Order Re: Entz's Motion for Discovery

    * » if 
FILED 

DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT £UG 16 163d 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS i 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION u. on £ounl 

LULAC, ET AL., § 
S 

Vv. § MO-88-CA-154 
hb) 

JIM MATTOX, ET AL., $ 

ORDER 
  

BEFORE THIS COURT is Defendant Intervenor, Judge Sharolyn 

Wood, with her Motioriz to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs the 

League of United Latin American Citizens ("LULAC"), and the 

Houston Lawyers Association ("HLA"), in the above-captioned cause. 

The Motions to Compel HLA were filed on April 6, 1989 and June 26, 

1989. The Motions to Compel LULAC was filed July 7 & 24, 1989 and 

August 4, 1989. Plaintiffs Lulac and HLA responded in a timely 

manner. Also before the Court is Judge Entz'’s Motion filed August 

15, 1989 to Compel LULAC, Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley and Joan Winn 

White ("Plaintiff Intervenors") to Answer Interrogatories. This 

case is set for trial September 18, 1989. In the interest of 

justice and judicial economy, this Court will rule on Judge Entz’s 

Motion without the benefit of a Response from LULAC and the 

Plaintiff Intervenors. Upon consideration of the Motions, 

Responses, exhibits and arguments of the parties, the Court is of 

the opinion that the following Order is appropriate. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Judge Wood’s Motions and Judge Entz’s 

Motion to Compel LULAC, HLA and Plaintiff Intervenors to Answer 

Interrogatories and Produce Documents are hereby GRANTED in the 

5 

 



  

following respects: 

1. LULAC produce the number and first name of LULAC members 

residing in Harris County, Texas who allege violations of their 

voting rights. HLA produce the first name of HLA members who 

allege violations of their voting rights. Both organizations 

produce any documents supporting those claims. The Court is of the 

opinion that under Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986), 
  

Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the minority members that comprise 

their organizations are sufficiently large a group and 

geographically compact to constitute a single-member district. 

While the Court does not desire to foster the chilling effect 

warned of in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), the Court is 
  

of the opinion that Defendants are entitled to some information 

necessary to assist them in defending this suit. 

2. Judge Wood's Motion to Compel as against LULAC and the 

HLA is denied to the extent that she claims the 1980 Census 

material is inadequate to establish Plaintiffs claims. Plaintiffs 

are entitled to choose to rely upon that information in support of 

their claims. 

3. LULAC and the HLA must make available for inspection and 

copying those portions of the 1980 Census, 1980 Census Voting Age 

Population by Census Tract and precinct date that they have in 

their possession or intend to rely upon at trial. Any information 
  

LULAC, HLA and Plaintiff Intervenors intend to use at trial must 

be identified by line, page, paragraph, chapter, volume and any 

other designation necessary to allow Defendant Wood to speedily 

 



  

locate such material. 

4. LULAC, HLA and Plaintiff Intervenors specify what 

judicial elections will be analyzed by their experts or upon which 

they will base their claims of racially polarized voting and that 

the system of electing judges is the result of intent to 

discriminate in Harris and Dallas Counties. 

5. LULAC and HLA shall produce the list in their possession 

regarding the racial breakdown of voters in Harris County. If such 

a list regarding Dallas County is in the possession of any party 

aligned as Plaintiff it shall be produced. No other proof of the 

size of the pool of eligible candidates for State District Judge 

will be required at this time. If Plaintiffs claim that only 2% 

of the State District Judges in the State of Texas are Black, then 

they must produce documentation to support such a claim. 

6. LULAC, HLA and Plaintiff Intervenors specify and produce 

documentation regarding the local factors they rely upon to 

demonstrate a history of past discrimination in Harris and Dallas 

Counties considering the "typical factors" probative of a violation 

of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended. See: Thornburg v. 
  

Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36-37. LULAC, HLA and Plaintiff Intervenors 

state with factual specificity and particularity the basis for 

their claim that the system of electing State District Judges in 

Harris and Dallas County dilutes minority voting strength. 

Plaintiff Intervenors specify those instances in which they claim 

white voters in Dallas County vote as a bloc. 

7. LULAC, HLA and Plaintiff Intervenors provide maps of 

 



  

proposed judicial districts that they have completed, are in the 

process of completing or will complete and use for trial no later 

than August 25, 1989. 

8. LULAC have their clients provide their factual basis 

for targeting certain counties for this suit and not other counties 

or the entire state. HLA shall not be required to produce such 

information. 

9. LULAC and HLA provide information as to whether Blacks 

and Hispanics will combine their votes where together they 

constitute a majority of the electorate in Harris and Dallas County 

if and when such information is available. Information regarding 

Judge Wood'’s Interrogatory No. 12 and Request for Production No. 

22 as to HLA is denied. 

10. This Court is of the opinion that the issues of Venue 

and Jurisdiction under any future judicial election scheme are 

premature. Assuming Plaintiffs prevail on the merits and the 

legislature does not act, Plaintiffs shall incorporate this 

information into any proposed remedial plan. 

11. LULAC produce the information they rely upon to support 

their claim that Black voters support Black candidates in higher 

percentages than White candidates in Dallas County. 

12. No Expert witnesses shall be identified or deposed 

after September 4, 1989, except by agreement of the parties. This 

Court will not Compel a party to agree to such identification or 

deposition. LULAC, HLA and Plaintiff Intervenors shall furnish 

Defendants with the factual basis and opinions of their experts by 

 



  

August 25, 1989, except otherwise by agreement of the parties. 

13. Plaintiff Intervenors identify in accordance with item 

No. 3, supra, the political campaigns in Dallas County that they 

claim had racial appeals. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above information be produced 

by Monday, August 21, 1989. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should similar information be 

requested by any other Defendants, such information shall be 

provided. 

SIGNED AND ENTERED this ARR of August, 1989. 

  

“Lucius D. Bunton 

Chief Judge