Major v. Treen Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; Statements of Time and Expenses; Affidavits

    I N THE UN I TED STATES D I STR I CT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DI STRICT OF LOUISIANA

BARBARA MAJOR, Et d]., )

)

) Civil Action No.82-1L92
Secti on C

)

)Defenoants.

PLAINT IFFS' }lOTION FOR AN AI{ARD OF

ATTORNEYS. FEES AND EXPENSES

Pl ai nti f f s Barbara Ma jor, et itl . , move the Court f or an

award of attorneys'fees and expenses as hereinafter set out, and

as grounds for their motion would show the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiffs are the prevailing party and are entitled to

recover thei r expenses and attorneyS' fees purSuant to the

provisions of Sect,ion 4tt? of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, dS

amended in L975, 4? U.S.C. Section 1973-1(e). There are no

pending appeals and oplaintiffs' motion is now timely.

?. Attached hereto dre affi davi ts of the attorneys who

represented the pl ai nti ffs i n thi s acti on:

CI
(

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID C. TREEN, etc., €t dl .,

-1



Affidavit of StanleY Ha'l Pin, P.8;

Affidav'i t of Lani Guinier, P.27;

Aff idavit of James Kellogg, P-54;

Affidavit of Steven Scheckman, p.65;

Aff iclavit of WiIIiam Quigley, p.74; and,

Aff idavit of Arntand Derfner, p.91-

Attachecl to these affidavits are the time logs of the

reSpective attorneys setti ng forth the time which they have

expended'i n this action.

3. Consistent with the legislative h'i story and the

gui del i nes of Johnson v. Georgi a Hi ghway E , 488 F .2d 7 L4

(5tn Cir. 1974), the Court should consider the following factors

in determining d reasonable fee. Plaintiffs contend that the

f o'l lowing f actors support the requested rel ief .

4. The time and labor required are set forth on accompanying

af f idavits of plaintif f s' counsel .

5. The skill required to perform the legal services, the

precl usion of other empl oyment due to the acceptance of thi s

case, the 1i qhts i nvol ved and the resul ts obtai ned, the

experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys and the lack

of any prior professional relationship with these plaintiffs are

al I factors which the p1 aintj ffs contend support the fee

-2



requested herei n.

b. Pl ai nti ffs contend that a customary hourly fee for

attorneys i n'the New 0rleans area of simil ar experience in

similarly ..0*r1ex, specialized litigation supports the rates

requested by Messrs. Ha1 pi n, Ke1_1 og9, Scheckman, and au1 Sl ey'

Plrint.i ffs request $16u.u0 per hour for Ms. Guinier and contend

that such rate is reasonable for specialists in voting rights

litigation practicing in Nevr York. Plaintiffs request S175 per

hour f or l,lr. Derf ner and contend that such rate i s reasonable f or

a special ist 'in voting rights 'l it'igation practicing in

washi ngton, D. C. , wi th experi ence comparabl e to Mr. Derfner '

7. Plaintif f s' attorneyS undertook the representation of

this case on an entirely contingent-fee basis. It is well

establ ished in the case law that attorneys who undertake cases'

where the receipt of fees are contingent upon SucceSS in the

1 i ti gation, expect antt are enti tl ed to a hi gher au,ard of f ees

than an attorney who has a fee certain. Stanford Daley v'

Zucker, 64 FRD 68u, b82 (N.D.CA. 1974); Jones v' Diamond' 636

F .?d 1364, 1382 ( 5th Ci r. 1981 ) , ( en banc ); Freeman v ' Motor

convoy, Tuu F.?d 1339 (llth cir. 1983). P'l aintiffs contend that

th'i s practi ce 'i s wel'l accepted i n the llew 0rl eans area and

throughout the country among attorneys handl i ng conti ngent fee

litigation.

