compensate class members for their damages. See ALI Principles § 3.07(b). But that presumption is inapplicable when, as here, the class members have been fully compensated.
The ALI Principles prefer that outstanding monies are distributed to those “whose interests reasonably approximate

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 59 of 78

24
those being pursued by the class.” Id. § 3.07(c). This is achieved by reversion to the Treasury, where Congress can— through the appropriations process—approximate the interests of the class. Because Congress can reasonably approximate the class’s interests, reversion to the Treasury is different in kind from reversion to a private defendant. See ALI Principles § 3.07(b) cmt. b (explaining reversion to the defendant “would undermine the deterrence function of class actions and the underlying substantive-law basis of the recovery by rewarding the alleged wrongdoer simply because distribution to the class would not be viable”). Congress has a long track record of reasonably approximating the interests of various classes through the creation of victim compensation funds.8 Moreover, allowing Congress the opportunity to reasonably approximate class interests furthers “the underlying substantive-law basis of the recovery” by honoring Congress’s limits on the Judgment Fund Act. Reversion to the Treasury ensures public accountability, avoids conferring standing on non-injured third parties to contest cy pres distributions, and it comports with Congress deciding whether the Government should waive sovereign immunity and be liable for certain claims in the first instance.9
8 The circumstances in which Congress has compensated victims are legion and varied. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. § 5219a (Home Affordable Modification Program, created by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 in response to the subprime mortgage crisis); 15 U.S.C. § 7246(a) (creating the “Fair Fund” established by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to distribute disgorgement penalties to defrauded investors); 49 U.S.C. § 40101 (creating the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund). 9 Reversion to the Treasury is also distinct from escheating to the state, another alternative to cy pres distributions. Certain requirements must be met for monies deposited with the judiciary to escheat to the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2041. The issue here,

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 60 of 78

25
Cy pres distributions, given their range of potential beneficiaries, their attenuated relationships to actual class members, and their focus on fulfilling a general “purpose” rather than remediating monetary damage, resemble legislative appropriation. See, e.g., Redish at 624; Goutam U. Jois, The Cy Pres Problem and the Role of Damages in Tort Law, 16 VA. J. SOC. POL’Y & L. 258, 260 (2008); cf. also THE FEDERALIST NO. 75, at 449 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (A. Hamilton) (distinguishing legislative and executive power by inquiring into “the particular nature of the power” at issue, and identifying “[t]he essence of legislative authority” in the prescription of general rules for society). Yet Congress made no such appropriation here, and no part of the appropriations process is within the judicial power. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 123 (1976) (per curiam) (holding Article III courts may not exercise “executive or administrative duties of a nonjudicial nature”); In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d 1060, 1066 (8th Cir. 2015) (“Distribution of funds at the discretion of the court is not a traditional Article III function,” rendering such a cy pres provision “void ab initio.”); In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litig., 236 F.R.D. 48, 53 (D. Me. 2006) (“Federal judges are not . . . accustomed to deciding whether certain nonprofit entities are
however, is not that the settlement fund’s remainder is unable to compensate a claimant for some reason. Cf. id. (“This section shall not prevent the delivery of any such money to the rightful owners upon security, according to agreement of parties, under the direction of the court.” (emphasis added)). Rather, the “rightful owners,” the class claimants, have already received what they rightfully own (their respective awards for compensatory damages), and Congress appropriated money for no other expenditure. The only other “rightful owners” are the American taxpayers, who own the remainder pending a decision by their elected representatives to additionally appropriate the remaining money.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 61 of 78

26
more ‘deserving’ of limited funds than others; and we do not have the institutional resources and competencies to monitor that ‘grantees’ abide by the conditions we or the settlement agreements set.”). Accordingly, regardless of the cy pres provision’s form, approving recipients and distributions in class actions against the United States gives a court the very influence over the purse prohibited by Article III. Cf. THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, at 465 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (A. Hamilton).
Even in class actions where cy pres distributions are not made from the public fisc—and the comingling of legislative and judicial power is not implicated—cy pres is problematic for judicial power. A court risks violating Article III justiciability requirements should it adjudicate disputes between cy pres recipients and would-be recipients, as none would possess an injury-in-fact. See Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 577 (1990) (holding Article III prohibits federal courts from “decid[ing] questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them” (emphasis added)); see also Klier, 658 F.3d at 481 (Jones, C.J., concurring) (explaining how cy pres distributions “transform[] the judicial process from a bilateral private rights adjudicatory model into a trilateral process”). In this trilateral process, there is no neutral, adjudicative standard by which a court can determine the “next best” recipient of settlement money—or what to do with the money when no “next best” recipient bears any relationship to the class. See, e.g., In re Motorsports Merch. Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1392, 1399 (N.D. Ga. 2001) (distributing, via cy pres, approximately $2 million remaining in a settlement pool from a consumer price-fixing lawsuit to nine different organizations, ranging from drug prevention programs, a breast cancer foundation, and a children’s hospital,

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 62 of 78

27
even though none of those organizations bore any relationship to the injured class—Georgia NASCAR fans).10
Keepseagle reveals that nothing short of the Constitution’s enumerated limits on power can protect the taxpayer’s money and the judiciary’s integrity. The Executive Branch has an independent obligation to assess the constitutionality of its own conduct. In the first instance, politics should not have been allowed to permit what the Appropriations Clause would prohibit. Similarly, in the first instance, the district court should have never allowed the parties’ consent to override its independent obligation to not approve agreements that

10 These problems are compounded by the “appearance of

impropriety” created by “the specter of judges and outside entities

dealing in the distribution and solicitation of large sums of money.”

SEC v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 626 F. Supp. 2d 402, 415 (S.D.N.Y.

2009). As numerous press reports and cases indicate, cy pres

distributions are littered with ethical issues. See, e.g., Richard A.

Epstein, Editorial, The Deferred Prosecution Racket, WALL ST. J.

(Nov.

28,

2006,

12:01

AM),

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116468395737834160 (criticizing

a Bush administration settlement with Bristol-Myers Squibb that

required the company’s endowment of a—hold on to your hat—chair

of ethics at Seton Hall Law School, the alma mater of the then-U.S.

Attorney for the District of New Jersey); Editorial, Holder Cut Left-

Wing Groups in on $17 Bil BofA Deal, INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

(Aug.

27,

2014),

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/holders-bank-of-

america-settlement-includes-payoffs-to-democrat-groups/

(criticizing a Justice Department settlement with Bank of America as

a “raft of political payoffs to Obama constituency groups”); Adam

Liptak, Doling Out Other People’s Money, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 26,

2007),

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26bar.html.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 63 of 78

28
transgress Article III’s limits.11 See, e.g., Freytag, 501 U.S. at 896 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[A] litigant’s prior agreement to a judge’s expressed intention to disregard a structural limitation upon his power cannot have any legitimating effect—i.e., cannot render that disregard lawful. Even if both litigants not only agree to, but themselves propose, such a course, the judge must tell them no.”); see also Se. Fed. Power Customers, Inc. v. Geren, 514 F.3d 1316, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he district court could hardly approve a settlement agreement that violates a statute . . . .”). But the violation to our Constitution’s structure here is not merely ex ante to approving this settlement agreement’s cy pres provisions. This violation is ongoing and is jurisdictional.
The parties have been squabbling over how to modify the cy pres provisions to their respective benefit for nearly four years—indeed, that dispute underlies this appeal. See Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 307 F.R.D. 233, 238 (D.D.C. 2014) (dating the “potential modification” of the cy pres provisions to at least August 2013). The Court’s opinion today ensures this will continue, as approval of cy pres recipients and distributions—or any additional changes to the cy pres scheme—will rest solely on what led to the error in the first instance: substituting the parties’ consent for constitutional requirements. This sort of Government-By-Autopilot cannot be reconciled with our Constitution. Cf. Randy Barnett, The Origination Clause and the Problem of “Double Deference,” The Volokh Conspiracy, WASHINGTON POST (Mar. 12, 2014),
11 For these reasons, it is inapposite to conclude that invoking waiver prevents Mandan from “sandbagging” either the Executive Branch or the district court. The rule of law is undermined if “sandbagging” includes a party raising constitutional problems that the Executive Branch and the district court were obliged to consider in the first instance.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 64 of 78

29
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokhconspiracy/wp/2014/03/12/the-origination-clause-and-theproblem-of-double-deference/?utm_term=.900b86fc81e1 (“[I]f the courts defer constitutional judgments to Congress, and Congress defers constitutional judgments to the courts, then no one is considering the Constitution itself. Double deference is a shell game.”).
“Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.” Clinton, 524 U.S. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring). But as a result of the majority’s reticence, the judiciary will now be distributing more than $380,000,000 of taxpayer money without congressional appropriation and outside the confines of a case or controversy. “[T]o permit the appellate court to ignore” this jurisdictional, structural defect “because of waiver would be to give the waiver legitimating, as opposed to merely remedial, effect, i.e., the effect of approving, ex ante, unlawful action by the appellate court itself.” Freytag, 501 U.S. at 896–97 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). The Executive Branch cannot continue to pursue this course, and the Judicial Branch had no more power to indulge it today than it had the power to approve the initial cy pres provisions. We had an opportunity to eliminate this constitutional breach before it results in material damage to the Constitution’s limitations—the approval of cy pres recipients and cy pres distributions of taxpayer money. Waiving away these constitutional problems is a dereliction of duty.
II.
The Appropriations Clause and the Judgment Fund Act Bar a Cy Pres Settlement Provision
A.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 65 of 78

30
Congress Only Appropriated Money To Pay “Claims” Against the United States
Turning to the merits of Mandan’s claim, there is no doubt that the Keepseagle settlement reveals a dramatic dilution of Congress’s power of the purse—and an abuse of the judiciary’s limited role—in furtherance of the Executive Branch’s political priorities.
Under our Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, the American People’s elected representatives possess “a controlling influence over the executive power.” See 1 Joseph Story, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, § 531, p. 384 (Thomas M. Cooley ed., 4th ed. 2011) (emphasis added). By holding this power, Justice Story explained, Congress “holds at its own command all the resources by which a chief magistrate could make himself formidable.” Id.
The Supreme Court is as stout-hearted as Justice Story. In its very first Appropriations Clause decision, the Court unanimously stated “[i]t is a well-known constitutional provision, that no money can be taken or drawn from the Treasury except under an appropriation by Congress.” Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 272, 291 (1850); see also Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 321 (1937) (explaining the Appropriations Clause “was intended as a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive department”). Even in more recent years, the Court has not wavered. See, e.g., United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (plurality opinion) (“The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress, not that public funds may be expended unless prohibited by Congress.”).

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 66 of 78

31
Moreover, the Court has recognized the Clause as a limitation on the Executive Branch’s disbursement authority in legal settlements. See Richmond, 496 U.S. at 427–28. The Executive Branch threatens the Constitution’s structure if it “were able, by [its] unauthorized oral or written statements to citizens, to obligate the Treasury for the payment of funds.” Id. at 428. In that circumstance, “control over public funds that the Clause reposes in Congress in effect could be transferred to the Executive.” Id. The question here, therefore, is whether the Executive’s “statements to citizens,” i.e., what it promised to private parties via settlement, were “authorized” by congressional appropriation. Any part of the Executive’s agreement with the private party not “authorized” by congressional appropriation cannot be enforced.
Here, as Mandan explains, two congressional statutes effectuate all that Congress has authorized respecting the Keepseagle claims: the Judgment Fund Act and the settlements authority statute. 31 U.S.C. § 1304(a) (Judgment Fund Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2414 (settlements authority statute). These two appropriations are interrelated—the Judgment Fund Act authorizes the payment of “compromise settlements” under the settlements authority statute. See 31 U.S.C. § 1304(a)(3)(A) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2414, permitting the “Payments of judgments and compromise settlements” from district courts and the Court of International Trade). The Judgment Fund is not to be used as another source of congressional appropriation to an agency’s programs. Rather, it is designed to ensure claimants “receive prompt payment without awaiting a special appropriation.” United States v. Maryland, 349 F.2d 693, 695 (D.C. Cir. 1965). The settlements authority statute is broad, but, as explained above, its use must “conform[]” to its “specific statutory limits.” See Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion, 23 Op. O.LC. at 136.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 67 of 78

32
The settlements authority statute gives the Attorney General power to settle “claims . . . for defense of imminent litigation or suits against the United States,” and such claims “shall be settled and paid in a manner similar to judgments in like causes.” 28 U.S.C. § 2414 (emphasis added). The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has illuminated some of these terms. It explains “for defense of imminent litigation or suits against the United States” means “[t]he agency must be confronted with a genuine disagreement or impasse . . . . There must be a legitimate dispute over either liability or amount.” U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., GAO-08-978SP, 3 PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW 14-35 (3d ed. 2008) (citing, inter alia, opinions of the U.S. Attorney General finding that the compromising parties must have possessed a “bona fide dispute as to either a question of fact or of law”) (“GAO, PRINCIPLES”). Further, “a compromise settlement which exceeds the authority of the official purporting to make it does not bind the government.” See id. at 14-34 (citing White v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 639 F. Supp. 82 (M.D. Pa. 1986), aff’d mem., 815 F.2d 697 (3d Cir. 1987); United States v. Irwin, 575 F. Supp. 405 (N.D. Tex. 1983)).
Cy pres distribution in class actions against the United States cannot satisfy these requirements. As part of settling Keepseagle, agents of the Executive agreed to send taxpayer money to as-yet unidentified “nonprofits” and “charities” that possess no claims against the United States. But the Judgment Fund Act and the settlements authority statute require the prompt payment of settled claims against the United States. The “nonprofits” and “charities” that will receive taxpayer money via cy pres are—more than five years since the

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 68 of 78

33

settlement agreement’s entry12—unidentified.

More

fundamentally, they possess no claims against the United

States.

As any potential cy pres recipient is neither involved in this litigation nor a party to the settlement agreement, the agreement settled no “bona fide dispute” between any potential cy pres recipient and the United States Government. Cy pres recipients will nevertheless receive access to the settlement fund, akin to being a “compromising party.”

In reality, the eventual cy pres recipients are being tasked by the Executive Branch and class counsel to fulfill a certain “purpose:” advocate for and assist Native American farmers and ranchers. But, as the U.S. Comptroller General has concluded, when a congressional appropriation limits an agency’s action to “remedying [a] violation,” it cannot use that appropriation “to carry out other statutory goals of the agency,” lest the agency “improperly augment its appropriations for those other purposes, in circumvention of the congressional appropriations process.” See Rep. to H. Rep. Subcomm. On Oversight and Investigations, B-247155, 1993 WL 798227 at *2 (Comp. Gen. Mar. 1, 1993); see also Availability of Judgment Fund in Cases Not Involving a Money Judgment Claim, 13 Op. O.L.C. 98, 104 (1989) (“[A]ny conclusion that would permit the Judgment Fund to pay out settlements in cases in which it would not pay out judgments would provide

12 Delay results in a further perversion of the Judgment Fund Act. Interest accrued on the remaining amount in the settlement fund will be subject to cy pres distribution too. As of October 2014, more than $2.5 million in accrued interest was available for cy pres distribution. See JA 881–82. The longer it takes to “select” cy pres recipients, the more interest will accrue, and the more money will pass through cy pres distribution. Compensating class claims is truly ancillary to such a scheme.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 69 of 78

34
agencies with an incentive to urge settlement of cases in order to avoid payment from agency funds. We would not lightly attribute to Congress an intent to create a structure that might encourage settlements that would not otherwise be in the interest of the United States.”) [hereinafter Availability of Judgment Fund].
Congress intentionally separated Judgment Fund payments from agency appropriation payments. See, e.g., VIVIAN S. CHU & BRIAN T. YEH, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R42835, THE JUDGMENT FUND: HISTORY, ADMINISTRATION, AND COMMON USAGE 6 (2013) (“[T]he Judgment Fund is limited to litigative awards, meaning awards that were or could have been made in a court. Litigative awards are distinguished from administrative awards because the latter are provided for by statute and are paid from an agency’s appropriation.” (emphasis added)). “Accordingly, settlements . . . could be paid from the Judgment Fund if a judgment on that claim would have been paid from the Fund and no other source was mandated by law to pay such settlements.” Figley, The Judgment Fund, 18 U. PA. J. CONST. L. at 162–63 (emphasis added).13
A cy pres distribution is not an “award” the Keepseagle class claimants could have received by prevailing at trial. Had they proceeded to trial and prevailed on their claims for monetary damages, they would have received compensation for their damages. Cf. Augustin v. Jablonsky, 819 F. Supp. 2d
13 In attempting to turn what a “claim” is into a factual dispute, the concurrence looks for shadows where there are none. See Concurrence at 4 (“What are ‘like causes’ to this one? And how are judgments in such cases settled and paid?”). Whether one has stated a claim can be subject to factual argument, but what a “claim” is— or, if you prefer, what a “cause” of action is—and what kind of relief a claim is capable of yielding, rests on the law.

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 70 of 78

35
153, 177 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting the “general legal tenet that compensatory damages should do no more than compensate a victim for [his] injury”). This compensation is, by definition, a money judgment payable from the Judgment Fund. But, had the Keepseagle class claimants prevailed at trial, they could not, by definition, receive “cy pres damages”—payments that do not compensate them directly but fulfill a “purpose” “as near as possible” to compensating them. A cy pres distribution is thus not equivalent to a money judgment at trial. This renders the Judgment Fund Act appropriation unavailable for cy pres distributions. See Availability of Judgment Fund, 13 Op. O.L.C. at 98–99 (concluding “final judgments . . . are payable from the Judgment Fund if they require the government to make direct payments of money to individuals, but not if they merely require the government to take actions that result in the expenditure of government funds” (emphasis added)); see also 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) (“Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.”).
The arguments set forth by the Executive Branch and the Plaintiff-Appellees in response cite no supporting legal authority. The Executive Branch all but concedes cy pres distributions are not, themselves, compensation for claims against the United States—it just thinks that concern is “irrelevant.” See Gov’t Br. 21 (“Because all of the payments contemplated by the agreement are intended to settle the claims of class members, it is irrelevant whether an entity that might receive a distribution itself has a claim against the government.”). The Plaintiff-Appellee’s make a similar argument. See Plaintiff-Appellee Br. 47 (“There is no independent, additional requirement that each specific payment within that judgment must separately qualify under the Judgment Fund Act.”). My colleague apparently agrees. See Concurrence at 3–4 (admitting “the nonprofit organizations

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 71 of 78

36
that will receive cy pres distributions out of leftover settlement funds may not possess any claims against the United States,” while excusing this because “the Settlement Agreement did in fact settle claims against the United States”). These contentions have no basis in law.
On the Executive Branch’s reading, the Attorney General’s settlement authority allows him to make a mockery of Congress’s specific statutory limitations. For example, the Executive Branch could enter into a $1 billion settlement agreement fully aware only 1% of appropriated Judgment Fund dollars will be paid to class claimants, while 10% will go to class counsel and the remaining 89% will be distributed via cy pres. The Executive Branch, the reasoning would go, was not “legally required to have entered into a less generous agreement” simply because nearly all of the settlement fund will pay for something other than money damage claims against the United States. See Gov’t Br. 23. If class counsel’s “sophistication and effectiveness” can sweeten a settlement by letting the Executive use the settlement to further the Executive’s political goals instead of compensating class claimants, the sky is the limit. See id. We are nearly there in this case, where the majority of taxpayer dollars will not compensate class members but will pay cy pres recipients. This robs the Appropriations Clause of any force by undermining its presumption: Rather than expend public funds “only when authorized by Congress” in an express appropriation, “public funds” may be expended from the Judgment Fund “unless prohibited by Congress.” But see MacCollom, 426 U.S. at 321 (plurality opinion). Such a view “increase[s] the power of the President beyond what the Framers envisioned, . . . compromis[ing] the political liberty of our citizens, liberty which the separation of powers seeks to secure.” Clinton, 524 U.S. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 72 of 78

37
By binding the United States to these cy pres provisions, the Executive Branch arrogated the appropriation power from Congress to itself. See Richmond, 496 U.S. at 427–28. The cy pres provisions of the parties’ settlement agreement therefore exceed the Executive Branch’s bargaining authority; they cannot bind the Government. See GAO, PRINCIPLES, at 14-34; cf. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, 478 U.S. at 526 (“[T]he fact that the parties have consented to the relief contained in a decree does not render their action immune from attack on the ground that it violates . . . the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion, 23 Op. O.LC. at 140 (concluding the Attorney General “may not enter into a decree that would require unconstitutional government action . . . .”). Most relevant for our purposes, “Article III federal courts may not enforce unauthorized executive branch settlements.” See id. at 148. A court cannot effectuate this settlement’s cy pres provisions (i.e., it cannot approve cy pres recipients or distributions), nor can a court approve the addendum to the cy pres scheme at issue here—or any other addendum permitting cy pres recipients and distributions.
B.
Remedies Going Forward
The more than $380,000,000 remaining in this settlement fund should revert to the U.S. Treasury. This remedy respects Congress’s appropriations power, “corrects the parties’ mutual mistake” (if we want to call it that) “as to the amount required to satisfy the class members’ claims,” and it ensures the judiciary does not “effectuate transfers of funds from [the Government] beyond what [it] owe[s] to the parties in judgments or settlements.” See Klier, 658 F.3d at 482 (Jones, J., concurring). The Executive Branch concedes that

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 73 of 78

38
this is the proper remedy. See Gov’t Br. 24. Mandan responds by saying “[t]here is no language in the Settlement Agreement to support a reverter[,] and courts have consistently rejected requests by defendants for reverter of residual settlement funds.” Plaintiff-Appellant Reply Br. 12. But none of Mandan’s cited cases deal with cy pres’s constitutional infirmities in class actions against the United States Government.
Our Court does, and should, “decline[] to adopt [Appellant’s] suggestion to distribute unclaimed funds to those individuals who make claims; such a procedure would result in those class members receiving a windfall from the public fisc and is inconsistent with the general legal tenet that compensatory damages should do no more than compensate a victim for [his] injury.” Augustin, 819 F. Supp. 2d at 177. But by affirming the district court’s approval of the cy pres addendum, the majority proves itself a faint-hearted friend of the public fisc. Even if this Court will not look after the People’s money, that does not mean the Justice Department— and Congress—lack means to do so. Cf. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 661 (2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting), superceded by statute, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5 (“Once again, the ball is in Congress’[s] court. As in 1991, the Legislature may act to correct this Court’s parsimonious reading of Title VII.”).
Before the cy pres process begins, the Justice Department should consider a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to strike the cy pres provisions within the settlement agreement as void. No party has raised a Rule 60(b)(4) challenge in this case, and it is not subject to the finite time constraints restricting other Rule 60(b) motions. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). This course could remove the cy pres provisions before recipients are approved and distributions

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 74 of 78

39
begin. This should not affect the settlement agreement’s applicability between the class members and the United States—the class members have already been compensated, and the cy pres provisions may be severed from the rest of the agreement. See JA 438 (Original Settlement Agreement, XXVI. Severability). Indeed, the parties’ agreement prohibits any of its provisions from “impos[ing] on the Secretary [of Agriculture] any duty, obligation, or requirement” that “would be inconsistent with federal statutes or federal regulation in effect at the time of such performance.” See id. (Original Settlement Agreement, XXIII. Duties Consistent with Law and Regulations).
The Justice Department can argue, as explained above, that the Executive Branch lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to enter into these cy pres provisions. It cannot be required to continue to ask the judiciary to approve and police a cy pres distribution scheme that violates the Appropriations Clause and Article III limitations. As the Executive Branch said when contesting class counsel’s proposed attorney fee award in this case, “the government has an interest in ensuring . . . that funds coming ultimately from federal coffers are not expended in an unnecessary or unreasonable manner.” Gov’t Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Att’y Fees and Expenses and to Pls.’ Mot. for Approval of Class Representative Incentive Awards at 2, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 1:99-cv-03119 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2011), ECF No. 586. What was true then is true now. As objections rooted in the Constitution’s structural, jurisdictional limits on judicial power cannot be waived or consented to, and no cy pres process has occurred yet, objecting to the provisions before the Judicial Branch effectuates them is certainly “within a reasonable time” for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4). See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1); Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876, 886 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (explaining that, “before a judgment may be deemed void

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 75 of 78

40
within the meaning of [Rule 60(b)(4)], it must be determined that the rendering court was powerless to enter it”).
More broadly, the Justice Department should consider setting forth specific settlement guidelines disapproving the use of cy pres in class settlements with the United States. These guidelines could provide a prelude to congressional action.
As for Congress, it should consider amending the Judgment Fund Act to explicitly bar cy pres distribution schemes in class action settlements with the United States. As Mandan points out, “the Executive Branch may not do indirectly what it is barred from doing directly.” PlaintiffAppellant Opening Br. 29 (citing United States v. Bowman, 341 F.3d 1228, 1240 (11th Cir. 2003)). But this lawsuit reveals the degree to which implicit limitations on power are contingent upon the good faith of those exercising power. Cf. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 452–53 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“The Framers of the Constitution could not command statesmanship. They could simply provide structures from which it might emerge. The fact that these mechanisms, plus the proper functioning of the separation of powers itself, are not employed, or that they prove insufficient, cannot validate an otherwise unconstitutional device.”). Further, to ensure the Executive Branch is not letting political calculations supplant legal judgments at the taxpayer’s expense, Congress should also consider authorizing the Comptroller General to review and report to Congress on any class action settlement in excess of $100 million.
III.
More than a century ago, Yale Professor William Graham Sumner famously discussed “The Forgotten Man.” See William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man, in THE FORGOTTEN MAN AND OTHER ESSAYS 465 (Albert Galloway

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 76 of 78

41
Keller ed., 1919). The Forgotten Man is the one left behind in the Government’s rush to “right” every perceived “wrong.” Sumner eloquently set forth the formula embraced by the social engineers of every age:
As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X, or, in the better case, what A, B, and C shall do for X.
Id. at 466. “C,” of course, is “The Forgotten Man.” He is “the hidden taxpayer, the average citizen—not someone who received, rather someone who paid in.” Amity Shlaes, THE FORGOTTEN MAN: A NEW HISTORY OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION 128 (2007). As Sumner says of “C,” “He works, he votes, generally he prays—but he always pays—yes, above all, he pays.” Sumner, The Forgotten Man, in THE FORGOTTEN MAN AND OTHER ESSAYS 491 (Albert Galloway Keller ed., 1919).
Keepseagle is Sumner’s formulation come to life, and our decision today only entrenches the American People’s status as the Forgotten. The Executive Branch saw a wrong to correct— discrimination against Native-American farmers. It talked it over with class counsel, eager to receive a big payday. They then worked together to ensure a vastly-overinflated settlement amount that would leave a huge sum to “remedy the evil” via cy pres. Lost in the midst of their self-congratulation is the

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 77 of 78

42
plight of “C,” the American People that pay for the Executive Branch’s outsized misadventure and class counsel’s fee feast.
To the extent discrimination occurred against NativeAmerican farmers by the Department of Agriculture, it was the Department of Agriculture, not the taxpayers of the United States, that engaged in discrimination. Those allegedly discriminated against have been compensated by the public fisc, and that payment occurred via a process that—while ripe with politics and folly—was ultimately permitted by law. But, to the extent the Government would like to additionally account for this discrimination by funding nonprofits and charities that work to end discrimination against Native Americans, this should be the decision of the People and their elected representatives. It should not be the decision of Justice Department lawyers, class counsel, and the judiciary.
John Adams’s observation, “[o]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People” and is “wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” is often quoted. See Letter from John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798, Founders Online, NATIONAL ARCHIVES,https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99 -02-02-3102. Few, however, explain what he meant. In the same passage, Adams admonished an America that “assume[d] the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance.” Id. In such a nation, he warned, “Avarice, Ambition [and] Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.” Id. Jurist Thomas Cooley arrived at the same sentiment when he wrote a constitution cannot be completely understood by its words, but must also make reference to “that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised.” THOMAS M. COOLEY, A TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH

USCA Case #16-5189 Document #1675356

Filed: 05/16/2017 Page 78 of 78

43
REST UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION 2 (1868). There are, in short, norms upon which self-government depends. The Constitution presumes them, but the character of our people determines whether we keep them. See THE FEDERALIST NO. 1, at 27 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (A. Hamilton) (“[I]t seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” (emphasis added)). The conduct of those in this case proves how little the Constitution will matter when good character ceases to be informed by adherence to one’s oath of office, and is primarily defined by how generous you are willing to be with someone else’s money.
I respectfully dissent.

 </s> Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 1 of 353
APPEAL,CLOSED,TYPE−E
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:99−cv−03119−EGS

KEEPSEAGLE, et al v. VENEMAN, et al Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan Demand: $19,000,000 Case in other court: USCA, 14−05223
USCA, 15−05011 USCA, 15−05297 15−05316 USCA, 16−05189 USCA, 16−05190 Cause: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act Lead Plaintiffs MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE
Plaintiff GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE

Date Filed: 11/24/1999 Date Terminated: 04/29/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by John Garfield Dillard OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ, P.C. 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 3000 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 518−6349 Fax: (202) 234−3550 Email: jdillard@ofwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stewart Douglas Fried OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C. 600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20037 (202) 789−1212 Fax: (202) 234−3550 Email: sfried@ofwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carrie F. Apfel EARTHJUSTICE Sustainable Food and Farming Program 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 667−4500 Fax: (202) 667−2356 Email: capfel@earthjustice.org TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005−3934 (202) 408−4600, x4616

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 2 of 353
Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP L. FRAAS 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 280−2411 Fax: (202) 355−1799 Email: phil@phillipfraaslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander John Pires , Jr. PIRES COOLEY 4401 Q Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 905−6706 Fax: (202) 333−1134 Email: farmerslawyer@aol.com TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Charles Edgar Tompkins SHAPIRO HABER & URMY, LLP 53 State Street 13th Floor Boston, MA 02109 (617) 439−3939 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: ctompkins@shulaw.com TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Greg Kirschner CONLON, FRANTZ, PHELAN & PIRES 1818 N Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331−7050 TERMINATED: 03/03/2004
Jessica Ring Amunson JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639−6023 Fax: (202) 661−4993 Email: jamunson@jenner.com
Joseph M. Sellers COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4604 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 3 of 353
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 475 Riverside Drive Suite 302 New York, NY 10115 (646) 745−8500 Fax: (212) 854−7997 Email: Katie.Fallow@knightcolumbia.org TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4600 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: lgreen@cohenmilstein.com TERMINATED: 07/01/2010
Paul March Smith CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 1411 K St. NW Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 856−7901 Fax: (202) 736−2222 Email: psmith@campaignlegalcenter.org TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 637−6335 Fax: (202) 661−4900 Email: SHirsch@jenner.com TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 222 North 4th Street Bismarck, ND 58501−1902 (701) 221−2911 Fax: (701) 221−5842 Email: sarahv@svogellaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Joseph Frantz CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP 1740 N. Street, NW Suite One Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331−7050 Fax: (202) 331−9306 Email: dfrantz@conlonfrantz.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 4 of 353

Plaintiff LUTHER CRASCO
Plaintiff JOHN FREDERICKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 5 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GENE CADOTTE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 6 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
BASIL ALKIRE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated including, but not limited to the following plaintiffs

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 7 of 353

Plaintiff JEROME K. ALKIRE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 8 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LEROY J. AMES

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 9 of 353

Plaintiff JAMES ANDERSON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SIDNEY BAILEY, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 10 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BARB H. BAKER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 11 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JAMES L. BAKER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 12 of 353

Plaintiff DELPHINE BAKER

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 13 of 353

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JEFFERSON B. BAKER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 14 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KYLE BAKER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CAROL T. BALLEW

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 15 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CHARLIE BEAR, III

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 16 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LEONARD BEAR KING

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 17 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR. 8750 North Central Expressway Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75231 (214) 368−1765 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GEORGE BELL

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 18 of 353

Plaintiff GEORGE B. BELL

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 19 of 353

TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff HARRY BENALLY

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 20 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CLARICE BENDER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 21 of 353

Plaintiff LEANN BENDER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CHANNON D. BIGHORN

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 22 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ERNEST C. BIGHORN

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 23 of 353

Plaintiff ROGER M. BIRD BEAR

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 24 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JAMES BIRDTAIL, III

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 25 of 353

Plaintiff THOMAS BLACK HAWK

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 26 of 353

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GABE E. BLACK MOON, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RONALD C. BROWNOTTER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 27 of 353

Plaintiff KOTY BRUGH

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 28 of 353

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROBIN BURRITT

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 29 of 353

Plaintiff MARGARETT CAMPBELL

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 30 of 353

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MAUREEN E. CARSON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 31 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff THERESA CHARGING

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
GEORGE DUANE CHARGING Deceased

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 32 of 353

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
STANLEY CHARGING Son

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 33 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KENNETH CHARGING, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 34 of 353

Plaintiff BRENT LONG CHASE

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 35 of 353

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CHARLES CLAMPITT

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 36 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MIKE CLAYMORE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 37 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SAMUEL CLAYMORE, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 38 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LEONARD M. COOK

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 39 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARVIN COTA

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 40 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GLEN CUDMORE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 41 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CLAYTON DANKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 42 of 353

Plaintiff CURTIS DANKS
Plaintiff CYNTHIA F. DANKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 43 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LYLE C. DANKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 44 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RHONDA J. DANKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 45 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RICHARD DANKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 46 of 353

TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EDWARD S. DANKS, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Howell RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C. 3501 Bernie Anderson Avenue Suite 320 Ft. Worth, TX 76116 (817) 377−4331 Email: yona.2@netzero.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis 5956 Sherry Lane Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75225 (214) 368−1765 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 47 of 353

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EDWARD S. DANKS, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 48 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ADELINA DEFENDER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 49 of 353

PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PALMER DEFENDER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 50 of 353

Plaintiff STEVE DEFENDER
Plaintiff

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 51 of 353

LOUIS DUBRAY

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ALLEN DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 52 of 353

Plaintiff DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 53 of 353

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ED DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 54 of 353

Plaintiff ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 55 of 353

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FRANK DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 56 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JESS DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LARRY DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 57 of 353

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 58 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 59 of 353

Plaintiff MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 60 of 353

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 61 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROMAN DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RONNIE DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 62 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff THOMAS DUCHENEAUX

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 63 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DWAYNE J. EAGLE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 64 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 65 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARSHA ELK

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 66 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JERRY ROBERT FARLEE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 67 of 353

Plaintiff EDWARD J. FILESTEEL
Plaintiff GLORIA FISCHER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 68 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MELISSA R. FISCHER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 69 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TERRANCE FISCHE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 70 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff THOMAS W. FISCHER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 71 of 353

TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 72 of 353

Plaintiff ADRIAN FOOT, SR.
Plaintiff ANTHONY B. FOX

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 73 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
GLEN CHARLES FOX, JR. Estate

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 74 of 353

Plaintiff
EDWARD C. FOX Son

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 75 of 353

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
PAULA DANKS Daughter

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 76 of 353

PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BILLY J. FREDERICKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 77 of 353

Plaintiff ELMER FREDERICKS
Plaintiff

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 78 of 353

JUDY FREDERICKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Ann Marks FREDERICKS PEEBLES & MORGAN LLP 401 9th Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 450−4887 Fax: (202) 450−5106 Email: pmarks@ndnlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 79 of 353

Plaintiff JUSTIN FREDERICKS
Plaintiff LOREN FREDERICKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 80 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PAT FREDERICKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 81 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PAUL J. FREDERICKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 82 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PETE E. FREDERICKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 83 of 353

TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 84 of 353

Plaintiff KENNETH L. FREDERICKS, JR.
Plaintiff ROMEY A. GARREAU

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 85 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JAMES J. GARRETT

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 86 of 353

Plaintiff ZANE GIPP

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 87 of 353

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOE GOOD ELK

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 88 of 353

PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KAY GULLICKSON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 89 of 353

Plaintiff PHYLLIS GUNVILLE
Plaintiff

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 90 of 353

ROMAN GUNVILLE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 91 of 353

Plaintiff CASEY ED HALL

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 92 of 353

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ESTHER M. HALL

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 93 of 353

Plaintiff ETHAN HALL

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 94 of 353

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LELAND HALL

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 95 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MERVEL HALL

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TODD HALL

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 96 of 353

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CATHERINE HALVER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 97 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DAVID J. HANLEY, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 98 of 353

Plaintiff ALECIA HANSON

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 99 of 353

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff HENRY G. HARRISON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 100 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JAMES E. HARRISON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOE HARRISON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 101 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LENORA HARRISON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 102 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DAVID D. HARRISON, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 103 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DAVID HAWLEY

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 104 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DAVID J. HAWLEY, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 105 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EDGAR HEART

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 106 of 353

Plaintiff DORA HELGESON
Plaintiff GENE HELGESON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 107 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KENNETH HELGESON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 108 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RAY HELGESON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 109 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DANILE HENRY

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 110 of 353

TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FRANK HENRY

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 111 of 353

Plaintiff DENNIS HUBER
Plaintiff MICHAEL HUBER

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 112 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARGIE HUNTS ALONG

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 113 of 353

Plaintiff EDWARD S. IRON

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 114 of 353

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 115 of 353

PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FAITH IRON CLOUD

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 116 of 353

Plaintiff RALPH K. IRON, JR.
Plaintiff

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 117 of 353

JOHN L. JAMES

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RAYMOND JETTY, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 118 of 353

Plaintiff JAMES G. JOHNSON

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 119 of 353

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARCIE KAHL

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 120 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WADE KEEPSEAGLE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 121 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 122 of 353

TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TED KNIFE, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 123 of 353

Plaintiff EDITH P. KNIGHT
Plaintiff STORMY KOSEL

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 124 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BARBARA LANDE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 125 of 353

Plaintiff JEANNE R. LANDE

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 126 of 353

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PAUL A. LANDE, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 127 of 353

PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PAUL A. LANDE, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 128 of 353

Plaintiff ROSS LAWRENCE
Plaintiff

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 129 of 353

DAISY LECOMPTE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff NICK LEINGANG, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 130 of 353

Plaintiff ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 131 of 353

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff COBY LITTLE SOLDIER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 132 of 353

Plaintiff DALE LITTLE SOLDIER

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 133 of 353

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 134 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 135 of 353

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ERNEST LIZOTTE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 136 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RONNIE LONG

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 137 of 353

Plaintiff
RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 138 of 353

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ADAM T. MANDAN

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 139 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KEITH MANDAN

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William A. Sherman , II DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 610 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 372−9100 Fax: (202) 372−9141 Email: william.sherman@dinsmore.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 140 of 353

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FLORENCE MATTE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WARREN MATTE, SR.

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 141 of 353

Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KEN MAXON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 142 of 353

Plaintiff WAYNE E. MAXON

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 143 of 353

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DONALD MCGHEE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 144 of 353

Plaintiff PATT MCLAUGHLIN

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 145 of 353

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FAY A. MOBERG

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 146 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WILLIAM T. MULLENBERG

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 147 of 353

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOAN M. NETTERVILLE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 148 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KURT P. NETTERVILLE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 149 of 353

Plaintiff SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 150 of 353

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DELLA NO HEART

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 151 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WILLIAM P. PEASE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 152 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DONNA RAE PETERSEN

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 153 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JAMES D. PICOTTE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 154 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOHN J. RABBITHEAD, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 155 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MICHAEL REDSTONE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 156 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROSELYN SAND

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 157 of 353

Plaintiff DARREL H. SMITH
Plaintiff DUANE A. SMITH

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 158 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FARRELL SMITH

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 159 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff HOWARD B. SMITH

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 160 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RODNEY J. SMITH

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 161 of 353

TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TERRY M. SMITH

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 162 of 353

Plaintiff TOM SMITH
Plaintiff VINA SMITH

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 163 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WILLIAM SMITH

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 164 of 353

Plaintiff ROBERT DARREL SMITH, III

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 165 of 353

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROBERT D. SMITH, JR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 166 of 353

PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GLASCO R. SPRIGGS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 167 of 353

Plaintiff DOUG STANGEL
Plaintiff

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 168 of 353

PHILOMENA STONE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RICHARD P. STONE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 169 of 353

Plaintiff FRANK D. THOMPSON

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 170 of 353

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LLOYD THOMPSON, SR.

