Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' "Amended Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Documents"

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILEY L. .BOLDEN, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

CIVIL ACTION 

VS. ) 

NO. 75-297-P 
CITY OF MOBILE, ‘et .al., ) 

Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

"AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS 

TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES AND 

PRODUCE DOCUMENTS" 
  

On to-wit, February 17, 1976, plaintiffs filed a 

document styled "Amended Motion to Compel Defendants 

to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Documents". In 

response thereto defendants say: 

1. Defendants move the Court to strike paragraphs 

3(a), 3(b) and 4 of such document because said paragraphs 

contain legal arguments which might be appropriate in a 

brief but are not properly inserted in a motion and be- 

cause such paragraphs contain unverified statements of 

fact, denied by defendants. 

2. In paragraph 2 of said documents plaintiffs 

purport to deal with their interrogatory 4 and defendants’ 

answer thereto as filed on January 7, 1976. They omit 

from their recitation of the matters set forth in defen- 

dants' answer the fact that such answer expressly sets 

forth defendants' reliance upon Rule 33(c) (see "NOTE" 

on page 1 of said answer) and the introductory sentences 

of defendants' answer to their interrogatory 4 (see para- 

graph 3 of said answer). In any event, defendants fur- 

ther answer plaintiffs' interrogatory 4 as follows: 

(a) Insofar as defendants know, there is not  



  

in existence any record that sets forth the answer to 

any subparagraph of plaintiffs' interrogatory 4 (see 

paragraph 3 of defendants' prior answer), nor does any 

defendant, or any employee of any defendant, know the 

answer to any such subparagraph. 

(b) . subparagraphs 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(4), 

4(h) and 4(i) of interrogatory 4 relate to streets, 

gutters and curbs. The City of Mobile has records in 

the City Engineer's office, going back prior to 1965, 

which show the streets paved by the City from time to 

time, and identify when the paving was accomplished, 

the streets paved, and the location of the paving. The 

City has other records in such office going back prior 

to 1965 which show similar information with respect to 

the streets paved by subdividers and accepted for 

maintenance by the City. None of these records is broken 

down by wards. Defendants' counsel have had prepared, 

for use at the trial of this action, certain information 

as of about December 15, 1975, showing the miles of paved 

streets, the miles of unpaved streets, and the miles of 

streets paved since 1970, broken down by groups of wards 

(as distinguished from the wards separately) and such 

data includes the miles of gutters, paving and resurfacing. 

Defendants' counsel also have had prepared, for use at the 

trial of this action, a map showing the streets which have 

been paved by the City, the streets paved by subdividers, 

and resurfacing. 

(c) Subparagraphs 4(f) and 4(g) of ‘interroga- 

tory 4 relate to sewers. The City of Mobile has records 

showing certain sewer ventures where the bonds have been 

underwritten by the City and the remaining records with 

respect to sewers are maintained by the Board of Water & 

Sewer Commissioners, which is not a department of the City 

 



  

of Mobile. Defendants' counsel have had prepared, for 

use at the trial of this action, a map showing the 

location of sewer lines installed under City ventures 

and have secured from the Board of Water & Sewer Com- 

missioners another map showing all sewer lines. 

(d) Subparagraph 4(u) of interrogatory 4 

relates to liquor and beer licenses. Plaintiffs have 

already secured a computer printout showing the establish- 

ments holding such licenses and the Court has orally ruled 

that plaintiffs are not entitled to make defendants de- 

liver to them at this time any exhibit which defendants’ 

counsel may have prepared from the same data. 

(e) Subparagraphs 4(y) and 4(z) of interroga- 

tory 4 relate to street lights. The City of Mobile's 

Electrical Department has records which show the number 

of lights of various wattage sizes that were in service 

anywhere in the City in 1959 and the same information as 

of November 1975. Defendants' counsel believe, although 

they may be mistaken, that they gave a copy of these 

records to counsel for plaintiffs and, if such has not 

been done, such records will be furnished when this matter 

is set for further hearing. Defendants' counsel have not 

had prepared any map or compilation of statistics as to 

street lights. 

(f) Subparagraph a(i) of interrogatory 4 (set 

out under subparagraph z thereof) relates to recreational 

facilities. The records of the City of Mobile with re- 

spect to the money expended for recreational facilities 

are not kept separately and the data is ascertainable 

only by going to several financial records. Defendants’ 

counsel have had prepared, for use at the trial of this 

action, a compilation of expenditures for recreational 

purposes going back to fiscal year 1971-1972. Defendants’ 

 



  

counsel also have had prepared, for such purpose, a 

schedule showing the location of the various recreational 

facilities and indicating the nature of the respective 

facilities and services provided and also have had Ores 

pared a map showing the location of the various recre- 

ational facilities. 

Se Defendants have set out above references to 

the various City of Mobile records from which, conceivably, 

the information called for by the specified subparagraphs 

Of interrogatory 4 might be ascertained. As previously 

stated by defendants, they are willing to make all such 

records available to plaintiffs. Defendants have also 

specified above the materials which this counsel have 

caused to be prepared, for possible use at the trial, with 

respect to streets, gutters, curbs, sewers and recreational 

facilities. Without waiving their contention that under 

Rule 33(c) and the work-product doctrine, the plaintiffs 

are not entitled to require the defendants at this time 

to disclose such materials, the defendants are willing to 

do so voluntarily, because in due course such materials 

will, in any event, be deliverable to the plaintiffs in 

connection with the exchange of exhibits required by the 

Court's Pretrial Order. Accordingly, defendants will 

produce such materials at the further hearing of this 

matter and be willing to have them copied by plaintiffs, 

at the expense of plaintiffs. 

WHEREFORE, defendants move the Court as set out in 

paragraph 1 hereof and further move the Court to enter an 

Order denying any legal right of the plaintiffs to re- 

ceive at this time any of the materials which, as set 

forth above, defendants' counsel have had prepared for 

use at the trial but reciting (if the Court deems such 

appropriate) that upon the hearing of this matter the 

 



    

defendants have voluntarily made such materials avail- 

able for examination and copying by plaintiffs. 

4 rz / 
v ¥ 4 4 of / 

~ , 
  

C.. B. Arendall, Jr. 

30th Floor - First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602 

Attorney for Defendants 

OF COUNSEL: 

HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, 

GREAVES & JOHNSTON 

/ 

( / / ( / / : ( 

S. R. Sheppard “ % 
Attorney for Defendants 

  

OF COUNSEL: 

LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE 

CITY OF MOBILE 

STATE OF ALABAMA) 

COUNTY OF MOBILE) 

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned 
authority in and for said County in said State, C. B. 
Arendall, Jr., known to me, who upon first being duly 

sworn by me, on oath deposes and says that the fore- 
going response is true and correct, to the best of his 
knowledge, information and belief. 

~~ of 

* alas.” / ing vif 4 

  

C. B. Arendaiyl, JT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me 

this 19th 'day of February, 1976. 

- En 9 - 
AAE7 or) Wa, aK rea) 

Notary Public, Mobile County, Alabama 
  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I do hereby certify that I have on this 19th day 
of February, 1976, served a copy of the foregoing response 
on Jack Greenberg, Esquire, James Blacksher, Esquire, and 
Edward R. Still, Esquire, counsel for plaintiffs by mail- 
ing a copy of same by United States mail, properly ad- 
dressed and first class postage prepaid. 

a 
s 

C. B., Arendall, dr /