-3



8. Plaintiff.s' further contend that an enhancement above the

customary hourly rate is warranted because of the undesirability

of this lit'i gat'i on. Plaintiffs contend that most members of the

bar in tlris area would view undertaking such litigation as

undbsir"able.

g. Awards i n s'imi I ar cases support the pl ai nti f f s' requested

iees. An analogous caSe is Wh'i te v. Regester, 4L? U.S. 755

(I973). In 0ctober, 1981, District Judge Justice avrarded hour'ly

ratas ranging from S6U.UU per hour to $I25.U1, per hour and then

added a multiplier of two (2) for a total award of approximately

Si nrillion. The opinion on attorneys' fees was affirmed at 7UU

F.2d 22u (5th Cir. i9B3). Also analogous wouJd be the recent

litigation involving the Illinois Congressional Districts. A

three-judge district court awarded a multiplier of three times

the hourl y rate. Ihe Ci rcui t Court decreased the mul ti p1 ier

because the 1 i ti gation was not at al I protracted. Most of the

work was performed in only 20 days. in Re Illinois Congressional

i.r'i stricts Reapportionrnent Case , 704 F.?d 38U, 384 (7th Cir.,

i983). In Bolden v. c'i ty of Mobile, civil Action No. 75-279-P,

0rder of Decembrer L?,1983, (unreported decision) Judge Pittman

awarded a multiplier of two (2). The Eleventh Circuit has

approved enhancements of 5U% in Hall v. Conecuh County, TOT F.2d

464 (1ith Cir. 1983) and 357, in Yates v. Mobile County Personnel

Board, 719 F.2d i53u (1tth Cir. 1983), which were cases of

-4



significantly less complexity and risk. Plaintiffs further

contenrl that i t, i s appropri ate that thi s court consider the kind

of fees awarded in areas such as antitrust and other similar

compl ex federal I i ti gati on. Pl ai nti ffs contend that thi s

analysis is fully Supported by the legislative history and that

awards .i n these cases have resul ted 'i n enhancements of up to four

times the custornarY hourlY rate

Iu. Pla'i ntiffs also request cornpenSation for their

reaSonable expenseS jncurred 'i n this l itigation' Those expenses

are set forth in an attachment to the affidavits of attorneys

Halpin (p.25), Guinier (p.44), and scheckman, (p.73). Such

expenses are reasonabl e and shoul d be "comp'l etely recoverabl e. "

Fairly v. PaLterson,493 F.2d 598,607 n.17 (5trr Cir. t974);

Dowdell v. City of Apopka, Florida, 698 F.2d 1181 (11tn Cir'

re83 ) .

IrlHEREF0RE, Pl ai nti ffs pray that the Court wi I I enter an

award of attorneys' fees and expenses tlS followS:

Attorneys

Stanley Ha'l pin

Lani Guinier

J ames Ke1 1 ogg

Steven Scheckman

Total Hours

57 6.?5

694.3

51u.2

tL7 .4

Hourl y Ra te

$16u.uu $

$16U.UU

$135.0u

s125.u0

92 ,20U . UU

1I1,088.UU

68,877.u0

14,675.UU

Total

-5



I.lil'l iam Quiglej

Armand Derfner

T0TAL Lodestar

Pl ai nti ffs request a

Total Fees:

478.33

28.u

24u4.48

multiplier of at

s125.0{J

s175.uu

59,7 91.25
'4 

,900 . go

351,531.25

EXPENSES

Names

Halpin affidavit, p.25

Guinier affidavi t, pP.47-53

McCaughan - I aw cl erk ( s4u/hr) ,

Scheckman affidavi t, p.73

Total Expenses:

TOTAL FEES AND EXPEI{SES:

Respec tful 1 y submi tted thi s

least 2 xZ
s7 u3 ,062 . 5o

To tal

s 1,853.61

15 , 187 .52

p .44 3 ,2 20. Uu

21,539.4-3

t41,81u.56

s7 44 ,87 2 .06

_ day of _, 1984.

BLACKSHER, [tIENEFEE & STE IN , P.A.
4u5 Van Antrerp Building
P. 0. Box 1051
Mobile, Alabama 36633

l{illiam P. Qulgley, Esq.
Steven Schecknan, Esq.
R. James Kellogg, Esq.
Quigley & Scheckman
631 St.Charl es Avenue
New 0rl eans, Loui si ana 7013u

-6



Stanley Halpin, Esq.
?206 I{. St.Mary
Lafayette, Louislana 7u5u6

Lani Guinler, Esq.
Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson Street
16th Floor
New York, New York 10u13

Armand Derfner, Esq.
552u 33rd Street, N.bl.
Hashington, 0.C. 20015

Attorneys for Pl ai nti ffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregolng PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS.FEES AND EXPENSES WAS SETVCd

upon the fo1 1 owi ng counsel of record:

Patricia Bowers, Esq-
Assistant AttorneY General
?34 Loyol a Avenue
New 0rlean's, Louisiana TuLLz

properly addressed an{ deposi ted in the Uni ted States mall ,

postage prepa i d.