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 171 of 353

Plaintiff SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 172 of 353

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ALBERT R. TWO BEARS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 173 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KAROL TWO BEARS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff G. PATTY VALANDRA

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 174 of 353

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ARNOLD WALKER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 175 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARTIN WALKER

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 176 of 353

Plaintiff CLIFF WALKING ELK

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 177 of 353

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SCOTT WALTERS

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 178 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LORETTA WALTON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PATRICK WALTON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 179 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff STEPHEN WALTON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 180 of 353

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff T. ED WALTON

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 181 of 353

TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARLENE WHIPPLE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 182 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff STANLEY WHIPPLE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 183 of 353

TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RICHARD A. WHITE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 184 of 353

Plaintiff FRANK WHITECALFE

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Howell (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 185 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LARRY D. WHITEMAN

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LYMAN M. YOUNG

represented by Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 186 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS

represented by Alvin Bertram Dunn PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 1200 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 663−8355 Fax: (202) 663−8007 Email: alvin.dunn@pillsburylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

David Joseph Frantz

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 187 of 353
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander John Pires , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Amy D. Wills JENNER & BLOCK LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 840−7603 Email: awills@jenner.com TERMINATED: 12/31/2009
Anurag Varma AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 887−4222 Fax: (202) 887−4288 Email: avarma@akingump.com TERMINATED: 09/30/2014
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Tenny U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 7215 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−1838 Email: daniel.tenny@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/02/2009
Greg Kirschner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2004
James W. Myart , Jr. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES W MYART, JR. PC 1104 Denver Street San Antonio, TX 78210 (210) 533−9461 Fax: (210) 533−4815

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 188 of 353
TERMINATED: 09/08/2008
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Michael T. Brody JENNER & BLOCK LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 923−2711 Email: mbrody@jenner.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Romer−Friedman OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 2nd Floor West Suite Washington, DC 20001 (202) 770−7886 Fax: 646−509−9112 Email: prf@outtengolden.com TERMINATED: 04/28/2015
Phillip L. Fraas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
Ryan K. Harding JENNER & BLOCK LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 840−8657 Email: rharding@jenner.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Suzette Marie Malveaux COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005−3934

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 189 of 353

(202) 408−4600 TERMINATED: 04/10/2003

Victoria S. Nugent COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005−3934 (202) 408−4600 Fax: 202−408−4699 Email: vnugent@cohenmilstein.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ALVA ROSE HALL individaully, as successor to Ernest and Mollie Wilkinson

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 190 of 353

TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
VIRGIL WILKINSON individually,l as heir and successor to Ernest and Mollie Wilkenson

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 191 of 353

CHARLES WILKINSON individually, as heir and successor to Ernest and Mollie Wilkinson

Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
WILBUR D. WILKINSON individually, as heir and successor to Ernest and Mollie Wilkenson

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 192 of 353

Plaintiff DENNIS SNOW

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008
James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James W. Myart , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)
Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010
Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009
Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Richard L. Howell (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 193 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ALFRED DRIVER, JR. individually, as heir and successor to Alfred Driver, Sr, and Charlotte Driver

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 194 of 353

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GERALD DRIVER

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 195 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LESTER CROWS HEART

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 196 of 353

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TOM CROWS HEART

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 197 of 353

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EDGAR CROWS HEART

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 198 of 353

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
SUSAN HALL individually, as heir and successor to John Sitting Crow

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff IVAN JOHNSON

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 199 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FRANK WHITE CALFE

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 200 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JAMES JOHNSON, JR.

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 201 of 353

TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 202 of 353

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
THEODORE LONE FIGHT as heir and successor to Theodore Lone Fight, and Maybelle Lone Fight

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 203 of 353

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MELVIN J. JOHNSON

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

James N. Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E. Goodman , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Sarah M. Vogel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CLARYCA MANDAN On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, including, but not

represented by Carrie F. Apfel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2018

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 204 of 353

limited to the following individual plaintiffs

LEAD ATTORNEY
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Charles Edgar Tompkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

Jessica Ring Amunson (See above for address)

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Amy Fallow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/09/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Paul March Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sam Hirsch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2009

Plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS

represented by Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alvin Bertram Dunn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy D. Wills (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2009

Llezlie Green Coleman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2010

Paul March Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Romer−Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/28/2015

V. Intervenor Plaintiff

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 205 of 353

TIMOTHY LABATTE

represented by Erick G. Kaardal MOHRMAN, KAARDAL, & ERICKSON, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street Suite 3100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 341−1074 Fax: (612) 341−1076 Email: kaardal@mklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
TIMOTHY LABATTE TERMINATED: 07/14/2014

represented by Erick G. Kaardal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff TIMOTHY LABATTE

represented by Erick G. Kaardal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. 2255 RHONDA LESMEISTER
2255 all plaintiffs
Defendant DAN GLICKMAN Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture TERMINATED: 03/28/2001

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jean Lin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 1100 L Street, N.W. Room 11532 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514−3716 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: jean.lin@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neil H Koslowe POTOMAC LAW GROUP, PLLC 1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. Suite 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20004 (202) 320−8907 Fax: (202 318−7707 Email: neil.koslowe@shearman.com TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 206 of 353

Defendant
ANN M. VENEMAN Secretary of Agriculture

Felicia L. Chambers U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Room 5373 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3259 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: felicia.chambers@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/15/2009
Joshua Edward Gardner U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−7583 Fax: (202) 307−0972 Email: joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/18/2013
represented by Carol Federighi U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Room 6108 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−1903 Email: carol.federighi@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Heather R. Phillips U.S. Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Room 7222 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 616−0679 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: heather.phillips@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/12/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jean Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
Justin Michael Sandberg U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Room 11004 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514−5838 Fax: (202) 616−8202

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 207 of 353
Email: justin.sandberg@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Sitcov U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 514−1944 Fax: (202) 616−8187 Email: michael.sitcov@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy E. Powell DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 310 New Bern Avenue Suite 800 Raleigh, NC 27601−1461 (919) 856−4013 Email: amy.powell@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C. Gail Walker 1320 Independence Ave, SE Washington, DC 20003 (301) 775−0549 Email: gailwalkeresq@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/22/2009
Elizabeth Jay Kelhoffer U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7324 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−4964 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: Elizabeth.Kelhoffer@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/15/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Felicia L. Chambers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2009
James J. Gilligan U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3358 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: james.gilligan@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/10/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Edward Gardner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2013

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 208 of 353

Karen A. Rivera US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 6110 Washington, DC 20001 (202)514−4020 Fax: (202)616−8460 Email: karen.a.rivera@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/22/2005

Neil H Koslowe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005

Shayna Susanne Cook U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue,NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−9836 Fax: (202) 616−8202 Email: shayna.cook@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/21/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Demske U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 901 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20830 (202) 514−9836 Fax: 202−616−8460 Email: susan.demske@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/06/2004

Richard G. Lepley U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20022 (202) 494−8334 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: richard.lepley@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/08/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tim H. Nusraty DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7134 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−4805 Fax: (202) 615−8470 Email: timothy.nusraty@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/22/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MIKE JOHANNS The United States Department of Agriculture

represented by Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kenneth Elliot Sealls

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 209 of 353
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−1953 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: kenneth.sealls@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy E. Powell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C. Gail Walker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/22/2009
Eric J. Soskin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 353−0533 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: eric.soskin@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Felicia L. Chambers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2009
Jean−Michel Voltaire U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616−8211 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: jean.michel.voltaire@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Eli Zimmerman U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 7116 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353−0441 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: jonathan.zimmerman@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/04/2007
Joshua Edward Gardner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2013
Marcia N. Tiersky DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 8701 Morrissette Dr. Springfield, VA 22152 202 353 0907 Fax: (202) 307−8046

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 210 of 353

Email: marcia.n.tiersky@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/05/2008

Defendant
THOMAS J. VILSACK Secretary of Agriculture

represented by Amy E. Powell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather R. Phillips (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric J. Soskin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph M. Sellers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Edward Gardner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2013

Justin Michael Sandberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant WILLIAM H. SMALLWOOD, JR.

represented by William A. Sherman , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Interested Party CANDACE M. ODOM
Interested Party DONIVON TINGLE Silent Class Member

represented by CANDACE M. ODOM 3129 Big Valley Drive Lakeland, FL 33812−6300 (836) 646−0172 PRO SE
represented by DONIVON TINGLE Tingle Law Firm 535 Stahlman Avenue Destin, FL 32541 (850) 650−8138 PRO SE
Donivon Craig Tingle TINGLE LAW FIRM, P.A. 1012 Airport Road Suite 1 Destin, FL 32541 (850) 650−8138 Email: tingleandassociatespa@embarqmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 211 of 353

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Howard Neil Cayne ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942−5656 Fax: (202) 942−5999 Email: howard.cayne@aporter.com TERMINATED: 04/21/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PHIL GIVENS

represented by PHIL GIVENS 19918 East 766 Road Talequah, OK 74464 (918) 456−9329 Fax: 456−1837 PRO SE

James W. Myart , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
RICHARD L. HOWELL All intervenor plaintiffs associated with Document No. 230

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
JOE BYRD Chief

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KIP CULLERS

represented by Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CATHY ELLISON

represented by Christine E. Webber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 212 of 353

Movant CLYDE HINDS
Movant MARY HINDS
Movant LUCILLE HINDS
Movant PAULA HOBBS
Movant VIRGINA ANN HODGE
Movant BURNADEAN HUTCHINS
Movant ALMA HUTCHINS
Movant DALE HUTCHINS
Movant RANDELL G. HUTCHINS
Movant DICK E. LAY

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 213 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BOB J. ROBERTSON

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BOBBY G. ROBERTSON

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TANDI M. ROBERTSON

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HASTINGS SHADE

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LORETTA SHADE

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BILLY D. SIMPSON

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant REX EARL STARR

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ALAN STARR

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY MARGARET STARR

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JAMES WALTERS

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 214 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant REGENIA WINKLE

represented by Richard L. Howell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
DANNY RENE SMITH "Spirit Hawk" TERMINATED: 12/28/2012

represented by DANNY RENE SMITH 708840 Powledge Unit TDCJ 1400 FM 3452 Palestine, TX 75803 PRO SE

Movant TIMOTHY LABATTE

represented by Erick G. Kaardal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION

represented by Philip Merle Baker−Shenk HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 800 17th Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 955−3000 Fax: (202) 955−5564 Email: philip.baker−shenk@hklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven D. Gordon HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 800 17th Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 955−3000 Fax: (202) 955−5564 Email: steven.gordon@hklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TERENCE ARPAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DAN BIRD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LEO BIRD, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 215 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SAMPSON BIRD, III

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JESS BLACKMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DALE FENNER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EMERALD GRANT, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DALE GRAY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
BOYD GOURNEAU P.O. Box 303 Lower Brule, SD 57548 605−730−1986

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TRUMAN LEE HALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TIMOTHY HESSERT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CARMELITA B. HOYT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TED HOYT

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 216 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MICHAEL B. JANDREAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MYRA KNOPFLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WILLIAM LONG TURKEY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FRANCIS LORING

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MICHAEL LORING

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ALVIN LUNAK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GALEN MEANS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DONNA RAE PETERSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BIRD SAMPSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 217 of 353

Movant LYLE ST GODDARD, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JUNE B. TATSEY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KEITH TATSEY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GERALD WHITEMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JAMES D. WILLIAMS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARLA HALL WILLIAMS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RAMONA WILLIAMS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JEROME K. ALKIRE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DONNA ANDERSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY JANE ANDERSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 218 of 353

Movant KIMBERLY MICHELE ANNIS
Movant JOHN ARCHAMBEAU
Movant STANTON ARCHAMBEAU
Movant CHRISTOPHER ARPAN
Movant ROSALYN ARPAN
Movant ALBERT ARPAN, JR.
Movant ALBERT C. ARPAN, SR.
Movant REBECCA AVERY
Movant ANTHONY AFRAID OF HAW
Movant JANICE AFRAID OF HAWK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 219 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOHN AFRAID OF HAWK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARLIS AFRAID OF HAWK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TERRI JO AFRAID OF HAWK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HELEN ALKIRE

represented by Patricia Ann Marks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BOBBY AMIOTTI

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LYLE ANDERSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HOLLY BAILEY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SIDNEY BAILEY, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SIDNEY BAILEY, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 220 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant IRIS BEARHEELS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LELAND BEARHEELS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LORILYNN BEESON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CLARICE BENDER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LE'ANN BENDER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JACQUELINE BIGGER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DAN BIRD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SAMPSON BIRD III

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LEO BIRD, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GABE BLACK MOON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 221 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JESS BLACKMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant IRA BLUE COAT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant NORMAN BLUE COAT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PHILIP BLUE COAT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JEFFREY BOWKER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARLENE BOWKER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BRUCE BROWNWOIT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DOUGLAS BURGEE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TYRONE CADOTTE, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JENELLE CANYON

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 222 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PAT CARLOU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MICHAEL CARLOU, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RICHARD CHARGING EAGLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant STEPHANIE CHARGING EAGLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BERTINA CHASE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DALE CHRISTENSEN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
MAGDELINE CECILIA CIRCLE EAGLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BEVERLY CIRCLE EAGLE CLOWN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 223 of 353

Movant DENNIS CLAW

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY CLELAND

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CHANCE COLOMBE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CHARLES COLOMBE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JAMES COLOMBE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JO A. COLOMBE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LISA COLOMBE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RICHARD COLOMBE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WAYNE COLOMBE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TERRY COMEAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 224 of 353

Movant GERALDINE R. CONDON
Movant CHAD J. CONNOR
Movant DUSTIN CONNOR
Movant MARY ANN CONNOR
Movant ANDY C. COOK
Movant GLEN CUDMORE
Movant NICHOLAS CUMMINGS
Movant BERNARD CUNY
Movant BLANE CUNY
Movant BRYAN CUNY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 225 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FRANCIS CUNY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CLEMENTINE DAY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BRYAN DEANS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ILENE DECENTI

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PAULMER DEFENDER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SHIRLEY DOG EAGLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant STU DOLPHUS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DONALD DOLPHUS, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BETSY DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CARLYLE DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 226 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CLINT DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DARREN DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EDWARD DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FRANK DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HILDA DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOANN DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PETE DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ROBERT DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RONALD DUCHENEAUX

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 227 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SAMMI DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant STEPHANIE DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant THOMAS DUCHENEAUX

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ROBIN DUNN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARIE DUNN−CLAYMORE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BERNADINE DUPRIS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EDWARD R. DUPRIS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GARY R. DUPRIS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MIKE FAITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 228 of 353

Movant FREDERICK FARLEE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JUDY FARLEE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RITA FARLEE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EDDIE FARMER, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LARRY FASTHORSE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LARSON FASTHORSE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DALE FENNER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FRANCIS FERGUSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GARY FERGUSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LEONARD FERGUSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 229 of 353

Movant TERRANCE FISCHER
Movant CODY WAYNE FOOTE
Movant LORMAN BLAINE FOOTE
Movant MICK FRANK
Movant HAROLD FRAZIER
Movant BARBARA GARNENEZ
Movant TIMOTHY GARNENEZ
Movant E. WAYNE GARREAU
Movant MARION GARROW
Movant GREG GESINGER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 230 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KEITH GESINGER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY GESINGER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant STEVE GESINGER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LINDA GHOST BEAR

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DIANNE GIESICK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ARDELLA GOOD LEFT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BOYD GOURNEAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PATTI GOURNEAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EMERALD GRANT, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ALFRED GRASS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 231 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CATHY GRAY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DALE GRAY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY GROPPER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ALEX GUERRERO

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DUSTIN GUNVILLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GEORGIA A. GUNVILLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ROMAN GUNVILLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ROMNEY GUNVILLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WILLIAM GUNVILLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HARLAN GUNVILLE, JR.

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 232 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ETHAN HALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TRUMAN LEE HALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant NINA HANSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HENRY HARRISON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MIKE HEATHERSHAW

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JAMES HENIO

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TERESA HENIO

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HOWARD HERMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DELBERT HICKS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 233 of 353

Movant HARVEY HICKS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARVA HICKS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MERLE HICKS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WILLIAM HIGH BEAR SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOHANNA HIGH BEAR, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CODI HIGH ELK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOYCE HILL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ARLAND HODGKISS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PEARL HOLLOW HORN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant VELDON HOLLOW HORN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 234 of 353

Movant VERDELL HORSEHOOKING, SR.
Movant CARMELITA HOYT
Movant TED HOYT
Movant GENE HUNT
Movant JEFF HUNT
Movant FRANK HUNTER
Movant PAUL D. IRON CLOUD
Movant PAUL JOHN IRON CLOUD
Movant PAULETTE IRON CLOUD
Movant JIM JACOBS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 235 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TIM JACOBS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WESLEY JACOBS, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOHN JAMES

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FAY JANDREAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARTY JANDREAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARTY JANDREAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MICHAEL JANDREAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TIM JANDREAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ALBERT JEWETT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant IYONNE JEWETT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 236 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KATHERINE JEWETT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LOUIS JEWETT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY JEWETT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SANDY JEWETT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CAROL JOHNSTON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CHARLES JOHNSTON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ARNOLD JORDAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PAUL JOSEPH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARILYN KARY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JANET KECKLER

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 237 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EUNICE KEEPSEAGLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DAVID KEESTER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SHARON KELLER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant AH−KOO−EEN−STA−MEE KIPP

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PEGGY KNIFE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RANDALL KNIFE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WENDELL KNIFE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CONNIE KNIGHT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DEB KNIGHT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 238 of 353

Movant EDITH KNIGHT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LUCY M. KNIGHT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARK KNIGHT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant NICK KNIGHT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant PATRICIA KNIGHT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MYRA KNOPFLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DELEEN KOUGL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WICTOR KROSCH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DALE LA COMPTE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOHN LAFFERTY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 239 of 353

Movant DELBERT LAMB
Movant GLORIA LANDREAUX
Movant SCOTT LANDREAUX
Movant GLORIA LAUNDREAUX
Movant JENNY LAWRENCE
Movant JUSTIN LAWRENCE
Movant KIM LAWRENCE
Movant ROSS LAWRENCE
Movant TODD JAMES LAWRENCE
Movant WAYDE LAWRENCE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 240 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CHERYL LE COMPTE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DIXIE LE COMPTE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant IVAN LE COMPTE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LC LE COMPTE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DENISE LEBEAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARK LEBEAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOSEPH LEBEAU, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOSEPH LEBEAU, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LINDA LEBEAU−GHOST BEAR

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant NICK LEINGANG, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 241 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BRENDA LEMMON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARCELLINE J. LESMEISTER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RHONDA LESMEISTER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ELDON LESSERT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TIMOTHY LESSERT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GILBERT LIND

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MICHAEL LIVERMOIUT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LILA LONG

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RONNIE LONG

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RICHARD LONG FEATHER

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 242 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant VIRGINIA LONG FEATHER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WILLIAM LONG TURKEY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DELBERT F. LONGBRAKE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DELBERT W. LONGBRAKE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EMMETT LONGBRAKE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JESSE LONGBRAKE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FRANCIS LORING

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MICHAEL LORING

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ALVIN LUNAK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 243 of 353

Movant TERRY MAIER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JANICE MANDAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ANTHONY MARSHALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GILBERT L. MARSHALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JOHNNY MARSHALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JULIE MARSHALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KIP MARSHALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LLOYD MARSHALL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MATTIE LOU MARSHALL DOAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CLIFFORD MARSHALL III

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 244 of 353

Movant CLIFFORD MARSHALL, JR.
Movant KENNETH MARSHALL, SR.
Movant MOLBAY MARTINEZ
Movant NITA MARIE MATT
Movant EVRY MAY
Movant JOHN MAY
Movant LENI MAY
Movant DONALD MCGHEE
Movant CECIL MEANS
Movant GALEN MEANS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 245 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GERMAINE E. MEANS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DUANE MEDNANSKY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JUSTIN MEDNANSKY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant OLETA MEDNANSKY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RICHARD MEDNANSKY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant THEODORE MINER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MICHELLE MITCHELL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY REEVES MITZEL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SO LON MOCCASIN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DONNIE MOORE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 246 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ORIS MORRISON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CHARLES MURPHY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARJORIE BIRD NECKLACE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DAVID NELSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BART NESS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LARRY NESS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DARIN NEWBROUGH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DELLA NO HEART

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TODD O'BRYAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CARMEN O'LEARY

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 247 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TIM O'LEARY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BRADY O'ROURKE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LYLE O'ROURKE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TOM O'ROURKE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BARBARA JEAN PALCZEWSKI

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DAWN PARKER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BARRY PATENEAUDE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KAREN PEARMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RUSSELL PEARMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 248 of 353

Movant DONNA RAE PETERSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DAVID POURIER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DELBERT POURIER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DONALD POURIER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ROBERT POURIER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WARREN POURIER, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LOLA PRITZKAU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CURTIS REAL BIRD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EMMA LU REEVES

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FAYE REEVES

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 249 of 353

Movant JIMMY REEVES
Movant RYAN REICHARDT
Movant ROBERT RIDES AT THE DOOR
Movant ALOYSIUS H. ROMERO
Movant ALOYSIUS T. ROMERO
Movant PHILOMINE FAYE ROUSSEAU
Movant RICHARD ROUSSEAU
Movant PAULETTE ROWLEY
Movant MARILYN SANDLAND
Movant MICHAEL SANDLAND

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 250 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JENNIFER SCHOELERMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CLAUDE SHARP

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DENNIS SHARP

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CLYDE SHARP, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant IAN SHERWOOD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY SHIRLEY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ARTHUR SIEGLOCK, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RAMONA SIMON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ROGER SIMPSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LISA SKYE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 251 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARION SKYE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DOUGLAS SKYE, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BERNADETTE SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FLOYD SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GLORIA SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JAE SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant REBEKAH SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RHEA SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SHARON SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TOM SMITH

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 252 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant VIVIAN SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WARREN SMITH

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ROBERT D. SMITH, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GERALD SPOTTED TAIL

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LYLE ST GODDARD, SR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RUTH STEELE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CLAUDE SULLY, III

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RICHARD SWAIN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RHONDA RAE TAKES THE KNIFE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 253 of 353

Movant JUNE TATSEY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KEITH TATSEY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ANGELINE TAYLOR

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BRADLEY TAYLOR

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JERRY TAYLOR

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TED TAYLOR

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DARREL TERKILDSEN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BERNADINE THOMPSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FRANK THOMPSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RODDY THOMPSON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 254 of 353

Movant TATE THOMPSON
Movant TRAVIS THOMPSON
Movant TYLER THOMPSON
Movant ANDREW TRAVERSIE
Movant CAROL TRAVERSIE
Movant HUGH DELBERT TRAVERSIE
Movant SHAWN TRAVERSIE
Movant MARLENE TRAXINGER
Movant TONY TWO BEARS, SR.
Movant RAYMOND USES THE KNIFE, JR.

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 255 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TERI VAN DUSEN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BRENDA VEIT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CAROL VEIT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FRANKIE VEIT

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DALE VOCU

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant TOM VROOMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RUSSELL SCOTT WAGNER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ARNOLD WALKER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARTIN F. WALKER

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ANNA WALN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 256 of 353

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BEVERLY WALN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant DOLORES WALN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARIE WALN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARY WALN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SAMMIE WALN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SONNIE WALN−JESSEN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ELAINE WARD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KELLY WARD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MORGAN WARD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant RICHARD WARD

represented by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 257 of 353

Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SANDRA WARD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WADE WARD

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant LARRY WELLS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant CARMEN E. WESTON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant EVELYN WESTON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FARRELL WESTON

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ROBERT WHIPPLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant STANLEY WHIPPLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant WILLIAM WHIPPLE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 258 of 353

Movant CONNIE WHIRLWINDHORSE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HELEN WHITE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JAMES WHITE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant JAYME A. WHITE EYES

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant MARIAN WHITE MOUSE

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant BURTIS WHITE WOLF

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant KIMBERLY WHITE WOLF

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SULLIVAN WHITE WOLF

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant FRANCIS WHITECLAY

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant GERALD WHITEMAN

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 259 of 353

Movant EDWARD WIDOW
Movant NORRIS WIDOW
Movant J.D. WILLIAMS
Movant MARLA HALL WILLIAMS
Movant RAMONA WILLIAMS
Movant PAUL WILLIAMS, JR.
Movant JOHN WOODEN KNIFE
Movant RAYMOND WRIGHT
Movant TIMOTHY YELLOW
Movant DEAN YELLOW HAWK

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 260 of 353

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant ALL MOVANTS

represented by Stewart Douglas Fried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donivon Craig Tingle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

John Garfield Dillard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

represented by Philip Merle Baker−Shenk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven D. Gordon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN INDIAN FARMERS

represented by Keith Bernard Lively DOYLE, BARLOW & MAZARD PLLC 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 715 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 589−1834 Fax: (202) 589−1819 Email: klively@dbmlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
INDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION

represented by Matthew K. Handley WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 319−1041 Fax: (202) 319−1010 Email: MHANDLEY@HfAJUSTICE.COM ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL

represented by Matthew K. Handley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/24/1999

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE, plaintiff LUTHER CRASCO, plaintiff JOHN FREDERICKS, plaintiff GENE CADOTTE, plaintiff

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 261 of 353
BASIL ALKIRE, plaintiff JEROME K. ALKIRE, plaintiff LEROY J. AMES, plaintiff JAMES ANDERSON, plaintiff SIDNEY BAILEY SR., plaintiff BARB H. BAKER, plaintiff JAMES L. BAKER, plaintiff DELPHINE BAKER, plaintiff JEFFERSON B. BAKER, plaintiff KYLE BAKER, plaintiff CAROL T. BALLEW, plaintiff CHARLIE BEAR III, plaintiff LEONARD BEAR KING, plaintiff GEORGE BELL, plaintiff GEORGE B. BELL, plaintiff HARRY BENALLY, plaintiff CLARICE BENDER, plaintiff LEANN BENDER, plaintiff CHANNON D. BIGHORN, plaintiff ERNEST C. BIGHORN, plaintiff ROGER M. BIRD BEAR, plaintiff JAMES BIRDTAIL III, plaintiff THOMAS BLACK HAWK, plaintiff GABE E. BLACK MOON SR., plaintiff RONALD C. BROWNOTTER, plaintiff KOTY BRUGH, plaintiff ROBIN BURRITT, plaintiff MARGARETT CAMPBELL, plaintiff MAUREEN E. CARSON, plaintiff THERESA CHARGING, plaintiff GEORGE DUANE CHARGING, plaintiff STANLEY CHARGING, plaintiff KENNETH CHARGING SR., plaintiff BRENT LONG CHASE, plaintiff CHARLES CLAMPITT, plaintiff CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE, plaintiff MIKE CLAYMORE, plaintiff SAMUEL CLAYMORE JR., plaintiff LEONARD M. COOK, plaintiff MARVIN COTA, plaintiff GLEN CUDMORE, plaintiff CLAYTON DANKS, plaintiff CURTIS DANKS, plaintiff CYNTHIA F. DANKS, plaintiff LYLE C. DANKS, plaintiff RHONDA J. DANKS, plaintiff RICHARD DANKS, plaintiff EDWARD S. DANKS JR., plaintiff EDWARD S. DANKS SR., plaintiff ADELINA DEFENDER, plaintiff PALMER DEFENDER, plaintiff STEVE DEFENDER, plaintiff LOUIS DUBRAY, plaintiff ALLEN DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff ED DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff FRANK DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff JESS DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff LARRY DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff ROMAN DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff RONNIE DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, plaintiff DWAYNE J. EAGLE, plaintiff BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE JR., plaintiff MARSHA ELK, plaintiff JERRY ROBERT FARLEE, plaintiff EDWARD J. FILESTEEL, plaintiff GLORIA FISCHER, plaintiff MELISSA R. FISCHER, plaintiff TERRANCE FISCHE, plaintiff THOMAS W. FISCHER, plaintiff JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE SR., plaintiff ADRIAN FOOT SR., plaintiff ANTHONY B. FOX, plaintiff GLEN CHARLES FOX JR., plaintiff EDWARD C. FOX, plaintiff PAULA DANKS, plaintiff BILLY J. FREDERICKS, plaintiff ELMER FREDERICKS, plaintiff JUDY FREDERICKS, plaintiff JUSTIN FREDERICKS, plaintiff LOREN FREDERICKS, plaintiff PAT FREDERICKS, plaintiff PAUL J. FREDERICKS, plaintiff PETE E. FREDERICKS, plaintiff TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS, plaintiff KENNETH L. FREDERICKS JR., plaintiff ROMEY A. GARREAU, plaintiff JAMES J. GARRETT, plaintiff ZANE GIPP, plaintiff JOE GOOD ELK, plaintiff KAY GULLICKSON, plaintiff PHYLLIS GUNVILLE, plaintiff ROMAN GUNVILLE, plaintiff WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE, plaintiff CASEY ED HALL, plaintiff ESTHER M. HALL, plaintiff ETHAN HALL, plaintiff LELAND HALL, plaintiff MERVEL HALL, plaintiff TODD HALL, plaintiff CATHERINE HALVER, plaintiff DAVID J. HANLEY SR., plaintiff ALECIA HANSON, plaintiff HENRY G. HARRISON, plaintiff JAMES E. HARRISON, plaintiff JOE HARRISON, plaintiff LENORA HARRISON, plaintiff DAVID D. HARRISON SR., plaintiff DAVID HAWLEY, plaintiff DAVID J. HAWLEY JR., plaintiff EDGAR HEART, plaintiff DORA HELGESON, plaintiff GENE HELGESON, plaintiff KENNETH HELGESON, plaintiff RAY HELGESON, plaintiff DANILE HENRY, plaintiff FRANK HENRY, plaintiff DENNIS HUBER, plaintiff MICHAEL HUBER, plaintiff MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, plaintiff EDWARD S. IRON, plaintiff DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD, plaintiff FAITH IRON CLOUD, plaintiff RALPH K. IRON JR., plaintiff JOHN L. JAMES, plaintiff RAYMOND JETTY JR., plaintiff JAMES G. JOHNSON, plaintiff MARCIE KAHL, plaintiff WADE KEEPSEAGLE, plaintiff ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY, plaintiff TED KNIFE SR., plaintiff EDITH P. KNIGHT, plaintiff STORMY KOSEL, plaintiff BARBARA LANDE, plaintiff JEANNE R. LANDE, plaintiff PAUL A. LANDE JR., plaintiff PAUL A. LANDE SR., plaintiff ROSS LAWRENCE, plaintiff DAISY LECOMPTE, plaintiff NICK LEINGANG JR., plaintiff ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER, plaintiff COBY LITTLE SOLDIER, plaintiff DALE LITTLE SOLDIER, plaintiff NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER, plaintiff ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER, plaintiff NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW, plaintiff ERNEST LIZOTTE, plaintiff RONNIE LONG, plaintiff RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER, plaintiff ADAM T. MANDAN, plaintiff KEITH MANDAN, plaintiff FLORENCE MATTE,

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 262 of 353

11/24/1999 01/13/2000 01/24/2000 02/01/2000 02/03/2000 02/03/2000 02/14/2000 02/17/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000
02/22/2000 03/01/2000 03/13/2000

plaintiff WARREN MATTE SR., plaintiff KEN MAXON, plaintiff WAYNE E. MAXON, plaintiff DONALD MCGHEE, plaintiff PATT MCLAUGHLIN, plaintiff FAY A. MOBERG, plaintiff CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT, plaintiff WILLIAM T. MULLENBERG, plaintiff JOAN M. NETTERVILLE, plaintiff KURT P. NETTERVILLE, plaintiff SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE, plaintiff DELLA NO HEART, plaintiff GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU, plaintiff WILLIAM P. PEASE, plaintiff DONNA RAE PETERSEN, plaintiff JAMES D. PICOTTE, plaintiff JOHN J. RABBITHEAD JR., plaintiff MICHAEL REDSTONE, plaintiff ROSELYN SAND, plaintiff DARREL H. SMITH, plaintiff DUANE A. SMITH, plaintiff FARRELL SMITH, plaintiff HOWARD B. SMITH, plaintiff RODNEY J. SMITH, plaintiff TERRY M. SMITH, plaintiff TOM SMITH, plaintiff VINA SMITH, plaintiff WILLIAM SMITH, plaintiff ROBERT DARREL SMITH III, plaintiff ROBERT D. SMITH JR., plaintiff GLASCO R. SPRIGGS, plaintiff DOUG STANGEL, plaintiff PHILOMENA STONE, plaintiff RICHARD P. STONE, plaintiff FRANK D. THOMPSON, plaintiff LLOYD THOMPSON SR., plaintiff SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK, plaintiff ALBERT R. TWO BEARS, plaintiff KAROL TWO BEARS, plaintiff G. PATTY VALANDRA, plaintiff ARNOLD WALKER, plaintiff MARTIN WALKER, plaintiff CLIFF WALKING ELK, plaintiff SCOTT WALTERS, plaintiff LORETTA WALTON, plaintiff PATRICK WALTON, plaintiff STEPHEN WALTON, plaintiff T. ED WALTON, plaintiff MARLENE WHIPPLE, plaintiff STANLEY WHIPPLE, plaintiff RICHARD A. WHITE, plaintiff FRANK WHITECALFE, plaintiff LARRY D. WHITEMAN, plaintiff LYMAN M. YOUNG (bm) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
SUMMONS (3)issued to federal party federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN , and non−parties: U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (bm) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
2 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiffs amending complaint [1−1] . (tw) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1−1] by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN . (bjsp) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
4 MOTION filed by plaintiffs requesting assignment to a US Magistrate Judge and oral argument requested (cjp) (Entered: 02/02/2000)
5 OBJECTIONS by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to plaintiffs' related case designation and assignment of this action as a related case (bjsp) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
6 OBJECTIONS by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to plaintiffs' motion requesting assignment to a US Magistrate Judge (bjsp) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
7 REPLY by plaintiff to objection of defendant to motion requesting assignment to a US Magistrate Judge and oral argument requested [4−1] by plaintiffs (bjsp) (Entered: 02/15/2000)
10 MOTION filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN for leave to file sur reply EXHIBIT (sur reply) (bjsp) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
8 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : denying motion requesting assignment to a U.S. Magistrate Judge and oral argument requested [4−1] by plaintiffs (N) (bm) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
9 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: granting defendant's motion for leave to file sur−reply; directing the Clerk to file defendant's sur−reply to plaintiffs' reply to objection to related case designation and assignment of this action as a related case. (N) (bm) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
11 SURREPLY by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to plaintiffs' reply to objections of defendant to plaintiffs' related case designation and assignment of this action as a related case (bjsp) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
12 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs to the Court RE: notice of intention to file motion for class certification (bjsp) (Entered: 03/02/2000)
13 MOTION filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS for leave to file second amended class action complaint ; EXHIBIT (SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT) (tth) (Entered:

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 263 of 353

03/20/2000 04/05/2000 04/10/2000 04/10/2000 04/13/2000 04/13/2000 04/13/2000 04/14/2000
04/24/2000 05/01/2000 05/19/2000 05/22/2000 05/24/2000 05/24/2000 05/25/2000 05/30/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000

03/14/2000)
14 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN in opposition to motion for leave to file second amended class action complaint [13−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS . (bjsp) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
15 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to notice of intention to file motion for class certification by plaintiffs (bjsp) (Entered: 04/06/2000)
16 MOTION filed by plaintiff for leave to file amended complaint ; EXHIBIT (complaint) (jf) (Entered: 04/11/2000)
17 MOTION filed by plaintiffs' to certification of class ; EXHIBIT (1) (jf) (Entered: 04/11/2000)
18 MOTION filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to stay proceedings pending ruling on case assignment EXHIBIT(opposition) (bjsp) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
19 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to extend time to 5/19/00 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for certification of class (glb) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
68 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN in opposition to motion for leave to file amended complaint [16−1] by plaintiffs. (tb) (Entered: 11/04/2000)
20 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to extend time to 5/19/00 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for certification of class [19−1] by DAN GLICKMAN; response to motion for certification of class due by 5/19/00 (N) (bm) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
21 RESPONSE by ALL PLAINTIFFS to defendant's motion to stay proceedings pending ruling on case assignment [18−1]; exhibit (1) (tw) Modified on 04/25/2000 (Entered: 04/25/2000)
22 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to plaintiffs' reply to defendant's motion to stay proceedings pending ruling on case assignment [18−1]. (tw) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
23 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to extend time to 5/24/00 to respond to plaintiff's motion for certification of class (tb) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
24 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to extend time to 5/24/00 to respond to plaintiff's motion for certification of class [23−1] by DAN GLICKMAN; response to motion due by 5/24/00 (N) (bm) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
25 MOTION filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to extend time to 5/25/00 within which to respond to plaintiffs' motion for certification of class. (tw) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
26 MOTION filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to file excess pages limitation imposed by LCvR 7.1(e) which otherwise would apply to defendant's forthcoming response to plaintiffs' motion for certification of class. (tw) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
31 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) (nunc pro tunc) by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN opposition to plaintiffs' to motion to certification of class [17−1]; attachments (10) (tw) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
27 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to extend time to nunc pro tunc 5/25/00 within which to respond to plaintiffs' motion for certification of class. [25−1] by GLICKMAN (N) (jwd) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
28 MEMORANDUM OPINON AND ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: transferring this case to the calendar committee for random reassignment. (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/06/2000)
29 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to file excess pages limitation imposed by LCvR 7.1(e) which otherwise would apply to defendant's forthcoming response to plaintiffs' motion for certification of class. [26−1] by DAN GLICKMAN

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 264 of 353

06/06/2000 06/06/2000 06/08/2000 06/29/2000 07/05/2000
07/19/2000 07/21/2000 07/22/2000 07/31/2000 07/31/2000 08/25/2000 08/30/2000 08/30/2000 08/30/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000
08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000

(N) (jaw) (Entered: 06/07/2000)
30 MOTION (consent) filed by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS to extend time to 6/30/00 to respond to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (tw) (Entered: 06/07/2000)
CASE REASSIGNED from Judge Friedman on 6/6/00 to Judge William B. Bryant (bjsp) (Entered: 06/07/2000)
32 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to extend time to 6/30/00 to respond to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. [30−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS; reply due by 6/30/00 (N) (jaw) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
33 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff to extend time to 7/31/00 to respond to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification (bjsp) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
34 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to extend time to 7/31/00 to respond to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification [33−1] by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE; response due by 7/31/00 (N) (jaw) (Entered: 07/05/2000)
35 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to file excess pages limitation EXHIBIT (MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS) (bjsp) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
36 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to file excess pages limitation [35−1] by DAN GLICKMAN (N) (jaw) (Entered: 07/21/2000)
39 MOTION filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for summary judgment ; exhibits (11) (bjsp) (Entered: 08/02/2000)
37 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS for extension of time to 8/31/00 to respond to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleading, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (gdf) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
38 MOTION filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS to extend time to 8/25/00 to reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification (bm) (Entered: 08/02/2000)
40 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff to file excess pages limitation EXHIBIT ( plaintiffs reply) (bjsp) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
41 MOTION filed by plaintiff for temporary restraining order ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
44 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to file excess pages limitation [40−1] by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE (N) (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
49 MOTION filed by plaintiff for preliminary injunction ; exhibits (3) (jf) (Entered: 09/02/2000)
42 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : denying motion for temporary restraining order [41−1] by plaintiffs (N) (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
43 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for extension of time to respond to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleading, or in the alternative, for summary judgment [37−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS; response to motion for summary judgment due 9/22/00 (N) (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
45 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN by Jean Lin (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
46 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to motion for temporary restraining order [41−1] by plaintiffs'; exhibits (4) (jf) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
47 MOTION filed by plaintiff for GREG KIRSCHNER to appear pro hac vice ( CONLON, FRANTZ PHELAN & PIRES ,1818 N Street, NW SUITE 700 ,WASHINGTON ,DC 20036 (202) 331 7050; attachment (bjsp) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 265 of 353

08/31/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000 09/01/2000
09/01/2000 09/11/2000 09/22/2000
09/22/2000 10/10/2000 10/10/2000 10/11/2000 10/11/2000 10/16/2000
10/18/2000 10/18/2000
10/23/2000 10/25/2000 10/27/2000

