Thursday, June 19, 2014


 Good day for the Nooksack 306 as the judge rules that discovery is granted.  We have the decision of Judge Jones here:

Rather than offer an advisory opinion on claims that Plaintiffs may or may not 
pursue, and rather than opine on the adequacy of an administrative record that the court 
has not seen, the court orders as follows: 

1) Defendants shall produce the administrative record as soon as is practicable, if
they have not done so already. They shall file the administrative record no
later than July 11. If they wish to request an extension of this deadline, they
must, at a minimum, file a motion demonstrating the court why they did not
have adequate time to prepare an administrative record in the more than eight
months since they filed their answer.
2) Plaintiffs shall review the administrative record and, no later than July 25, they
shall meet and confer with Defendants to discuss whether they believe the
administrative record is complete, and whether they believe they need
discovery beyond the administrative record.

3) Assuming the parties do not reach agreement, Plaintiff shall serve discovery 
requests no later than August 8. If Defendants still contend that they have no 
obligation to provide any discovery because this action should be tried on the 
administrative record, they shall file a motion for protective order no later than 
August 29. Otherwise, they shall provide timely responses to the discovery,
after which Plaintiff may move to compel or seek other relief as appropriate.

4) No later than September 17, the parties shall submit a joint statement
informing the court of what proceedings are necessary to bring this case to a
resolution. If they propose submitting dispositive motions, they shall propose
deadlines for those motions.

 6) Nothing in this order shall be construed as precluding the parties from filing
dispositive motions consistent with this District’s Local Rules. Indeed, given
that some of the claims that the court addressed last year involved purely legal
issues,2 the court is not certain why the parties have not already done so. The
court only requires that the parties meet and confer before filing any
dispositive motion, so that they may determine any areas of agreement and
reduce the number and length of any motions they file. The parties shall
certify their compliance with this requirement in any dispositive motion they


Anonymous said...

This just seems pointless because it is going to be one side that say they belong and the other that say they don't, they need an unbiased third party, someone who has no connection at all to the tribe or the government to look over the information provided, verify it, and then make a decision about it. I still see them fighting over it though.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

I guess the one good thing that could come out of this is that the defendants must present the evidence they are using to disenroll these tribal members. In many other disenrollments evidence is not presented or even used because tribal leaders make the decisions based on how much money they can make without the members they want to oust.

Anonymous said...

Change is good, but acts being allowed inside that our ancestors went through from outsiders is not our way I believe (apartheid, dis enrollment, lies, greed ect.). Criminal acts (unwanted sexual acts, drug use, stealing ect.) on others is different. Disagreements & unsettled questions is a different thing and should be handled together inside. Misusing customs and traditions to hold power, telling lies to outsiders to justify your actions is not our way either. These acts are running through because $$ is blinding, and people are forgetting these acts could be used against them. They would feel uncomfortable too, feeling their children watch the bad mistakes. No one is going anywhere.

Ilya said...

At least people have an opportunity to present evidence.