-7



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF I,OLIISIANA

BARBARA I'IAJOR, et al.,

Plai.ntif f s,

VS.

DAVTD C. TREIiN, eL a[.,

N0. crv-82-1192-SEC C

DefendanLs.

AFFIDAVTT OF STANI.EY A. HALPIN. JR.

STANLEY A. Il,\l,l']lN, JR., utttler perralty of purjury states as follows:

I am counsel for Plaintiffs in lulaior v. Treen. I make this Affidavit

in support of Plaintj-ffs'motion for an award of attorneysf fees in this

case.

The charg at the conclusion of this AffidaviE is a precise iEemizaEion

ft'om my daily records of the number of hours I have spent on work necessary

for proper preparation aud prosecution of Plainriffs' case challenging Louisianats

(iongrcssional rc.clistricting as v.iolrrLi.ve of Sect-i <.tn 2 of rhe Voting ltights Act

tl { 19(r5. Tlrr. t irrrc' I rrrl ir-:irt crl on t lr is clutrL rcl)rcsettLs t'hard ti merr, thaE is

bil1able time which was spenL on the direct preparation, prosecuEion, and

trial of this litigation. Duplicati.on of this Eime was avoided by careful Eask

assi.gnment among Plarintiff's aLtorneys. My primary tasks were with respecE Eo

preparation of certain Plaintifi'fs expert wit.nesses and depositionand cross

examination of defendantrs expert wit,ness. ThroughouE this liti-gation Plaintiffts

attorneys coordinated their efforts Eo avoid duplication. A certain amount of

t-ime was necessariJy spent in consultation among co-counsel to develop a con-

sistant sErategy and Eo develop task assignmenEs Lo avoid duplicati.on. Were it

rrot for Ehese conferences am(ng plaintiffrs Lawyers rhey would have spenE many

8



a-

rnore hours in the preparation of Lhe case.

Even among specialists in voting and retlistricEi-ng law, the lega1 question

presepEed il this case, one of fhe firsf applications of the newly enacted

SecEion 2 of the Voting Rights Act, would be considered novel and difficult.

Fur-ther Ehe case is extremely complex factually. Because of the large number of

complex factors determined by Congress to be relevent in Section 2 inquiry,

the case involved complicated evidenEiary questions, massive documentary and

st.rttistical evirlcttcc, ('omplex atttl vnried cx[)ert t-CStimony, and substantial

I it igirL ivc ju<lgetttcttL wiLh rcspcc:L L() J)rcsctlL;tt jorl oI pr<lof . Furtlrer this case

involved a challenge Eo line drawing gerrymandering (as opposed fo at-large

elecLions or mul-li-member districEs) which adds a significanE additional

t--Lement of complexitY Eo thi.s case -

State rvide congressional redistricting cases also raise issues that, are

proceedurally novel relative to oLher types of lega1 issues and remain one of

the few issues which requires consideration by a three-judge courL with direct

appeal to the United SEates Supreme CourE.

The preparaLion of Lhis complex case required an extremely high level of

skili and expertise. The numerous depositions, massive statistical and docu-

nentary evidence and the use of extensive expert testimony required a high degree

of legal skill and experLise t<; present the issues and evidence in an expeditious

and proper manner. It was also important to present the evidence at Erial in as

short a Eime as possible to accomodate the schedules of che three judges.

Upon information and belief, the sEandard and prevailing hourly raEe charged

by aEtorneys wit.h my qualificaEions and experience in New Orleans, Louisiana is

ruo less chan $135.00 per hour in non-contingent cases. Plaintiffs have paid no

fee nor or Ehey oblig;rted to rlo so. I have received no fee whatsoever for

1

a
-L-



pursgi19 cSis c.tse. Niv fee in this case is entirely contingent upon Plainfiffs

being the prevailing party pursuant Lo 42 U.S.C. 51988 and 51973 1 (e)