48 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff to extend time to 9/22/00 to respond to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative, for summary judgment (jf) (Entered: 09/02/2000)
52 REPLY by plaintiffs to defendant's opposition to motion to certification of class [17−1] by plaintiffs; exhibits (19) (bjsp) (Entered: 09/05/2000)
53 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS by David Joseph Frantz (bjsp) (Entered: 09/06/2000)
50 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for GREG KIRSCHNER to appear pro hac vice ( CONLON, FRANTZ PHELAN & PIRES ,1818 N Street, NW SUITE 700 ,WASHINGTON ,DC 20036 (202) 331 7050; attachment [47−1] by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE (N) (tb) (Entered: 09/04/2000)
51 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting praecipe for the appareance of David J. Frantz (N) (tb) (Entered: 09/04/2000)
64 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [49−1] by plaintiffs. (tb) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
54 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to extend time to 9/22/00 to respond to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative, for summary judgment [48−1] by BASIL ALKIRE, GENE CADOTTE, JOHN FREDERICKS, LUTHER CRASCO, GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE; response to motion(s) due by 10/10/00; (N) (tb) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
55 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff to extend time to 10/10/00 to respond to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (jf) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
56 RESPONSE by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS in opposition to motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for summary judgment [39−1] by DAN GLICKMAN .; declarations (3) (ag) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
57 MOTION (UNCONSENTED) filed by plaintiffs for leave to exceed page limitation NO EXHIBIT ATTACHED (bjsp) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
58 MOTION filed ALL PLAINTIFFS for leave to file amended class action complaint ; EXHIBIT (AMENDED COMPLAINT) (ag) Modified on 10/13/2000 (Entered: 10/12/2000)
59 MOTION filed by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS for preliminary injunction and oral argument requested ; exhibits (1) (ag) Modified on 10/13/2000 (Entered: 10/12/2000)
60 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to extend time to 11/7/00 within which to reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for summary judgment (bjsp) (Entered: 10/18/2000)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant granting motion for leave to exceed page limitation [57−1] by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE (fiat) (N) (tb) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
61 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to extend time to 11/7/00 within which to reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for summary judgment [60−1] by DAN GLICKMAN reply to motion for summary judgment due by 11/7/00; (N) (tb) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
62 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction and oral argument requested [59−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS . (ag) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
63 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN in opposition to motion for leave to file amended class action complaint [58−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS . (ag) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
65 REPLY by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS in support of their motion for leave to file amended class action complaint [58−1] (ag) Modified on 10/31/2000 (Entered: 10/30/2000)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 266 of 353

10/27/2000 10/31/2000 10/31/2000 11/03/2000 11/09/2000 11/09/2000 11/13/2000
11/17/2000 11/20/2000 11/21/2000 11/21/2000 11/28/2000
11/28/2000
12/06/2000 12/18/2000 12/18/2000 12/18/2000 01/09/2001 01/29/2001

66 REPLY by ALL PLAINTIFFS in support of motion for preliminary injunction and oral argument requested [59−1] (ag) Modified on 10/31/2000 (Entered: 10/30/2000)
MOTION HEARING before Judge William B. Bryant taken under advisement by plaintiffs motion for certification of class [17−1] motion hearing set for 2:30 12/18/00; Reporter: Gordon Slodysko (tb) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
67 SUMMARY by plaintiffs RE: the filing of plaintiffs' oral argument on certification of class (bjsp) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
69 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to extend time to 11/21/00 to reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (ag) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
70 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction and oral argument requested [59−1]. (ag) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
71 MOTION filed by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS for oral argument on plaintiff's first motion for preliminary injunction (ag) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
72 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to extend time to 11/21/00 to reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment [69−1] by DAN GLICKMAN reply to brief due by 11/21/00 ; (N) (tb) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
74 REPLY by plaintiffs' to defendant's in opposition to motion for oral argument on plaintiff's first motion for preliminary injunction [71−1] (jf) (Entered: 11/22/2000)
73 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 10/31/00. Reporter: Gordon A. Slodysko. (tth) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
75 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to file excess pages limitation (ag) (Entered: 11/22/2000)
76 MOTION filed by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to extend time to 11/28/00 to reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ag) (Entered: 11/22/2000)
77 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to file excess pages limitation [75−1] by DAN GLICKMAN; the Clerk shall file defendant's reply to motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative for summary judgment (N) (tb) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
78 REPLY by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [56−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS; attachment; (appendix with 9 exhibits) (cas) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
79 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of August 31, 2000. Reporter: Patricia J. Yerkes (jdm) (Entered: 12/06/2000)
MOTION HEARING before Judge William B. Bryant Motion for Summary Judgment taken under advisement Reporter: Monica Mazzeo, Miller Reporting (bh) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
80 Notice of withdrawal by plaintiff to withdraw motion for preliminary injunction [49−1] (cas) Modified on 06/15/2001 (Entered: 12/20/2000)
81 STATEMENT filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS, regarding: Summary of the Cases of the Lead Plaintiffs. (tth) (Entered: 12/26/2000)
87 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 12/18/00. Reporter: Monica G. Mazzeo Miller Reporting Company, Inc. (cas) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
82 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff for leave to file recently discovered supplementa information regarding defendant's arguments in support of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative summary judgment ; exhibits (3) (cas) (Entered: 02/01/2001)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 267 of 353

01/30/2001
01/31/2001 02/16/2001 03/02/2001 03/27/2001 03/28/2001 03/30/2001 04/02/2001 04/05/2001
04/06/2001 04/06/2001
04/06/2001
04/06/2001
05/04/2001 05/07/2001

83 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for leave to file recently discovered supplementa information regarding defendant's arguments in support of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative summary judgment [82−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS; defendant shall have 21 days to respond to plaintiff's submission (N) (tb) (Entered: 02/01/2001)
84 ERRATA by ALL PLAINTIFFS; exhibits (8) (cas) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
85 RESPONSE by federal defendant DAN GLICKMAN to plaintiffs consent motion for leave to file recently discovered supplemental information RE: defendants arguments in support of defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for summary judgment (bjsp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
86 SURREPLY by plaintiff to motion to extend time to 11/28/00 to reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [76−1] by DAN GLICKMAN; exhibits (4); "Let this be filed" J. BRYANT (tb) Modified on 03/05/2001 (Entered: 03/05/2001)
89 REPLY by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to plaintiffs opposition to motion for leave to file [88−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN ; exhibits (5) (bjsp) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
88 MOTION filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN for leave to file ; EXHIBIT (Supplemental Memorandum in support of defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for certification of class) (cas) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
91 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in support of defendant's opposition to plaintiff's motion certification of class [17−1] by plaintiffs'i; exhibits (7) (cas) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
90 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for leave to file [88−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN; the Clerk shall file defendant's supplement memorandum (N) (tb) (Entered: 04/03/2001)
92 MOTION filed by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS to strike defendant's opposition to plaintiff's reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's consent motion for leave to file recently discovered supplemental information regarding defendant's argument's in support of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment (cas) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
93 RESPONSE by ALL PLAINTIFFS to motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum in supprt of defendant's opposition to plaintiff'S motion for certification of class [88−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN (cas) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
94 RESPONSE by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in opposition to motion to strike defendant's opposition to plaintiff's reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's consent motion for leave to file recently discovered supplemental information regarding defendant's argument's in support of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment [92−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS . (cas) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
95 RESPONSE by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in opposition to plaintiff's reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's consent motion for leave to file recently discovered supplemental information regarding defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadingsor, in the alternative, summary judgment [86−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS (cas) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
96 MOTION filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN for leave to file opposition to plaintiffs' reply to defendant response to plaintiffs'consent motion for leave to file recently discovered supplemental information regarding defendant's arguments in support of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment (cas) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
97 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for status conference (tb) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
98 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for status conference [97−1] by plaintiffs status hearing set for 2:30 6/5/01 ; (N) (tb) (Entered: 05/07/2001)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 268 of 353

05/10/2001 05/21/2001 05/24/2001 05/25/2001 05/30/2001 05/31/2001 05/31/2001 06/18/2001
06/18/2001 06/18/2001 06/21/2001 06/27/2001 07/11/2001 07/13/2001

99 MOTION filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN for reconsideration of plaintiff's motion for status conference set for 2:30 6/5/01 ; [98−1] (cas) (Entered: 05/14/2001)
100 RESPONSE by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS in opposition to motion for reconsideration of plaintiff's motion for status conference set for 2:30 6/5/01 ; [98−1] [99−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN . (cas) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
101 REPLY by plaintiff to plaintiff's opposition to motion for reconsideration of plaintiff's motion for status conference set for 2:30 6/5/01 ; [98−1] [99−1] (jf) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
CASE REASSIGNED to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (td) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
103 MOTION filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS for status conference ; exhibits (1) (aet) (Entered: 06/04/2001)
102 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan :joint status report due by 6/22/01; status hearing set for 10:00 7/13/01 ; (N) (clv) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
104 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of motion for status conference filed 5/30/10 [103−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS (td) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
105 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : denying motion to stay proceedings pending ruling on case assignment [18−1] by DAN GLICKMAN denying motion for preliminary injunction and oral argument requested [59−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS granting motion for leave to file amended class action complaint [58−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS, granting motion for leave to file amended complaint [16−1] by plaintiffssssss, granting motion for leave to file second amended class action complaint [13−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS granting motion for leave to file opposition to plaintiffs' reply to defendant response to plaintiffs'consent motion for leave to file recently discovered supplemental information regarding defendant's arguments in support of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment [96−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN denying motion to strike defendant's opposition to plaintiff's reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's consent motion for leave to file recently discovered supplemental information regarding defendant's argument's in support of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment [92−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS denying motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for summary judgment [39−1] by DAN GLICKMAN denying motion for oral argument on plaintiff's first motion for preliminary injunction [71−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS denying motion for reconsideration of plaintiff's motion for status conference set for 2:30 6/5/01 ; [98−1] [99−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN granting motion to extend time to 8/25/00 to reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification [38−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS granting motion to extend time to 10/10/00 to respond to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [55−1] by plaintiffsssss granting motion to extend time to 11/28/00 to reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [76−1] by DAN GLICKMAN (N) (clv) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
107 AMENDED COMPLAINT (FOURTH) by plaintiff [1−1] . (jf) (Entered: 06/26/2001)
108 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff [1−1] . (jf) Modified on 06/29/2001 (Entered: 06/29/2001)
106 JOINT STATUS REPORT by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS, federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN (cdw) (Entered: 06/24/2001)
109 MOTION filed by plaintiff to file fifth amended complaint [1−1] by plaintiffs (aet) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
110 RESPONSE by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to file fifth amended complaint [1−1] by plaintiffs [109−1] by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE . (td) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
STATUS HEARING before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Held. The Court will certify the class. The plaintiff's are to send the Court a proposed order. The parties are to meet

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 269 of 353

07/17/2001 07/19/2001 07/19/2001 07/24/2001 07/26/2001 08/01/2001 08/03/2001 08/06/2001
08/15/2001 09/04/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/14/2001 09/20/2001 09/28/2001 10/12/2001

and confer. Initial Status Conference set for 2:00 9/21/01 ; Meet Confer Statement due 9/7/01 . Reporter: Jon Hundley (Miller Reporting) (dam) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
111 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of July 13, 2001. Reporter: John Hundley, Miller Reporting (td) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
112 MOTION filed by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS to extend time to file proposed class certification order. (td) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
113 RESPONSE by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS to defendant's argument that plaintiffs have abandoned their allegations pertaining to USDA's failure to properly handle discrimination complaints. (td) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
114 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : denying motion to extend time to file proposed class certification order. [112−1] by ALL PLAINTIFFS (N) (clv) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
115 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for leave to file memorandum and proposed order out of time MEMORANDUM AND PROPOSED ORDER SENT TO CHAMBERS 7/27/01) (bjsp) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
116 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to plaintiff's motion for class certification; exhibits (A−D) (aet) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
117 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL for federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN , substituting Carol Federighi for attorney Neil H. Koslowe for ANN M. VENEMAN (td) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
118 MOTION filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN for leave to file supplemental opposition to plaintiff's proposed order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification ; (NO EXHIBIT) (aet) Modified on 08/07/2001 (Entered: 08/07/2001)
119 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : granting motion for leave to file supplemental opposition to plaintiff's proposed order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification [118−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN (N) (clv) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
120 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of Holland & Knigh LLP as "of counsel" . (aet) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
121 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: granting motion for leave to file memorandum and proposed order out of time [115−1] by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE (N) (dam) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
122 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: granting motion to file fifth amended complaint [1−1] by plaintiffs [109−1] by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE (N) (dam) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
123 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT/REPORT PURSUANT TO L.R. 16 filed by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS, federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN . (td) (Entered: 09/11/2001)
148 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Fifth) by plaintiff amending amended complaint [1−1] . (td) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
124 MOTION (UNOPPOSED) filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to extend time to 10/7/01 to file answer to plaintiff's fifth amended complaint (aet) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
125 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : granting motion to extend time to 10/7/01 to file answer to plaintiff's fifth amended complaint [124−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN (N) (clv) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
126 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : granting motion to certification of class [17−1] by plaintiffs; the Court will issue a final order and memorandum on this matter; (N) (clv) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
127 MOTION filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to stay of the Court's 9/28/01 order pending appreal. (td) (Entered: 10/16/2001)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 270 of 353

10/22/2001 10/24/2001 10/25/2001 11/01/2001 11/09/2001 11/18/2001 12/12/2001
01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/23/2002 01/24/2002 01/25/2002 01/28/2002
01/28/2002 01/28/2002 02/08/2002 02/11/2002 02/12/2002

130 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to stay of the Court's 9/28/01 order pending appeal. [127−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN . (td) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
129 ERRATA by ALL PLAINTIFFS for plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion for stay of the Court's September 28, 2001, order pending appeal; exhibits (1) (aet) Modified on 10/25/2001 (Entered: 10/25/2001)
128 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : postponing the Initial Scheduling Conference scheduled for 11/2/01; (N) (clv) (Entered: 10/25/2001)
131 REPLY by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in support of motion to stay of the Court's 9/28/01 order pending appreal. [127−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN (aet) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
132 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS by Joseph Marc Sellers, Suzette Marie Malveaux (dam) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
133 ANSWER TO (fifth) AMENDED COMPLAINT by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN; (FIAT. Judge Sullivan) (td) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
134 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : granting motion to certification of class [17−1] by plaintiffs; plaintiff's proposed order is due by 1/28/02; defendant's response is due by 2/28/02; reply due by 3/15/02; denying motion to stay of the Court's 9/28/01 order pending appreal. [127−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN; USDA shall provide to plaintiff's by 1/28/02 a list of all Native American Farmers who applied for USDA farm programs between 1/1/81 and 11/24/99; parties joint proposed Notice of Pendence of Class Action due by 1/28/02; (N) (clv) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
135 MEMORANDUM by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in support of defendant's motion for stay of all proceedings pending appeal; Attachments (2) (nmr) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
136 MOTION filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN for reconsideration of the portions of the court's order of 12/12/01 regarding class notice [134−1] ; attachments (3) (td) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
137 MOTION filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to stay of all proceedings pending appeal. (td) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
139 MOTION filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to extension of 1/28/02 deadline. (td) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
140 RESPONSE by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS in opposition to motion to extension of 1/28/02 deadline. [139−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN . (td) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
141 REPLY by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in further support of motion to extension of 1/28/02 deadline [139−1]. by ANN M. VENEMAN (td) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
138 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : denying motion to stay of all proceedings pending appeal. [137−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN denying motion for reconsideration of the portions of the court's order of 12/12/01 regarding class notice [134−1] [136−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN; granting defendant's motion for extension of the Court's 1/28/02 deadline; (N) (clv) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
142 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS of propposed notice of pendency of class action to class members. (td) (Entered: 01/29/2002)
143 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of order regarding appropriate treatment of subclasses; exhibits (3) (jf) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
144 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS, federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN for entry of privacy act protective order. (td) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
146 COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 2/8/02, referencing , directing that the motion for a stay be granted. Proceedings before the district court in this case are stayed pending further order of the court. . USCA # 02−5021 (bcs) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
145 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ; setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. (N)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 271 of 353

02/14/2002
08/19/2002
10/29/2002
01/21/2003 02/20/2003
03/06/2003 03/06/2003 04/10/2003 06/11/2003 07/08/2003 07/14/2003
07/15/2003
07/15/2003 07/18/2003
07/18/2003 07/18/2003 07/25/2003 07/25/2003
08/11/2003 08/22/2003

(clv) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
147 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Phillip L Fraas representing plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS . New address: HOGAN & HARTSON 555 13th Street, NW Washington DC 20004 (202) 637−6624. (td) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
149 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Phillip L. Fraas representing plaintiff ALL PLAINTIFFS . New address: 3050 K Street, NW Suite 400, Washington DC 20007−5108 (202) 342−8864. (td) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
150 COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 10/29/02, referencing the petition for permission to take an interlocutory appeal is denied; and the stay entered on February 8, 2002 is hereby lifted. USCA # 02−5021 (cp) (Entered: 10/30/2002)
151 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, federal defendant for status hearing (tb) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
152 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : denying joint motion for status hearing [151−1] by federal defendant, plaintiff; parties are directed to file proposed case management orders by 3/6/03; (N) (clv) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
153 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs (td) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
154 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT/REPORT PURSUANT TO L.R. 16 filed by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN . (nmr) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
155 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of attorney Suzette Marie Malveaux for ALL PLAINTIFFS effective 5/2/03. (bm) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
156 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of proposed case management order; exhibits (8) (td) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
157 MOTION filed by movant PHIL GIVENS to opt−out of class action and request for emergency ruling ; exhibit (1) (bm) Modified on 07/21/2003 (Entered: 07/09/2003)
158 ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan :defendant's response to Mr. Phil Givens' motion to opt of class action and request for emergency ruling by 7/18/03; Mr. Givens shall file a reply by 7/23/03; (N) (clv) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
159 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in support of case management statement and proposed case management order; exhibits (1) (jf) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
160 RESPONSE by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to supplemental memorandum [156−1] by plaintiffs (jf) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
161 ERRATA by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN RE; notice of filing of amended certificate of service filed with defendant's supplemental memorandum in support of case management statement (bjsp) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
162 RESPONSE by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to motion to opt−out of class action and request for emergency ruling [157−1] (bjsp) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
163 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN by Susan Demske (bjsp) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
164 MOTION filed by plaintiff for leave to file reply to defendant's response to motion of Phil Givens to opt−out of class action ; EXHIBIT ( reply) (jf) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
165 REPLY by plaintiff to response to supplemental memorandum in support of case management statement and proposed case management order [159−1] by ANN M. VENEMAN . (jf) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
166 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION by plaintiffs in support of plaintiffs' proposed case management order; exhibit (1) (bjsp) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
167 RESPONSE by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to supplemental submission in support of plaintiff's proposed case management order [166−1]; attachments (1) (jf) (Entered: 08/26/2003)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 272 of 353

08/28/2003 09/09/2003 09/09/2003 09/16/2003 09/22/2003 11/04/2003 11/05/2003 11/14/2003 11/17/2003 11/21/2003 11/24/2003 12/05/2003
12/11/2003
12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/24/2003 12/29/2003 12/29/2003 12/30/2003

168 ERRATA by Non Party PHIL GIVENS; Declaration of James W. Myart Jr., in Support of Motion to Opt OUt and Request For Emergency Ruling; attachment (1) (mpt) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
169 MOTION (EMERGENCY) filed by Non Party PHIL GIVENS for hearing on movant's motion to opt out of class action (bjsp) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
170 RESPONSE by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN to PHIL GIVENS' submission of declaration of James W. Myart, Jr. (bjsp) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
171 REPLY by Non Party PHIL GIVENS to defendant's response to PHIL GIVENS submission of declaration of James W. Myart Jr (bjsp) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
172 RESPONSE by federal defendant ANN M. VENEMAN in opposition to motion to set emergency hearing on movant's motion to opt out of class action [169−1] by PHIL GIVENS . (bm) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
175 MOTION for emergency ruling or emergency Hearing by PHIL GIVENS. (td, ) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
173 NOTICE by ANN M. VENEMAN of Withdrawal of Susan Demske as Counsel for Defendant (Demske, Susan) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
176 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by James W. Myart, Jr. for movant Phil Givens. (td, ) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
174 RESPONSE to Phil Givens' Third Motion for Emergency Ruling or Emergency Hearing, Served Nov. 12, 2003 filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
177 REPLY to 175 defendant's opposition to (THIRD) motion for emergency ruling or hearing dated 11/12/03. by PHIL GIVENS. (jf, ) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
178 ERRATA to reply to defendant's opposition to third motion for emergency ruling or hearing dated 11/12/03 by PHIL GIVENS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(jf, ) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
179 ORDER granting 157 Phil Given's Motion to Opt Out of the Class Action, granting 164 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File, denying as moot 169 Motion for Hearing, denying as moot 175 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 5, 2003. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
180 MOTION for Reconsideration re 179 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion for Hearing,,, by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
181 First MOTION for Hearing for Status Conference by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 181 Plaintiff's Motion for Status Hearing. The Status Hearing is scheduled for January 23, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 16, 2003. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/23/2004 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
182 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 180 Reconsideration filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Frantz, David) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
183 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 180 filed by PHIL GIVENS. (Myart, James) (Entered: 12/29/2003)
184 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply by PHIL GIVENS. (Myart, James) (Entered: 12/29/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 184 Phil Given's Motion for Extension of Time (which is contained in docket entry 183 until December 29, 2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 30, 2003. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/30/2003)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 273 of 353

01/01/2004 01/06/2004 01/07/2004 01/07/2004 01/12/2004 01/20/2004 01/22/2004
01/22/2004 01/22/2004
01/23/2004
01/23/2004 01/26/2004
01/26/2004 01/28/2004 01/30/2004 02/17/2004 02/18/2004

185 First MOTION to Expedite RULING ON DEFEDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S DECEMBER 5, 2003 ORDER by PHIL GIVENS. (Myart, James) (Entered: 01/01/2004)
186 NOTICE by ANN M. VENEMAN of Removal of Counsel From Service List (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
187 REPLY in support of motion re 180 Reconsideration of the Court's December 5, 2003 Order and in Response to Pl. Givens' Motion for Expedited Ruling on Motion to Reconsider filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
188 RESPONSE to plaintiff Phil Givens' motion for expedited ruling on defendant's motion to reconsider 185 by ANN M. VENEMAN. (to view document, click on link #187) (jf, ) (Entered: 01/08/2004)
189 MOTION for Hearing in Conjunction with Status Hearing by PHIL GIVENS. (Attachments: # 1)(Myart, James) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
190 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard L. Howell &#096 on behalf of PHIL GIVENS (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appearance for Richard L. Howell)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
191 First MOTION for Hearing Status Conference Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order Vacating Stay# 2 Exhibit Notice FLP−303# 3 Exhibit Letter Dated August 29, 2003# 4 Exhibit Letter Dated September 12, 2003# 5 Exhibit Appropriate Treatment of Subclasses# 6 Exhibit Bates v. United Parcel Service# 7 Exhibit Littledove v. JBC & Associates, Inc.# 8 Exhibit Individuals Listed in Second Amended Class Action Complaint)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
192 NOTICE by PHIL GIVENS of Subpoenaed Witnesses (Myart, James) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
193 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas and for Protective Order Preventing Discovery Pending Resolution of Class Certification Issues and of Any Ensuing Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Shepperd Subpoena# 2 Exhibit B Jones Subpoena# 3 Exhibit C Isler Subpoena)(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 1/23/2004. Status Conference set for 3/19/2004 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. chambers to issue an order(Court Reporter dONALD jACOBSEN, MILLER.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
194 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Marc Sellers on behalf of ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
195 ORDER denying 180 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, denying as moot 185 Motion to Expedite, denying as moot 189 Motion for Hearing, denying as moot 193 Motion to Quash, directing Michael Sitcov and Carol Federighi to Show Cause why they should not be held in Contempt, directing parties not to contact Chambers and setting the schedule. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 26, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/19/2004 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs1, ) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
196 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for dates 1/23/04; Court Reporter: Donald J. Jacobsen, Miller. (td, ) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
197 NOTICE of Appearance by James W. Myart Jr. on behalf of all plaintiffs (Myart, James) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
198 MOTION for Sanctions by PHIL GIVENS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Supplement # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Affidavit # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12)(Myart, James) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
199 NOTICE of Appearance by Felicia L. Chambers on behalf of all defendants (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 02/18/2004)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 274 of 353

02/18/2004 02/18/2004 02/23/2004 02/24/2004
02/27/2004 02/27/2004 03/01/2004 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/04/2004 03/05/2004 03/08/2004 03/10/2004 03/16/2004
03/16/2004 03/16/2004
03/18/2004

200 NOTICE of Appearance by Shayna Susanne Cook on behalf of ANN M. VENEMAN (Cook, Shayna) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
201 MOTION to Stay Initial Disclosures and Discovery Pending Resolution of Mandamus Petition by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
202 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Affidavit # 3 Affidavit # 4 Affidavit # 5 Affidavit # 6 Affidavit)(Gilligan, James) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 201 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery until five days after the decision of the Court of Appeals on the mandamus petition. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 24, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
203 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM /Motion to File Supplemental Pleading from James W. Myart, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(Myart, James) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
204 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen A. Rivera on behalf of ANN M. VENEMAN (Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
205 MOTION for Hearing Evidentiary/On Motion for Show Cause and Related Pleadings/Motion for Sanctions by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Myart, James) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
206 MOTION to Strike 203 Reply in Support, Supplemental Memorandum, 198 MOTION for Sanctions (Motion and Supporting Memorandum To Strike Non−Party James W. Myart, Jr.'s Motion for Contempt, Sanctions and Attorney's Fees) by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit (Supplemental Trost Declaration)# 2 Affidavit (Second Sitcov Declaration)# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Gilligan, James) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
207 NOTICE by ALL PLAINTIFFS Withdrawal of Appearance of Greg Kirschner (Frantz, David) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
218 COPY OF USCA ORDER denying the petition for writ of mandamus; USCA #04−5031 (cp, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/18/2004 (cp, ). (Entered: 05/18/2004)
208 MOTION for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cook, Shayna) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
MINUTE ORDER denying 205 the Motion for a Hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 8, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
209 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 198 Striking Motions for Sanctions by James W. Myart, Jr. filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Myart, James) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference currently set for 3/19/04 is continued to 3/24/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Would counsel please notify counsel that is not electronically mailed of this date and time change. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
210 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 208 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
211 REPLY in support of motion re 206 (Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion To Strike Non−Party James W. Myart, Jr.'s Motion for Contempt, Sanctions and Attorney's Fees) filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Gilligan, James) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
212 Consent MOTION to Continue Status Conference by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE. (Frantz, David) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 275 of 353

03/19/2004
03/19/2004 03/22/2004
03/25/2004 03/26/2004 03/29/2004
03/29/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004 05/07/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/19/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004
05/26/2004 06/01/2004 06/02/2004

MINUTE ORDER granting 212 the Consent Motion to Continue the March 24 Status Hearing until March 31, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 19, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/31/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
213 REPLY in support of motion re 208 for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Cook, Shayna) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
214 NOTICE by ANN M. VENEMAN of Withdrawal of Counsel (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
215 NOTICE of Appearance by Tim H. Nusraty on behalf of ANN M. VENEMAN (Nusraty, Tim) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
MINUTE ORDER The Court, sua sponte, continues the Status Hearing previously scheduled for March 31 until April 28, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 29, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/28/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
216 Joint MOTION to Continue Status Conference Hearing by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 216 the Joint Motion to Continue the Status Hearing previously scheduled for April 28 until May 10, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 5, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/10/2004 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference is now set for 5/10/2004 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 5/10/2004. Court refers sanctions issue to the Grievance Committee. Governments' Administrative Record due 6/10/2004. Order to be presented. Status Conference set for 7/7/2004 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (nmw, ) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
217 NOTICE by ANN M. VENEMAN (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
219 RESPONSE to Motion to Opt out of Class filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
220 NOTICE by ANN M. VENEMAN of Withdrawal of Appearance of Michael Sitcov (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
221 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard G. Lepley on behalf of ANN M. VENEMAN (Lepley, Richard) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
222 NOTICE by ANN M. VENEMAN of Withdrawal of Counsel (Cook, Shayna) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
223 RESPONSE to Motion to Opt−Out of Class Action and Request for Expedited Ruling and, in the Alternative, Request for Expedited Hearing on Same filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
224 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 10, 2004 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. (cp, ) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
225 REPLY to defendant Ann Veneman's opposition to opt−out of class action by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
MINUTE ORDER At the May 10, 2004 Status Hearing, the Court informed the parties that the Court was referring the allegations relating to the breach of legal ethics to the Grievance Committee. Accordingly, 198 Motion for Sanctions and 206 Motion to

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 276 of 353

06/09/2004 06/09/2004 06/14/2004 06/15/2004 06/15/2004 06/23/2004 06/25/2004 07/01/2004 07/06/2004
07/07/2004
07/08/2004 07/09/2004
07/12/2004 07/14/2004

Strike are denied without prejudice to reconsideration upon the conclusion of the Committee's proceedings. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 2, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
226 Joint MOTION for Protective Order Under the Privacy Act by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Privacy Act Protective Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
230 MOTION to Intervene as a plaintiff by RICHARD L. HOWELL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(jf, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
227 PROTECTIVE ORDER setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 6/9/04. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
228 NOTICE by ANN M. VENEMAN of Filing Administrative Record Under Seal (Nusraty, Tim) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
229 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Filed Under Seal) (bcs, ) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
231 RESPONSE to Motion to Intervene and, In the Alternative, Be Named as Plaintiffs and Request for Expedited Ruling and/or Hearing on Same and Motion to Opt Out filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
232 RESPONSE to MOTION TO INTERVENE AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE BE NAMED AS PLAINTIFFS AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING AND/OR HEARING ON SAME AND MOTION TO OPT OUT filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
233 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Movants' Motion to Opt Out by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Surreply to Movants' Motion to Opt Out)(Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
234 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 − Transcript − part 1# 2 Exhibit Ex 1 − Transcript part 2# 3 Exhibit Ex 3 − White House briefing transcript# 4 Exhibit Ex 4 − Pltffs Doc Request# 5 Exhibit Ex 5 − Isler declaration# 6 Exhibit Ex 6 − Statement of Crasco# 7 Exhibit Ex 7 − Ltr from Ft Belknap# 8 Exhibit Ex 8 − 1983 USDA Ltr# 9 Exhibit Ex 9 − Standing Rock complaint# 10 Exhibit Ex 10 − Statement of Keepseagle# 11 Exhibit Ex 2 − Declaration of Wright)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 7/7/2004. Status Conference set for 10/7/2004 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. government motion to reconsider denied; motion to intervene denied; motion to opt out of class denied; chambers to issue an order(Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
235 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7)(Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
236 ORDER denying 208 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, denying as moot 230 Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene, granting 233 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Surreply, denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion to Opt−out. A Status Hearing is scheduled for October 7, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 9, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
MINUTE ORDER In view of the referral of this issue to the Grievance Committee, the Court, sua sponte, VACATES the Show Cause Order issued on January 26, 2004 without prejudice. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 12, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
237 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Richard L. Howell ` on behalf of FRANK WHITE CALFE, EDWARD S. DANKS JR., EDWARD S. DANKS SR., ALFRED DRIVER JR., GERALD DRIVER, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, ALVA ROSE HALL, SUSAN HALL, EDGAR CROWS HEART, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, IVAN JOHNSON, JAMES G. JOHNSON,

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 277 of 353

07/15/2004 07/15/2004 07/15/2004
07/16/2004 07/19/2004 07/19/2004 07/19/2004
07/19/2004 07/20/2004

MELVIN J. JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, DENNIS SNOW, CHARLES WILKINSON, VIRGIL WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON (Howell, Richard) Modified on 7/15/2004 (Burgess, Joe). (Entered: 07/14/2004)
238 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard L. Howell &#096 on behalf of FRANK WHITE CALFE, EDWARD S. DANKS JR., EDWARD S. DANKS SR., ALFRED DRIVER JR., GERALD DRIVER, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, ALVA ROSE HALL, SUSAN HALL, EDGAR CROWS HEART, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, IVAN JOHNSON, JAMES G. JOHNSON, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, DENNIS SNOW, CHARLES WILKINSON, VIRGIL WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Please disregard docket entry #237 as the image was damaged. Counsel was directed to refile the notice of appearance. The Notice of appearance was filed 7/15/04 as docket entry #238. (Burgess, Joe) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
239 MOTION for Reconsideration re Status Conference,, Set Hearings, by FRANK WHITE CALFE, EDWARD S. DANKS JR., EDWARD S. DANKS SR., ALFRED DRIVER JR., GERALD DRIVER, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, ALVA ROSE HALL, SUSAN HALL, EDGAR CROWS HEART, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, IVAN JOHNSON, JAMES JOHNSON JR., MELVIN J. JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, DENNIS SNOW, CHARLES WILKINSON, VIRGIL WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
240 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 235 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 240 the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 235 Defendants' MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Response due by 7/30/2004. Reply due by 9/3/2004. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 19, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
241 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard L. Howell &#096 on behalf of JOE BYRD, KIP CULLERS, CATHY ELLISON, CLYDE HINDS, LUCILLE HINDS, MARY HINDS, PAULA HOBBS, VIRGINA ANN HODGE, ALMA HUTCHINS, BURNADEAN HUTCHINS, DALE HUTCHINS, RANDELL G. HUTCHINS, DICK E. LAY, BOB J. ROBERTSON, BOBBY G. ROBERTSON, HASTINGS SHADE, LORETTA SHADE, BILLY D. SIMPSON, ALAN STARR, REX EARL STARR, JAMES WALTERS, REGENIA WINKLE (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
242 ERRATA of orders inadvertantly left off of Movants? (Putatutive Plaintiffs?) Emergency Motion for Expedited Reconsideration of Movants? Motions for Opt−Out, Movants? (Putative Plaintiffs?) Motions for Establishing Opt−Out Procedure, Motions to Toll Statute of Limitations and Brief in Support Thereof and Motions for Expedited Ex Parte Ruling and/or Hearing on Same filed on July 15, 2004 by EDWARD S. DANKS JR., EDWARD S. DANKS SR., ALFRED DRIVER JR., GERALD DRIVER, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, ALVA ROSE HALL, SUSAN HALL, EDGAR CROWS HEART, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, IVAN JOHNSON, JAMES G. JOHNSON, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, DENNIS SNOW, FRANK WHITECALFE, CHARLES WILKINSON, VIRGIL WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
243 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for dates July 07, 2004; Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. (jf, ) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
244 MOTION to Expedite, MOTION for Reconsideration by JOE BYRD, KIP CULLERS, CATHY ELLISON, CLYDE HINDS, LUCILLE HINDS, MARY HINDS, PAULA HOBBS, VIRGINA ANN HODGE, ALMA HUTCHINS, BURNADEAN HUTCHINS, DALE HUTCHINS, RANDELL G. HUTCHINS, DICK E. LAY, BOB J. ROBERTSON, BOBBY G. ROBERTSON, HASTINGS SHADE, LORETTA SHADE, BILLY D. SIMPSON, ALAN STARR, REX EARL STARR, JAMES WALTERS, REGENIA WINKLE. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 07/20/2004)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 278 of 353

07/29/2004
07/30/2004
09/03/2004 09/22/2004 09/23/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/27/2004 09/27/2004 09/27/2004 09/29/2004 10/05/2004
10/06/2004 10/07/2004 10/22/2004

245 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 239 Movants' (Putative Plaintiffs') Emergency Motions for Expedited Reconsideration of Movants' Motions for Opt Out, Movants' (Putative Plaintiffs') Motions for Establishing Opt Out Procedure, Motions to Toll/Extend Statute of Limitations and Brief in Support Thereof and Motions for Expedited Ex Parte Ruling and/or Hearing on Same filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Vernon B. Parker)(Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
246 REPLY to opposition to re 235 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by BASIL ALKIRE, JEROME K. ALKIRE, ALL PLAINTIFFS, MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, LEROY J. AMES, JAMES ANDERSON, SIDNEY BAILEY SR., BARB H. BAKER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(td, ) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
247 REPLY to opposition to motion re 235 Partial Judgment on the Pleadings filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of M. Farook Sait# 2 Affidavit of Frderick D. Isler)(Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
248 MOTION Modify Scheduling Order re 195 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,, Order on Motion to Expedite,, Order on Motion for Hearing,, Order on Motion to Quash, by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Sample database codes# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/22/2004)
MINUTE ORDER Defendants are directed to file a Response to 248 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order by September 27, 2004. Any reply shall be filed by September 29, 2004. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 23, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
MINUTE ORDER The Court, sua sponte, schedules a Motions Hearing on the pending 235 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on December 3, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 24, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2004 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
249 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Sarah Vogel by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
250 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Scheduling Order filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript Excerpt# 2 Exhibit Garcia Decision# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
251 MOTION to Stay Pending Court of Appeals Decision on Propriety of Class Certification in Garcia v. Veneman by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript Excerpt# 2 Exhibit Garcia Decision# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
252 REPLY to opposition to motion re 248 (unopposed) modify the scheduling order and opposition to defendant's third request for a stay filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Garcia Rule 23(f) petition# 2 Exhibit 2 − Chiang v. Veneman)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
253 REPLY to opposition to motion re 251 Stay Pending Court of Appeals Garcia Decision filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Love v. Veneman Class Cert. Denial# 2 Exhibit Def. Court of Appeals Response to Rule 23f Petition# 3 Exhibit Garcia Order Granting 1292b Certification)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
254 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Hr'g Transcript)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 10/7/2004. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
255 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for dates 10/7/04; Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. (td, ) (Entered: 10/27/2004)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 279 of 353

11/09/2004 11/15/2004
11/16/2004 12/02/2004 12/02/2004 12/03/2004 12/06/2004
12/08/2004 12/16/2004 12/17/2004 12/20/2004 12/20/2004 01/07/2005 01/07/2005

256 NOTICE of Appearance by Llezlie Lloren Green on behalf of all plaintiffs (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/7/2004: Motions terminated: the Court orally granted 248 MOTION Modify Scheduling Order filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS and orally denied 251 MOTION to Stay Pending Court of Appeals Decision on Propriety of Class Certification in Garcia v. Veneman filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. Pursuant to the modified scheduling order, plaintiffs must notify the Court on or before 3/23/2005 whether they wish to seek monetary relief for the class; non−expert discovery will conclude by 5/23/2005; plaintiffs must serve reports of any testimonial experts by 6/23/2005; defendant must serve the reports of any testionial experts by 7/25/2005; plaintiffs must serve reports of rebuttal experts, if any, by 8/25/2005; discovery shall be completed by 9/26/2005 or 8/25/05 if plaintiffs do not file rebuttal expert reports. Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2004 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 9/26/2005. Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2004 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
257 NOTICE (Status Report) by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
258 STATUS REPORT ON DISCOVERY by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Motion Hearing held on 12/3/2004 motion taken under advisement (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the proceedings held in open court on 12/3/2004, parties are hereby ordered to file briefs of no more than five pages discussing the implications of Council of and for the Blind v. Regen, 709 F.2d 1521 (D.C. Cir. 1983) on the pending matter on or before 1/7/2005. Plaintiffs are hereby further ordered to file examples of appropriate injunctive relief in this case on or before 1/7/2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 6, 2004. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
259 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Supplemental Status Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
262 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on December 3, 2004 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (cp, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
260 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION Classwide Monetary Relief and Memorandum of Law in Support of Classwide Monetary Relief by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Expert Report)(Sellers, Joseph) Modified on 12/20/2004 (lc, ). (Entered: 12/17/2004)
"NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Document No. 260 was entered in error as a motion and will be refiled by counsel as a notice." (lc, ) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
261 NOTICE of Classwide Request for Monetary Relief and Memorandum of Law in Support of Classwide Monetary Relief by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Expert Report)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
263 MEMORANDUM Regarding Examples of Programmatic and Injunctive Relief Regarding Examples of Programmatic and Injunctive Relief from All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
264 MEMORANDUM of Law Regarding Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley, Inc. v. Regan of Law Regarding Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley, Inc. v. Regan from All Plaintiffs. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/07/2005)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 280 of 353

01/07/2005 01/11/2005
01/12/2005 01/12/2005 01/12/2005
01/12/2005
01/12/2005 01/13/2005 01/13/2005 01/13/2005
01/14/2005 02/02/2005 03/18/2005 03/22/2005 03/28/2005 03/29/2005
03/31/2005