I grarluared from Tulane [,aw School in 1965 and was admitted to practice as a

rnember of the Bar of Louisiana later that year. Subsequently, I have been admitted

io practice before various Federal Courts including the UniEed States Court of

Aupeal.s !or the 5th Circuit and the United SEates Supreme Court

I am a specialist in Ehe field of vot-inB and reapporEi-onment law and have

sp,ecial skiIls, expertise, antl experience in that area of litigation' I have a

l,lr.D irr l,trlirir.;rl Sr.icrrrt.['r'rrril (l'0r'gc'h,irilrittliltltt lltlivorsiLy anrl wrote my doctoral

iiissertaEion on aspecEs of the Voting Rlglrts Acr of 1965. I have done scholarly

research and writing in that fieltl. ln 1969, I began litigating voting and re-

riisIrict irrg citscs irr [,ouisiitnit itttrl sjn<:c thrrt time have litigated over fifty

staEe, county, and local rerlistricting cases. I was lead counsel (and most ofEen

sole counsel) in all of these cases.

In I97i through 1974 I lirigated as lead counsel on behalf of black Plaintiffs

fhe Louisl-'rna statewide legislative reclistrjcting case, TaVlor v' McKeithen, which

is reporred as follows: 333 F. Supp. 452 (1971) (DisErict CourE); 457 F' 2 796

(lg7l) (uniced Sraces Courr of Appeals for the 5th circuit);407 U-S. 191 (L972)

(Unitcd States Suprente Courl);499 F. 2ntl 893 (1974) (5th CircuiL on remand)'

In lg74 throuqh lg76 I liLigaLe(l llc.er v. 'l"lrc' unjt,ecl SEates as lead counsel on

bciralI oI black -intet'vcnors and trietl Lltc case before a'fhree-Judge Court (Uhe

ilecision is reported aE 374 F. Supp. 357 (L974). I argued this case twice before

r_he UniEed SEates Supreme Court which ultimaLely rendered the decision reported at

12-5 tr. S. 130 ( 1976 ) .

I3eginning in LgTL,I lirigarrerl Zimmer v. McKeiEhen which resulted in Ehe en

banc decision reporLerl ar 485 F.2nd l)97 (5th Circuit 1973) which remained until

-3-

to



1-
!

l98O the leading case in the 5rh Circuit respecEing the standard of proof for-

usLablislri11g Llre urrcorrsLiLuL j-onal it-y crl aL-li.lr ge etecLiotts. 'l'hese so-called

,4imnrt'r Irrct<.rrs hnvc now re-emergr]rl as factors f o he irppl ied in determining i:

yiolarion of Section 2 of the 1980 Voting Rights AcL amendmenEs. I also argued

tSis case in the United States Supreme Court where it was affirmed on alEernaEive

grounds establishing the still standing rule of law wiLh respect to Ehe sLandards

ot equitable appropriateness in court drawn p1ans. ThaL decision is reported

sub. nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall reported at 424 U.S. 636

( t976) .

0ther redistricting cases which I have litigated and

inclucle the following: Broussard v. Perez, 416 F.' Supp.

573 F.2nd I113 (5th Circuit i97B); Broussard v. Perez, II

which are reported

584 (E. D. La . 1977),

F. 2nd

(-rLlr (lirc:triL No. 7S-lJ594, Se pLernllar 24, lt)8'2); [,ott<lr.rrt v. llast Feliciana Parish

3t47 F. Supp. 132 (ll. D. l,a. 1972), 476 F.2nd 637 (5th Circuit L972); Parnell v.

Rapids Parlsh, 425 F. Supp. 399 (W. D. La. 1976), 563 F.2d 180 (5th Circuit 1977);

InJi.rllirce v. llouse, 377 f. Supp. 1192 (l^r. D. La. 1974), 515 F.2d 619 (5th Circuit

LL)75,425 U.S. 947 (1976), 538 F'.2d 1138 (5rh CircuiE 1976, on remand); Marshall v.

Edwards, 582 F.2d 927 (5th Circuit. 1978).

As a general matter representing black plaintiffs in voting cases is not

considered by the established bar in Louisiana Eo be a desirable endeavor. A

suiE of this naEure which t.hreatens the political future of some of the most

influential poliEici-ans 1n the state is understandably undesirable for mosE

lawyers.

'I'his is Ehe only case in wlriclr I have represenLed any of Ehese Plaint.iffs.

I have not, received any fees or any other economic benefiCs from Ehese clienLs

.f or f hi s or any ttIher nlaf LL'r.

The iitigation expenses incurred by me with respecL Eo this case are it.emized

below

-4-
lt



Affidav

Item

Ma ior ". ,rl-
it-of StanleY A. HalPin

Ditte

1981
tT, /At ,Examination of census, daEa, other statistical

evidence regarding poLentialiEy for blacks of
redistricting.

,2/06/8L

1,2/LO/81

"'2/Lr/8r

i?/r2/3r

| 2l 13,/ 8l

):it4l81

L 2l t5 /81

..'2 / t6 /81

")l17/81

i2/t8/8r

,.2/2t/81

t2/22/8t

).2/28l81

others.

Meetings with Kellogg, Guinier, Quigley ' oLhers
re sLrategY and necessitY of suit'

Meeting w.iE.h experts, co-counsel, oEhers re
gatf,".Ing data ancl f acts, discussions of sErategy '
divisit>n of labor.

Examination and analYsis
termine availabilitY and
analysis of P1ans.

Examination of statistics and
potential of case

M.eetings with 0ui-gleY, Kellogg

auau ao determine

client groups,

Reseitrch

Research

Analysis
of proof .

Meeting at KelloBg's office (2'0); 1"g"1 research
re line drawing [.ttymandering ( 2'5) '

Anal-ysis of data re sErength of claim that black
uot".., woulri bcncfit frrlm a neutral plan; work on

resolving data Problems '

Analysis of redis'EricEing plans'

Analysis of configuration of plans' cursory
examinaEion of ,.id maps, oEher geographical
and physical feaEures.

LegaI research re whether facts and data would

"ufport a claim of inEentional discriminat.ion and/
or satisfy the Zimmer FacEors.

Research re development of Zimmer Factors. Pre-
liminary determination of adequacy of facts.

of census data to de-
adequacy of daEa for

sLandartl of' Pro<-lf.

proof of intentional discriminaEion '

data and research regarding burden

5.0

4.5

3.0

3.0

3.5

4.0

2.5

2.0

3.5

s.5

5.5

4.0

3.5

3.5

4.5

re

re

6f

12 / )9 /3r

IL



trf avit of Stanley Ha1 pA.

Date

1)/3t)/81

r982
t7 ola't

i/03/82

l/16182

I I '3o 18',2

2/07 /82

2/08/82

3 / 27 /8'.2

4 /0'3 /82

4/05/82

4/08/82

4/09/82

4/Lo/82

6/28/82

e/L2l82

Item Hours

Arrrrlysis oI tlcm<lgrtrphic IeaLures, PdrEicularly
bl.ack concenEration and its Ereatment as an
element of intention and/or result''

illeeting with clienLs re strategy of case, fact
gathering.

trrtork re maps and daEa for developing New 0rleans
distri-ct in preparaEion for expert work of
Henderson.

Data work and conceptualizaEion for Hendersonts
expert tasks, limiLations of U.S. census data;
need f or use of irleber data, other problems '

Miscel laneous legal research re recent decisions.

I.ega1 research re comparison of sEandards'

Telephone ca1ls (2) to expert Henderson re Easks,
notes of call, analysis of data . 2'O

2.5

2.5

3.5

4.4

3.0

2.5

Research re st.rategy of law suit, inEeraction of
Section 5 and court processes ' remedial role
of federal courE.

IleeEing wit.h clienLs' preparaEion for meeEing'

0utline of litigation task, role of various
experEs.

Notes regarding division of labor of atLorneys,
task of u*p.rt;, Eactics, etc. in preparation for
meet.ing with co-counse1.

i\leeti.ng with co-counsel in New 0rleans (2'5) '
travel (3.0).

Research re strategy of enjoining previous mal-
aportioned plan ' remedial role of court '

Telephone call Eo Kel1ogg.

Analysis of census data, fiiscellaneous other matters
regaiaing data problems and maPs for analysis '

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.5

5.5

3.0

.25

3.5

t3



Ma io: v. Treen
Af.i ' viE of Stanley A. HalPin

Date

ro iL6l8'2

Lo/23/82

Li) /'24 /8',2

to/'2sl81

l0/30/8')

1 1 l06,/ g',)

11/08/82

tL/09/82

rt /r0i 82

rL /tt /82

Preliminary work with respect to expert Eestimony '
outl.ine of section 2 proof and expertise needed,
prcIinrinary list of pOLential expert wit,nesses.