265 MEMORANDUM Regarding Council for the Blind v. Regan Regarding Council for the Blind v. Regan from Defendant. (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
266 MOTION for Leave to File A Response to Defendant's Brief on Council of And For The Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Memorandum of Law# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 266 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Respond to Defendant's Brief. Plaintiffs shall file their brief by no later than 1/13/2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 12, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
267 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM Of Law Regarding Council Of And For The Blind Of Delaware County Valley, Inc. v. Regan filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
268 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Regarding Council of and for the Blind v. Regan by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Brief in Response To Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Regarding Council of and for the Blind v. Regan# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 268 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum. Defendants shall file their memorandum response by no later than 1/13/2005. Parties are advised there shall be no further pleadings on this issue. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 12, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
269 SUPPLEMENTAL Brief on Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (td, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Response to defendant's brief due by 1/13/2005 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Responses to plailntiff's supplemental memorandum due by 1/13/2005 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
270 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MEMORANDUM in Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief on Council of and for the Blind v. Regan in Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief on Council of and for the Blind v. Regan from Defendant. (Chambers, Felicia) Modified on 1/14/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 01/13/2005)
DOCUMENT NO. 270 was "Entered In Error" because it is already on the docket as document no. 269. (td, ) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
271 NOTICE of Filing by ANN M. VENEMAN (Gilligan, James) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
272 Unopposed MOTION To Modify Case Schedule by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
273 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ANN M. VENEMAN. Attorney Karen A. Rivera terminated. (Rivera, Karen) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
274 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Jay Kelhoffer on behalf of ANN M. VENEMAN (Kelhoffer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 272 Unopposed Motion to Modify Case Schedule. Plaintiffs' notice of an intention to seek monetary relief is due on or before 4/20/05; Non−expert discovery concludes no later than 7/29/05; Plaintiffs' expert report(s) due on or before 8/31/05; Defendant's expert report(s) due on or before 10/15/05; Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert report(s), if any, are due on or before 11/15/05. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 29, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
MINUTE ORDER denying 239 Motion for Reconsideration, denying 244 Motion to Expedite, and denying 244 Motion for Reconsideration without prejudice to refiling after the plaintiff class informs the Court, on or before April 20, 2005, of its intentions to seek monetary relief, pursuant to the hearing held in open court on December 3, 2004, and the Minute Order modifying the case schedule issued 3/29/05. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 31, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/31/2005)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 281 of 353

03/31/2005 04/08/2005 04/19/2005
04/19/2005 04/19/2005 04/29/2005 05/02/2005 05/03/2005
05/10/2005
05/10/2005
05/11/2005 05/11/2005 05/12/2005 05/23/2005

275 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 235 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 31, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
276 MOTION to Stay by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James R. Little# 2 Proposed Order)(Nusraty, Tim) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
277 MOTION for Reconsideration re 276 MOTION to Stay, Order on Motion for Reconsideration,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,, 275 Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
278 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 276 for a Further Stay Pending the Court of Appeals' Ruling in Garcia v. Veneman and Love v. Veneman filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
279 MOTION for Extension of Time to file Plaintiffs' Second Notification of Intent to Seek Monetary Relief by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
280 REPLY to opposition to motion re 276 Further Stay of Proceedings filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
281 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 277 Reconsideration of Denial of Opt−Out Motion filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
282 RESPONSE to Putative Twenty−Seven (27) "741" Fort Berthold Movants' Request for Reconsideration of Movants' Third Motion to Opt−Out and Reply to Defendant's Motion to Stay filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Hearing Transcript 10.7.04# 2 Exhibit Letter to Lead Plaintiff)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
283 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Response and Defendant's Opposition to Request for Reconsideration of Movants' Third Motion to Opt−Out by JAMES G. JOHNSON, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, FRANK WHITE CALFE, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 283 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 277 MOTION for Reconsideration re 276 MOTION to Stay, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion to Expedite, 275 Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Reply due by 5/23/2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 10, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 5/23/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
284 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Second Notification of Intent to Seek Monetary Relief by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 284 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Second Notification of Intent to Seek Monetary Relief. Plaintiffs' second notification shall be due on or before May 23, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 12, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
285 NOTICE of Change of Address by Richard L. Howell, 096 (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 05/23/2005)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 282 of 353

05/23/2005
05/23/2005
05/23/2005 05/23/2005
05/23/2005 05/27/2005 05/27/2005 06/01/2005
06/03/2005
06/06/2005

286 REPLY to opposition to motion re 277 Movants' Request for Consideration of Third Motion to Opt Out filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
287 REPLY to opposition to motion re 277 Plaintiff's Response to Movants' Request for Consideration of Third Motion to Opt Out filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
288 MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's Jurisdiction by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
289 MOTION for Reconsideration and Request for Oral Argument Regarding the Same by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
290 NOTICE Second Notification That They Seek Class−Wide Monetary Relief and Memorandum iin Support of Such Request by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 261 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Expert Report)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
291 MOTION For Status Conference by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
292 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles Edgar Tompkins on behalf of ALL PLAINTIFFS (Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
293 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
294 REPLY to Plaintiffs' Second Notification That They Seek Class−Wide Monetary Relief filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Attachments: # 1)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
295 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Motion for Status Conference filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON,

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 283 of 353

06/06/2005 06/09/2005
06/09/2005
06/13/2005 06/14/2005 06/16/2005 06/17/2005
06/20/2005 06/20/2005 06/21/2005 06/21/2005 06/21/2005 06/21/2005

CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
296 SURREPLY to re 295 Response to any document, Fort Berthold Movants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response filed by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Motion# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
297 REPLY to opposition to motion re 288 Suggestion of Lack of Jurisdiction filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
298 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Motion to File Surreply filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
299 RESPONSE to Fort Berthold Movants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Second Notification That They Seek Class−Wide Monetary Relief filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
300 NOTICE of Appearance by Anurag Varma on behalf of ALL PLAINTIFFS (Varma, Anurag) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
301 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injuction by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Llezlie L. Green# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 06/16/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court schedules a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction for Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 2:30 in Courtroom One. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion by no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, June 20, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 17, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
302 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 301 TRO filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit D# 4 Exhibit E# 5 Exhibit G# 6 Exhibit H# 7 Exhibit I# 8 Exhibit F)(Kelhoffer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
303 AFFIDAVIT re 302 Memorandum in Opposition to TRO − Exhibit C by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Kelhoffer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
304 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit F by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Ex. F)(Kelhoffer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 249 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Sarah Vogel may appear Pro Hac Vice in this matter. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 21, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 293 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice. Mr. James Francis and Mr. Robert Goodman are granted limited admission pro hac vice in this matter. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 21, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 304 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit F. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 21, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 06/21/2005)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 284 of 353

06/21/2005 06/22/2005 06/22/2005
06/22/2005 06/22/2005
07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/05/2005 07/11/2005 07/12/2005 07/13/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/15/2005 07/17/2005

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Motion for TROHearing held on 6/21/2005; Motion Hearing resumes on 6/22/2005 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
305 REPLY to opposition to motion re 301 in Support of Their Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Motion Hearing resumed on 6/22/2005. Plaintiff's supplemental Replies due by 7/1/2005. Government sur−reply due by 7//18/05; Joint Status Report due by 7/13/2005. Motion Hearing resumes on 7/20/2005 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
306 NOTICE of Joint Proposed Order by ANN M. VENEMAN re Motion Hearing, Set Hearings, Motion Hearing,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, (Kelhoffer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
MINUTE ORDER approving 306 the Joint Proposed Order submitted by the parties on June 22, 2005. Plaintiffs' reply shall be due on or before 7/1/05; Defendant's sur−reply shall be due on or before 7/18/05; the hearing on Plaintiffs' pending motion shall resume on 7/20/05 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 22, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
307 REPLY to opposition to motion re 301 Their Request For a Preliminary Injunction filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One# 2 Exhibit Two# 3 Exhibit Three# 4 Exhibit Four# 5 Exhibit Five# 6 Exhibit Six# 7 Exhibit Seven)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
308 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/22/05 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (td, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
309 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/21/05 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (td, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
310 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Exhibit to Their Reply in Support of Their Request for a Preliminary Injuction by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 307 Reply to opposition to Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mr. Smith's Running Case Record (UDSA File))(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
MINUTE ORDER amending the Minute Order issued 6/22/05. Defendant's sur−reply shall be filed by no later than 7:00 a.m. on 7/18/05. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on July 11, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/11/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. In order to accomodate a criminal trial in which the defendant is incarcerated, the Motions Hearing previously scheduled for 7/20/05 at 10:30 a.m. shall be continued to 7/22/05 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 12, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
311 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Status Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 311 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report. Status Report due on or before 7/15/05. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 14, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 7/15/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/16/2005)
312 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS, ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
313 SURREPLY to re 301 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injuction filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Kelhoffer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/17/2005)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 285 of 353

07/19/2005
07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/26/2005
07/27/2005 07/27/2005 07/27/2005
07/27/2005 07/27/2005 07/27/2005 07/28/2005 07/28/2005 07/28/2005

314 REPLY to Joint Status Report filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Motion Hearing held on 7/22/2005 ; Motion Hearing set for 7/28/2005 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Briefs due by all parties by 12:00 noon on 7/27/05; responses due by all parties by 10:00 a.m. 7/28/05(Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) Modified on 7/22/2005 (clv, ). (Entered: 07/22/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 7/28/2005 02:30 PM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. THIS IS A CORRECTION TO THE EARLIER DOCKET ENTRY. THE MOTION HEARING IS SET FOR 2:30 P.M. NOT 10:00 A.M. (clv, ) Modified on 7/22/2005 (clv, ). (Entered: 07/22/2005)
315 REPLY to Court's Inquiry regarding Stay filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Attachments: # 1)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
316 MEMORANDUM by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
317 RESPONSE to the Court's Proposed Stay filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. Defendants are requested to answer the following question by no later than 3:00 pm today: in the event that the Court adopts the defendant's proposal to provide class counsel with notice of accelerations of debt prior to any foreclosure proceedings, will "FSA attempt[] to work with [Mr. Smith] to find ways of managing the debt, including attempts at providing various loan servicing options" and will the State Civil Rights Review Group "assess whether discrimination has contributed to [Mr. Smith's] farm's failure" before proceeding with the proposed auction? See Def. Response to Alternative Stay Proposals at 3. Any reply to defendant's answer must be filed by no later than 5:00 p.m. today. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 27, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
318 MEMORANDUM by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
319 RESPONSE to Defendant's Response to Court's Inquiry Regarding Ronald Smith filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
320 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Response to Court's Inquiry Regarding Ronald Smith filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
321 RESPONSE to 317 Plaintiffs' Memorandum in response to the Court's proposed stay filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Kelhoffer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
322 REPLY to opposition to motion re 276 Alternative Stay Proposals filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
323 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing held on July 22, 2005 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (jf, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 286 of 353

07/28/2005 08/03/2005
08/16/2005 09/01/2005
09/01/2005 09/02/2005
09/09/2005 09/09/2005 09/16/2005

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Motion Hearing held on 7/28/2005; Motion Hearing set for 11/10/2005 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
324 ORDER denying 276 Motion to Stay, denying without prejudice 277 Motion for Reconsideration, denying without prejudice 288 Motion for Reconsideration, denying without prejudice 289 Motion for Reconsideration, denying as moot 291 Motion for a Status Conference, denying 301 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction and setting forth further instructions to counsel. It is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' pleading addressing the appropriateness of allowing movants to opt−out of the class shall be filed on or before 9/9/05; Fort Berthold Movants' response due by no later than 9/16/05; defendants' response due by no later than 10/19/05; a hearing on the plaintiff class' motion and the movants' right to opt−out of the class shall be held on November 10, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom One. It is further ORDERED that non−expert discovery shall conclude by no later than 2/24/06; plaintiffs' expert reports shall be due by no later than 3/31/06; defendant's expert reports shall be due by no later than 5/15/06; plaintiffs' rebuttal reports, if any, shall be due by no later than 6/15/06; and expert discovery shall conclude by no later than 6/15/06 if there are no rebuttal reports or 7/14/06 if there are rebuttal reports. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 3, 2005. (lcegs1) (lcegs1, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
325 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing held on July 28, 2005 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (lc, ) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
326 MOTION for Hearing Fourth Motion to Opt Out by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17 # 18 # 19 # 20 # 21 # 22 # 23 # 24)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
327 MEMORANDUM by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 326 Motion for Hearing Fourth Motion to Opt−Out. Movants are directed to refer to this Court's order of August 3, 2005, which set a briefing schedule by which movants were directed to respond to plaintiffs' pleading, due by 9/9/05, addressing the appropriateness of allowing movants to opt−out of the class. If movants wish this Court to consider their requests to opt−out of the class, movants are directed to respond to any arguments made by plaintiffs in plaintiffs' forthcoming pleading. As stated in the August 3, 2005 Minute Order, a hearing on this issue has been set for November 10, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 2, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
328 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Sixth Amended Complaint# 4 Appendix A# 5 Exhibit Fifth Amended Complaint)(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
329 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION OF ECONOMIC RELIEF CLAIMS by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3)(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
330 RESPONSE to 329 Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification of Economic Damages Claims filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 287 of 353

09/16/2005
09/16/2005
09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/26/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005

WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) Modified on 9/19/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 09/16/2005)
331 MOTION for Hearing Fifth Motion to Opt Out by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit Exhibit 20# 21 Exhibit Exhibit 21# 22 Exhibit Exhibit 22# 23 Exhibit Exhibit 23# 24 Exhibit Exhibit 24)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
332 MEMORANDUM re 331 MOTION for Hearing Fifth Motion to Opt Out filed by IVAN JOHNSON,, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR., EDWARD S. DANKS, SR., JAMES G. JOHNSON,, FRANK WHITECALFE,, ALVA ROSE HALL,, VIRGIL WILKINSON,, CHARLES WILKINSON,, WILBUR D. WILKINSON,, DENNIS SNOW,, ALFRED DRIVER, JR., GERALD DRIVER,, LESTER CROWS HEART,, TOM CROWS HEART,, EDGAR CROWS HEART,, SUSAN HALL,, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD,, THEODORE LONE FIGHT,, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
333 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 328 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
ORDER granting 333 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 328 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT. Responses due by 10/19/2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 23, 2005. (GK, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 10/19/2005 (clv, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
334 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 328 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, 329 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION OF ECONOMIC RELIEF CLAIMS by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 334 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 328 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, 329 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION OF ECONOMIC RELIEF CLAIMS filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. Defendant's Responses/Replies are now due on October 21, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 18, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
335 ENTERED IN ERROR.....Sixth AMENDED COMPLAINT against MIKE JOHANNSfiled by CLARYCA MANDAN.(td, ) Modified on 10/20/2005 (lc, ). (Entered: 10/19/2005)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 288 of 353

10/19/2005 10/19/2005
10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/21/2005 10/21/2005 10/26/2005 10/27/2005
10/28/2005 11/02/2005 11/02/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses/Replies due by 10/21/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
ORDER granting 334 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 328 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, 329 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION OF ECONOMIC RELIEF CLAIMS. Responses due by 10/21/2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 19, 2005. (GK, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 335 Amended Complaint was entered in error because the Motion to File has not been granted. (lc, ) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
336 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
337 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 328 For Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
338 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 329 Class Certification of Economic Relief Claims filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
ORDER granting 336 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Court extends page limitation for defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of Economic Relief Claims to 48 pages. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 26, 2005. (GK, ) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
339 RESPONSE to 342 Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of Economic Damages filed by JAMES G. JOHNSON, FRANK WHITECALFE, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR. (Howell, Richard) Modified on 11/8/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 10/27/2005)
340 MOTION to Compel Seven Hours of Deposition Time Per Topic for Depositions Noticed Pursuant to Federal Rule 30(B)(6) by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
341 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 328 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of Joseph M. Sellers# 3 Exhibit A to Sellers Declaration)(Tompkins, Charles) Modified on 11/8/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 11/02/2005)
342 REPLY re 329 TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION OF ECONOMIC RELIEF CLAIMS filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Tompkins, Charles) Modified on 11/8/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 11/02/2005)
343 MOTION to Strike 342 Reply to Document, 341 Reply to Document by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
344 NOTICE of Appearance by James W. Myart, Jr on behalf of WILBUR D. WILKINSON (Myart, James) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
345 NOTICE by ANN M. VENEMAN re 343 MOTION to Strike 342 Reply to Document, 341 Reply to Document (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
346 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 343 filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Tompkins, Charles) Modified on 11/8/2005 (nmw, ). (Entered: 11/08/2005)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 289 of 353

11/08/2005 11/08/2005
11/08/2005 11/08/2005 11/08/2005
11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/10/2005

347 NOTICE Of Medical Release For Counsel To Travel to DC To Appear Before The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan by CHARLES WILKINSON (Attachments: # 1)(Myart, James) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
348 MOTION for Hearing for Order Approving Withdrawal from Representation of Certain Cherokee Putative Plaintiffs/Movants Subject to Summary Adjudication after Hearing of Contingent Fee Interest and Related Matters by RICHARD L. HOWELL, JOE BYRD, CATHY ELLISON, PAULA HOBBS, BURNADEAN HUTCHINS, ALMA HUTCHINS, DALE HUTCHINS, RANDELL G. HUTCHINS, DICK E. LAY, BOB J. ROBERTSON, BOBBY G. ROBERTSON, TANDI M. ROBERTSON, HASTINGS SHADE, LORETTA SHADE, JAMES WALTERS, REGENIA WINKLE. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
349 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 340 to compel filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O)(Kelhoffer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of defendant's Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing 343 and plaintiffs' response thereto, defendant's motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 8, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
355 MOTION for Order Approving Withdrawal from Representation of Certain Cherokee Putative Plaintiffs/Movants Subject to Summary Adjudication after Hearing of Contingent Fee Interest and Related Matters by RICHARD L. HOWELL, JOE BYRD, CATHY ELLISON, PAULA HOBBS, BURNADEAN HUTCHINS, ALMA HUTCHINS, DALE HUTCHINS, RANDELL G. HUTCHINS, DICK E. LAY, BOB J. ROBERTSON, BOBBY G. ROBERTSON, TANDI M. ROBERTSON, HASTINGS SHADE, LORETTA SHADE, JAMES WALTERS, REGENIA WINKLE. (Please see Document No. 348 for scanned image). (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
350 NOTICE OF ERRATA by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 340 MOTION to Compel Seven Hours of Deposition Time Per Topic for Depositions Noticed Pursuant to Federal Rule 30(B)(6) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Corrected Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Seven Hours of Deposition Time Per Topic for Depositions Noticed Pursuant to Federal Rule 30(B)(6))(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
351 MOTION for Hearing for Order Approving Withdrawal from Representation of Certain Fort Berthold Movants Subject to Summary Adjudication after Hearing Granting Security for Contingent Fee by DENNIS SNOW, IVAN JOHNSON, RICHARD L. HOWELL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
352 MOTION for Order Disqualifying James W. Myart, Jr. As Counsel for Certain Fort Berthold Movants by DENNIS SNOW, IVAN JOHNSON, RICHARD L. HOWELL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Howell, Richard) Modified on 11/10/2005 (nmw, ). (Entered: 11/09/2005)
353 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL SEVEN HOURS OF DEPOSITION TIME PER TOPIC FOR DEPOSITIONS NOTICED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 30(B)(6) filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
354 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 352 Motion For Order Disqualifying James W. Myart, Jr. filed by WILBUR D. WILKINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Affidavit)(Myart, James) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
356 MOTION for Order Approving Withdrawal from Representation of Certain Fort Berthold Movants Subject to Summary Adjudication after Hearing Granting Security for Contingent Fee by DENNIS SNOW, IVAN JOHNSON, RICHARD L. HOWELL. (Please see Document No. 351 for scanned image). (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
357 ORDER. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint is GRANTED, subject to approval of plaintiffs' proposed discovery plan. Plaintiffs shall file their proposed discovery plan by November 22, 2005; Defendants shall respond by December 15, 2005. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Seven Hours of Deposition Time per Topic for Depositions Filed Pursuant to Federal Rule (30)(b)(6) is GRANTED.

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 290 of 353

11/10/2005
11/14/2005 11/14/2005 11/21/2005 11/22/2005 11/29/2005 12/07/2005 12/08/2005 12/12/2005
01/03/2006 01/11/2006 01/11/2006 01/13/2006

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of Economic Relief Claims is DENIED WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE WHATSOEVER, subject to reconsideration upon the conclusion of discovery. A Status Hearing is scheduled for January 20, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 10, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 10, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons stated in open court at the Motions Hearing held on November 10, 2005, and upon consideration of the Fort Berthold Movants' Fifth Motion to Opt Out, plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of Economic Relief Claims, and all the responses, and the replies thereto, and the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling in Eubanks v. Billington, the court concludes that the Movants' opt outs are permitted on a selective basis. Movants' motion Motion for Hearing is DENIED AS MOOT. An opinion will follow. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 10, 2005. (lcegs1) . (Entered: 11/10/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Motion Hearing held on 11/10/2005; chambers to file order; Status Hearing set for 1/20/06 at 11:00 a.m.; (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) Modified on 11/14/2005 (clv, ). (Entered: 11/14/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/20/2006 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
359 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/10/05 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (td, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
358 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR DISCOVERY OF USDAS GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3)(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
360 MOTION for Order for Entry of Court−Ordered Arbitration by RICHARD L. HOWELL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E − Order)(Howell, Richard) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
361 REPLY to opposition to motion re 360 To Enter Court−Ordered Arbitration filed by WILBUR D. WILKINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Myart, James) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
362 REPLY to opposition to motion re 360 Motion for Entry of Arbitration Order by Former Counsel filed by RICHARD L. HOWELL. (Howell, Richard) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
MINUTE ORDER denying Motion for Entry of Court−Ordered Arbitration, Motion for Hearing for Order Approving Withdrawal from Representation, and Motion for Order Disqualifying James W. Myart, Jr., without prejudice to commencement of fee dispute arbitration proceedings in the appropriate Texas fora. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 12, 2005. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Plan for Discovery of USDAS Guaranteed Loan Program, and defendants' lack of opposition thereto, which was due on December 15, 2005, plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 3, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
363 Emergency MOTION for Order To Reduce November 10, 2005 Opt−Out to Writing and Request For Expedited Ruling by WILBUR D. WILKINSON. (Attachments: # 1)(Myart, James) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
364 MOTION for expedited ruling by WILBUR D. WILKINSON. (see document no. 363 for image) (td, ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
365 RESPONSE to 363 Ft. Berthold Opted Out Claimants' Motion To Reduce Order to Writing filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Chambers, Felicia) Modified on 1/17/2006 (nmw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2006)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 291 of 353

01/18/2006
01/20/2006
01/20/2006
01/20/2006
01/22/2006 01/31/2006 02/13/2006 02/16/2006 02/24/2006
02/27/2006 03/09/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/21/2006 03/23/2006 04/05/2006 04/12/2006

366 REPLY to 363 , 364 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO FORT BERTHOLD OPT OUT ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMANTS TO REDUCE OPT OUT ORDER TO WRITING AND FOR EXPEDITED RULING filed by WILBUR D. WILKINSON. (Myart, James) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 1/20/2006. Status Conference set for 4/13/2006 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter William McAllister.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties will email to the Court their joint proposed discovery order in non−PDF format. A status hearing is scheduled for April 13, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 20, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
367 DISCOVERY ORDER. Non−Expert discovery concludes August 25, 2006; Plaintiffs' Expert Reports are due September 29, 2006; Defendant's Expert Reports are due December 15, 2006. Expert discovery concludes: on December 15, 2006 (if no rebuttal), or on January 29, 2007 (if rebuttal). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 20, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
368 NOTICE of Appearance by Marcia N. Tiersky on behalf of MIKE JOHANNS (Tiersky, Marcia) (Entered: 01/22/2006)
369 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Eli Zimmerman on behalf of MIKE JOHANNS (Zimmerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
370 Joint MOTION for Protective Order under the Privacy Act by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Privacy Act Protective Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
371 PRIVACY ACT PROTECTIVE ORDER setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 2/16/05. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
372 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4 − Part 1# 7 Exhibit 4 − Part 2# 8 Exhibit 4 − Part 3# 9 Exhibit 4 − Part 4# 10 Exhibit 5# 11 Exhibit 6# 12 Exhibit 7# 13 Exhibit 8)(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
373 NOTICE of Appearance by Amy E. Powell on behalf of MIKE JOHANNS (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
374 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by MIKE JOHANNS. (Tiersky, Marcia) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 374 Motion for Extension of Time. Response to plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is due April 7, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 10, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 4/7/2006 (clv, ) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
375 NOTICE of Appearance by Christine E. Webber on behalf of all plaintiffs (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
376 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 23, 2006. (lcegs1) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/23/2006 (lcegs1, ). (Entered: 03/23/2006)
377 Memorandum in opposition to re 372 Motion to Compel filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Romero Declaration# 3 Lasseter Declaration# 4 Privilege Log)(Tiersky, Marcia) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
378 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Tompkins, Charles) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 292 of 353

04/12/2006 04/12/2006 04/13/2006 04/13/2006
05/18/2006
06/28/2006 06/28/2006 06/29/2006
06/29/2006 06/30/2006 07/03/2006
07/05/2006 07/20/2006 07/24/2006
07/31/2006 07/31/2006 08/24/2006
09/15/2006

379 STATUS REPORT by MIKE JOHANNS. (Zimmerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
380 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WITHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. A status hearing is scheduled for June 29, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 13, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 4/13/2006. Status Conference set for 6/29/2006 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
381 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/13/06 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (td, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
382 STATUS REPORT by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Zimmerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
383 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 6/29/2006. Status Conference set for 9/28/2006 11:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
384 ORDER requesting supplemental briefing from defendant. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 29, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
385 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Brief by MIKE JOHANNS. (Tiersky, Marcia) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 385 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Pleading. Defendants' supplemental response is due no later than July 24, 2006, and plaintiffs' response, if any, is due no later than July 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 3, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 7/31/2006 Supplemental Memorandum due by 7/24/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
386 NOTICE of Change of Address by David Joseph Frantz (Frantz, David) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
387 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 372 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Romero# 2 Affidavit Hofeller# 3 Privilege Log)(Tiersky, Marcia) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
388 NOTICE of Change of Address by Phillip L. Fraas (Fraas, Phillip) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
389 RESPONSE to Defendant's Supplemental Filing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents Withheld Under the Deliberative Process Privilege filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
390 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Regarding Discovery Schedule by KEITH MANDAN, GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE, CLARYCA MANDAN, LUTHER CRASCO, JOHN FREDERICKS, GENE CADOTTE, BASIL ALKIRE. (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
391 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Scheduling Order by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Scheduling Order)(Tiersky, Marcia) (Entered: 09/15/2006)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 293 of 353

09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/19/2006
09/21/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/26/2006 09/26/2006 09/26/2006 09/27/2006 09/28/2006
09/28/2006 10/02/2006 10/05/2006
10/06/2006

392 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to Adopt Plaintiffs' Proposed Schedule by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion To Adopt Plaintiffs' Proposed Schedule# 2 Proposed Order)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
393 STATUS REPORT by MIKE JOHANNS. (to view document, click on link # 391 (jf, ) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
MINUTE ORDER directing both parties to file supplemental memoranda answering the following question: Should Defendants' assertion of deliberative process privilege be categorically denied for all documents because Plaintiffs' cause of action is directed at the government's intent? See In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Office of Comptroller of Currency, 145 F.3d 1422, 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("the privilege has no place in a Title VII action or in a constitutional claim for discrimination"); see also Wade v. WMATA, 2006 WL 890679, at *5 (D.D.C. 2006); Tri−State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 2005 WL 3447890, at *8 (D.D.C. 2005). The parties shall file memoranda of no longer than 5 pages, no later than 12:00 pm on September 25, 2006. The parties may file responses of no longer than 3 pages, no later than 12:00 pm on September 26, 2006. The parties should be prepared to discuss the question at the status conference set for September 28, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/19/06. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 9/26/2006, Memorandum due by 9/25/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
394 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM 377 in Opposition to MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE 372 to filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Zimmerman, Jonathan) Modified on 9/26/2006 (jf, ). (Entered: 09/25/2006)
395 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 372 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
396 RESPONSE re 394 Supplemental Memorandum re Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
397 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to Oppose Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Deliberative Process Privilege filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
398 Memorandum in opposition to re 391 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Scheduling Order filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
399 Memorandum in opposition to re 392 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to Adopt Plaintiffs' Proposed Schedule filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Tiersky, Marcia) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 9/28/2006. Status Conference set for 11/21/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Case will be referred to a Magistrate for settlement purposes, counsel shall notify Carol Votteler, Courtroom Deputy, as to the Magistrate.(Court Reporter WM. MCALLISTER.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for settlement. (Obrien, Peggy) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for Discovery. (jsc) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties are directed to jointly file a proposed order regarding the referral to Magistrate Judge Kay. The order shall outline the scope of the issues to be considered by Magistrate Judge Kay. The parties shall file their proposed order no later than October 10, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 5, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Order due by 10/10/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 294 of 353

10/10/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006
10/23/2006 10/26/2006 10/27/2006 10/31/2006 11/09/2006
11/10/2006 11/15/2006
11/16/2006
11/22/2006 11/28/2006 12/05/2006
12/05/2006 12/08/2006

400 NOTICE of Filing Joint Proposed Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS re Order, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
401 ORDER granting 372 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents Withheld Under the Deliberative Process Privilege. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 12, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
402 ORDER referring case to Magistrate Judge Kay for discovery matters and directing parties to file status reports to Magistrate Judge Kay. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 12, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 391 Defendant's Motion to Amend/Correct the Scheduling Order, and denying without prejudice 392 Plaintiffs' Motion to Adopt Plaintiffs' Proposed Schedule, because pending discovery disputes will be resolved by Magistrate Judge Kay. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 12, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
403 STATUS REPORT to the Magistrate by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 8/21/06 − Letter from Felicia Chambers to Christine Webber)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
404 STATUS REPORT to Magistrate Judge by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
405 MOTION For Schedule to Amend Complaint by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Varma, Anurag) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
406 Memorandum in opposition to re 405 MOTION For Schedule to Amend Complaint filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
407 TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on September 28, 2006 before Judge Emmet G.Sullivan. Court Reporter: William D. Mc Allister. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (jf, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
408 REPLY to opposition to motion re 405 MOTION For Schedule to Amend Complaint filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/10/2006)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Pursuant to the trial court's 402 10/12/2006 Order of Referral, a Status Conference is hereby set for Tuesday 11/28/2006 10:30 AM in Chambers (Room 1130) before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for the purpose of discussing disputed discovery matters. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 11/15/2006. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. The status conference before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan set for November 21, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. The status conference is rescheduled to December 15, 2006 at 12:30 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 16, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/15/2006 12:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: In Chambers Conference held on 11/28/2006. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
409 NOTICE of Defendant's Summary of Discovery Conference Before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' List of Outstanding Discovery# 2 Exhibit Defendant's Second Set of Request for the Production of Documents# 3 Exhibit FedEx Receipt of Delivery of Defendant's Second Set of Request for the Production of Documents)(Voltaire, Jean−Michel) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
410 NOTICE of Letter to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter to Magistrate Judge Kay)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
411 NOTICE by MIKE JOHANNS re 409 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 410 Notice (Other), In Chambers Conference (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 12/08/2006)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 295 of 353

12/12/2006 12/12/2006 12/14/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/18/2006
12/18/2006 12/18/2006 12/20/2006 01/04/2007 01/09/2007 01/11/2007 01/17/2007 01/19/2007 01/23/2007

412 NOTICE of Letter to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 411 Notice (Other) (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
413 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, in response to Notice of Filing Amended Complaint filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
414 MOTION to Amend/Correct 405 MOTION For Schedule to Amend Complaint by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Filing Seventh Amended Complaint# 2 Exhibit Seventh Amended Complaint)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
415 NOTICE of Appearance and Withdrawal of Appearance by MIKE JOHANNS (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
416 Memorandum in opposition to re 414 MOTION to Amend/Correct 405 MOTION For Schedule to Amend Complaint filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 12/15/2006. (Court Reporter: Elaine Merchant) (cdw) Modified on 12/20/2006 (cdw). (Entered: 12/18/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 414 Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Amend the Complaint for the reasons discussed in open court on December 15, and denying 405 Plaintiffs' Motion for Schedule to Amend Complaint as moot. Plaintiffs are hereby permitted to file the Seventh Amended Complaint and may substitute new named plaintiffs for class members George Keepseagle and Basile Alkire. In addition, the Court directs that plaintiff John Fredericks be deposed in North Dakota, either in person, or by telephone or video−conference. Finally, the parties are directed to jointly propose three dates for the next status conference, tentatively planned for February 2007. The parties' proposal is due no later than January 31, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 18, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Parties proposal regarding dates for the next scheduled Status Hearing due by 1/31/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
417 SEVENTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS.(jf, ) Modified on 12/20/2006 (jf, ). (Entered: 12/20/2006)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: The entry for the hearing held in this matter on 12/15/06 has been modified to reflect Judge Sullivan as the presidng Judge. (cdw) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
SCHEDULING ORDER: In−Chambers Conference set for 1/26/2007 10:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Please note that Judge Kay has recently moved to Room 2333 on the 2nd Floor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 1/04/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
418 TRANSCRIPT of A Hearing held on December 15, 2006 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (jf, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
419 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (7th) by MIKE JOHANNS. Related document: 417 Amended Complaint filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS,.(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
420 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to John Fredericks by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
MINUTE ORDER. Based on the parties' representations, the Court hereby schedules a status conference on February 26, 2007, at 9:30 AM. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 19, 2007. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
MINUTE ORDER: The In−Chambers Conference set for Friday, January 26, 2007 at 10:30 am before Judge Kay has been RESCHEDULED for 2:00 pm the same day. Please note that Judge Kay has recently moved to Room 2333 on the 2nd Floor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 1/23/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 296 of 353

01/24/2007 01/24/2007 01/26/2007 01/26/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007
03/08/2007
03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/21/2007 03/22/2007
03/22/2007
03/22/2007 04/06/2007
04/17/2007 05/03/2007
05/04/2007

Set/Reset Hearings : In Chambers Conference reset for 1/26/07 at 2:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
421 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric J. Soskin on behalf of MIKE JOHANNS (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
SCHEDULING ORDER: In−Chambers Conference set for Friday, March 9, 2007 at 2:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 1/26/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the proceedings scheduled before Magistrate Judge Kay, the status conference scheduled for February 26 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 26, 2007. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: In−Chambers Conference held on 1/26/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
MINUTE ORDER: Having considered the positions of both parties set forth during the in−chambers conference held on 1/26/2007, the Court hereby limits to 40 the number of additional borrower files that Plaintiffs may request from Defendant. This 40−file number includes any new borrower files requested by Plaintiffs since the parties' first meeting before this Court on 11/28/2006. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 2/9/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
422 MOTION to Compel Document Production by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: In−Chambers Conference held on 3/9/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
SCHEDULING ORDER: In−Chambers Conference set for Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 10:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 3/9/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
423 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 422 MOTION to Compel Document Production by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 423 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs' opposition to 422 defendants' motion to compel is due no later than April 6, 2007; defendants' reply is due no later than April 17, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 22, 2007. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 423 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 422 Defendant's Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs' Opposition due by 4/6/2007, Defendant's Reply due by 4/17/2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 3/22/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 4/6/2007,Replies due by 4/17/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
424 Memorandum in opposition to re 422 MOTION to Compel Document Production filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
425 REPLY to opposition to motion re 422 MOTION to Compel Document Production filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: K Mandan depo excerpts# 2 Exhibit 2 − ledger pages)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay : In Chambers Conference held on 5/3/2007. Parties are to confer on possible dates for a follow−up mediation and then contact chambers (ph: 202−354−3030).(lcak1, ) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
SCHEDULING ORDER: In Chambers Conference set for 7/26/2007 at 2:30 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 297 of 353

05/04/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007 05/09/2007
05/14/2007 05/29/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 08/21/2007
08/24/2007 08/27/2007 09/04/2007
09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007

on 5/4/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
426 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL as to MIKE JOHANNS. Substituting for attorney Zimmerman (Walker, C.) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
427 ORDER referring 422 defendant's motion to compel to Magistrate Judge Kay. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2007. (lcegs1) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
428 Joint MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Privacy Act by MIKE JOHANNSMotions referred to Alan Kay. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed by both parties)(Walker, C.) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
MOTIONS 422 MOTION to Compel Document Production REFERRED to Judge Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (admin, ) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
SCHEDULING ORDER: A Hearing on 422 Defendant's Motion to Compel Document Production is set for 5/29/2007 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. In the event of a scheduling conflict, parties are to contact chambers as soon as possible at (202) 354−3030. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 5/9/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
429 PRIVACY ACT PROTECTIVE ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 5/11/07. (Attachment: Exhibit A: Acknowledgment of Privacy Act Protective Order)(kk) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
Minute Entry for Motion Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 5/29/07 : Motion by Defendant MIKE JOHANNS to Compel Document Production 422 , heard, argued and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: Pro−Typists, Inc.; Ctrm. 7.) (kk) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
MINUTE ORDER: At Plaintiffs' request, and by consent of Defendant, the In Chambers Conference set for 7/26/2007 is RESCHEDULED for 8/23/2007 at 3:30 pm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 7/9/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : In Chambers Conference reset for 8/23/07 at 3:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
430 MOTION to Permit communication with non−class members by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 statement of points and authorities# 2 Exhibit Attachment 1# 3 Exhibit Attachment 2# 4 Exhibit Attachment 3# 5 Exhibit Attachment 4# 6 Exhibit Attachment 5# 7 Exhibit Attachment 6# 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
431 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 422 Defendant's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 8/24/07.(lcak1, ) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Settlement Conference held on 8/23/2007. (lcak1, ) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
432 Memorandum in opposition to re 430 MOTION to Permit communication with non−class members Plaintiffs' Response To Defendant's Motion For Permission To Communicate With Native American Farmers And Ranchers Who Are Not Class Members filed by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
433 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 430 MOTION to Permit communication with non−class members by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 433 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 430 MOTION to Permit Communication with Non−Class Members. Reply due by 9/28/2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 9/7/07. (lcak1) Modified on 9/10/2007 (nmw, ). (Entered: 09/07/2007)
434 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Appeal Magistrate's Discovery Order by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 09/07/2007)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 298 of 353

09/07/2007 09/10/2007 09/12/2007 09/12/2007
09/13/2007 09/13/2007
09/27/2007
09/27/2007 10/02/2007 10/09/2007
10/10/2007 10/11/2007
10/12/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007

435 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion held on May 29, 2007 before Judge Alan Kay. Court Reporter: Pro−Typists, Inc. Tape Number: M2000V/dac.The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (lc, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines : Reply by Defendant to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Permit Communication with Non−Class Members 430 due by 9/28/07. (kk) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
436 NOTICE of Change of Address by Anurag Varma (Varma, Anurag) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 434 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Appeal Magistrate's Discovery Order. The deadline for parties to file a Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Kay's August 24, 2007 Memorandum Order, pursuant to LCvR72.2(b), is extended to no later than September 13, 2007. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on September 12, 2007. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 9/13/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
437 MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Reconsideration# 2 Proposed Order# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit I# 12 Exhibit J# 13 Exhibit K# 14 Exhibit L# 15 Exhibit M# 16 Exhibit N)(Green, Llezlie) Modified on 9/14/2007 (lc, ). (Entered: 09/13/2007)
438 Memorandum in opposition to re 437 MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Defendant's Second RFP# 2 Exhibit 2 − Transcript of May 29, 2007 Hearing)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
439 REPLY to opposition to motion re 430 MOTION to Permit communication with non−class members filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
440 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 430 Defendant's Motion for Permission to Communicate. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/2/07. (lcak1) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
441 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File A Reply Brief In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration Of Magistrate Judge's Decision Granting−In−Part And Denying−In−Part Defendant's Motion To Compel Production Of Documents by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 441 plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Decision. Reply is due by no later than October 11, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 10, 2007. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
442 REPLY to opposition to motion re 437 MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
443 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eric J. Soskin# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
444 RESPONSE re 443 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Declaration of Llezlie L. Green)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 443 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant shall file their sur−reply by no later than October 24, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 299 of 353

10/17/2007 10/17/2007
10/19/2007 10/22/2007
10/24/2007
10/24/2007
11/01/2007 11/01/2007 12/11/2007 12/19/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007
12/21/2007 01/18/2008
01/18/2008

October 16, 2007. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
sur−reply due by 10/24/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
445 SURREPLY to re 437 MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Eric J. Soskin)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
446 STIPULATION Regarding Defendant's Counsel's Communications With Native American Farmers And Ranchers Who Are Not Class Members by MIKE JOHANNS. (Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
447 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Defendant's Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Response to Defendant's Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 447 plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendant's Sur−reply. Plaintiffs' response attached to their motion for leave is accepted as filed. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 24, 2007. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
448 RESPONSE to 445 SURREPLY to re 437 MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents MOTION for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (jf, ) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
SCHEDULING ORDER: In Chambers Conference set for 12/20/2007 02:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 11/1/07. (lcak1) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: In Chambers Conference held on 11/1/2007. (lcak1) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
449 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings to Dismiss Count III of the Amended Complaint by ANN M. VENEMAN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
450 NOTICE of Appearance by Sam Hirsch on behalf of all plaintiffs (Hirsch, Sam) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: In Chambers Conference held on 12/20/2007. (DM) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
SCHEDULING ORDER: In Chambers Conference set for 2/26/2008 at 04:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 12/20/07. (lcak1) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
451 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 451 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Plaintiffs' Response shall be filed by no later than January 18, 2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 21, 2007. (AS, ) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 1/18/2008 (dot, ) (Entered: 12/22/2007)
452 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply To Defendant's Renewed Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A − Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 452 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Responses due by 1/25/2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2008. (AS, ) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 300 of 353

01/23/2008 01/24/2008
01/25/2008 02/07/2008
02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008 02/13/2008 02/13/2008 02/14/2008 02/19/2008 02/28/2008 03/12/2008 03/17/2008 03/18/2008

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 1/25/2008 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
453 MOTION To Set a Briefing Schedule For Whether to Certify a Class As to Plaintiffs' Claims For Monetary Relief by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Setting Briefing Schedule, # 2 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Proposed Discovery Schedule as of Dec. 20, 2007, # 3 Exhibit B − Defendant's Proposed Discovery Schedule as of Dec. 20, 2007, # 4 Exhibit C − Excerpts from Transcript of Nov. 10, 2005)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
454 MOTION for Discovery on Civil Rights Office and Notice of Withdrawal of APA and Guaranteed−Loan Claims by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
455 Memorandum in opposition to re 453 MOTION To Set a Briefing Schedule For Whether to Certify a Class As to Plaintiffs' Claims For Monetary Relief filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
456 Memorandum in opposition to re 454 MOTION for Discovery on Civil Rights Office and Notice of Withdrawal of APA and Guaranteed−Loan Claims filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
457 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Eighth Amended Complaint by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Eighth Amended Complaint, # 2 Appendix A to Eighth Amended Complaint, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 457 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Eight Amended Complaint and denying as moot 449 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count III of the Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 11, 2008. (AS, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
460 EIGHTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(jf, ) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
MINUTE ORDER cancelling the in−chambers conference that was set for 2/26/08 at the request of counsel. The conference will now take place on 3/12/08 at 2:00 pm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 2/13/08. (lcak1) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
458 REPLY to opposition to motion re 453 MOTION To Set a Briefing Schedule For Whether to Certify a Class As to Plaintiffs' Claims For Monetary Relief filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
Set/Reset Hearings : In Chambers Conference reset for 3/12/08 at 2:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
459 REPLY to opposition to motion re 454 MOTION for Discovery on Civil Rights Office and Notice of Withdrawal of APA and Guaranteed−Loan Claims filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
461 Defendant's ANSWER to 460 Amended Complaint Eighth by MIKE JOHANNS. Related document: 460 Amended Complaint filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS.(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
MINUTE SCHEDULING ORDER setting an In Chambers Conference for 4/15/2008 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. For this conference only, the parties shall submit their status reports via fax to 202−354−3526. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 3/12/08. (lcak1) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting the parties joint oral request for a hearing on pending motions. The Court schedules a motions hearing for May 2, 2008 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 17, 2008. (AS) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 5/2/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/18/2008)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 301 of 353

03/24/2008 04/14/2008 04/15/2008 04/29/2008 05/16/2008
05/16/2008 05/16/2008 05/16/2008
05/19/2008

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: In Chambers Conference held on 3/12/2008. (lcak1) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, reschedules the Motions Hearing previously scheduled for May 2, 2008, to May 22, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties or counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 14, 2008. (AS, ) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 5/22/2008 02:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
462 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. (Minute Order dated 4/14/08) Mail sent to James Francis (clv, ) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. In anticipation of the Motions Hearing scheduled for May 22, 2008, plaintiffs' counsel is requested to respond to defendant's argument that plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery on the USDA's dismantling of its civil rights office in view of the D. C. Circuit's decisions in Love v. Garcia and Garcia v. Veneman, and to address the relevance of any such discovery to plaintiffs' ECOA claims. Plaintiffs response shall be no longer than five pages and shall be filed by no later than 5:00 pm on May 19, 2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 16, 2008. (AS) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 5/19/2008 (clv, ) Modified on 5/16/2008 (clv, ). (Entered: 05/16/2008)
463 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul March Smith on behalf of all plaintiffs (Smith, Paul) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
MINUTE ORDER amending and clarifying this Court's previous Minute Order dated May 16, 2008. Plaintiffs are requested to respond to defendants' argument that plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery on the USDA's dismantling of its civil rights office in view of the decisions in Love v. Johanns, 439 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2006) and Garcia v. Johanns, 444 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and to address the relevance of any such discovery to plaintiffs' ECOA claims. Plaintiffs response shall be no longer than five pages and shall be filed by no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 20, 2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 16, 2008. (AS) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
464 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Sam Hirsch, :Firm− Jenner and Block LLP, :Address− 601 13th NW Suite 1200 Washington DC 20005. Phone No. − 202−639−6000. Fax No. − 202−661−4900 by JOE GOOD ELK, KAY GULLICKSON, PHYLLIS GUNVILLE, ROMAN GUNVILLE, WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE, CASEY ED HALL, ESTHER M. HALL, ETHAN HALL, LELAND HALL, MERVEL HALL, BARB H. BAKER, TODD HALL, CATHERINE HALVER, DAVID J. HANLEY, SR, ALECIA HANSON, HENRY G. HARRISON, JAMES E. HARRISON, JOE HARRISON, LENORA HARRISON, DAVID D. HARRISON, SR, DAVID HAWLEY, JAMES L. BAKER, DAVID J. HAWLEY, JR, EDGAR HEART, DORA HELGESON, GENE HELGESON, KENNETH HELGESON, RAY HELGESON, DANILE HENRY, FRANK HENRY, DENNIS HUBER, MICHAEL HUBER, DELPHINE BAKER, MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, EDWARD S. IRON, DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD, FAITH IRON CLOUD, RALPH K. IRON, JR, JOHN L. JAMES, RAYMOND JETTY, JR, JAMES G. JOHNSON, MARCIE KAHL, WADE KEEPSEAGLE, JEFFERSON B. BAKER, ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY, TED KNIFE, SR, EDITH P. KNIGHT, STORMY KOSEL, BARBARA LANDE, JEANNE R. LANDE, PAUL A. LANDE, JR, PAUL A. LANDE, SR, ROSS LAWRENCE, DAISY LECOMPTE, KYLE BAKER, NICK LEINGANG, JR, ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER, COBY LITTLE SOLDIER, DALE LITTLE SOLDIER, NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER, ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER, NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW, ERNEST LIZOTTE, RONNIE LONG, RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER, CAROL T. BALLEW, ADAM T. MANDAN, KEITH MANDAN, FLORENCE MATTE, WARREN MATTE, SR, KEN MAXON, WAYNE E. MAXON, DONALD MCGHEE, PATT MCLAUGHLIN, FAY A. MOBERG, CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT, CHARLIE BEAR, III, WILLIAM T. MULLENBERG, JOAN M. NETTERVILLE, KURT P. NETTERVILLE, SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE, DELLA NO HEART, GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU, WILLIAM P. PEASE, DONNA RAE PETERSEN, JAMES D. PICOTTE, JOHN J. RABBITHEAD, JR, LEONARD BEAR KING, MICHAEL REDSTONE, ROSELYN

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 302 of 353

05/19/2008
05/20/2008 05/20/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008

SAND, DARREL H. SMITH, DUANE A. SMITH, FARRELL SMITH, HOWARD B. SMITH, RODNEY J. SMITH, TERRY M. SMITH, TOM SMITH, VINA SMITH, GEORGE BELL, WILLIAM SMITH, ROBERT DARREL SMITH, III, ROBERT D. SMITH, JR, GLASCO R. SPRIGGS, DOUG STANGEL, PHILOMENA STONE, RICHARD P. STONE, FRANK D. THOMPSON, LLOYD THOMPSON, SR, SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK, GEORGE B. BELL, GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE, ALBERT R. TWO BEARS, KAROL TWO BEARS, G. PATTY VALANDRA, ARNOLD WALKER, MARTIN WALKER, CLIFF WALKING ELK, SCOTT WALTERS, LORETTA WALTON, PATRICK WALTON, STEPHEN WALTON, HARRY BENALLY, T. ED WALTON, MARLENE WHIPPLE, STANLEY WHIPPLE, RICHARD A. WHITE, FRANK WHITECALFE, LARRY D. WHITEMAN, LYMAN M. YOUNG, ALL PLAINTIFFS, CLARICE BENDER, LEANN BENDER, CHANNON D. BIGHORN, ERNEST C. BIGHORN, ROGER M. BIRD BEAR, JAMES BIRDTAIL, III, THOMAS BLACK HAWK, GABE E. BLACK MOON, SR, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, FRANK WHITE CALFE, JAMES JOHNSON, JR, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, CLARYCA MANDAN, RONALD C. BROWNOTTER, LUTHER CRASCO, KOTY BRUGH, ROBIN BURRITT, MARGARETT CAMPBELL, MAUREEN E. CARSON, THERESA CHARGING, GEORGE DUANE CHARGING, STANLEY CHARGING, KENNETH CHARGING, SR, BRENT LONG CHASE, CHARLES CLAMPITT, JOHN FREDERICKS, CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE, MIKE CLAYMORE, SAMUEL CLAYMORE, JR, LEONARD M. COOK, MARVIN COTA, GLEN CUDMORE, CLAYTON DANKS, CURTIS DANKS, CYNTHIA F. DANKS, LYLE C. DANKS, GENE CADOTTE, RHONDA J. DANKS, RICHARD DANKS, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR, ADELINA DEFENDER, PALMER DEFENDER, STEVE DEFENDER, LOUIS DUBRAY, ALLEN DUCHENEAUX, DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX, BASIL ALKIRE, ED DUCHENEAUX, ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX, FRANK DUCHENEAUX, JESS DUCHENEAUX, LARRY DUCHENEAUX, LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX, MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX, RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX, ROMAN DUCHENEAUX, JEROME K. ALKIRE, RONNIE DUCHENEAUX, THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, DWAYNE J. EAGLE, BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR, MARSHA ELK, JERRY ROBERT FARLEE, EDWARD J. FILESTEEL, GLORIA FISCHER, MELISSA R. FISCHER, TERRANCE FISCHE, LEROY J. AMES, THOMAS W. FISCHER, JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE, SR, ADRIAN FOOT, SR, ANTHONY B. FOX, GLEN CHARLES FOX, JR, EDWARD C. FOX, PAULA DANKS, BILLY J. FREDERICKS, ELMER FREDERICKS, JUDY FREDERICKS, JAMES ANDERSON, JUSTIN FREDERICKS, LOREN FREDERICKS, PAT FREDERICKS, PAUL J. FREDERICKS, PETE E. FREDERICKS, TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS, KENNETH L. FREDERICKS, JR, ROMEY A. GARREAU, JAMES J. GARRETT, ZANE GIPP, SIDNEY BAILEY, SR (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael T. Brody, # 2 Declaration of Ryan K Harding, # 3 Declaration of Anne E Ralph, # 4 Declaration of Amy D Wills, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirsch, Sam) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 464 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Michael T. Brody, Ryan K. Harding, Anne E. Ralph and Amy D. Wills are admitted to practice before the Court for purposes of this action. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 19, 2008. (AS) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 5/20/2008 (clv, ) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
465 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT Directing Plaintiffs to Respond to Arguments on Discovery on Civil Rights Office filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
466 STATUS REPORT by Defendant by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 5/22/2008. Status Conference set for 9/8/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. OTBP (Court Reporter JACKIE SULLIVAN.) (clv, )

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 303 of 353

05/27/2008
05/27/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/10/2008 06/27/2008 06/30/2008 07/02/2008 08/27/2008 09/05/2008 09/05/2008
09/08/2008 09/08/2008
09/09/2008 09/10/2008
09/15/2008
09/15/2008

(Entered: 05/22/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the Motions Hearing held on May 23, 2008, the Court denies 437 plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration re 431 Order on Motion to Compel. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 454 plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery on Civil Rights Office is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in view of the parties' representations that they are working to resolve the scope of that discovery. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 453 defendant's Motion to Set a Briefing Schedule is DENIED. All discovery will close May 22, 2009. A Status Hearing is scheduled for September 8, 2008 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 27, 2008. (AS, ) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 5/22/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
467 NOTICE of Change of Address by Sam Hirsch (Hirsch, Sam) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
468 NOTICE of Change of Address by Paul March Smith (Smith, Paul) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
469 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Minute Order dated 5/27/08. Mail sent to James N. Francis (clv, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
470 NOTICE of Appearance by Carrie F Apfel on behalf of all plaintiffs (Apfel, Carrie) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
471 MOTION to Withdraw Ann Ralph as Counsel for Plaintiffs by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Smith, Paul) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 471 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 2, 2008. (AS, ) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
472 MOTION to Compel Document Production by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A − Subpoena, # 3 Exhibit B − Response to Subpoena)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
473 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Plaintiffs' Proposed Schedule, # 2 Exhibit B Anderson v. Ramsey)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
474 Memorandum in opposition to re 472 MOTION to Compel Document Production William Whiting's Response To Defendant's Motion to Compel Document Production filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
475 STATUS REPORT by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 9/8/2008, Responses due by 6:00 P.M. on 9/10/2008, Status Conference set for 9/16/2008 03:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter JACKIE SULLIVAN.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
NOTICE re 475 Status Report; emailed to felicia.chambers@usdoj.gov, cc'd 37 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Discovery documents may not be filed (LcvR 5.2) (jf, ) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
476 RESPONSE re: 475 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Response To Defendant's September 8, 2008 Status Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Sellers, Joseph) Modified entry title and link on 9/11/2008 (nmw, ). (Entered: 09/10/2008)
MINUTE ORDER, Status Conference is now set for 10/8/2008 04:45 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The previously scheduled Status Hearing date of 9/16/08 is vacated.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/15/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
477 REPLY to opposition to motion re 472 MOTION to Compel Document Production filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpt from Plaintiffs' Potential Trial Witnesses)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 304 of 353

09/19/2008 09/22/2008 09/25/2008 09/25/2008 10/02/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008
10/06/2008 10/07/2008 10/07/2008
11/07/2008 11/10/2008 11/11/2008 11/13/2008

478 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Tenny on behalf of ALL PLAINTIFFS (Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
479 MOTION for Reconsideration re Status Conference,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
480 NOTICE of Filing Summary of Fees and Costs by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Record of Time and Expenses)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
481 Memorandum in opposition to re 479 MOTION for Reconsideration re Status Conference,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
482 REPLY to opposition to motion re 479 MOTION for Reconsideration re Status Conference,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
483 NOTICE Notice Of Filing Corrected Exhibit To Plaintiffs' September 10, 2008 Status Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 476 Status Report, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
484 STATUS REPORT re: Document Preservation by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Beyerhelm, # 2 Exhibit A to Beterhelm, # 3 Declaration Hawkinson, # 4 Exhibit A to Hawkinson, # 5 Exhibit B to Hawkinson, # 6 Exhibit C to Hawkinson, # 7 Exhibit D pt 1 to Hawkinson, # 8 Exhibit D pt 2 to Hawkinson, # 9 Exhibit E to Hawkinson, # 10 Exhibit F pt 1 to Hawkinson, # 11 Exhibit F pt 1 to Hawkinson, # 12 Exhibit G to Hawkinson, # 13 Exhibit H to Hawkinson, # 14 Exhibit I to Hawkinson, # 15 Exhibit J to Hawkinson, # 16 Exhibit K to Hawkinson, # 17 Exhibit L to Hawkinson, # 18 Exhibit M to Hawkinson, # 19 Exhibit N to Hawkinson, # 20 Exhibit O to Hawkinson, # 21 Declaration Colleen Snyder, # 22 Exhibit A to Snyder, # 23 Exhibit B to Snyder, # 24 Exhibit C to Snyder, # 25 Exhibit D to Snyder, # 26 Exhibit E to Snyder, # 27 Exhibit F to Snyder, # 28 Exhibit G to Snyder, # 29 Exhibit H to Snyder, # 30 Exhibit I to Snyder, # 31 Exhibit J to Snyder, # 32 Exhibit K to Snyder, # 33 Declaration Johnny Toles, # 34 Declaration Germaine Jones, # 35 Declaration Christopher Smith, # 36 Declaration Sharon Sachs, # 37 Declaration Kathleen Miller, # 38 Declaration Duane Miller, # 39 Declaration Michael Hinton, # 40 Declaration Douglas Jones, # 41 Exhibit Isler Deposition, # 42 Declaration Danita Stanton, # 43 Declaration Lisa Wilusz, # 44 Declaration Sherie Hinton Henry)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
485 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
MINUTE ORDER, Status Conference is now set for 10/15/2008 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan THE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED STATUS HEARING DATE OF 10/8/08 IS VACATED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/7/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
MINUE ORDER, Due to the Court's schedule the Status Conference is now set for 11/13/2008 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. THE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED STATUS HEARING DATE OF 10/15/08 IS VACATED.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/7/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
PLEASE DISREGARD MESSAGE*****NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 149 Notice of Change of Address was entered in error and re−filed by counsel as # 150 .(jf, ) Modified on 11/7/2008 (jf, ). (Entered: 11/07/2008)
486 STATUS REPORT by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
487 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/11/2008)
488 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Charles E. Tompkins by JOE GOOD ELK, KAY GULLICKSON, PHYLLIS GUNVILLE, ROMAN GUNVILLE, WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE, CASEY ED HALL, ESTHER M. HALL, ETHAN HALL, LELAND

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 305 of 353
HALL, MERVEL HALL, BARB H. BAKER, TODD HALL, CATHERINE HALVER, DAVID J. HANLEY, SR, ALECIA HANSON, HENRY G. HARRISON, JAMES E. HARRISON, JOE HARRISON, LENORA HARRISON, DAVID D. HARRISON, SR, DAVID HAWLEY, JAMES L. BAKER, DAVID J. HAWLEY, JR, EDGAR HEART, DORA HELGESON, GENE HELGESON, KENNETH HELGESON, RAY HELGESON, DANILE HENRY, FRANK HENRY, DENNIS HUBER, MICHAEL HUBER, DELPHINE BAKER, MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, EDWARD S. IRON, DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD, FAITH IRON CLOUD, RALPH K. IRON, JR, JOHN L. JAMES, RAYMOND JETTY, JR, JAMES G. JOHNSON, MARCIE KAHL, WADE KEEPSEAGLE, JEFFERSON B. BAKER, ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY, TED KNIFE, SR, EDITH P. KNIGHT, STORMY KOSEL, BARBARA LANDE, JEANNE R. LANDE, PAUL A. LANDE, JR, PAUL A. LANDE, SR, ROSS LAWRENCE, DAISY LECOMPTE, KYLE BAKER, NICK LEINGANG, JR, ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER, COBY LITTLE SOLDIER, DALE LITTLE SOLDIER, NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER, ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER, NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW, ERNEST LIZOTTE, RONNIE LONG, RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER, CAROL T. BALLEW, ADAM T. MANDAN, KEITH MANDAN, FLORENCE MATTE, WARREN MATTE, SR, KEN MAXON, WAYNE E. MAXON, DONALD MCGHEE, PATT MCLAUGHLIN, FAY A. MOBERG, CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT, CHARLIE BEAR, III, WILLIAM T. MULLENBERG, JOAN M. NETTERVILLE, KURT P. NETTERVILLE, SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE, DELLA NO HEART, GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU, WILLIAM P. PEASE, DONNA RAE PETERSEN, JAMES D. PICOTTE, JOHN J. RABBITHEAD, JR, LEONARD BEAR KING, MICHAEL REDSTONE, ROSELYN SAND, DARREL H. SMITH, DUANE A. SMITH, FARRELL SMITH, HOWARD B. SMITH, RODNEY J. SMITH, TERRY M. SMITH, TOM SMITH, VINA SMITH, GEORGE BELL, WILLIAM SMITH, ROBERT DARREL SMITH, III, ROBERT D. SMITH, JR, GLASCO R. SPRIGGS, DOUG STANGEL, PHILOMENA STONE, RICHARD P. STONE, FRANK D. THOMPSON, LLOYD THOMPSON, SR, SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK, GEORGE B. BELL, GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE, ALBERT R. TWO BEARS, KAROL TWO BEARS, G. PATTY VALANDRA, ARNOLD WALKER, MARTIN WALKER, CLIFF WALKING ELK, SCOTT WALTERS, LORETTA WALTON, PATRICK WALTON, STEPHEN WALTON, HARRY BENALLY, T. ED WALTON, MARLENE WHIPPLE, STANLEY WHIPPLE, RICHARD A. WHITE, FRANK WHITECALFE, LARRY D. WHITEMAN, LYMAN M. YOUNG, ALL PLAINTIFFS, CLARICE BENDER, LEANN BENDER, CHANNON D. BIGHORN, ERNEST C. BIGHORN, ROGER M. BIRD BEAR, JAMES BIRDTAIL, III, THOMAS BLACK HAWK, GABE E. BLACK MOON, SR, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, FRANK WHITE CALFE, JAMES JOHNSON, JR, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, CLARYCA MANDAN, RONALD C. BROWNOTTER, LUTHER CRASCO, KOTY BRUGH, ROBIN BURRITT, MARGARETT CAMPBELL, MAUREEN E. CARSON, THERESA CHARGING, GEORGE DUANE CHARGING, STANLEY CHARGING, KENNETH CHARGING, SR, BRENT LONG CHASE, CHARLES CLAMPITT, JOHN FREDERICKS, CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE, MIKE CLAYMORE, SAMUEL CLAYMORE, JR, LEONARD M. COOK, MARVIN COTA, GLEN CUDMORE, CLAYTON DANKS, CURTIS DANKS, CYNTHIA F. DANKS, LYLE C. DANKS, GENE CADOTTE, RHONDA J. DANKS, RICHARD DANKS, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR, ADELINA DEFENDER, PALMER DEFENDER, STEVE DEFENDER, LOUIS DUBRAY, ALLEN DUCHENEAUX, DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX, BASIL ALKIRE, ED DUCHENEAUX, ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX, FRANK DUCHENEAUX, JESS DUCHENEAUX, LARRY DUCHENEAUX, LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX, MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX, RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX, ROMAN DUCHENEAUX, JEROME K. ALKIRE, RONNIE DUCHENEAUX, THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, DWAYNE J. EAGLE, BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR, MARSHA ELK, JERRY ROBERT FARLEE, EDWARD J. FILESTEEL, GLORIA FISCHER, MELISSA R. FISCHER, TERRANCE FISCHE, LEROY J. AMES, THOMAS W. FISCHER, JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE, SR, ADRIAN FOOT, SR, ANTHONY B. FOX, GLEN CHARLES FOX, JR, EDWARD C. FOX, PAULA

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 306 of 353

11/13/2008 11/13/2008
11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008 11/21/2008 12/02/2008 12/05/2008 12/16/2008 01/15/2009 01/26/2009

DANKS, BILLY J. FREDERICKS, ELMER FREDERICKS, JUDY FREDERICKS, JAMES ANDERSON, JUSTIN FREDERICKS, LOREN FREDERICKS, PAT FREDERICKS, PAUL J. FREDERICKS, PETE E. FREDERICKS, TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS, KENNETH L. FREDERICKS, JR, ROMEY A. GARREAU, JAMES J. GARRETT, ZANE GIPP, SIDNEY BAILEY, SR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 11/13/2008, Motion to Compel is denied; Status Conference set for 1/28/2009 12:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. OTBP (Court Reporter JACKIE SULLIVAN.) (clv, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the status hearing held on November 13, 2008, the parties are directed to file an appropriate protective order by no later than November 18, 2008. The plaintiffs are further directed to submit to the Court a proposed amended scheduling order by no later than November 18, 2008. Substantially for the reasons advanced by the plaintiffs, the defendant's 472 Motion to Compel Document Production is hereby DENIED. The defendant's 479 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Regarding Attorney's Fees and Costs is taken under advisement. Discovery disputes shall be resolved by the Court depending on the Court's availability. In the event that the Court is unavailable to resolve any such dispute, the issue shall be referred to the Honorable Alan Kay for resolution. The parties are further directed to appear at a status hearing in Courtroom 24A on January 28, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 13, 2008. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: amended scheduling order due by 11/13/2008. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
489 NOTICE of Firm Name Change by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
490 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
491 RESPONSE re 490 Notice (Other) filed by MIKE JOHANNS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Kenneth L. Nagel, # 2 Exhibit B − Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 488 Motion to Withdraw Charles E. Tompkins as Attorney in this matter. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 17, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
492 NOTICE of Jointly Filing Protective Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS re Order,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Protective Order)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
493 NOTICE of Change of Address by Phillip L. Fraas (Fraas, Phillip) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
494 PROTECTIVE ORDER setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/28/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
495 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MIKE JOHANNS. Attorney Marcia N. Tiersky terminated. (Tiersky, Marcia) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
496 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Declaration re 484 Status Report by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Douglas Jones (Supplemental))(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
497 NOTICE of Providing Witness List by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
498 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order re: Schedule, # 2 Text of Proposed Order re: Electronically Stored Information, # 3 Exhibit A November 13, 2008 Transcript)(Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 307 of 353

01/26/2009
01/28/2009 02/02/2009
02/03/2009 02/03/2009 02/12/2009 02/18/2009

MINUTE ORDER. The Court will be in a jury trial on 1/28/09 and will be unable to meet with counsel. Counsel should submit to Chambers three (3) proposed dates and times to reschedule the status hearing scheduled for 1/28/09. Chambers apologize for any inconvenience. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 26, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
499 NOTICE (filed jointly on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendant) of Availability for Status Conference by MIKE JOHANNS (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to trial starting on 2/3/09, the Court is unable to accommodate the parties' suggested status hearing schedule. A status hearing is set for 2/27/09 at 3pm. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 2, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 2/27/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
500 Joint MOTION for Order Amending Schedule by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
501 NOTICE of Filing Declaration of Christopher L. Smith by ANN M. VENEMAN re 484 Status Report,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher L. Smith)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
502 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to JOE GOOD ELK, KAY GULLICKSON, PHYLLIS GUNVILLE, ROMAN GUNVILLE, WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE, CASEY ED HALL, ESTHER M. HALL, ETHAN HALL, LELAND HALL, MERVEL HALL, BARB H. BAKER, TODD HALL, CATHERINE HALVER, DAVID J. HANLEY, SR, ALECIA HANSON, HENRY G. HARRISON, JAMES E. HARRISON, JOE HARRISON, LENORA HARRISON, DAVID D. HARRISON, SR, DAVID HAWLEY, JAMES L. BAKER, DAVID J. HAWLEY, JR, EDGAR HEART, DORA HELGESON, GENE HELGESON, KENNETH HELGESON, RAY HELGESON, DANILE HENRY, FRANK HENRY, DENNIS HUBER, MICHAEL HUBER, DELPHINE BAKER, MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, EDWARD S. IRON, DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD, FAITH IRON CLOUD, RALPH K. IRON, JR, JOHN L. JAMES, RAYMOND JETTY, JR, JAMES G. JOHNSON, MARCIE KAHL, WADE KEEPSEAGLE, JEFFERSON B. BAKER, ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY, TED KNIFE, SR, EDITH P. KNIGHT, STORMY KOSEL, BARBARA LANDE, JEANNE R. LANDE, PAUL A. LANDE, JR, PAUL A. LANDE, SR, ROSS LAWRENCE, DAISY LECOMPTE, KYLE BAKER, NICK LEINGANG, JR, ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER, COBY LITTLE SOLDIER, DALE LITTLE SOLDIER, NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER, ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER, NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW, ERNEST LIZOTTE, RONNIE LONG, RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER, CAROL T. BALLEW, ADAM T. MANDAN, KEITH MANDAN, FLORENCE MATTE, WARREN MATTE, SR, KEN MAXON, WAYNE E. MAXON, DONALD MCGHEE, PATT MCLAUGHLIN, FAY A. MOBERG, CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT, CHARLIE BEAR, III, WILLIAM T. MULLENBERG, JOAN M. NETTERVILLE, KURT P. NETTERVILLE, SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE, DELLA NO HEART, GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU, WILLIAM P. PEASE, DONNA RAE PETERSEN, JAMES D. PICOTTE, JOHN J. RABBITHEAD, JR, LEONARD BEAR KING, MICHAEL REDSTONE, ROSELYN SAND, DARREL H. SMITH, DUANE A. SMITH, FARRELL SMITH, HOWARD B. SMITH, RODNEY J. SMITH, TERRY M. SMITH, TOM SMITH, VINA SMITH, GEORGE BELL, WILLIAM SMITH, ROBERT DARREL SMITH, III, ROBERT D. SMITH, JR, GLASCO R. SPRIGGS, DOUG STANGEL, PHILOMENA STONE, RICHARD P. STONE, FRANK D. THOMPSON, LLOYD THOMPSON, SR, SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK, GEORGE B. BELL, GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE, ALBERT R. TWO BEARS, KAROL TWO BEARS, G. PATTY VALANDRA, ARNOLD WALKER, MARTIN WALKER, CLIFF WALKING ELK, SCOTT WALTERS, LORETTA WALTON, PATRICK WALTON, STEPHEN WALTON, HARRY BENALLY, T. ED WALTON, MARLENE WHIPPLE, STANLEY WHIPPLE, RICHARD A. WHITE, FRANK WHITECALFE, LARRY D. WHITEMAN, LYMAN M. YOUNG, ALL PLAINTIFFS, CLARICE BENDER, PHIL GIVENS, LEANN BENDER, CHANNON D. BIGHORN, ERNEST C. BIGHORN, ROGER M. BIRD BEAR, JAMES BIRDTAIL, III, THOMAS BLACK HAWK, GABE E. BLACK MOON, SR, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 308 of 353

02/18/2009 02/18/2009 02/23/2009 02/24/2009
02/24/2009 03/03/2009 03/03/2009 03/03/2009
03/04/2009 03/11/2009

WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, FRANK WHITE CALFE, JAMES JOHNSON, JR, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, CLARYCA MANDAN, MIKE JOHANNS, RONALD C. BROWNOTTER, LUTHER CRASCO, KOTY BRUGH, ROBIN BURRITT, MARGARETT CAMPBELL, MAUREEN E. CARSON, THERESA CHARGING, GEORGE DUANE CHARGING, STANLEY CHARGING, KENNETH CHARGING, SR, BRENT LONG CHASE, CHARLES CLAMPITT, JOHN FREDERICKS, CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE, MIKE CLAYMORE, SAMUEL CLAYMORE, JR, LEONARD M. COOK, MARVIN COTA, GLEN CUDMORE, CLAYTON DANKS, CURTIS DANKS, CYNTHIA F. DANKS, LYLE C. DANKS, GENE CADOTTE, RHONDA J. DANKS, RICHARD DANKS, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR, ADELINA DEFENDER, PALMER DEFENDER, STEVE DEFENDER, LOUIS DUBRAY, ALLEN DUCHENEAUX, DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX, BASIL ALKIRE, ED DUCHENEAUX, ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX, FRANK DUCHENEAUX, JESS DUCHENEAUX, LARRY DUCHENEAUX, LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX, MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX, RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX, ROMAN DUCHENEAUX, JEROME K. ALKIRE, RONNIE DUCHENEAUX, THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, DWAYNE J. EAGLE, BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR, MARSHA ELK, JERRY ROBERT FARLEE, EDWARD J. FILESTEEL, GLORIA FISCHER, MELISSA R. FISCHER, TERRANCE FISCHE, LEROY J. AMES, THOMAS W. FISCHER, JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE, SR, ADRIAN FOOT, SR, ANTHONY B. FOX, GLEN CHARLES FOX, JR, EDWARD C. FOX, PAULA DANKS, BILLY J. FREDERICKS, ELMER FREDERICKS, JUDY FREDERICKS, JAMES ANDERSON, JUSTIN FREDERICKS, LOREN FREDERICKS, PAT FREDERICKS, PAUL J. FREDERICKS, PETE E. FREDERICKS, TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS, KENNETH L. FREDERICKS, JR, ROMEY A. GARREAU, JAMES J. GARRETT, ZANE GIPP, SIDNEY BAILEY, SR. Attorney Sam Hirsch terminated. (Hirsch, Sam) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
503 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine Amy Fallow on behalf of all plaintiffs (Fallow, Katherine) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
504 NOTICE of Appearance by Jessica Ring Amunson on behalf of all plaintiffs (Amunson, Jessica) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
505 NOTICE Of Attorney Name Change by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE (Coleman, Llezlie) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
MINUTE ORDER : Due to an on−going trial the status hearing scheduled for 2/27/09 is vacated. The Status Conference is now set for 3/6/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Please excuse the inconvenience.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 2/24/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 505 Notice (Other); emailed to lgreen@cohenmilstein.com, cc'd 39 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Please contact Sherryl Horn (Atty Admisson Clerk) @ 354−3107 (jf, ) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
506 Unopposed MOTION Reschedule Status Conference by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
507 Joint MOTION for Order Regarding the Inadvertent Production of Privileged Documents by MIKE JOHANNS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 506 Unopposed Motion to Reschedule Status Conference. The Court will not be available on 3/9/09 due to trial. Status conference is scheduled for 3/13/09 at 11 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 3, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/13/2009 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/13/2009 at 11:00 am was moved to 12:45 pm instead in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Entered:

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 309 of 353

03/12/2009 03/12/2009 03/13/2009
03/16/2009
03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 04/03/2009 04/14/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/17/2009
04/20/2009 04/20/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/24/2009

03/11/2009)
508 STATUS REPORT by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
509 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Status Report by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Revised Proposed Order re Schedule March 2009, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Transcript of Status Conference)(Coleman, Llezlie) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 3/13/2009. Further Status Conference set for 4/28/2009 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Jackie Sullivan.) (tth) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 500 Motion for Order Regarding the Inadvertant Production of Privilged documents ; granting 507 Motion for Joint Proposed Scheduling Order. The Court orally granted these to motions in the status hearing on March 13, 2008. The Court grants those two orders as proposed by the parties. Defendants motion for additional depositions is DENIED. The next status hearing will be on 4/28/2009 at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 16, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
510 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER, Discovery due by 5/22/2009. Setting forth further instruction to counsel.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/16/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
511 STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING THE INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/16/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/28/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
512 MOTION To Resolve Dispute Regarding An Order on Production of Expert Reports by ANN M. VENEMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
513 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Llezlie Green Coleman on behalf of ALL PLAINTIFFS (Coleman, Llezlie) Modified on 4/15/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 04/14/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 513 Notice of Appearance was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading using their assigned password/login. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
514 NOTICE of Appearance by Victoria S. Nugent on behalf of ALL PLAINTIFFS (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
515 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 512 MOTION To Resolve Dispute Regarding An Order on Production of Expert Reports by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 515 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Plaintiffs' response shall be filed by 4/21/09. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 20, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 4/21/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
516 MEMORANDUM re 512 MOTION To Resolve Dispute Regarding An Order on Production of Expert Reports filed by ANN M. VENEMAN by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
517 Joint MOTION for Order Amending Scheduling Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
518 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs Status Report by GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment − Proposed Order Regarding Expert Schedule and Class Certification Briefing)(Coleman, Llezlie) (Entered: 04/24/2009)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 310 of 353

04/24/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009
05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/20/2009 06/12/2009 06/16/2009
06/17/2009
07/02/2009 07/02/2009 08/18/2009
08/18/2009

519 STATUS REPORT by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Garcia v. Vilsack, slip op.)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
520 JOINT SCHEDULING ORDER: Expert Discovery due by 9/14/2009., Motions for Class Certification of Claims for monetary relief due by 9/25/2009., Responses due by 11/6/2009, Replies due by 12/10/2009., Status Conference set for 9/14/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 23A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Setting forth further instruction to counsel.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/28/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 4/28/2009, Motion to Resolve Dispute,{512} granted; Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order {517} granted. Status Conference set for 9/14/2002 02:00 PM in Courtroom 23A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
521 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Three Fact Witness Depositions) by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
522 STATUS REPORT Regarding ESI (Joint) by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
523 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ANN M. VENEMAN. Attorney Felicia L. Chambers terminated. (Chambers, Felicia) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
524 NOTICE of Appearance by Heather R. Phillips on behalf of ANN M. VENEMAN (Phillips, Heather) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 521 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Plaintiff's depositions shall be completed by September 14, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 19, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's depositions due by 9/14/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
525 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 520 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
526 ORDER granting 525 Joint Motion to Amend/Correct. The Court approves the the attached Joint Scheduling Order. The status conference scheduled for 9/14/2009 is rescheduled for 11/5/2009 at 12:30 p.m. in Courtroom 24. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 16, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Rebuttal expert report due by 7/13/09; sur−rebuttal expert due by 9/28/09; expert report due by 10/26/09; Discovery due by 10/26/2009. depositions due by 9/14/09; Motions due by 11/6/2009. Responses due by 12/22/2009 Replies due by 2/2/2010. Status Conference set for 11/5/2009 12:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
527 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Daniel Tenny) by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tenny, Daniel) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 527 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Daniel Tenny is terminated. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 2, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Paul) Modified to correct filers on 8/19/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
529 MEMORANDUM re 528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 29, # 15

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 311 of 353

08/18/2009 08/18/2009
08/28/2009 08/31/2009
08/31/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009
09/14/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009

Exhibit 30, # 16 Exhibit 31, # 17 Exhibit 32, # 18 Exhibit 33, # 19 Exhibit 34, # 20 Exhibit 35, # 21 Exhibit 38, # 22 Exhibit 39, # 23 Exhibit 40, # 24 Exhibit 41 Part 1, # 25 Exhibit 41 Part 2, # 26 Exhibit 43, # 27 Exhibit 44, # 28 Exhibit 45, # 29 Exhibit 46, # 30 Exhibit 47, # 31 Exhibit 48, # 32 Exhibit 49, # 33 Exhibit 50, # 34 Exhibit 53, # 35 Exhibit 54, # 36 Exhibit 55, # 37 Exhibit 56, # 38 Exhibit 57, # 39 Exhibit 58, # 40 Exhibit 59, # 41 Exhibit 60, # 42 Exhibit 61, # 43 Exhibit 63, # 44 Exhibit 64, # 45 Exhibit 65, # 46 Exhibit 67, # 47 Exhibit 71)(Smith, Paul) Modified to correct filer on 8/19/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
530 NOTICE Of Filing Sealed Material by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination, 529 Memorandum,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (Smith, Paul) Modified to correct filer on 8/19/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
531 SEALED EXHIBITS filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS; re 528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 14, # 2 Exhibit 15, # 3 Exhibit 16, # 4 Exhibit 17, # 5 Exhibit 18, # 6 Exhibit 19, # 7 Exhibit 20, # 8 Exhibit 21, # 9 Exhibit 22, # 10 Exhibit 23, # 11 Exhibit 24, # 12 Exhibit 25, # 13 Exhibit 26, # 14 Exhibit 27, # 15 Exhibit 28, # 16 Exhibit 36, # 17 Exhibit 37, # 18 Exhibit 42, # 19 Exhibit 51, # 20 Exhibit 52, # 21 Exhibit 62, # 22 Exhibit 66, # 23 Exhibit 68, # 24 Exhibit 69, # 25 Exhibit 70)(zjf, ) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
532 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination by ANN M. VENEMAN (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 532 defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time. Defendant shall respond to 528 Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Regarding the Establishment of Class Membership and Precluding Defendant from Using the Absence of Evidence to Dispute that Putative Class Members Complained of Discrimination by no later than October 9, 2009; plaintiffs shall file their reply by no later than October 29, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 31, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 10/9/2009 Replies due by 10/29/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
533 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Rebuttal Expert Report, MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Motion for Extension of Time to Produce Rebuttal Expert Report by ANN M. VENEMAN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, C.) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of defendant's representation that plaintiffs do not consent to the relief requested in 533 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Produce Rebuttal Expert Report, plaintiffs are directed to file their response to defendant's motion, if any, by no later than 12:00 p.m. on September 16, 2009. Defendant is directed to file its reply by no later than 12:00 p.m. on September 18, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 11, 2009. (lcegs1) Modified to correct link no. on 9/14/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 09/11/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 9/16/2009 Replies due by 9/18/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
534 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS and ALL DEFENDANTS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Webber, Christine) Modified on 9/16/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
535 Memorandum in opposition to re 533 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Rebuttal Expert Report MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Motion for Extension of Time to Produce Rebuttal Expert Report filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers,

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 312 of 353

09/15/2009
09/16/2009 09/21/2009 10/01/2009 10/02/2009
10/02/2009 10/06/2009 10/22/2009 10/23/2009 10/23/2009