Review of trial book outline, particularly with
respecE to experLsf testimon)/ and proof of "resu1ts"
element under section 2 and Zimmer FacEors '

Review of outli-ne of trial book, r'esearch regarding
recent dicisions, development of trial sLraEegy '
prel iminary division of Easks among, attorneys '

Telephone call Kellogg re trial book, other matters
(.25); notes regarcling trial strategy and task of
experLs. 1'5

Research re h isr-ory of d'i scrimination in Louisiana
arrrd Ncw Orleatts as a Zitntncr ["itcLor in prcparaEion
for development of experE tesEimony by hisEorians,
especially with respect to de .iure segregaEion and
voLittg discrirrrittaliott. 

" 4'5

Research regarding black parEicipation' effects
of pirsL tljsiritttittaLiott, rcprcsetlLaLi<'ln, for
developnent of expert tesEimony by DI: Henderson or
byDr.Engstrom.AnalysisofavailableparEicipation
data 3'0

Factual investigation
in continuing effecEs

Item

re history of discriminaEion
and proof thereof .

Hours

3.0

2.5

3.5

2.0

3.25

Conference wich Ke1Iog8, others regarding division
;i "i.o.ney's 

labor, straegy (1'75); ca11s to line
up experts for interviews, miscellaneous other
matters (1.50).

Review of files of numerous cases in which de-
ienaanrst anticipated expert Se11e tesEified'frans-
cripts of hearl-ngs, depositions, eEc ' reviewed in
p.uporaEion for J.1,osition, cross examination' and

refutittion of defeltdants GxDert'' 6'5

Analysis of data, other evidence Eo formulate and
refine tasks of expert witnesses Henderson ( political
scient,isE-parEiciparion) Engstrom (political
scientist-represenEation) and Cashmere (hisEoL'rart--
discrimination). 5'0

t+



Date

11/12,E)

| 1 / ).3 /8',)

lriL4iB'2

tt/t7/3')

| 1. /tB /82

ttl22/3)

ttl24/8'.2

rt,/27/82

i2/01/32

| 2l 0s /B'2

Intervie-ws with experienced experts in bltlc analysis'
aud ltistory oI discrinrinatit-rtt to develop and
sharpen Eestimotty rlI our experts Henderson and

Ci-rslrmere

Con ferences rvi Eh c f. ients, consul tations with Derfner '
Grinier, other aEtorneys regarding :trategy of proof 

'
parEicularly with respecE Eo role of intentional
cii-scrinrination a1 I egations.

Conference wi-th Ke1l.ogg, Guinier, Quigley, re
strategy, division of labtrr, responsibilities for
rvitnesses at tri;rI etc.

Ref ined outline of experts projects' Detailed
outline with respect to Henderson t s tasks of demo-
graphic analysis of plans; polarl-zation study
ind'development of socio-economic data comparing
0rleans and Jefferson Parish

Continued outlining of
experts.

Yla ror v. I reen
Af f idaa- of StanleY A. HalPin

Hours

expertfs tasks, ca1ls Eo 
2.5

a<J.)

4.5

3.75

t.5

r.75

3.5

3.0

PreparaLion with respect to Henderson t s Eask of
cle,nilgrrrlthic :lttitl ysi s. r\nalysis of various
c()ngrossitrnell plllrts atttl tlitLa'

Review of expert llendersonrs preliminary report
(plans); trial planning, outlingand order of ex-
pert Henderson's testimonY '

Preparation with respect to our experE Eesti-mony
on racially polari,zed voting patterns, elections
to be anal yzed, Voting daEa Eo be used, Problent
of racj al composition of precincEs, deEerminat.ion
of the ailequacy of tdeber tlaLa, use of voter
registration by race by precinct, determination
of statj-stical techniques Eo be used in analysis '

Preparation for refutation of defendantsr anti-
cipated contenEion regarding projections of
blach population.l)erccntage increase in New 0rleans
congressior.l distrjct. T'C' consultation wiEh
clemographer Spain tor tlevelopment of background ' .r <
arnci as poEentia I rebuttal expert wiLness ' r oJ

Research re professionally acceptable methods
of ethnic population projecEions, 1it'erature
suggeste,t ty Spain. it..uarch re signif icant leveI
of mittoriLy u,rLi,,g strcngLlt, voLing age population
and voter registration in p<l 1iEical science liEer-
ature atld case law in preparation for Erial Eestimony
of expert. - 3'5

Refinement of task for expert Henderson particularly
in regard to anal vsis of Treen plan: comparison of
treatilent of natuial and civil boundaries including
wards in Nerv Or:Ieans.