Joseph) Modified on 9/16/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 534 joint motion to amend the scheduling order. The Scheduling Order entered on April 28, 2009 and amended on June 16, 2009 is hereby further amended as follows: Dr. Rausser may submit his sur−rebuttal expert report, along with materials on which the expert relied, by no later than October 19, 2009; Mr. O'Brien may submit his sur−rebuttal expert report, along with materials on which the expert relied, by no later than November 23, 2009; plaintiffs may take the final fact witness deposition of Raymond Lopez by no later than October 1, 2009 in Fort Worth, Texas. All other dates remain as set forth in the June 16, 2009 Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 15, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
536 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF 533 MOTION by ANN M. VENEMAN for Extension of Time to Produce Rebuttal Expert Report (Walker, C.) Modified to add link on 9/17/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 09/16/2009)
537 STATUS REPORT (SECOND JOINT REPORT ON SEARCHES OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION) by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
538 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination by ANN M. VENEMAN (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 538 defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time. Defendant shall respond to 528 Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Regarding the Establishment of Class Membership and Precluding Defendant from Using the Absence of Evidence to Dispute that Putative Class Members Complained of Discrimination by no later than October 23, 2009; plaintiffs shall file their reply by no later than November 4, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 2, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 10/23/2009 Replies due by 11/4/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: Due to the Court's calendar it is necessary to vacate the Status Hearing date of 11/5/09. Status Conference is now set for 12/9/2009 at 11:15 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/6/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
539 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ANN M. VENEMAN. Attorney C. Gail Walker terminated. (Walker, C.) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
540 NOTICE of Filing Under Seal by ANN M. VENEMAN (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Filed Under Seal)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
541 Memorandum in opposition to re 528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL filed by ANN M. VENEMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 7 CFR Part 15, # 2 Exhibit 3 − Letter from Medine to Franco dated Novemer 3, 1992, # 3 Exhibit 4 − August 6, 2004 Letter to Sellers and Defendant's 1st Response to Plaintiffs' 1st Request for Production, # 4 Exhibit 5 − March 11, 2004 Letter to Sellers, # 5 Exhibit 6 − October 13, 2004 Letter to Chambers from Sellers, # 6 Exhibit 7 − November 4, 2008 Letter to Chambers from Sellers, # 7 Exhibit 8 − PUBLIC VERSION − August 6, 2004 Cover Letter to Sellers WITHOUT ATTACHMENT, # 8 Exhibit 9 − Transmittal Letters dated March 7 and June 27, 2006, # 9 Exhibit 10 − PUBLIC VERSION − January 23, 2009 Cover Letter to Hirsch WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS, # 10 Exhibit 12 − Plaintiffs' 7th Request for Production of Documents, # 11 Exhibit 13 − Excerpts from the October 23, 2008 Deposition of Rosalind Gray, # 12 Exhibit 14 − Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs' 6th Interrogatory, # 13 Exhibit 15 − May 2008 GAO Report, # 14 Exhibit 16 Excerpts from the May 14, 2009 Deposition of Greg

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 313 of 353

10/23/2009
10/29/2009
10/30/2009
11/12/2009 11/20/2009 11/20/2009 11/20/2009 11/20/2009

Smitman, # 15 Exhibit 18 − Excerpts from the March 31, 2009 Deposition of Michael Watts, # 16 Exhibit 19 Excerpts from the December 12, 2008 Deposition of Lisa Wilusz, # 17 Exhibit 20 − Departmental Management Memorandum dated October 1, 2009)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
542 SEALED Memorandum in opposition to re 528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination filed by TOM VILSACK.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 8, # 3 Exhibit 10, # 4 Exhibit 11, # 5 Exhibit 17) (See Docket Entry #540 to view Redacted Version)(zjf) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
543 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Regarding the Establishment of Class Membership and to File Any Motion for Class Certification of Claims for Monetary Relief AND ADDITIONAL MOTION for An Oral Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Regarding the Establishment of Class Membership by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 543 plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time. Plaintiffs shall file their reply to defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Regarding the Establishment of Class Membership and Precluding Defendant from Using the Absence of Evidence to Dispute that Putative Class Members Complained of Discrimination by no later than November 20, 2009. The schedule for class certification briefing is modified as follows: plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification of claims for monetary relief by no later than December 4, 2009; defendant's opposition shall be filed by no later than January 29, 2010; and plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by no later than March 10, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 30, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 12/4/2009. Responses due by 1/29/2010 Replies due by 3/10/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
544 NOTICE of Change of Address by Michael T. Brody (Brody, Michael) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
545 NOTICE of Change of Address by Ryan K. Harding (Harding, Ryan) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
546 NOTICE of Change of Address by Amy D. Wills (Wills, Amy) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
547 REPLY re 528 MOTION For An Order Regarding The Establishment Of Class Membership And Precluding Defendant From Using The Absense Of Evidence To Dispute That Putative Class Members Complained Of Discrimination filed by JOE GOOD ELK, KAY GULLICKSON, PHYLLIS GUNVILLE, ROMAN GUNVILLE, WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE, CASEY ED HALL, ESTHER M. HALL, ETHAN HALL, LELAND HALL, MERVEL HALL, BARB H. BAKER, TODD HALL, CATHERINE HALVER, DAVID J. HANLEY, SR, ALECIA HANSON, HENRY G. HARRISON, JAMES E. HARRISON, JOE HARRISON, LENORA HARRISON, DAVID D. HARRISON, SR, DAVID HAWLEY, JAMES L. BAKER, DAVID J. HAWLEY, JR, EDGAR HEART, DORA HELGESON, GENE HELGESON, KENNETH HELGESON, RAY HELGESON, DANILE HENRY, FRANK HENRY, DENNIS HUBER, MICHAEL HUBER, DELPHINE BAKER, MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, EDWARD S. IRON, DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD, FAITH IRON CLOUD, RALPH K. IRON, JR, JOHN L. JAMES, RAYMOND JETTY, JR, JAMES G. JOHNSON, MARCIE KAHL, WADE KEEPSEAGLE, JEFFERSON B. BAKER, ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY, TED KNIFE, SR, EDITH P. KNIGHT, STORMY KOSEL, BARBARA LANDE, JEANNE R. LANDE, PAUL A. LANDE, JR, PAUL A. LANDE, SR, ROSS LAWRENCE, DAISY LECOMPTE, KYLE BAKER, NICK LEINGANG, JR, ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER, COBY LITTLE SOLDIER, DALE LITTLE SOLDIER, NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER, ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER, NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW, ERNEST LIZOTTE, RONNIE LONG, RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER, CAROL T. BALLEW, ADAM T. MANDAN, KEITH MANDAN, FLORENCE MATTE, WARREN MATTE, SR, KEN MAXON, WAYNE E. MAXON, DONALD MCGHEE, PATT MCLAUGHLIN, FAY A. MOBERG, CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT, CHARLIE BEAR, III, WILLIAM T.

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 314 of 353

11/24/2009 11/30/2009

MULLENBERG, JOAN M. NETTERVILLE, KURT P. NETTERVILLE, SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE, DELLA NO HEART, GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU, WILLIAM P. PEASE, DONNA RAE PETERSEN, JAMES D. PICOTTE, JOHN J. RABBITHEAD, JR, LEONARD BEAR KING, MICHAEL REDSTONE, ROSELYN SAND, DUANE A. SMITH, FARRELL SMITH, HOWARD B. SMITH, RODNEY J. SMITH, TERRY M. SMITH, TOM SMITH, VINA SMITH, GEORGE BELL, WILLIAM SMITH, ROBERT DARREL SMITH, III, ROBERT D. SMITH, JR, GLASCO R. SPRIGGS, DOUG STANGEL, PHILOMENA STONE, RICHARD P. STONE, FRANK D. THOMPSON, LLOYD THOMPSON, SR, SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK, GEORGE B. BELL, GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE, ALBERT R. TWO BEARS, KAROL TWO BEARS, G. PATTY VALANDRA, ARNOLD WALKER, MARTIN WALKER, CLIFF WALKING ELK, SCOTT WALTERS, LORETTA WALTON, PATRICK WALTON, STEPHEN WALTON, HARRY BENALLY, T. ED WALTON, MARLENE WHIPPLE, STANLEY WHIPPLE, RICHARD A. WHITE, FRANK WHITECALFE, LARRY D. WHITEMAN, LYMAN M. YOUNG, ALL PLAINTIFFS, CLARICE BENDER, LEANN BENDER, CHANNON D. BIGHORN, ERNEST C. BIGHORN, ROGER M. BIRD BEAR, JAMES BIRDTAIL, III, THOMAS BLACK HAWK, GABE E. BLACK MOON, SR, ALVA ROSE HALL, VIRGIL WILKINSON, CHARLES WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, DENNIS SNOW, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, SUSAN HALL, IVAN JOHNSON, FRANK WHITE CALFE, JAMES JOHNSON, JR, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, CLARYCA MANDAN, ALL PLAINTIFFS, RONALD C. BROWNOTTER, LUTHER CRASCO, KOTY BRUGH, ROBIN BURRITT, MARGARETT CAMPBELL, MAUREEN E. CARSON, THERESA CHARGING, GEORGE DUANE CHARGING, STANLEY CHARGING, KENNETH CHARGING, SR, BRENT LONG CHASE, CHARLES CLAMPITT, JOHN FREDERICKS, CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE, MIKE CLAYMORE, SAMUEL CLAYMORE, JR, LEONARD M. COOK, MARVIN COTA, GLEN CUDMORE, CLAYTON DANKS, CURTIS DANKS, CYNTHIA F. DANKS, LYLE C. DANKS, GENE CADOTTE, RHONDA J. DANKS, RICHARD DANKS, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR, ADELINA DEFENDER, PALMER DEFENDER, STEVE DEFENDER, LOUIS DUBRAY, ALLEN DUCHENEAUX, DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX, BASIL ALKIRE, ED DUCHENEAUX, ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX, FRANK DUCHENEAUX, JESS DUCHENEAUX, LARRY DUCHENEAUX, LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX, MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX, RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX, ROMAN DUCHENEAUX, JEROME K. ALKIRE, RONNIE DUCHENEAUX, THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, DWAYNE J. EAGLE, BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR, MARSHA ELK, JERRY ROBERT FARLEE, EDWARD J. FILESTEEL, GLORIA FISCHER, MELISSA R. FISCHER, TERRANCE FISCHE, LEROY J. AMES, THOMAS W. FISCHER, JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE, SR, ADRIAN FOOT, SR, ANTHONY B. FOX, GLEN CHARLES FOX, JR, EDWARD C. FOX, PAULA DANKS, BILLY J. FREDERICKS, ELMER FREDERICKS, JUDY FREDERICKS, JAMES ANDERSON, JUSTIN FREDERICKS, LOREN FREDERICKS, PAT FREDERICKS, PAUL J. FREDERICKS, PETE E. FREDERICKS, TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS, KENNETH L. FREDERICKS, JR, ROMEY A. GARREAU, JAMES J. GARRETT, ZANE GIPP, SIDNEY BAILEY, SR. (Attachments: # 1 PI Exhibit 72, # 2 PI Exhibit 73, # 3 PI Exhibit 74, # 4 PI Exhibit 75, # 5 PI Exhibit 76, # 6 PI Exhibit 77, # 7 PI Exhibit 78)(Smith, Paul) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In their motion dated October 29, 2009, plaintiffs requested, among other things, that the Court hear arguments regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for An Order Regarding Establishment of Class Membership and Precluding Defendant from Using the Absence of Evidence to Dispute that Putative Class Members Complained of Discrimination during the status hearing scheduled for December 9, 2009. Plaintiffs request to convert the December 9, 2009 status hearing into a motions hearing is DENIED. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report by no later than noon on December 7, 2009. A status hearing will be held in this matter on December 9, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 24, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 12/7/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 315 of 353

12/03/2009 12/03/2009 12/04/2009
12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009
12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/18/2009 12/31/2009 01/13/2010 01/13/2010

548 Joint MOTION to Stay and Joint Status Report by TOM VILSACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phillips, Heather) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
549 JOINT STATUS REPORT by TOM VILSACK. (See Docket Entry 548 to view document). (znmw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' joint status report, the Court grants 548 the joint motion to vacate the December 9, 2009 status hearing and stay briefing on class certification. The status hearing scheduled for December 9, 2009 is hereby vacated and rescheduled for February 10, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Briefing on class certification is stayed in order to permit the parties to focus on settlement discussions. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than February 8, 2010. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 4, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 2/8/2010; Status Conference set for 2/10/2010 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
550 ENTERED IN ERROR..... MOTION to Certify Class by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) Modified on 12/4/2009 (tr, ). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 550 MOTION to Certify Class was entered in error and counsel will refile said pleading. (tr) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
551 MOTION to Certify Class by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Appendix 1 to Exhibit 2, # 6 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 1), # 7 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 2), # 8 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 3), # 9 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 4), # 10 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 5), # 11 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 6), # 12 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 7), # 13 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 8), # 14 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 9), # 15 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 10), # 16 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 11), # 17 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 12), # 18 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 13), # 19 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 14), # 20 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 15), # 21 Appendix 2 to Exhibit 2 (part 16), # 22 Appendix 3 to Exhibit 2, # 23 Appendix 4 to Exhibit 2, # 24 Appendix 5 to Exhibit 2, # 25 Exhibit 3, # 26 Exhibit 4, # 27 Exhibit 5, # 28 Exhibit 6, # 29 Exhibit 7, # 30 Exhibit 8, # 31 Exhibit 9, # 32 Exhibit 10, # 33 Exhibit 11, # 34 Exhibit 12, # 35 Exhibit 13, # 36 Exhibit 14, # 37 Exhibit 15, # 38 Exhibit 16, # 39 Exhibit 17, # 40 Exhibit 18, # 41 Exhibit 19, # 42 Exhibit 20, # 43 Exhibit 21, # 44 Exhibit 22 − Part 1, # 45 Exhibit 22 − Part 2, # 46 Exhibit 22 − Part 3, # 47 Exhibit 22 − Part 4, # 48 Exhibit 23, # 49 Exhibit 24, # 50 Exhibit 25, # 51 Exhibit 26, # 52 Exhibit 27, # 53 Exhibit 28, # 54 Exhibit 29, # 55 Exhibit 30, # 56 Exhibit 31, # 57 Exhibit 32, # 58 Exhibit 33 − Filed Under Seal, # 59 Exhibit 34, # 60 Exhibit 35, # 61 Exhibit 36, # 62 Exhibit 37, # 63 Exhibit 38, # 64 Exhibit 39, # 65 Exhibit 40, # 66 Exhibit 41 − Filed Under Seal, # 67 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
552 NOTICE of Filing Sealed Materials by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 551 MOTION to Certify Class (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
553 SEALED exhibits re 551 filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 )(zrdj) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
554 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Amy Wills by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Wills, Amy) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 554 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Amy D. Wills is hereby withdrawn as counsel for plaintiffs in the above−captioned case. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 31, 2009. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
555 Joint MOTION for Order Clarifying Briefing Schedule by TOM VILSACK (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties Joint Motion for Order Clarifying Briefing Schedule 555 it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is granted.

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 316 of 353

02/01/2010 02/02/2010
02/02/2010 02/03/2010 02/12/2010 02/16/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/14/2010 04/14/2010
04/14/2010 05/20/2010 05/24/2010

The time limit for filing a summary judgment motion which went into effect by virtue of the December 1, 2009 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) shall not be effective in this action. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 13, 2010.(lcegs4) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
556 Joint MOTION to Continue the Stay Through April 12, 2010, Joint MOTION to Vacate Order on Motion to Stay,,, to Vacate the February 10, 2010 Status Conference by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 556 the joint motion to vacate the February 10, 2010 status hearing. The status hearing scheduled for February 10, 2010 is hereby vacated and rescheduled for April 21, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Briefing on class certification is stayed through April 21, 2010 in order to permit the parties to focus on settlement discussions. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than April 15, 2010. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 2, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Briefing on class certification is stayed through 4/21/2010; Status Report due by 4/15/2010; Status Conference set for 4/21/2010 10:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
557 NOTICE of Appearance by Justin M. Sandberg on behalf of TOM VILSACK (znmw, ) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
558 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to TOM VILSACK. Attorney Heather R. Phillips terminated. (Phillips, Heather) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
559 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua E. Gardner on behalf of DAN GLICKMAN, MIKE JOHANNS, ANN M. VENEMAN, TOM VILSACK (Gardner, Joshua) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
560 Joint MOTION for Order Vacating the April 21, 2010 Status Conference and Continuing the Stay Until May 21, 2010 by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
561 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of Peter Romer−Friedman by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) Modified on 4/14/2010 (znmw, ). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 561 Motion for Leave to Appear ; emailed to jsellers@cohenmilstein.com, cc'd 34 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Incorrect event used, 2. Docket Entry has been modified to reflect that it is a Notice, not a Motion. (znmw, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 560 joint motion to vacate the April 21, 2010 status conference and continue the stay for an additional 30 days, the Court hereby vacates the status hearing scheduled for April 21, 2010, and reschedules it for May 26, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Briefing on class certification is stayed through May 26, 2010 in order to permit the parties to focus on settlement discussions. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than May 20, 2010. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 14, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 5/20/2010 Status Conference set for 5/26/2010 12:45 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
562 Joint MOTION to Vacate Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings the May 26, 2010 Status Conference and to Continue the Stay Until June 2, 2010 by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 562 joint motion to vacate the May 26, 2010 status conference and continue the stay, the Court hereby vacates the status hearing scheduled for May 26, 2010. Briefing on class certification is stayed until

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 317 of 353

05/27/2010 05/27/2010
06/01/2010 06/16/2010 06/24/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 07/29/2010 07/30/2010
07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010
08/02/2010 08/06/2010

further order of the Court in order to permit the parties to focus on settlement discussions. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than May 27, 2010. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 24, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
563 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 563 joint status report, the Court ORDERS the parties to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than July 29, 2010. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 27, 2010.(lcegs4) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 7/29/2010 (clv, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
564 Mail Returned as undeliverable. sent to James Francis; Type of Document Returned: Minute Order entered 5/24/10;. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
565 Mail Returned as undeliverable. sent to James N. Francis; Type of Document Returned: Minute Order entered 5/27/10;. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
566 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Motion of Withdrawal As Attorney For Llezlie Green Coleman by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Coleman, Llezlie) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
ORDER granting 566 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Llezlie Green Coleman. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 30, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
567 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Report Status of Case by ALL PLAINTIFFS, TOM VILSACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is 567 the parties' joint motion for extension of time to file a status report. This is the parties' most recent request for an extension of time to file a joint status report since this case was stayed in December 2009 to permit the parties to focus on settlement negotiations. After careful consideration, this joint motion − which the Court notes was filed on the date the status report was due − is DENIED. The parties shall file a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, FORTHWITH. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing for August 5, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 30, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/5/2010 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
568 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by ALL PLAINTIFFS, TOM VILSACK. (Smith, Paul) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
569 Unopposed MOTION to Move Status Hearing by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, Paul) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 569 motion to continue the status hearing. The hearing scheduled for August 5, 2010 is vacated and rescheduled for August 6, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. Any party wishing to participate by telephone shall contact Carol Votteler, Courtroom Deputy, at (202) 354−3152 by no later than August 3, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 30, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/6/2010 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 8/6/2010, Status Conference set for 9/8/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 08/06/2010)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 318 of 353

08/06/2010
09/08/2010 09/21/2010 09/22/2010 09/28/2010 10/06/2010 10/13/2010 10/14/2010 10/15/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010

MINUTE ORDER. During the status hearing held on August 6, 2010, the parties jointly requested an additional extension of the stay in this matter in order to pursue settlement negotiations. Accordingly, the Court schedules a status hearing in this matter for September 8, 2010 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 24A. Further proceedings are stayed through September 8, 2010. Any party wishing to participate in the status conference by telephone shall contact Carol Votteler, Courtroom Deputy, at (202) 354−3152 by no later than September 7, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 6, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 9/8/2010, Status Conference set for 10/4/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, reschedules the status hearing previously set for October 4, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to October 4, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 21, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/4/2010 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: Due to the Court's calendar it is necessary to vacate the Status Hearing date of 10/4/10. Status Hearing is now set for 10/6/10 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/28/10. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 10/6/2010; Status Conference set for 10/13/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 10/13/2010; Status Conference set for 10/19/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to the Court's calendar, the status hearing previously set for October 19, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. is rescheduled for October 19, 2010 at 2:15 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 14, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/19/2010 02:15 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 10/19/2010; Plaintiff Motion for Preliminary Approval due by the end of the week; Hearing on the Preliminary Approval set for 10/29/2010 02:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CRYSTAL PILGLRIM.) (clv, ) Modified on 10/19/2010 (clv, ). (Entered: 10/19/2010)
570 NOTICE of Settlement Agreement Submitted by the Parties to the Court Earlier Today by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
571 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and an Order Certifying Settlement Class and Approving Certain Provisions in Settlement Agreement by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Proposed Order)(Smith, Paul) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court is aware of several problems which developed following the 1999 consent decree in Pigford v. Vilsack, Case No. 97−1978 ("Pigford I"). The parties are accordingly directed to file a joint supplement to 571 proposed settlement agreement explaining the differences between the proposed settlement and Pigford I, and setting forth how the proposed settlement in this case avoids the problems which occurred following the consent decree in Pigford I. The parties shall file their joint supplement by no later than 12:00 p.m. on October 25, 2010. Signed by

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 319 of 353

10/25/2010 10/26/2010 10/28/2010 10/29/2010 10/29/2010
11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/02/2010
11/30/2010 12/01/2010 12/01/2010 12/03/2010 12/15/2010

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 22, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
572 MEMORANDUM re 570 Notice of Settlement, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Christine E. Webber)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
573 Joint MOTION for Settlement by ALL PLAINTIFFS, TOM VILSACK (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Christine E. Webber, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Anu Varma, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 573 joint motion for leave to file revised joint memorandum in further support of proposed settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 28, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
574 NOTICE of Filing Revised Short Form Notice by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 571 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and an Order Certifying Settlement Class and Approving Certain Provisions in Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Revised Short Form)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Preliminary Approval Hearing held on 10/29/2010; Fairness Hearing set for 4/28/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan., Status Conference set for 1/4/2011 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Proposed Order to be Presented. (Court Reporter LISA HAND.) (clv, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
575 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by TOM VILSACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gardner, Joshua) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
576 NOTICE of Filing Revised Settlement Agreement by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Revised Settlement Agreement & Exhibits, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
577 ORDER granting 571 , 576 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and directing the parties' attention to paragraphs 16 and 20 of the Order, which have been modified/added by the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 1, 2010. (lcegs4) Modified on 11/1/2010 (clv, ). (Entered: 11/01/2010)
578 ORDER granting 575 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 1, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 12/15/10; Status Conference set for 1/4/2011 11:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan; Plaintiff's Petition for award of attorneys fees due by 1/14/11; Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of class representative service awards due by 1/21/11; objections to the settlement agreement and all opt−out notices due by 2/28/11; declaration and necessary documentation due by 3/15/11; response to the petition for award of attorneys fees due by 3/18/11; responses to objections to or comments about the proposed settlement agreement due by 4/1/11; Fairness Hearing set for 4/28/11 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
MINUTE ORDER directing the parties to contact my career law clerk, Jen Simon, in my chambers forthwith in order to make arrangements to post notice of the settlement agreement on the Court's website. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 30, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the status hearing scheduled for January 4, 2011 at 11:30 am is hereby rescheduled for January 4, 2011 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 24A. PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 30, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/4/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
579 NOTICE to Appear by CANDACE M. ODOM. "Let this be filed" by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf, ) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
580 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 320 of 353

12/20/2010 12/21/2010 01/11/2011 01/14/2011
01/21/2011
03/15/2011 03/15/2011 03/18/2011 03/18/2011 03/22/2011
03/24/2011 04/01/2011 04/01/2011 04/01/2011

MINUTE ORDER. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the status conference set for January 4, 2011 is hereby rescheduled for January 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm in Courtroom 24A. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 20, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/11/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 1/11/2011; Status Conference set for 4/5/2011 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
581 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, Sellers Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2, O'Brien Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3, Frantz Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4, Fraas Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, Smith Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, Vogel Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7, Varma Declaration, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, Smith v. DaimlerChrysler, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9, Cason v. Nisson Motor, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10, Objection of Dustin Denton, # 12 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
582 MOTION for Order Approving Class Representative Service Awards by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1. Conanan v. Tanoue, # 3 Exhibit 2. Beck v. The Boeing Co., # 4 Exhibit 3. Sellers Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 4. Claryca Mandan Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 5. George Keepseagle Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 6. Marilyn Keepseagle Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 7. Porter Holder Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 8. Keith Mandan Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 9. Jean Cadotte Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 10. Deloach v. Philip Morris Cos., # 12 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
583 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sellers, # 2 Declaration Kinsella, # 3 Declaration Redell)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
584 NOTICE of Filing by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 583 Status Report (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
585 NOTICE of Filing Objections and Opt Out Requests by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 583 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Julie Redell, # 2 Exhibit 1 − 14, # 3 Exhibit 15−29, # 4 Exhibit 30−39)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
586 Memorandum in opposition to re 581 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses, 582 MOTION for Order Approving Class Representative Service Awards filed by TOM VILSACK. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
587 Unopposed MOTION for Order to Enter Modified Protective Order to Permit Disclosure of Borrower Files and Civil Rights Complaints to Individual Class Members by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order for Protective Order to Disclose Borrower Files and Civil Rights Complaints to Individual Class Members)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
588 PROTECTIVE ORDER TO DISCLOSE BORROWER FILES AND CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINTS TO INDIVIDUAL CLASS MEMBERS setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/23/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
589 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Settlement Agreement) by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 − 4 in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of The Settlement Agreement, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
590 REPLY re 582 Motion for Approval of Class Representative Service Awards filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) Modified on 4/4/2011 to correct docket entry (jf, ). (Entered: 04/01/2011)
591 REPLY to opposition to motion re 581 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/01/2011)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 321 of 353

04/04/2011 04/05/2011
04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/07/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011
04/08/2011 04/11/2011 04/12/2011 04/22/2011

592 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 4/5/2011, Government sur−reply due by 4/12/2011., Motion Hearing regarding attorney fees set for 4/26/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter LISA SCHWAM.) (clv, ) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
593 MOTION for Order Allowing verification of unsigned opt−out requests and for final approval of settlement by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
594 NOTICE of proposal for supplemental notice prepared by Kinsella Media by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 592 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
596 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 589 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Settlement Agreement) filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (See docket Entry 589 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
597 RESPONSE re 585 NOTICE of Filing Objections and Opt Out Requests filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (See Docket Entry 593 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
595 NOTICE by TOM VILSACK (Gardner, Joshua) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
598 ORDER granting 593 Motion for order allowing verification of unsigned opt−out requests. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 8, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
599 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Response to Motion for Final Approval by TOM VILSACK re 589 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Settlement Agreement) MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Settlement Agreement) (Powell, Amy) Modified on 4/11/2011 (jf, ). (Entered: 04/08/2011)
600 RESPONSE re 589 MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval of Settlement Agreement) filed by TOM VILSACK. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 599 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) was entered in error and refiled by the clerk's office under the correct category. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
601 SURREPLY to re 581 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by TOM VILSACK. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
602 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 10−29−10; Page Numbers: 1−76. Date of Issuance:4−22−11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Foradori, Telephone number 202−354−3269, Court Reporter Email Address : L4dori@yahoo.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

04/22/2011

Redaction Request due 5/13/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/21/2011.(Hand, Lisa) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
603 Unopposed MOTION Request for Court Approval of Six Designated Banks re 577 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Romer−Friedman, Peter) (Entered: 04/22/2011)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 322 of 353

04/25/2011 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 05/05/2011
05/05/2011

MINUTE ORDER. At the motions hearing scheduled for April 26, 2011, plaintiffs shall be prepared to address the process utilized for selecting depositories for settlement funds, and shall also be prepared to address the credentials of the depositories selected. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 25, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. In order to accommodate counsel who will be participating by telephone, the motions hearing previously scheduled for 10:00 am on April 26, 2011 is hereby rescheduled to 11:30 a.m. on April 26, 2011 in Courtroom 24A. PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 25, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2011 re 581 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses, 603 Unopposed MOTION Request for Court Approval of Six Designated Banks re 577 ; Motions heard and taken under advisement.. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
604 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 603 Unopposed MOTION Request for Court Approval of Six Designated Banks re 577 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
605 NOTICE of Filing Declaration by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 583 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Fairness Hearing held on 4/28/2011. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
606 ORDER granting final approval of settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 28, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
607 ORDER entering final judgment and dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 29, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
608 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 4/26/11; Page Numbers: 1−106. Date of Issuance:5/5/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202.354.3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 5/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
609 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 4/28/11; Page Numbers: 1−71. Date of Issuance:5/5/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202.354.3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 5/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 323 of 353

05/31/2011 07/01/2011 07/21/2011 08/04/2011
12/07/2011 12/08/2011 01/05/2012
03/09/2012 03/22/2012 03/23/2012 03/26/2012

610 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 603 Unopposed MOTION Request for Court Approval of Six Designated Banks re 577 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
611 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 603 Unopposed MOTION Request for Court Approval of Six Designated Banks re 577 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Romer−Friedman, Peter) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
612 ORDER granting 603 plaintiffs' unopposed motion for court approval of designated banks, as modified by plaintiffs' supplemental memoranda at docket numbers 604 , 610 , 611 . Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 21, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
613 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 10/6/10; Page Numbers: 1−10. Date of Issuance:8/4/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 8/25/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/4/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/2/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
614 Unopposed MOTION to Amend re 371 PRIVACY ACT PROTECTIVE ORDER by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) . (Entered: 12/07/2011)
615 ORDER granting 614 Motion to Amend/Correct Protective Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 8, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
616 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 1/11/11; Page Numbers: 1−14. Date of Issuance:1/5/12. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202.354.3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 1/26/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/5/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/4/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
617 STATUS REPORT on the Claims Process by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Christine Webber, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Christine Webber)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
618 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
619 MOTION for Order To Treat as Timely Filed The Claim of Henry Flynn by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
620 ORDER granting 619 Motion for Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 26, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 324 of 353

07/31/2012 08/01/2012
08/09/2012 08/23/2012 08/27/2012
08/31/2012
09/04/2012 09/04/2012 10/12/2012 10/15/2012 10/29/2012 11/05/2012

621 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Settlement Agreement by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of J. Redell, # 2 Exhibit B − Revised Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit C − Redline of Settlement Agreement, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is 621 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Morion to Amend the Settlement Agreement, which affects the schedule for distribution of awards pursuant to the settlement. The parties agree that the proposed changes will permit faster distribution of the Track A Awards, benefitting the vast majority of claimants, while permitting the neutrals time needed to complete evaluation of Track B claims. The parties also agree that the faster distribution of the Track A awards will pose no risk that Track B claimants will receive less than full relief. Accordingly, the motion to amend the settlement agreement is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 1, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
622 MOTION to Intervene by DANNY RENE SMITH. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/05/2012 (jf, ) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
623 RESPONSE re 622 MOTION to Intervene from Danny Rene ("Spirit Hawk") Smith filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Julie Redell)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
MINUTE ORDER directing the clerk of the Court to mail a copy of 623 Plaintiff's Response to Danny Rene Smith's Motion to intervene, to Danny Rene Smith, "Spirit Hawk," Powledge Unit TDCJ, 1400 FM 3452, Palestine, TX 75803. The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a copy of this minute order to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith shall file his response, if any, in support of his Motion to Intervene by no later than October 15, 2012. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 27, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
624 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re MINUTE ORDER directing the clerk of the Court to mail a copy of 623 Plaintiff's Response to Danny Rene Smith's Motion to intervene, to Danny Rene Smith, "Spirit Hawk," Powledge Unit TDCJ, 1400 FM 3452, Palestine, TX 75803. The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a copy of this minute order to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith shall file his response, if any, in support of his Motion to Intervene by no later than October 15, 2012, filed by DANNY RENE SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 10/15/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
NOTICE: Docket entry number 623 and the Minute Ordere entered 8/27/12 was mailed to Danny Rene Smith to the address of Court record. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
626 RESPONSE TO MINUTE ORDER OF THE COURT re Minute Order of 08/27/2012 filed by DANNY RENE SMITH. (jf, ) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
625 MOTION for Relief from Judgment From the August 24, 2012 Orders for Certain Class Members and Response to Motion to Intervene by Danny Rene Smith by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support of Motion and Response, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
627 Memorandum in opposition to re 625 MOTION for Relief from Judgment From the August 24, 2012 Orders for Certain Class Members and Response to Motion to Intervene by Danny Rene Smith filed by TOM J. VILSACK. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gardner, Joshua) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
628 REPLY to opposition to motion re 625 MOTION for Relief from Judgment From the August 24, 2012 Orders for Certain Class Members and Response to Motion to Intervene by Danny Rene Smith filed by BASIL ALKIRE, JEROME K. ALKIRE, ALL PLAINTIFFS, MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, LEROY J. AMES, JAMES ANDERSON, SIDNEY BAILEY, SR, BARB H. BAKER, DELPHINE BAKER, JAMES L. BAKER, JEFFERSON B. BAKER, KYLE BAKER, CAROL T. BALLEW, CHARLIE BEAR, III, ROGER M. BIRD BEAR, ALBERT R. TWO BEARS, KAROL TWO BEARS, GEORGE BELL, GEORGE B. BELL, HARRY BENALLY, CLARICE BENDER, LEANN BENDER, CHANNON D. BIGHORN, ERNEST C. BIGHORN, JAMES BIRDTAIL, III, RONALD C. BROWNOTTER,

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 325 of 353
KOTY BRUGH, ROBIN BURRITT, GENE CADOTTE, FRANK WHITE CALFE, MARGARETT CAMPBELL, MAUREEN E. CARSON, GEORGE DUANE CHARGING, KENNETH CHARGING, SR, STANLEY CHARGING, THERESA CHARGING, BRENT LONG CHASE, CHARLES CLAMPITT, CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE, MIKE CLAYMORE, SAMUEL CLAYMORE, JR, DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD, FAITH IRON CLOUD, LEONARD M. COOK, MARVIN COTA, LUTHER CRASCO, GLEN CUDMORE, CLAYTON DANKS, CURTIS DANKS, CYNTHIA F. DANKS, EDWARD S. DANKS, JR, EDWARD S. DANKS, SR, LYLE C. DANKS, PAULA DANKS, RHONDA J. DANKS, RICHARD DANKS, ADELINA DEFENDER, PALMER DEFENDER, STEVE DEFENDER, ALFRED DRIVER, JR, GERALD DRIVER, LOUIS DUBRAY, ALLEN DUCHENEAUX, DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX, ED DUCHENEAUX, ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX, FRANK DUCHENEAUX, JESS DUCHENEAUX, LARRY DUCHENEAUX, LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX, MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX, RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX, ROMAN DUCHENEAUX, RONNIE DUCHENEAUX, THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR, DWAYNE J. EAGLE, CLIFF WALKING ELK, JOE GOOD ELK, MARSHA ELK, ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY, JERRY ROBERT FARLEE, RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER, THEODORE LONE FIGHT, EDWARD J. FILESTEEL, TERRANCE FISCHE, GLORIA FISCHER, MELISSA R. FISCHER, THOMAS W. FISCHER, JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE, SR, ADRIAN FOOT, SR, ANTHONY B. FOX, EDWARD C. FOX, GLEN CHARLES FOX, JR, BILLY J. FREDERICKS, ELMER FREDERICKS, JOHN FREDERICKS, JUDY FREDERICKS, JUSTIN FREDERICKS, KENNETH L. FREDERICKS, JR, LOREN FREDERICKS, PAT FREDERICKS, PAUL J. FREDERICKS, PETE E. FREDERICKS, TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS, ROMEY A. GARREAU, JAMES J. GARRETT, ZANE GIPP, KAY GULLICKSON, PHYLLIS GUNVILLE, ROMAN GUNVILLE, WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE, ALVA ROSE HALL, CASEY ED HALL, ESTHER M. HALL, ETHAN HALL, LELAND HALL, MERVEL HALL, SUSAN HALL, TODD HALL, CATHERINE HALVER, DAVID J. HANLEY, SR, ALECIA HANSON, DAVID D. HARRISON, SR, HENRY G. HARRISON, JAMES E. HARRISON, JOE HARRISON, LENORA HARRISON, THOMAS BLACK HAWK, DAVID HAWLEY, DAVID J. HAWLEY, JR, DELLA NO HEART, EDGAR HEART, EDGAR CROWS HEART, LESTER CROWS HEART, TOM CROWS HEART, DORA HELGESON, GENE HELGESON, KENNETH HELGESON, RAY HELGESON, DANILE HENRY, FRANK HENRY, DENNIS HUBER, MICHAEL HUBER, EDWARD S. IRON, RALPH K. IRON, JR, JOHN L. JAMES, RAYMOND JETTY, JR, IVAN JOHNSON, JAMES JOHNSON, JR, JAMES G. JOHNSON, MELVIN J. JOHNSON, MARCIE KAHL, GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE, WADE KEEPSEAGLE, LEONARD BEAR KING, TED KNIFE, SR, EDITH P. KNIGHT, STORMY KOSEL, BARBARA LANDE, JEANNE R. LANDE, PAUL A. LANDE, SR, PAUL A. LANDE, JR, ROSS LAWRENCE, DAISY LECOMPTE, NICK LEINGANG, JR, ERNEST LIZOTTE, RONNIE LONG, ADAM T. MANDAN, CLARYCA MANDAN, KEITH MANDAN, FLORENCE MATTE, WARREN MATTE, SR, KEN MAXON, WAYNE E. MAXON, DONALD MCGHEE, PATT MCLAUGHLIN, FAY A. MOBERG, GABE E. BLACK MOON, SR, CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT, WILLIAM T. MULLENBERG, JOAN M. NETTERVILLE, KURT P. NETTERVILLE, SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE, GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU, WILLIAM P. PEASE, DONNA RAE PETERSEN, JAMES D. PICOTTE, JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, JOHN J. RABBITHEAD, JR, MICHAEL REDSTONE, ROSELYN SAND, DARREL H. SMITH, DUANE A. SMITH, FARRELL SMITH, HOWARD B. SMITH, ROBERT DARREL SMITH, III, ROBERT D. SMITH, JR, RODNEY J. SMITH, TERRY M. SMITH, TOM SMITH, VINA SMITH, WILLIAM SMITH, DENNIS SNOW, ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER, COBY LITTLE SOLDIER, DALE LITTLE SOLDIER, NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER, ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER, GLASCO R. SPRIGGS, DOUG STANGEL, PHILOMENA STONE, RICHARD P. STONE, NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW, FRANK D. THOMPSON, LLOYD THOMPSON, SR, SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK, G. PATTY VALANDRA, ARNOLD WALKER, MARTIN WALKER, SCOTT WALTERS, LORETTA WALTON, PATRICK WALTON, STEPHEN WALTON, T. ED WALTON, MARLENE WHIPPLE, STANLEY WHIPPLE, RICHARD A. WHITE, FRANK WHITECALFE, LARRY D. WHITEMAN, CHARLES WILKINSON, VIRGIL WILKINSON, WILBUR D. WILKINSON, LYMAN M. YOUNG. (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 326 of 353

11/07/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/28/2012
11/28/2012 11/30/2012 12/28/2012 06/12/2013 07/10/2013 07/10/2013 07/10/2013 07/10/2013 07/10/2013 07/10/2013

629 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by TOM J. VILSACK (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Surreply)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 629 defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file surreply. The surreply lodged with the Court as the attachment to defendant's motion is hereby deemed filed.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 9, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
630 SURREPLY to re 625 MOTION for Relief from Judgment From the August 24, 2012 Orders for Certain Class Members and Response to Motion to Intervene by Danny Rene Smith filed by TOM J. VILSACK. (dr) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is 625 Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from the August 24, 2012 Orders for Certain Class Members. In plaintiffs' motion, as well as 623 Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Intervene from Danny Rene "Spirit Hawk" Smith, plaintiffs' counsel represent that Mr. Smith received a determination or determinations that his claim was untimely submitted. See 623 Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Intervene at 3; see also 625 Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief at 2, 12−13. Plaintiffs' counsel is hereby directed to file, by no later than December 5, 2012, any and all determinations the Claims Administrator, and/or the Track A Neutrals, have issued to Mr. Smith. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 28, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: plaintiff shall file determinations by the Claims Administrator by 12/5/2012. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
631 NOTICE of Filing of Determinations Issued to Class Member Danny Rene Smith and Response to the Court's Nov. 28, 2012 Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS re Set/Reset Deadlines, Order,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Webber, Christine) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
633 ORDER denying 622 Motion to Intervene; denying 625 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 28, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
634 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
635 MOTION to Intervene by Timothy LaBatte (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Pleadings as a Verified Complaint, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Timothy LaBatte, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order with service list, # 4 Exhibit Notice of Appearance)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
636 LARGE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT(S) Declaration of Erick Kaardal in Support of Motion to Intervene by Timothy LaBatte 635 MOTION to Intervene filed by Timothy LaBatte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1 of 6, # 2 Exhibit Part 2 of 6)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
637 LARGE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT(S) Declaration of Erick Kaardal in Support of Motion to Intervene by Timothy LaBatte 635 MOTION to Intervene filed by Timothy LaBatte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit part 3 of 6)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
638 LARGE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT(S) Declaration of Erick G. Kaardal in Support of Motion to Intervene by Timothy LaBatte 635 MOTION to Intervene filed by Timothy LaBatte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 4 of 6)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
639 LARGE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT(S) Declaration of Erick G. Kaardal in Support of Motion to Intervene by Timothy LaBatte 635 MOTION to Intervene filed by Timothy LaBatte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 5 of 6)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
640 LARGE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT(S) Declaration of Erick G. Kaardal in Support of Motion to Intervene by Timothy LaBatte 635 MOTION to Intervene filed by Timothy LaBatte. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 6 of 6, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 07/10/2013)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 327 of 353

07/11/2013 07/18/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013
07/30/2013 08/02/2013 08/09/2013 08/09/2013 08/30/2013 09/04/2013
09/04/2013 09/05/2013 09/05/2013 09/17/2013 09/19/2013

NOTICE OF ERROR re 635 Motion to Intervene; emailed to kaardal@mklaw.com, cc'd 36 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. ALL PARTIES ARE TO BE ENTERED IN CAPS (jf, ) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
641 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to THOMAS JAMES VILSACK. Attorney Joshua Edward Gardner terminated. (Gardner, Joshua) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
642 Memorandum in opposition to re 635 MOTION to Intervene filed by THOMAS JAMES VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
MINUTE ORDER directing plaintiffs to respond to 635 Motion to Intervene by no later than August 2, 2013. Movant Timothy LaBatte may file a consolidated reply to plaintiffs' and Secretary Vilsack's responses, if appropriate, by no later than August 9, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 29, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Response to 635 Motion to Intervene due by 8/2/2013. Movant, Timothy Labatte, and Defendant, Secretary Vilsack, reply due by 8/9/2013. (mac) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
643 RESPONSE re 635 MOTION to Intervene of Timothy Labatte filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
644 REPLY to opposition to motion re 635 MOTION to Intervene , Opposing the Defendant's Jurisdictional Arguments filed by TIMOTHY LABATTE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Erick G. Kaardal in Support of LaBatte's Reply Memorandum)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
645 REPLY to opposition to motion re 635 MOTION to Intervene , Opposing the Defendant's Jurisdictional Arguments (corrected) filed by TIMOTHY LABATTE. (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
646 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has received 646 the plaintiffs' status report, in which the plaintiffs state their intention to request modification of the cy pres provision of the Settlement Agreement, and request a status hearing to discuss plaintiffs' proposal and the steps necessary to effectuate it. The plaintiffs further state that it is unclear whether the USDA will agree to the changes they have proposed. In light of the foregoing, the government is directed to file a response to the matters raised in plaintiffs' status report by no later than September 17, 2013. Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed by no later than September 24, 2013. A status hearing is hereby scheduled for October 3, 2013 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 4, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Government Response to Status Report due by 9/17/2013 Plaintiff Reply due by 9/24/2013. Status Conference set for 10/3/2013 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
647 MOTION to Intervene by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A)(Gordon, Steven) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
648 ERRATA to Motion to Intervene and Memo in Support by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION 647 MOTION to Intervene filed by JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION, CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Gordon, Steven) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
649 RESPONSE to Status Report filed by THOMAS JAMES VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
650 RESPONSE re 647 MOTION to Intervene filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 328 of 353

09/23/2013 09/24/2013 09/26/2013 09/28/2013
09/30/2013
10/01/2013 10/01/2013
10/07/2013 10/07/2013 10/11/2013 10/18/2013 10/22/2013

651 RESPONSE re 647 MOTION to Intervene filed by THOMAS JAMES VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
652 REPLY re 649 Response to Document Plaintiffs' August 30, 2013 Status Report filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
653 REPLY to opposition to motion re 647 MOTION to Intervene Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene filed by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Philip Baker−Shenk)(Gordon, Steven) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
654 MOTION to Intervene by TERENCE ARPAN, DAN BIRD, LEO BIRD, SR, SAMPSON BIRD, III, JESS BLACKMAN, DALE FENNER, EMERALD GRANT, JR, DALE GRAY, Boyd Gourneau, TRUMAN LEE HALL, TIMOTHY HESSERT, CARMELITA B HOYT, TED HOYT, MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, MYRA KNOPFLE, WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, FRANCIS LORING, MICHAEL LORING, ALVIN LUNAK, GALEN MEANS, DONNA RAE PETERSON, BIRD SAMPSON, LYLE ST GODDARD, SR, JUNE B TATSEY, KEITH TATSEY, GERALD WHITEMAN, JAMES D WILLIAMS, MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, RAMONA WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Great Plains Claimants Memo in Support of Intervention, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A − Gourneau Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B − Petersen Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C − Multiple Declarations)(Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 09/28/2013)
655 NOTICE of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Intervene by TERENCE ARPAN, DAN BIRD, LEO BIRD, SR, SAMPSON BIRD, III, JESS BLACKMAN, DALE FENNER, EMERALD GRANT, JR, DALE GRAY, Boyd Gourneau, TRUMAN LEE HALL, TIMOTHY HESSERT, CARMELITA B HOYT, TED HOYT, MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, MYRA KNOPFLE, WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, FRANCIS LORING, MICHAEL LORING, ALVIN LUNAK, GALEN MEANS, DONNA RAE PETERSON, BIRD SAMPSON, LYLE ST GODDARD, SR, JUNE B TATSEY, KEITH TATSEY, GERALD WHITEMAN, JAMES D WILLIAMS, MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, RAMONA WILLIAMS re 654 MOTION to Intervene (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
656 MOTION to Stay Case in Light of Lapse of Appropriations by THOMAS JAMES VILSACK (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 656 the government's unopposed motion to stay the proceedings in this matter in light of the government shutdown. The government shall notify the Court as soon as Congress has appropriated funds for the Department of Justice, shall request that the stay be lifted, and shall set forth proposed new dates for scheduling the status hearing in this case and for completing any outstanding briefing commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations. In view of the foregoing, the status hearing scheduled for October 3, 2013 is hereby vacated. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 1, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
657 Letter from Keepseagle Native American Plaintiffs "Let this be filed", by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan(rdj) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
658 Letter from Harry Kent "Let this be filed", by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan(rdj) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
659 RESPONSE re 654 MOTION to Intervene filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
660 NOTICE of Restoration of Funding by THOMAS JAMES VILSACK (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the end of the government shutdown, the stay of proceedings is hereby lifted. The status hearing previously scheduled for October 3, 2013 is hereby rescheduled for November 6, 2013 at 2:30PM in Courtroom 24A. The government shall file its response to 654 Great Plains Claimants' Motion to Intervene or Participate as Amicus Curiae by no later than October 30, 2013. Great Plains Claimants' reply, if any, shall be filed in accordance with the time limits set forth in the Federal and Local Civil Rules. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 22, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 329 of 353

10/23/2013 10/24/2013 10/25/2013 10/25/2013 10/30/2013 10/31/2013 11/01/2013
11/05/2013 11/05/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/12/2013 11/13/2013
11/18/2013 11/18/2013

661 Consent MOTION to Continue November 6, 2013 Status Conference by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
662 Email Received by the Court on 10/17/2013 from Alton Hankins. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/22/2013 (jf, ) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
ORDER granting 661 Consent Motion to Continue Status Hearing. The status hearing previously scheduled for November 6, 2013 is hereby rescheduled for November 18, 2013 at 1:30PM in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 25, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/18/2013 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
663 RESPONSE re 654 MOTION to Intervene filed by THOMAS JAMES VILSACK. (jf, ) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
664 NOTICE by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 646 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(jf, ) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
665 Consent MOTION for Order Extending Time to File Reply Memorandum In Support of Great Plains Claimants' Motion to Intervene by TERENCE ARPAN, DAN BIRD, LEO BIRD, SR, SAMPSON BIRD, III, JESS BLACKMAN, DALE FENNER, BOYD GOURNEAU, EMERALD GRANT, JR, DALE GRAY, TRUMAN LEE HALL, TIMOTHY HESSERT, CARMELITA B. HOYT, TED HOYT, MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, MYRA KNOPFLE, WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, FRANCIS LORING, MICHAEL LORING, ALVIN LUNAK, GALEN MEANS, DONNA RAE PETERSON, BIRD SAMPSON, LYLE ST GODDARD, SR, JUNE B. TATSEY, KEITH TATSEY, GERALD WHITEMAN, JAMES D. WILLIAMS, MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, RAMONA WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order −− Extension of Time)(Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 665 consent motion of proposed intervenors, Great Plains Claimants, for extension of time. Proposed intervenors shall file their reply in support of their motion to intervene by no later than November 13, 2013.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 5, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
Set/Reset Deadline: Intervenors reply in support of their motion to intervene due by 11/13/2013. (mac) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
666 Letter from Wendell Hannigan. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/07/2013 (jf, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
667 Letter from Robert McKay. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/07/2013 (jf, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
668 NOTICE of Filing by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter from the Council for Native American Farming and Ranching)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
669 REPLY to opposition to motion re 654 MOTION to Intervene filed by TERENCE ARPAN, DAN BIRD, LEO BIRD, SR, SAMPSON BIRD, III, JESS BLACKMAN, DALE FENNER, BOYD GOURNEAU, EMERALD GRANT, JR, DALE GRAY, TRUMAN LEE HALL, TIMOTHY HESSERT, CARMELITA B. HOYT, MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, MYRA KNOPFLE, WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, FRANCIS LORING, MICHAEL LORING, ALVIN LUNAK, GALEN MEANS, DONNA RAE PETERSON, BIRD SAMPSON, LYLE ST GODDARD, SR, JUNE B. TATSEY, KEITH TATSEY, GERALD WHITEMAN, JAMES D. WILLIAMS, MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, RAMONA WILLIAMS. (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
NOTICE of Hearing:The Status Conference scheduled for 11/18/13 at 1:30PM will now take place in Courtroom 23A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. PLEASE NOTE THE COURTROOM CHANGE. (mac) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Status Conference held on 11/18/2013. Status Report due by 1/21/2014. Status Conference set for 1/27/2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATHRYN JONES.) (mac) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 330 of 353

12/09/2013 12/17/2013 01/13/2014
01/13/2014 01/21/2014 01/21/2014 01/23/2014
01/23/2014 02/28/2014 03/05/2014
03/13/2014 03/17/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014

670 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ALL PLAINTIFFS. Attorney Katherine Amy Fallow terminated. (Fallow, Katherine) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
671 Letter from Byron B. Kent. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/12/2013 (jf, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to the Court's calendar, the status hearing previously scheduled for January 27, 2014 at 11:00 AM is hereby rescheduled to January 27, 2014 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 24A. PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 13, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/27/2014 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
672 Joint MOTION Reschedule Status Conference and Status Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
673 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (See Docket Entry 672 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 672 consent motion to reschedule status conference. The status conference previously scheduled for January 27 is hereby rescheduled for March 26, 2014 at 12:45PM in Courtroom 24A. The parties shall file a joint status report, including joint recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than March 17, 2014. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 23, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 3/17/2014. Status Conference set for 3/26/2014 at 12:45 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
674 NOTICE of Change in Firm Status by PHILLIP L. FRAAS (Fraas, Phillip) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
675 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on November 18, 2013; Page Numbers: 1 − 51. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cathryn Jones, Telephone number 202 354−3246, Court Reporter Email Address : jcathryn55@yahoo.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/26/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/5/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/3/2014.(Jones, Cathryn) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
676 Letter to Peter−Romar Friedman from Hal Kent. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 03/12/2014 (jf, ) Modified on 3/13/2014 to correct sender (jf, ). (Entered: 03/13/2014)
677 Joint MOTION to Modify Schedule for Status Conference by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
(jf, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
678 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
679 Letter from George and Marilyn Keeps Eagle. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 03/14/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 331 of 353

03/18/2014
03/21/2014
03/21/2014 03/21/2014 03/24/2014 04/10/2014 04/10/2014 04/30/2014
04/30/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014
05/08/2014 05/21/2014
05/28/2014 05/28/2014 06/02/2014 06/06/2014

680 RESPONSE re 678 Status Report filed by TERENCE ARPAN, DAN BIRD, LEO BIRD, SR, SAMPSON BIRD, III, JESS BLACKMAN, DALE FENNER, BOYD GOURNEAU, EMERALD GRANT, JR, DALE GRAY, TRUMAN LEE HALL, TIMOTHY HESSERT, CARMELITA B. HOYT, TED HOYT, MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, MYRA KNOPFLE, WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, FRANCIS LORING, MICHAEL LORING, ALVIN LUNAK, GALEN MEANS, DONNA RAE PETERSON, BIRD SAMPSON, LYLE ST GODDARD, SR, JUNE B. TATSEY, KEITH TATSEY, GERALD WHITEMAN, JAMES D. WILLIAMS, MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, RAMONA WILLIAMS. (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 677 joint consent motion to reschedule status conference. The status conference previously scheduled for March 26 is hereby rescheduled for May 14, 2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A. The parties shall file a joint status report, including joint recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than May 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 21, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
681 Letter from Darlene Wood. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 03/20/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
682 RESPONSE re 679 Letter of George and Marilyn Keepseagle filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 5/7/2014. Status Conference set for 5/14/2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
683 Letter from George and Marilyn Keeps Eagle. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 04/09/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
684 Letter from Byron B. Kent. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 04/09/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to the Court's calendar, the status hearing previously scheduled for May 14, 2014 is hereby rescheduled for May 21, 2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 30, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/21/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
685 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 685 Status Report; emailed to cwebber@cohenmilstein.com, cc'd 46 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Invalid attorney signature, 2. DO NOT REFILE−Password used should match signature on document (jf, ) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
686 Letter from Harry Kent "Let this be filed", by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (rdj) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 5/21/2014. Joint Status Report due by 9/17/2014. Status Conference set for 10/22/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.). (Court Reporter PATTY GELS.) (mac) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
687 MEMORANDUM by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
688 RESPONSE re 687 Memorandum Regarding Prudential Standing and Lexmark filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
689 RESPONSE re 687 Memorandum Response to Defendant's Memorandum Regarding Pruduential Standing and Lexmark filed by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA. (Gordon, Steven) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
690 Letter from Porter Holder. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 06/05/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 332 of 353

06/18/2014 07/14/2014 07/26/2014 07/28/2014
07/29/2014 08/14/2014 08/14/2014 08/21/2014 08/22/2014 09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/08/2014 09/11/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/16/2014

691 NOTICE of Change of Address by Erick G. Kaardal (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
692 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 635 motion to intervene. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 14, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
693 MOTION to Intervene (Letter to the Court) from NED GENE JONES "Let this be filed" by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (rdj) Modified on 9/16/2014 pursuant to Court's Minute Order filed on 07/28/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 07/28/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has received 693 a document, which the Court interprets as a motion to intervene by Ned Jones as executor of the estate of Frank G. Jones. The Court recently issued 692 an Order denying a motion to intervene and previously issued 633 another Order denying motions to intervene. Mr. Ned Jones is hereby directed to supplement 693 his motion with an explanation of how his request to intervene in this case differs from the requests denied in 633 , 692 those Orders. Any supplement shall be filed by no later than September 2, 2014. The parties are directed to respond to 693 Mr. Jones's motion and any supplemental materials by no later than September 15, 2014. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order, as well as copies of 633 and 692 the Court's previous Orders, to Mr. Jones at the address listed on 693 his motion: 1300 West Omaha Place; Broken Arrow, OK 74012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 28, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Ned Jones Supplement To Motion due by 9/2/2014. Response To Ned Jones Motion due by 9/15/2014. (mac) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
694 Letter from Phyllis K. Fong. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/12/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
695 Letter from Donald R. Kay."Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/12/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
696 Letter from James Carl Oliphant. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/15/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
697 Letter from Ned G. Jones Executor of the Estate of Frank G. Jones (Attachments: # 1 Part 2) "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/21/2014(jf, ) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
698 Letter from Jacqueline Pata (Executive Director for National Congress of American Indians). "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/29/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
699 Letter from Kevin C. Keckler (Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe). "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/29/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
700 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 09/05/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
701 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 692 Order on Motion to Intervene by TIMOTHY LABATTE. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 4616065863. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (rdj) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
702 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 701 Notice of Appeal. (rdj) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
703 RESPONSE re 693 MOTION to Intervene (Letter of Ned Jones' Motion to Intervene) filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) Modified on 9/16/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 09/15/2014)
704 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NED GENE JONES' 693 Letter, interpreted as a Motion to Intervene, filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (ztnr, ) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
705 Second MOTION to Intervene by JEROME K. ALKIRE, DONNA ANDERSON, MARY JANE ANDERSON, KIMBERLY MICHELE ANNIS, JOHN ARCHAMBEAU, STANTON ARCHAMBEAU, CHRISTOPHER ARPAN, ROSALYN ARPAN, ALBERT ARPAN, JR., ALBERT C. ARPAN, SR., REBECCA

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 333 of 353
AVERY, Anthony Afraid of Hawk, Janice Afraid of Hawk, John Afraid of Hawk, Marlis Afraid of Hawk, Terri Jo Afraid of Hawk, Helen Alkire, Bobby Amiotti, Lyle Anderson, HOLLY BAILEY, SIDNEY BAILEY, JR., SIDNEY BAILEY, SR., IRIS BEARHEELS, LELAND BEARHEELS, LORILYNN BEESON, CLARICE BENDER, LE'ANN BENDER, JACQUELINE BIGGER, DAN BIRD, SAMPSON BIRD III, LEO BIRD, SR., GABE BLACK MOON, JESS BLACKMAN, IRA BLUE COAT, NORMAN BLUE COAT, PHILIP BLUE COAT, JEFFREY BOWKER, MARLENE BOWKER, BRUCE BROWNWOIT, DOUGLAS BURGEE, TYRONE CADOTTE, SR., JENELLE CANYON, PAT CARLOU, MICHAEL CARLOU, SR., RICHARD CHARGING EAGLE, STEPHANIE CHARGING EAGLE, BERTINA CHASE, DALE CHRISTENSEN, MAGDELINE CECILIA CIRCLE EAGLE, BEVERLY CIRCLE EAGLE CLOWN, BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE JR., DENNIS CLAW, MARY CLELAND, CHANCE COLOMBE, CHARLES COLOMBE, JAMES COLOMBE, JO A. COLOMBE, LISA COLOMBE, RICHARD COLOMBE, WAYNE COLOMBE, TERRY COMEAU, GERALDINE R. CONDON, CHAD J. CONNOR, DUSTIN CONNOR, MARY ANN CONNOR, ANDY C. COOK, GLEN CUDMORE, NICHOLAS CUMMINGS, BERNARD CUNY, BLANE CUNY, BRYAN CUNY, FRANCIS CUNY, CLEMENTINE DAY, BRYAN DEANS, ILENE DECENTI, PAULMER DEFENDER, SHIRLEY DOG EAGLE, STU DOLPHUS, DONALD DOLPHUS JR., BETSY DUCHENEAUX, CARLYLE DUCHENEAUX, CLINT DUCHENEAUX, DARREN DUCHENEAUX, EDWARD DUCHENEAUX, FRANK DUCHENEAUX, HILDA DUCHENEAUX, JOANN DUCHENEAUX, LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, PETE DUCHENEAUX, ROBERT DUCHENEAUX, RONALD DUCHENEAUX, SAMMI DUCHENEAUX, STEPHANIE DUCHENEAUX, THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, ROBIN DUNN, MARIE DUNN−CLAYMORE, BERNADINE DUPRIS, EDWARD R. DUPRIS, GARY R. DUPRIS, MIKE FAITH, FREDERICK FARLEE, JUDY FARLEE, RITA FARLEE, EDDIE FARMER JR., LARRY FASTHORSE, LARSON FASTHORSE, DALE FENNER, FRANCIS FERGUSON, GARY FERGUSON, LEONARD FERGUSON, TERRANCE FISCHER, CODY WAYNE FOOTE, LORMAN BLAINE FOOTE, MICK FRANK, HAROLD FRAZIER, BARBARA GARNENEZ, TIMOTHY GARNENEZ, E. WAYNE GARREAU, MARION GARROW, GREG GESINGER, KEITH GESINGER, MARY GESINGER, STEVE GESINGER, LINDA GHOST BEAR, DIANNE GIESICK, ARDELLA GOOD LEFT, BOYD GOURNEAU, PATTI GOURNEAU, EMERALD GRANT JR., ALFRED GRASS, CATHY GRAY, DALE GRAY, MARY GROPPER, ALEX GUERRERO, DUSTIN GUNVILLE, GEORGIA A. GUNVILLE, ROMAN GUNVILLE, ROMNEY GUNVILLE, WILLIAM GUNVILLE, HARLAN GUNVILLE JR., ETHAN HALL, TRUMAN LEE HALL, NINA HANSON, HENRY HARRISON, MIKE HEATHERSHAW, JAMES HENIO, TERESA HENIO, HOWARD HERMAN, DELBERT HICKS, HARVEY HICKS, MARVA HICKS, MERLE HICKS, WILLIAM HIGH BEAR SR., JOHANNA HIGH BEAR, SR., CODI HIGH ELK, JOYCE HILL, ARLAND HODGKISS, PEARL HOLLOW HORN, VELDON HOLLOW HORN, VERDELL HORSEHOOKING, SR., CARMELITA HOYT, TED HOYT, GENE HUNT, JEFF HUNT, FRANK HUNTER, PAUL D. IRON CLOUD, PAUL JOHN IRON CLOUD, PAULETTE IRON CLOUD, JIM JACOBS, TIM JACOBS, WESLEY JACOBS, JR., JOHN JAMES, FAY JANDREAU, MARTY JANDREAU, MICHAEL JANDREAU, TIM JANDREAU, ALBERT JEWETT, IYONNE JEWETT, KATHERINE JEWETT, LOUIS JEWETT, MARY JEWETT, SANDY JEWETT, CAROL JOHNSTON, CHARLES JOHNSTON, ARNOLD JORDAN, PAUL JOSEPH, MARILYN KARY, JANET KECKLER, EUNICE KEEPSEAGLE, DAVID KEESTER, SHARON KELLER, AH−KOO−EEN−STA−MEE KIPP, PEGGY KNIFE, RANDALL KNIFE, WENDELL KNIFE, CONNIE KNIGHT, DEB KNIGHT, EDITH KNIGHT, LUCY M. KNIGHT, MARK KNIGHT, NICK KNIGHT, PATRICIA KNIGHT, MYRA KNOPFLE, DELEEN KOUGL, WICTOR KROSCH, DALE LA COMPTE, JOHN LAFFERTY, DELBERT LAMB, GLORIA LANDREAUX, SCOTT LANDREAUX, GLORIA LAUNDREAUX, JENNY LAWRENCE, JUSTIN LAWRENCE, KIM LAWRENCE, ROSS LAWRENCE, TODD JAMES LAWRENCE, WAYDE LAWRENCE, CHERYL LE COMPTE, DIXIE LE COMPTE, IVAN LE COMPTE, LC LE COMPTE, DENISE LEBEAU, MARK LEBEAU, JOSEPH LEBEAU, JR., JOSEPH LEBEAU, SR., LINDA LEBEAU−GHOST BEAR, NICK LEINGANG, JR, BRENDA LEMMON, MARCELLINE J. LESMEISTER, RHONDA LESMEISTER, ELDON LESSERT, TIMOTHY LESSERT, GILBERT LIND, MICHAEL

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 334 of 353

09/17/2014 09/17/2014 09/18/2014

LIVERMOIUT, LILA LONG, RONNIE LONG, RICHARD LONG FEATHER, VIRGINIA LONG FEATHER, WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, DELBERT F. LONGBRAKE, DELBERT W. LONGBRAKE, EMMETT LONGBRAKE, JESSE LONGBRAKE, FRANCIS LORING, MICHAEL LORING, ALVIN LUNAK, TERRY MAIER, JANICE MANDAN, ANTHONY MARSHALL, GILBERT L. MARSHALL, JOHNNY MARSHALL, JULIE MARSHALL, KIP MARSHALL, LLOYD MARSHALL, MATTIE LOU MARSHALL DOAN, CLIFFORD MARSHALL III, CLIFFORD MARSHALL, JR., KENNETH MARSHALL, SR., MOLBAY MARTINEZ, NITA MARIE MATT, EVRY MAY, JOHN MAY, LENI MAY, DONALD MCGHEE, CECIL MEANS, GALEN MEANS, GERMAINE E. MEANS, DUANE MEDNANSKY, JUSTIN MEDNANSKY, OLETA MEDNANSKY, RICHARD MEDNANSKY, THEODORE MINER, MICHELLE MITCHELL, MARY REEVES MITZEL, SO LON MOCCASIN, DONNIE MOORE, ORIS MORRISON, CHARLES MURPHY, MARJORIE BIRD NECKLACE, DAVID NELSON, BART NESS, LARRY NESS, DARIN NEWBROUGH, DELLA NO HEART, TODD O'BRYAN, CARMEN O'LEARY, TIM O'LEARY, BRADY O'ROURKE, LYLE O'ROURKE, TOM O'ROURKE, BARBARA JEAN PALCZEWSKI, DAWN PARKER, BARRY PATENEAUDE, KAREN PEARMAN, RUSSELL PEARMAN, DONNA RAE PETERSON, DAVID POURIER, DELBERT POURIER, DONALD POURIER, ROBERT POURIER, WARREN POURIER, SR., LOLA PRITZKAU, CURTIS REAL BIRD, EMMA LU REEVES, FAYE REEVES, JIMMY REEVES, RYAN REICHARDT, ROBERT RIDES AT THE DOOR, ALOYSIUS H. ROMERO, ALOYSIUS T. ROMERO, PHILOMINE FAYE ROUSSEAU, RICHARD ROUSSEAU, PAULETTE ROWLEY, MARILYN SANDLAND, MICHAEL SANDLAND, JENNIFER SCHOELERMAN, CLAUDE SHARP, DENNIS SHARP, CLYDE SHARP, JR., IAN SHERWOOD, MARY SHIRLEY, ARTHUR SIEGLOCK, JR., RAMONA SIMON, ROGER SIMPSON, LISA SKYE, MARION SKYE, DOUGLAS SKYE, JR., BERNADETTE SMITH, FLOYD SMITH, GLORIA SMITH, JAE SMITH, REBEKAH SMITH, RHEA SMITH, SHARON SMITH, TOM SMITH, VIVIAN SMITH, WARREN SMITH, ROBERT D. SMITH, JR., GERALD SPOTTED TAIL, LYLE ST GODDARD, SR, RUTH STEELE, CLAUDE SULLY III, RICHARD SWAIN, RHONDA RAE TAKES THE KNIFE, JUNE TATSEY, KEITH TATSEY, ANGELINE TAYLOR, BRADLEY TAYLOR, JERRY TAYLOR, TED TAYLOR, DARREL TERKILDSEN, BERNADINE THOMPSON, FRANK THOMPSON, RODDY THOMPSON, TATE THOMPSON, TRAVIS THOMPSON, TYLER THOMPSON, ANDREW TRAVERSIE, CAROL TRAVERSIE, HUGH DELBERT TRAVERSIE, SHAWN TRAVERSIE, MARLENE TRAXINGER, TONY TWO BEARS, SR., RAYMOND USES THE KNIFE, JR., TERI VAN DUSEN, BRENDA VEIT, CAROL VEIT, FRANKIE VEIT, DALE VOCU, TOM VROOMAN, RUSSELL SCOTT WAGNER, ARNOLD WALKER, MARTIN F. WALKER, ANNA WALN, BEVERLY WALN, DOLORES WALN, MARIE WALN, MARY WALN, SAMMIE WALN, SONNIE WALN−JESSEN, ELAINE WARD, KELLY WARD, MORGAN WARD, RICHARD WARD, SANDRA WARD, WADE WARD, LARRY WELLS, CARMEN E. WESTON, EVELYN WESTON, FARRELL WESTON, ROBERT WHIPPLE, STANLEY WHIPPLE, WILLIAM WHIPPLE, CONNIE WHIRLWINDHORSE, HELEN WHITE, JAMES WHITE, JAYME A. WHITE EYES, MARIAN WHITE MOUSE, BURTIS WHITE WOLF, KIMBERLY WHITE WOLF, SULLIVAN WHITE WOLF, FRANCIS WHITECLAY, GERALD WHITEMAN, EDWARD WIDOW, NORRIS WIDOW, J.D. WILLIAMS, MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, RAMONA WILLIAMS, PAUL WILLIAMS, JR., JOHN WOODEN KNIFE, RAYMOND WRIGHT, TIMOTHY YELLOW, DEAN YELLOW HAWK (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
706 NOTICE of Proposed Order by ALL MOVANTS re 705 Second MOTION to Intervene (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
707 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has received 707 the parties' joint status report, which indicates that the parties have reached a tentative proposal for modification of the Settlement Agreement in this case. The plaintiffs indicate that they will file, by no later

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 335 of 353

09/18/2014 09/21/2014 09/22/2014 09/24/2014
09/25/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014
10/01/2014
10/01/2014 10/03/2014 10/08/2014 10/08/2014

than September 24, 2014, a motion for modification of the Settlement Agreement discussing their proposed changes. The Court has also received 705 a second motion to intervene by the Great Plains Claimants. Those Claimants filed 654 an earlier motion to intervene which related to hypothetical modification proposals that were never presented to this Court. In light of the filing of 705 the second motion to intervene and the parties' representations that they have reached a new proposed modification, the Court hereby DENIES AS MOOT 654 the Great Plains Claimants's first motion to intervene. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file their responses to 705 the motion to intervene by no later than October 8, 2014. The Great Plains Claimants shall file any reply in support of their motion by no later than October 15, 2014. Also before the Court is 647 a motion to intervene by the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, which relates to modification proposals that were never presented to this Court. Accordingly, 647 that motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Choctaw Nation shall file any renewed motion to intervene, setting forth its claimed interest as it relates to proceedings regarding the modifications proposed by the plaintiffs by no later than October 1, 2014. The parties shall file their responses to any motion to intervene filed by the Choctaw Nation by no later than October 8, 2014. The Choctaw Nation shall file any reply brief in support of its motion by no later than October 15, 2014. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 18, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Renewed Motion To Intervene due by 10/1/2014. Responses due by 10/8/2014 Replies due by 10/15/2014. (mac) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
708 Letter from Various Non−Parties."Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 09/21/2014 (rdj) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
USCA Case Number 14−5223 for 701 Notice of Appeal filed by TIMOTHY LABATTE. (kb) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
709 Unopposed MOTION to Modify The Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
710 Letter from George and Marilyn Keeps Eagle. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 09/24/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
711 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Varma, Anurag) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
712 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Nominations to Board of Trustees by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 709 Unopposed MOTION to Modify The Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
713 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,, Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to Intervene filed by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Modify The Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Intervene, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Denying Motion to Amend Settlement Agreement)(Gordon, Steven) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
714 Renewed Motion to Intervene filed by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA. (Gordon, Steven) Modified on 10/9/2014 (rdj). (Entered: 10/01/2014)
715 Letter from Rodney J. Smith. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/01/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
716 RESPONSE re 705 Second MOTION to Intervene of Great Plains filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sellers Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Haber Declaration)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
717 RESPONSE Re Renewed Motion to Intervene By Choctaw Nation filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) Modified on 10/9/2014 (rdj). (Entered: 10/08/2014)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 336 of 353

10/08/2014 10/08/2014 10/09/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/20/2014
10/20/2014 10/20/2014
10/22/2014

718 RESPONSE Re Renewed Motion to Intervene By Choctaw Nation filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (rdj) Modified on 10/9/2014 (rdj). (Entered: 10/09/2014)
719 Memorandum in opposition to re 705 Second MOTION to Intervene filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (rdj) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
720 ORDER denying 693 motion to intervene. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 9, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
721 Letter from Harry Kent. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan signed on 10/10/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
722 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,, Reply Brief in Support of Renewed Motion to Intervene filed by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gary Batton)(Gordon, Steven) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
723 REPLY to opposition to motion re 705 Second MOTION to Intervene filed by ALL MOVANTS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Connie Knight, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Donna Rae Petersen, # 3 Exhibit Listening Sessions Record Emails)(Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. Currently pending before the Court is 709 Class Counsel's unopposed motion to modify the Settlement Agreement, which was filed on September 24, 2014. Well before that motion was filed, the Court scheduled a status hearing for October 22, 2014. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that it is advisable to RESCHEDULE the status hearing currently scheduled for October 22, 2014 for December 2, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. First, the Court finds that further discussions regarding the procedures that will govern the Court's consideration of 709 the motion to modify the Settlement Agreement, should await the Court's rulings on 705 , 714 the pending motions to intervene. Once the issue of intervention is resolved, the Court intends to address the following questions: (1) whether the Court must direct notice to the Class and hold a fairness hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); (2) whether, if Rule 23 does not permit the Court to require such notice and a hearing, the Court may nonetheless exercise discretion to direct notice to the class and to permit class members to give their thoughts on 709 the proposed modification during a status hearing or motion hearing; and (3) what content and form any notice−−whether required by Rule 23(e) or permitted by the Court's discretion−−should take. The Court finds that a status hearing would not be productive until the Court has received briefing from the parties addressing these three questions. Holding a status hearing on December 2 will permit the Court sufficient time to resolve the pending requests for intervention and give the parties sufficient time to file briefs, addressing all appropriate points and authorities. The government and Class Counsel are directed to file their briefs by no later than November 12, 2014. The Court will provide an additional schedule, if appropriate, for the participation of any intervenors or amici curiae upon resolution of 705 , 714 the motions to intervene. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 20, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Briefs due by 11/12/2014. Status Conference set for 12/2/2014 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. Earlier today, the Court's staff received a telephone message from George and Marilyn Keepseagle, indicating their desire to address the Court on Wednesday, October 22, 2014. It was unclear from the message whether they wished to address the Court during the status hearing that was previously scheduled for that date or whether they requested to speak with the Court privately. Class Counsel is hereby directed to notify George and Marilyn Keepseagle that the status hearing previously scheduled for October 22, 2014 will now take place on December 2, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. and that any communication with the Court must take place in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Civil Rules. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 20, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
724 Letter from James A. Pratt. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/20/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 337 of 353

10/22/2014 11/05/2014 11/07/2014 11/07/2014 11/10/2014 11/10/2014
11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/14/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014
11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/19/2014

725 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/21/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
726 RESPONSE re 725 Letter of George and Marilyn Keepseagle filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
727 ORDER denying 705 , 714 motions to intervene. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 7, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
728 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 7, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
729 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Stewart Douglas Fried on behalf of ALL MOVANTS. (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of 729 the appearance filed by the amici curiae, it is hereby ORDERED that any amicus brief responsive to the Court's October 20, 2014 Minute Order, which directed the parties to brief issues regarding the Court's authority to direct notice and hold a fairness hearing in connection with 709 the pending motion for modification, shall be filed by no later than November 26, 2014. The parties may file reply briefs, which shall not exceed five pages in length, by no later than December 1, 2014. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 10, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amicus Brief Responses due by 11/26/2014. Amicus Brief Replies due by 12/1/2014. (mac) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
730 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,, filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
731 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,, Requesting Briefing on Notice filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
732 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. by Great Plains Claimants (Fried, Stewart) Modified on 11/14/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 11/14/2014)
733 RESPONSE re 732 MOTION for Extension of Time to file Motion to Stay Pending Appeal filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 732 the Great Plains Claimants' request for extension of time. The deadline for the Great Plains Claimants to file a motion for a stay pending appeal shall be extended to January 6, 2015. In response to the request for clarification contained in footnote two of 732 the motion, the Court informs the Great Plains Claimants that their amicus brief should not address the merits of Class Counsel's motion to modify the Settlement Agreement and should focus only on the notice and hearing questions raised in the Court's October 20, 2014 Minute Order. The Court will not reach a decision on Class Counsel's motion for modification during the December 2, 2014 status hearing, and the Court intends to provide the amici curiae with a separate opportunity to file a brief responsive to that motion at a later date. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 17, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
735 Letter from Marilyn S. Kary. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/14/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion For A Stay Pending Appeal due by 1/6/2015. (mac) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
734 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Stay Pending Appeal by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION (Baker−Shenk, Philip) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
736 RESPONSE re 734 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
737 Letter from Harry Kent. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/17/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 11/19/2014)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 338 of 353

11/20/2014
11/20/2014 11/24/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014
11/24/2014 11/26/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/02/2014 12/03/2014 12/16/2014 12/30/2014 01/05/2015 01/05/2015 01/06/2015 01/06/2015 01/06/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 734 the Choctaw Movants' request for extension of time. The deadline for the Choctaw Movants to file a motion for a stay pending appeal shall be extended to January 6, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 20, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Choctaw Movants To File A Motion To Stay due by 1/6/2015. (mac) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
738 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Association of American Indian Farmers (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Exhibit AAIF Membership, # 3 Exhibit Whiteclay Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit AAIF Petition, # 5 Exhibit Financial Disclosure)(Lively, Keith) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
739 NOTICE of Appearance by Andre P. Barlow on behalf of Association of American Indian Farmers (Barlow, Andre) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 738 motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion filed by the Association of American Indian Farmers is GRANTED. The Clerk shall accept the amicus curiae brief, which is attached to 738 amicus' motion, for filing in this case. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 24, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
740 AMICUS BRIEF by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN INDIAN FARMERS. (jf, ) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
741 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE AND FAIRNESS HEARING filed by ALL MOVANTS. (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
742 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Webber, Christine) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
743 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 12/2/2014. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
744 Letters from Marilyn Keeps Eagle, Geroge Keeps Eagle and Lynnettah Hunt. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/02/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Lynnettah Hunt) (jf, ) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
745 Letter from James McGirt "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (rdj) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
747 Letters from George Keeps Eagle, Ronald Hammonds & Ozmer Lee Oxendine, Jr. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/30/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
746 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 727 Order by JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0090−3951513. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Gordon, Steven) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
748 Letter from Lloyd Marshall. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/31/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
749 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 746 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (jf, ) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
750 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Stay Pending Appeal by CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA (Gordon, Steven) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. The government is directed to file a pleading setting forth its position regarding 750 the movants' motion for extension of time by no later than January 9, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 6, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/06/2015)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 339 of 353

01/06/2015 01/08/2015 01/09/2015 01/10/2015
01/14/2015
01/14/2015 01/21/2015 01/21/2015 01/28/2015 02/09/2015 02/09/2015
02/10/2015 02/12/2015

Set/Reset Deadlines: Government Pleading due by 1/9/2015. (mac) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
751 RESPONSE re 750 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
752 Letter from Harbert Edwin Moore. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 01/07/2015 (jf, ) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 750 movant's unopposed motion for extension of time. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma shall file any motion to stay proceedings pending 746 its appeal by no later than fourteen days after the Court rules on 709 the pending motion for modification of the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 10, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/10/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. During the December 2, 2014 hearing in this case, Class Counsel volunteered to provide Ms. Keepseagle assistance in searching for potential counsel to represent her in making what appeared to the Court to be arguments seeking relief from the judgment in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The Court requests that Class Counsel file a status report, providing the Court an update on the status of Ms. Keepseagle's search for potential new counsel, to the best of Class Counsel's knowledge. This status report shall be filed by no later than January 21, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 14, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Class Counsel Status Report due by 1/21/2015. (mac) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
753 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
USCA Case Number 15−5011 for 746 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION. (rd) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
754 Letters from Various Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf, ) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
755 NOTICE of Appearance by Stewart Douglas Fried on behalf of GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE, Marilyn Keepseagle (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. During the December 2, 2014 hearing in this case, Ms. Marilyn Keepseagle spoke and, arguably, in the Court's view, requested relief from the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. In light of this, Mr. and Ms. Keepseagle sought to retain new counsel to represent them in making any motion for relief from the judgment. In light of 755 the entry of appearance filed on behalf of George and Marilyn Keepseagle, the government, Class Counsel, and Mr. and Ms. Keepseagle are directed to file a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings and, if applicable, a proposed briefing schedule, in connection with any request for relief from judgment that the Keepseagles may intend to file. The status report shall be filed by no later than February 23, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 9, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 2/23/2015. (mac) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
756 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 12−2−14; Page Numbers: (1−26). Date of Issuance:1−5−15. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott Wallace, Telephone number 202−277−3739, Court Reporter Email Address : scott_l_wallace@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/5/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/15/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 340 of 353

02/13/2015 02/23/2015 02/24/2015
02/25/2015 03/13/2015 03/13/2015 03/18/2015 03/18/2015 03/20/2015

5/13/2015.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
757 Letter from John C. Schumacher, Esq. on behalf of Cami and Ivan Nicholls. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 02/12/2015 (jf, ) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
758 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by CLARYCA MANDAN. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. During the December 2, 2014 hearing in this case, Ms. Keepseagle appeared to request relief from the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. During that hearing, the government asserted that "to the extent intervention is necessary" for Ms. Keepseagle to raise such an argument, the government's position was identical to that expressed in its opposition to prior motions to intervene which the Court had denied. The Court noted the "interesting question[:] whether or not she needs to intervene if, indeed, she's a member of a class who received some relief." The Court expressed no opinion on the answer to that question, but provided Ms. Keepseagle the opportunity to secure separate counsel to make any argument to the Court that may be appropriate. Now before the Court is 758 the Joint Status Report filed by Class Counsel, the government, and Mr. and Ms. Keepseagle. The Keepseagles indicate that they intend to file two preliminary motions: (1) a motion to remove two class representatives; and (2) a motion to compel Class Counsel to produce various materials. Class Counsel intends to oppose these motions. The Keepseagles ask the Court to set a schedule for the briefing of these two preliminary motions before any briefing of a Rule 60 motion by the Keepseagles, while the government and Class Counsel prefer a consolidated briefing schedule. The Court will adopt the Keepseagles' proposal, albeit on a slightly shorter schedule to ensure prompt resolution of these preliminary matters. The Court notes, however, that the preliminary question raised during the December 2, 2014 hearing arguably bears on the Keepseagles' ability to prevail on these preliminary motions. The question remains as the Court phrased it during the December 2, 2014 status hearing: "whether or not [they] need[] to intervene if, indeed, [they are] member[s] of a class who received some relief." The Keepseagles shall address this issue in their preliminary motions, insofar as it bears on their ability to file the motions for removal and to compel that they seek to file. The parties are directed to comply with the following briefing schedule: The Keepseagles shall file their motions for removal and to compel by no later than March 13, 2015. The government and Class Counsel shall file their opposition briefs by no later than March 20, 2015. The Keepseagles shall file any reply brief by no later than March 27, 2015. The parties are notified that requests for extensions of time will not be granted. The Court will set a schedule for the briefing of additional matters upon resolution of the motions to remove and to compel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 24, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Keepseagles Motion For Removal And To Compel due by 3/13/2015. Government and Class Counsel Opposition Brief due by 3/20/2015. Keepseagle Reply Brief due by 3/27/2015. (mac) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
759 MOTION to Compel Listening Session Materials by GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE, Marilyn Keepseagle (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
760 MOTION for Order Removing Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan as Class Representatives by GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE, Marilyn Keepseagle (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
761 Letter from John D. Son. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 03/18/2015 (jf, ) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
765 Letter from Harry Kent "Let this be filed" by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (rdj) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
762 RESPONSE re 760 MOTION for Order Removing Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan as Class Representatives filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/20/2015)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 341 of 353

03/20/2015 03/20/2015 03/27/2015 03/27/2015 03/30/2015
03/30/2015 04/02/2015 04/02/2015 04/06/2015 04/23/2015 04/23/2015 04/28/2015

763 RESPONSE re 759 MOTION to Compel Listening Session Materials, 760 MOTION for Order Removing Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan as Class Representatives filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
764 RESPONSE re 759 MOTION to Compel Listening Session Materials filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
766 REPLY in support of re 759 MOTION to Compel Listening Session Materials filed by GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE, MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (Fried, Stewart) Modified on 3/31/2015 to correct docket text (jf, ). (Entered: 03/27/2015)
767 REPLY to opposition to motion re 760 MOTION for Order Removing Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan as Class Representatives filed by GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE, MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. In 760 the Keepseagles's motion to remove Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan as class representatives, 762 Class Counsel's response thereto, and 767 the Keepseagles's reply, the parties dispute whether Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan are adequate representatives of the class within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). The Keepseagles ask either that Holder and Mandan be removed as representatives, or that they be relegated to represent a subclass that the Court may certify. Class Counsel argues that Holder and Mandan remain adequate representatives of the class as a whole. Left unsaid, however, is the basis for the Court's authority to remove class representatives or certify subclasses and thereby modify or amend the class−certification order in this case. This case, of course, settled in 2011 after the Court followed the procedures of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), and no party filed an appeal. This arguably affects the Court's authority to certify subclasses or remove class representatives. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C) ("An order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment."). The entry of a final settlement may also affect the adequacy of representation requirement, which the D.C. Circuit has described as follows: "Basic consideration[s] of fairness require that a court undertake a stringent and continuing examination of the adequacy of representation by the named class representatives at all stages of the litigation where absent members will be bound by the court's judgment." Nat'l Ass'n of Reg'l Med. Programs v. Mathews, 551 F.2d 340, 344−45 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Accordingly, the Court directs Class Counsel and the Keepseagles−−and the government, if it wishes to take a position on this issue−−to file supplemental briefs, no longer than seven−pages and containing citations to applicable points and authorities, addressing whether the Court has the authority to grant the relief sought by the Keepseagles, in light of the issues raised by the Court in this Minute Order. All supplemental briefs shall be filed by no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 2, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 30, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Supplemental Briefs due by 4/2/2015. (mac) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
768 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,,, ISSUED MARCH 30, 2015 ADDRESSING COURT'S AUTHORITY TO MODIFY CLASS DEFINITION filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
769 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,,, filed by GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE, MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (Fried, Stewart) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
770 NOTICE of Filing by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 762 Response to motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Porter Holder)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
771 ORDER denying 759 , 760 motion to compel and motion to remove. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 23, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
772 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 23, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
773 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ALL PLAINTIFFS. Attorney Peter Romer−Friedman terminated. (Romer−Friedman, Peter) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 342 of 353

04/28/2015 05/04/2015 05/04/2015 05/07/2015 05/07/2015
05/11/2015 05/11/2015 05/19/2015
05/22/2015 05/28/2015 06/02/2015 06/02/2015 06/02/2015

774 Letter from Harlan Beaulieu, President, Intertribal Agriculture Council "Let this be filed" by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (rdj) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
775 ORDER regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) issues. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 4, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
776 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 4, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
777 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 771 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Order and amend briefing schedule and hearing date by THOMAS J. VILSACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 777 the parties' joint motion for extension of time. The parties are directed to comply with the following briefing schedule: the Keepseagles shall file any motion regarding modification of, or relief from, the judgment in this case by no later than May 19, 2015. The Keepseagles shall file any opposition to Class Counsel's motion for modification by no later than June 2, 2015. The government and Class Counsel shall file any opposition to the Keepseagles's motion for modification by no later than June 2, 2015. Any amicus curiae brief in support of or opposition to any pending motion for modification of the settlement agreement shall be filed by no later than June 2, 2015. The Keepseagles shall file their reply in further support of their motion for modification of the settlement agreement by no later than June 16, 2015. The government and Class Counsel shall file any reply in further support of Class Counsel's motion for modification of the settlement agreement by no later than June 16, 2015. The Court DENIES the request to reschedule the motion hearing currently scheduled for June 29, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., however. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
778 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Notices by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 775 Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Full Notice, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Publication Notice)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has reviewed 778 Class Counsel's proposed full notice and publication notice. The Court approves the notices and Class Counsel's proposed methods for distribution, in accordance with 776 the Court's most recent Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 11, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
779 MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support of Motion to Modify, # 2 Exhibit Ex. A − Proposed Addendum A, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B − Proposed Addendum B, # 4 Exhibit Ex. C − Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Letter, # 5 Exhibit Ex. D − Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Resolution, # 6 Exhibit Ex. E − Oglala Sioux Tribal Council Resolution, # 7 Exhibit Ex. F − Oglala Sioux Tribe Executive Committee Resolution, # 8 Exhibit Ex. G − Rosebud Sioux Tribe Resolution, # 9 Exhibit Ex. H − Declaration of Marilyn Keepseagle, # 10 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Dillard, John) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
781 ORDER of USCA as to 746 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION. ORDERED that the motion be denied. USCA Case Number 15−5011. (rd) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
780 Letters from Various Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 05/26/2015 (jf) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
782 Memorandum in opposition to re 779 MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
783 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by INDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION, INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Exhibit Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Handley, Matthew) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
784 MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement (Amicus Curiae in Support) by ALL MOVANTS (Dillard, John) (Entered: 06/02/2015)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 343 of 353

06/02/2015 06/02/2015 06/03/2015 06/03/2015 06/03/2015 06/10/2015 06/10/2015 06/15/2015 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/17/2015 06/19/2015
06/19/2015

785 Memorandum in opposition to re 709 Unopposed MOTION to Modify The Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions filed by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (Dillard, John) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
786 Memorandum in opposition to re 779 MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 783 motion for leave to file amicus brief. The proposed amicus curiae brief, Attachment No. 1 to 783 the amici's motion, shall be filed on the docket as a separate docket entry. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 3, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
787 AMICUS BRIEF by INDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION, INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL. (jf) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
788 Corporate Disclosure Statement by INDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION, INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL. (jf) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
789 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 06/08/2015 (jf) (Main Document 789 replaced on 6/29/2015) (jf). (Entered: 06/10/2015)
790 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 06/08/2015 (jf) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
791 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
792 REPLY to opposition to motion re 709 Unopposed MOTION to Modify The Settlement Agreement Cy Pres Provisions filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
793 REPLY to opposition to motion re 779 MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement filed by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (Dillard, John) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
794 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court's staff received a telephone call from counsel for Ms. Keepseagle, who inquired about how long the parties will have to present argument during the June 29, 2015 status hearing and how the Court intends to proceed with hearing from members of the class. The hearing, which will begin at 9:00 a.m. on June 29, 2015, will begin with brief argument from counsel. The Court has reviewed the parties' written submissions, and the purpose of hearing from counsel is to get answers to various questions the Court has. Although the Court will provide the attorneys a brief opportunity to supplement their arguments after answering the Court's questions, the attorneys should not present extensive additional argument or rehash their written pleadings. The Court, moreover, is conscious of the strong interest in these proceedings from members of the class, and is eager to reserve as much time as possible to hear from those who intend to travel to Washington, D.C. to be heard. Accordingly, as soon as the attorney−argument portion of the hearing has ended, the Court will begin to hear from members of the class. The Court cannot predict how many members of the class will attend, but based upon the attendance at the December 2, 2014 status hearing and the letters received by the Court to date, there may be a large number. Accordingly, the Court has reserved the entire day on June 29, 2015, if necessary, to hear from as many class members as possible. Depending upon turnout, it may become necessary to impose narrower time restrictions on speakers or to hear first from individuals who have not already written to the Court, to ensure that everyone's views are presented. The parties are further informed that, in view of the potential for large turnout for the June 29, 2015 hearing, the hearing will not take place in Courtroom 24A, but will instead take place in the Court's Ceremonial Courtroom, which is located on the Sixth Floor of the Prettyman Building. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 19, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Hearing set for 6/29/2015 at 9:00 AM in Ceremonial Courtroom before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (tcr) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 344 of 353

06/23/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/29/2015
07/06/2015 07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/08/2015
07/13/2015 07/20/2015 07/21/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015

795 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
796 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
797 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
798 Letter from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
799 Letter from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 6/29/2015 re 784 MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement (Amicus Curiae in Support) and 779 MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
800 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
801 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
802 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
803 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
804 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
805 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2) (jf) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
806 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 6−29−15; Page Numbers: (1−199). Date of Issuance:7−7−15. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott L. Wallace, Telephone number 202−354−3196, Court Reporter Email Address : scottlyn01@aol.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/29/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/8/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/6/2015.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
807 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
808 Letter from Reginald Joe. "Leave to file GRANTED" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 06/04/2015 (jf) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
809 Letter from John McCoy. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 07/20/2015 (jf) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
810 ORDER denying 709 Motion to Modify, denying 779 Motion to Modify. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 24, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
811 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 24, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/24/2015)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 345 of 353

07/27/2015 07/28/2015 08/06/2015 08/20/2015 08/26/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/21/2015 10/22/2015
10/22/2015 10/22/2015 10/23/2015 10/28/2015
10/28/2015 10/29/2015 10/30/2015

812 Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 810 Order on Motion to Modify,, 811 Memorandum & Opinion ;USCA Case Number 15−05011. (jf) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
813 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Letters filed by various non−party(s) as untimely. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (jf) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
814 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Frantz, David) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
815 NOTICE of Change of Address by Phillip L. Fraas (Fraas, Phillip) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
816 Letter from Marilyn KeepsEagle, Geroge Keeps Eagle. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/25/2015 (jf) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
817 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Dillard, John) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 817 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal. The Plaintiff's shall file any notice of appeal by no later than October 22, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 18, 2015. (lcegs3) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Notice of Appeal due by 10/22/2015. (mac) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to Courts Minute Order issued September 18, 2015, the deadline for the plaintiffs to file a notice of appeal has been extended to October 22, 2015. In the event the parties were unable to reach a final settlement agreement, but nonetheless desire the appointment of an experienced mediator to assist in further settlement discussions, the Court is prepared to accommodate such a request by appointing a well−qualified mediator and further extending the deadline for the plaintiffs to file notice of appeal. Given the impending deadline, the parties shall notify the Court whether they desire the appointment of such a mediator by 2:00 p.m. today. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 22, 2015. (lcegs3) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
818 NOTICE by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE (Matz, Marshall) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
819 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 810 Order on Motion to Modify,, by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0090−4288342. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Matz, Marshall) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
820 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 819 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (znmw) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. Counsel for the parties shall appear telephonically at 11:00 a.m. on Thrusday, October 29, 2015 for a Stauts Hearing to discuss the status of the the parties' settlement discussions. Each party shall designate one attorney to speak on behalf of the party. No other attorneys will be permitted to introduce themselves or speak on the record, however other attorneys are permitted to listen to the proceeding. Call−in information will be sent to the parties forthwith. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 28, 2011. (lcegs3) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 10/29/2015 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 25A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Telephone Conference held on 10/29/2015. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
USCA Case Number 15−5297 for 819 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (md) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 346 of 353

11/05/2015 11/06/2015 11/17/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/09/2015 12/11/2015 12/14/2015 12/15/2015 12/17/2015
12/18/2015 12/18/2015 12/30/2015
01/12/2016 01/20/2016

821 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL as to 810 Order on Motion to Modify and 811 Memorandum & Opinion by ALL PLAINTIFFS. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0090−4306602. Fee Status: fee paid. Parties have been notified. (ztnr) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
822 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 821 Notice of Cross Appeal. (zrdj) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
USCA Case Number 15−5316 for 821 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (vt) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
823 Joint MOTION Joint Request for a Status Conference by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 823 parties' joint motion for status hearing. The Court will hold a status hearing on December 11, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 8, 2015. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/11/2015 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 12/11/2015. Status Conference set for 2/4/2016 at 10:00 AM in Ceremonial Courtroom before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
824 Unopposed MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A − Proposed Addendum, # 3 Exhibit B − Trust Agreement, # 4 Exhibit C − Trustee Nominees, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
825 ORDER re 824 Unopposed MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 15, 2015. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
826 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) ORDERED that the motion be granted, and these cases are hereby dismissed as to 821 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS, 819 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. USCA Case Number 15−5297 (Consolidate with 15−5316). (zrdj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/21/2015: # 1 Certified Copy of Order) (zrdj). (Entered: 12/17/2015)
827 Unopposed MOTION to ClarifyOrder by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
828 AMENDED ORDER in response to 827 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Clarify. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 18, 2015. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court's staff received a telephone call from counsel for one of the class members asking whether counsel would be allowed to speak on the class member's behalf due to the class member's inability to travel because of medical circumstances. Consistent with the Court's December 18, 2015 Order, the Court will hear from counsel for any class member who is unable to attend the February 4, 2016 motion hearing and who has authorized counsel to speak on his or her behalf. Depending upon turnout, it may become necessary to impose narrower time restrictions on speakers or to hear first from individuals who have not written to the Court, to ensure that everyone's views are presented. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 30, 2015. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
829 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) ORDERED that the motion be granted, and this case is hereby dismissed as to 746 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION. USCA Case Number 15−5011. (zrdj) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
830 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 828 Order on Motion to Clarify filed by TIMOTHY LABATTE. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 347 of 353

01/20/2016 01/20/2016 01/20/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/28/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 02/01/2016
02/02/2016 02/02/2016
02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/04/2016 02/05/2016
02/05/2016

832 NOTICE of Appearance by William A. Sherman, II on behalf of KEITH MANDAN (znmw) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
833 NOTICE of Comments re 824 Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement by KEITH MANDAN (znmw) (Main Document 833 replaced on 1/21/2016) (znmw). (Entered: 01/21/2016)
834 NOTICE of Comments re 824 Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement by WILLIAM H. SMALLWOOD, JR (znmw) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 830 Response to Order of the Court; emailed to kaardal@mklaw.com, cc'd 55 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Counsel should review for future filings LCvR 5.1(a) CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COURT (jf, ) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
831 NOTICE of Appearance by William A. Sherman, II on behalf of KEITH MANDAN (Sherman, William) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
835 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
836 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
837 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
838 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
839 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the potential for large turnout for the February 4, 2016 hearing, the hearing will not place in Courtroom 24A, but will instead take place in the Court's Ceremonial Courtroom, which is located on the Sixth Floor of the Prettyman Building. The hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 1, 2016. (lcegs3) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
840 Proposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Jon Velie, :Firm− Velie Law Firm, :Address− 401 W. Main Suite 300. Phone No. − 405−310−4333. Fax No. − 405−310−4334 Fee Status: No Fee Paid. by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Jon Velie)(Dunn, Alvin) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
MINUTE ORDER granting 840 motion for leave to appear pro hac vice. Jonathan Velie is hereby admitted pro hac vice in this action. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 3, 2016. (lcegs3) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
841 NOTICE of Filing Corrected Exhibit B (Trust Agreement) by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 824 Unopposed MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 corrected Exhibit B (Trust Agreement))(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
842 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 2/5/2016 re 824 Unopposed MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. Parties To Submit Any Points Of Authorities Of Law due on 2/11/2016 at 12:00PM. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
MINUTE ORDER. Party and Nonparty persons interested in ordering a copy of the transcript of the motion hearing held on February 4, 2016 are required to order the transcript by filling out the Transcript Order Form located on the Clerk's Office Website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov and choosing Scott Wallace as the court reporter who was assigned to cover this hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 348 of 353

02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/11/2016 02/11/2016 02/11/2016 02/12/2016
02/12/2016
02/12/2016
02/17/2016

February 5, 2016. (lcegs3) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
843 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
844 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
845 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
846 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
847 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
848 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
849 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
850 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
851 MEMORANDUM re 824 Unopposed MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS by KEITH MANDAN. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
852 MOTION to Modify or in the Alternative Remand for Further Negotiations with Instructions from the Court by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Dunn, Alvin) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
853 NOTICE of Points of Law by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
MINUTE ORDER. Any party who wishes to respond to 851 Memorandum re Unopposed Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement, 852 Motion to Modify or in the Alternative Remand for Further Negotiations with Instructions from the Court, or 853 Notice of Points of Law, shall file such a response by no later than February 18, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. Any replies to any such responses shall be filed by no later than February 21, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 12, 2016. (lcegs3) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
MINUTE ORDER re 853 Class Counsel's Notice of Points of Law. Class Counsel's submission cites to the following cases wherein the Court approved a proposed modification to a class action settlement agreement that had previously been approved to the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e): (1) Int'l Union v. Ford Motor Co., 2009 WL 3757040 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2009); (2) In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation, 226 F.R.D. 498 (E.D. Pa. 2005); and (3) Bowling v. Pfizer, 2015 WL 7180919 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 16, 2015). Class counsel is hereby directed to submit to the Court copies of the original class action settlement agreements from those cases by no later than February 18, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 12, 2016. (lcegs3) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Party Response to 851 Memorandum re Unopposed Motion To Modify Settlement Agreement, 852 Motion To Modify or in the Alternative Remand For Further Negotiations with Instructions from the Court, or 853 Notice of Points of Law due by 12:00 PM on 2/18/2016. Replies due by 12:00PM on 2/21/2016. (mac) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
854 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 2−4−16; Page Numbers: (1−235). Date of Issuance:2−17−16. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott Wallace, Telephone number 202−354−3196, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the <a href=http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/node/2189>Transcript Order Form.</a><P></P><P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 349 of 353

02/17/2016 02/18/2016
02/18/2016
02/18/2016
02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/19/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/26/2016

reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/19/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/17/2016.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
855 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
MINUTE ORDER amending the Court's February 12, 2016 Minute Order. Any responses to 851 Memorandum re Unopposed Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement, 852 Motion to Modify or in the Alternative Remand for Further Negotiations with Instructions from the Court, or 853 Notice of Points of Law, shall file such a response by no later than February 18, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. Any replies to any such responses shall be filed by no later than February 22, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 18, 2016. (lcegs3) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
856 RESPONSE re 851 Memorandum of Points and Authorities of Law submitted by Keith Mandan filed by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Marilyn Keepseagle − Feb. 17, 2016)(Dillard, John) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
857 Memorandum in opposition to re 852 MOTION to Modify or in the Alternative Remand for Further Negotiations with Instructions from the Court filed by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Marilyn Keepseagle − Feb. 17, 2016)(Dillard, John) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
858 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 824 Unopposed MOTION to Modify the Settlement Agreement filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christine Webber)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
859 RESPONSE re 852 MOTION to Modify or in the Alternative Remand for Further Negotiations with Instructions from the Court and Response to Mandan Comments filed by THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
860 NOTICE in Response to Class Counsel's Points and Authorities by KEITH MANDAN re 853 Notice (Other) (Sherman, William) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
861 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia Ann Marks on behalf of JUDY FREDERICKS (Marks, Patricia) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
862 RESPONSE re 851 Memorandum filed by JUDY FREDERICKS. (Marks, Patricia) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
863 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia Ann Marks on behalf of HELEN ALKIRE (Marks, Patricia) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
864 RESPONSE re 851 Memorandum filed by HELEN ALKIRE. (Marks, Patricia) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
865 Letter. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
866 RESPONSE re 860 Notice (Other) of Keith Mandan filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
867 MEMORANDUM by KEITH MANDAN. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
868 NOTICE of Change of Address by Phillip L. Fraas (Fraas, Phillip) (Entered: 02/26/2016)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 350 of 353

04/19/2016 04/19/2016 04/20/2016 04/20/2016 04/20/2016
04/26/2016
04/29/2016 05/02/2016 05/06/2016 06/15/2016
06/20/2016
06/20/2016 06/22/2016 06/28/2016 06/28/2016 06/30/2016 10/17/2016
10/17/2016

869 Unopposed MOTION Emergency Request for Status Conference by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
870 RESPONSE re 869 Unopposed MOTION Emergency Request for Status Conference filed by KEITH MANDAN. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
871 ORDER granting 824 Motion to Modify; denying 852 Motion to Modify. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/20/2019. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
872 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/20/2016. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 869 unopposed emergency request for status conference regarding approval of cy pres beneficiaries in view of the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed 4/20/2016. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/20/2016. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
873 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date. as to 701 Notice of Appeal filed by TIMOTHY LABATTE. USCA Case Number 14−5223. (zrdj) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
874 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
875 Letters from Various Non−Parties. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
876 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Letters from Various Non−Parties. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to file denied" signed from Emmet G. Sullivan (jf) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
879 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 872 Order, 871 Order on Motion to Modify, by DONOVAN TINGLE. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 4616078682. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (jf) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
877 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 872 Order, 871 Order on Motion to Modify, by KEITH MANDAN. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0090−4572940. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
878 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 877 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (jf) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
880 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 879 Notice of Appeal. (jf) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
USCA Case Number 16−5189 for 879 Notice of Appeal filed by DONIVON TINGLE. (zrdj) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
USCA Case Number 16−5190 for 877 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by KEITH MANDAN. (zrdj) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
881 Letter from Adelina Defender & BillyBud Sullivan. "Let this be filed" signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 06/29/2016 (jf) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
882 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by CLARYCA MANDAN (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support SEALED Recommendations to Court re Cy Pres, # 2 Text of Proposed Order SEALED Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
883 REDACTED DOCUMENT− Recommendations to Court re Cy Pres by CLARYCA MANDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 351 of 353

11/14/2016
01/24/2017 01/25/2017 03/20/2017
03/21/2017 03/21/2017 04/10/2017 04/21/2017 09/28/2017 10/02/2017
10/03/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/16/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/02/2017

884 Class Counsel's Recommendations Regarding Cy Pres Distribution Pursuant to the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement) filed by CLARYCA MANDAN. (znmw) Modified on 4/18/2018 to unseal document pursuant to minute order filed on 04/17/2018 (jf). Modified on 4/18/2018 (jf). (Entered: 11/14/2016)
885 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Paul M. Smith by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Paul) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 885 motion to withdraw Paul M. Smith as counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 01/25/2017. (lcegs3) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
886 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Donivon Craig Tingle, :Firm− The Tingle Law Firm, P.A., :Address− 1008 Airport Road, Suite E, Destin, FL 32541. Phone No. − 850−650−8138. Fax No. − 850−650−0365 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4881827. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONIVON TINGLE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Donivon Craig Tingle)(Cayne, Howard) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 886 motion for admission of attorney pro hac vice. Donivon Craig Tingle is hereby admitted pro hac vice in this action. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/21/2017. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
887 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney to Be Noticed by DONIVON TINGLE (Cayne, Howard) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
888 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to KEITH MANDAN. (Rubinstein, Reed) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 887 motion to withdraw as attorney to be noticed. The Clerk's Office is directed to terminate Mr. Cayne as an attorney to be noticed. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/21/2017. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
889 MANDATE of USCA as to 879 Notice of Appeal filed by DONIVON TINGLE ; USCA Case Number 16−5189. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order)(td) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of 899 Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals by the District of Columbia Circuit, the parties shall, by no later than October 13, 2017, file a joint status report with recommendations for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/2/2017. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 10/13/2017. (mac) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
890 STATUS REPORT by DONIVON TINGLE. (Tingle, Donivon) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
891 ENTERED IN ERROR.....Civil Statement Notice of Appearance from The Tingle Law Firm. (Tingle, Donivon) Modified on 10/16/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 10/13/2017)
892 Joint STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
893 NOTICE of Appearance by Donivon Craig Tingle on behalf of DONIVON TINGLE (znmw) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 891 Civil Statement was entered in error (incorrect event) and was refiled as Docket Entry 893 Notice of Appearance. (znmw) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
894 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Change of Address by Phillip L. Fraas (Fraas, Phillip) Modified on 11/2/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 11/01/2017)
895 NOTICE of Change of Address by Phillip L. Fraas (Fraas, Phillip) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 894 Notice of Change of Address was entered in error (incorrect case number) and was refiled as Docket Entry 895 Notice of Change of Address. (znmw) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 352 of 353

01/25/2018 01/30/2018 04/09/2018 04/12/2018 04/12/2018 04/17/2018
04/17/2018
04/17/2018
04/17/2018 04/18/2018 04/24/2018 05/01/2018
05/10/2018
06/20/2018 07/13/2018
07/16/2018 07/16/2018 07/16/2018

896 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Carrie F. Apfel by all plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Apfel, Carrie) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 896 motion to withdraw Carrie F. Apfel as Counsel. Carrie Apfel is permitted to withdraw as plaintiffs' counsel as of January 29, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 01/30/18. (mac) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
897 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Cy Pres Rec. by THOMAS J. VILSACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
898 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
899 MOTION to Unseal Document 883 Redacted Document filed by CLARYCA MANDAN, 884 Sealed Document filed by CLARYCA MANDAN (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 897 motion for leave to file response to cy pres recommendation. Defendant shall submit its response by no later than April 24, 2018. Plaintiffs shall file their reply by no later than May 11, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/17/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 899 motion to unseal. The Clerk of Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to UNSEAL 884 class counsel's recommendations regarding cy pres distribution pursuant to the addendum to the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/17/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of 898 plaintiffs' status report, plaintiffs are directed to file a proposed order for approval of the recommended candidate for Executive Director of the Trust. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/17/2019. (lcegs1) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Response due by 4/24/2018. Plaintiffs Reply due by 5/11/2018. (mac) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
900 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
901 RESPONSE re 897 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Cy Pres Rec. Response to Class Counsel Cy Pres Rec. filed by ANN M. VENEMAN, THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon further consideration of [824−4] the unopposed motion to modify the settlement agreement cy pres provision, it is hereby ORDERED that the nomination of Janie Hipp to serve as Executive Director for the Trust previously approved by this Court at 871 is APPROVED and she is hereby APPOINTED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/1/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
902 REPLY re 883 Redacted Document Response to USDA's Comments on Proposed Cy Pres Distribution filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Vogel Declaration, # 2 Declaration Carlson Declaration)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
903 STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of 883 Class Counsel's Recommendations Regarding Cy Pres Distribution, Pursuant to the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement, class counsel is directed to file, by no later than July 16, 2018, a proposed order for approval of the recommendations. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/13/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Class Counsel To File A Proposed Order For Approval Of The Recommendations due by 7/16/2018. (mac) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
904 NOTICE of Proposed Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS re Order, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of 904 notice of filing proposed order, the government is directed to file on the docket any comments regarding the proposed changes to class counsel's recommendations by no later than 6:00 pm on July 17, 2018. Should the government file any comments, class counsel shall respond by no later than 6:00 pm

Case: 1:99-cv-03119-EGS As of: 04/02/2019 02:23 PM EDT 353 of 353

07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/18/2018
07/18/2018 07/19/2018 07/19/2018 08/02/2018
08/03/2018 08/03/2018 08/03/2018
08/17/2018 08/20/2018 08/24/2018 08/24/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018

on July 18, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/16/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Government Comments Regarding The Proposed Changes To Class Counsel's Recommendations due on 7/17/2018 by 6:00PM. Class Counsel Response due on 7/18/2018 by 6:00PM. (mac) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
905 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Commenting on Class Counsel's Revised Recommendations filed by ANN M. VENEMAN, THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
906 MINUTE ORDER. In view of 904 Notice of Filing, it appears to the Court that the total amount of Class Counsel's Recommendations Regarding Cy Pres Distribution exceeds $38,000,000 by $29,709. Furthermore, the amounts recommended to be awarded to First Nations Oweesta, Oregon State University, for the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, and Pueblo of Sandia, differ, with no explanation given, from the amount originally recommended for each of those entities in ECF No. 883. Class Counsel is directed to file on the docket, by no later than 5:00 pm on July 18, 2018, a response to this Minute Order including a revised Proposed Order if necessary. Attached is the Court's spreadsheet totaling the recommended award amount per recipient reflecting the overall total. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/18/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
907 NOTICE of Proposed Order (Corrected) by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 906 Order,,, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
908 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/19/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
909 ORDER. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/19/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, directs the parties to file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, if any, by no later than August 20, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 8/2/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 8/20/2018. (mac) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
910 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
911 PERIODIC REPORT by USA by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sellers Dec, # 2 Exhibit Sellers Dec re Fees, # 3 Exhibit Frantz Dec, # 4 Exhibit Amunson Dec, # 5 Exhibit Vogel Dec, # 6 Exhibit Fraas Dec, # 7 Exhibit Klaar Dec, # 8 Exhibit OFW Matz Dec)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
912 RESPONSE re 910 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by ANN M. VENEMAN, THOMAS J. VILSACK. (Sandberg, Justin) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
913 Joint STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
914 REPLY to opposition to motion re 910 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
915 REPLY to opposition to motion re 910 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE. (Dillard, John) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
916 NOTICE of Expiration of Court's Jurisdiction by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
917 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 910 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/21/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
918 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/21/2018. (lcegs1) (Entered: 09/21/2018)


[CONTENT] November 24, 1999 | first | the U.S. Department of Agriculture | the U.S. District Court ||| Native American | USDA | the Declaratory Judgment Act | 28 | the Equal Credit Opportunity Act | 15 | U.S.C. § | 1691 ||| Specifically, Plaintiffs | USDA | Farm Service Agency | FSA | the Civil Rights Action Team | the Office of the Inspector General | Native American ||| FSA | Native American | Native Americans | USDA | Native Americans ||| USDA ||| The "Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act | Fiscal Year 1999 | 7 | two years ||| 1 | USDA | 2 ||| July 22, 2000 | U.S. ||| October 11, 2000 ||| District Court | Emmitt G. Sullivan | June 18, 2001 ||| November 28, 2001 | Sullivan ||| 2001 | 34676944 ||| Native American | 1 | between January 1, 1981 | November 24, 1999 | 2 | USDA | 3 | USDA ||| U.S. | the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia | the District Court | December 18, 2002 ||| Sullivan | December 28, 2001 ||| the Court of Appeals | October 29, 2002 | David S. Tatel ||| 309 | 789 ||| December 5, 2003 | Sullivan | Phil Givens ||| the Court of Appeals | the Court of Appeals | February 9, 2004 | March 3, 2004 ||| March 23, 2006 | Sullivan ||| 236 ||| eighth | February 11, 2008 ||| December 19, 2010 | December 22 | Plaintiffs ||| Sullivan | November 1, 2010 | April 28, 2011 ||| April 29, 2011 | Sullivan ||| 180-day | October 26, 2011 ||| 680,000,000 ||| Defendants | the Service Center Information Management System ||| 10 days ||| one | two | Track A | 50,000 ||| up to $250,000 ||| Pigford v. Glickman</i></a | Garcia v. Vilsack</i></a ||| 180 days ||| Native American ||| USDA | Council for Native American Farming and Ranching | FSA | Native Americans | Native Americans ||| August 30, 2013 | Plaintiffs | approximately $380,000,000 ||| September 24, 2014 | Plaintiffs | Native American ||| May 19, 2015 | Marilyn | George Keepseagle | Keepseagles ||| July 24, 2015 | Sullivan | Federal Rules of Civil | 60(b)(5 | 60(b)(6 ||| 2015 | WL 4510837 ||| December 14, 2015 | Keepseagles ||| Keepseagles | 1 | 18,500 | 2 | 38,000,000 ||| April 20, 2016 | Sullivan ||| 2016 WL 9455764 ||| June 2016 | two | Sullivan | the U.S. Court of Appeals | the D.C. Circuit ||| May 16, 2017 | the Court of Appeals | Brown | Wilkins | Edwards | Court ||| 2017 | 2111020 ||| The Supreme Court | March 26, 2018 [SUMMARY] On November 24, 1999, Plaintiffs first filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  Plaintiffs, Native American farmers who alleged they were victims of discriminatory lending practices by the USDA, brought suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15, U.S.C. §1691.  Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that the USDA's Farm Service Agency ("FSA") had failed to respond to investigation reports submitted by the Civil Rights Action Team and the Office of the Inspector General, which found widespread discriminatory lending practices against Native American farmers.  According to the reports, the FSA utilized subjective interpretations of loan approval guidelines improperly to the detriment of Native American farmers, failed to advise Native Americans of the availability of USDA loan and loan servicing opportunities, and systematically erected barriers that prevented Native Americans from receiving loans or loan servicing.  Plaintiffs claimed that the USDA failed to supervise in response to these reports, and failed to investigate the civil rights complaints that its office received in response to those discriminatory practices.  The "Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999," 7 U.S.C. §2279, waived the statute of limitations for these civil rights claims, normally barred after two years.  Plaintiff sought (1) declaratory judgment that the USDA had violated their rights to equal credit, participation in loan programs, and full and timely enforcement of discrimination complaints, and (2) monetary compensation and injunctive relief from the discriminatory practices outlined above.

On July 22, 2000, the U.S. moved for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, summary judgment.  Plaintiffs moved on October 11, 2000 for a preliminary injunction.  However, District Court Judge Emmitt G. Sullivan denied both motions on June 18, 2001.

On November 28, 2001, Judge Sullivan granted certification of the class.  2001 WL 34676944.  This class was described as "[a]ll Native American farmers and ranchers who (1) framed or ranched between January 1, 1981, and November 24, 1999, (2) applied to the USDA for participation in a farm program during that time period, and (3) filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA individually or through a representative during the time period."  The U.S. filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and asked the District Court to stay the case pending the appeal on December 18, 2002.  Judge Sullivan denied the motion to stay on December 28, 2001.  The interlocutory appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 29, 2002 (Judge David S. Tatel).  309 F.3d 789.

On December 5, 2003, Judge Sullivan granted a motion by class-member Phil Givens to opt out of the class.  In response, the Plaintiff class sought reversal by the Court of Appeals, petitioning the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus on February 9, 2004, but the petition was denied in a per curiam opinion on March 3, 2004.

On March 23, 2006, Judge Sullivan entered an order granting the motions by multiple involuntary members to opt out of the class and pursue individual relief.  236 F.R.D. 1.  Plaintiffs submitted their eighth amended (and final) complaint on February 11, 2008.

On December 19, 2010, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement, and on December 22, Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement and settlement agreement class certification.  Judge Sullivan granted the preliminary approval on November 1, 2010, and granted final approval of the settlement agreement on April 28, 2011.  On April 29, 2011, Judge Sullivan entered an order of final judgment, dismissing this action with prejudice.  This began the 180-day period of the settlement agreement claims process, ending on October 26, 2011.

The settlement agreement created a total compensation fund of $680,000,000.  In exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to dismiss the suit, Defendants agreed to suspend all collection efforts that were currently in the Service Center Information Management System or on individuals who file claims pursuant to the agreement.  In addition, all members of the class would be able to make a claim to an appointed "claim administrator," who would make its best effort to make a determination on the claim within 10 days.  These claims would be in one of two tracks: "Track A" required "substantial evidence" of discrimination, and awarded a liquidated damage amount of $50,000.  "Track B" claims required more--a preponderance of the evidence of discrimination--and could pay an award up to $250,000.  If any claimant was also making a claim in response to the <a href=http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12515><i>Pigford v. Glickman</i></a> or <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12757"><i>Garcia v. Vilsack</i></a> settlements, that individual was not eligible for a claim award in this settlement.  The deadline for claims under the settlement agreement was set at 180 days after final approval of settlement agreement.  Pursuant to a cy pres provision, any leftover or unclaimed funds were to be distributed to non-profit organizations serving Native American farmers and ranchers. Additional provisions of the settlement included: the USDA agreed to create a Council for Native American Farming and Ranching (responsible for transmitting recommendations concerning changes to FSA regulations or internal guidance that would eliminate barriers to program participation by Native Americans), create an ombudsperson for Native Americans and other socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and commence a review of their policies and training materials, promising to make all necessary revisions to prevent further discriminatory behavior.

On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a status report notifying the court that the claims process had concluded, but that approximately $380,000,000 remained available for cy pres distribution. On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the settlement’s cy pres provision: while the cy pres funds would still go to non-profit organizations serving Native American farmers and ranchers, the plaintiffs proposed changes in the mechanism for distributing funds. However, on May 19, 2015, Marilyn and George Keepseagle (“the Keepseagles”), lead named plaintiffs and class representatives, opposed class counsel’s proposed modification, retained their own counsel, and filed their own motion to modify the settlement agreement, proposing that the court order a pro rata distribution of the remaining settlement funds to successful claimants. On July 24, 2015, Judge Sullivan denied both motions to modify the settlement agreement, concluding that there was no basis to approve the modifications under the law governing the disposition of unclaimed settlements nor under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6). 2015 WL 4510837.

On December 14, 2015, all the plaintiffs, including the Keepseagles, filed an unopposed motion to modify the settlement agreement’s cy pres provision. The proposed modification was a compromise between class counsel’s and the Keepseagles’ prior proposals and provided for (1) a supplemental award of $18,500 to each claimant who prevailed in the original claims process, and (2) an amended process through which $38,000,000 of cy pres funds were to be distributed. On April 20, 2016, Judge Sullivan approved the modification. 2016 WL 9455764.

In June 2016, two class members appealed Judge Sullivan’s approval to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, contending that all of the remaining funds should have been distributed pro rata to the successful claimants and that the cy pres provision was unconstitutional. On May 16, 2017, the Court of Appeals (Judges Brown, Wilkins, and Edwards) affirmed the district court in finding that the modification was “fair, reasonable, and adequate”; the Court declined to reach the merits of the appellants’ legal challenges to the cy pres provision, finding that they had explicitly waived those claims before the district court and forfeited them because they had never raised any legal challenges to the cy pres provision previously despite multiple clear opportunities to do so. 2017 WL 2111020. The Supreme Court then declined to hear the case on March 26, 2018, finally permitting the modification to the agreement to be implemented.  