12/06/82

3's ls



,\[[ idao- oI S LanIey A llalpin
HoursDate Item

L !,/ ul /a l-

12,/Ogl82

L2/09l82

|1/11/a)
I L I ' 

L t \.) 
-

r2/t3/B)

12 / t9,t82

LtiL8i82

r'2 i 1L) i82

12 /20 / 8',2

t2i27/82

l)clittittg Litslts lor e.xpcrL tvi'Lttcss llngsLrolr wiLh
respect to concept of.dilution a's understood by

political scientist antl itccess to the political
p.rocess in a racially polarized political enviromenL. 2.5

T.C. Kellogg re deposition schedule, €Xpert witnesses;
miscellaneous other matters '

TriaI .)reParati<-ln, marshalli-ng and -organizaEion of

"*p".t tLstimony, consideration of possible use .'f
Or. Dillingham as back up experE or rebutEal
expert wi.tness' Particularlv with respect to explain-
ini vestiges of putt discrimination and how Ehey

arIect c\rrrent ability of blacks to participate on

an equal basis. L '75

Review of i)rogress of exPert Henderson in completing
sLLrrl ic's ()tl lrloc: vtlLitlg, ilcc'cpIctl rcdisLric:ting
criteria and their appri.ation to the congressional
p lans, and computerizing socio-economic data from
Lhc 1()3() (rensus. 2'75

1.0

3.0

1.5

4.5

T.C. Ilenderson re preparaEion of testimony; T'C'
Ke1 lou.g, ntiscellanL'otls work in preparation for
tria1.

Trial preparaEion research re subsEative section 2

resulri stantlard Eo counEer relevancy and other
objec Eions to our expert testimony; research of
fellslaEive hist-ory and committee reports on secEion
'2 and sotne Pre-Bclden cases. 4'25

Telephone ca11s, mi-scellaneous other matEers in
preparatj-on for tria1.

Research re proof of intenc and evidence ddmissable
for Lhat purpose' Lodge, ArIingEon [leights, etc'
T.C. clienEs, other miscellaneous matEers in pre-
paration for trial. 4'0

Rev iew of evi dence produced by discovery and other
tlocumenLary evidence Lo be introduced Eo Form

basi s of experts testimony. Ca11s to experEs'

PreparaEion frtr interviews with experts Engstrom
and others, outline of elements of proof and
evidence to be aduced from each expert wit'h re-
spect to result standards; facEual investigat'ion
with respec E to explanation of Morial t s and other
black victories in New 0rleans in spiEe of polar-
izat.i on; research regarding resulE standards,
oEtrer miscelLaneotts trial preparation' 6.5

tb



.:-:.=-r-
Affidl- of Stanley A. Halpin

DaLe

),'29 /}',)

L)/)9/8',2

1.J/rO/82

L2i3r/82

1qB3
r/0r/83

1 /04 /83

| /06 /B'3

L / rt /83

L/13/83

1./16/83

Item

InLcrViL.w wiLh p()li.Licill sci 'ttcc cxPerL EngsLrom
to refi ne expert task and to coordinaEe with
tiencl ersonts testimony re socio-economic data'
w<-lrl< ()ll ltypttLlrcLit'lrls Ior lirtgstrorn; ca11s to
line up otf,"r experts for interviews as r're11 as
llorr-cxpcrL wiLnesscs IamiI iar wj Lh Ncw 0rleans
elec toral politics, other E'ria1 preparation '

tYeeLing wiuh KeIlo88, calls Lo experLs, preparation
of daEa regarding historical discrimination,
materials on significance of New orleans wards,
other matters in preparation for trial '

Analysis and scrutini zing Henderson plan Lo determine
suitabl-liry of plan f or tria1, and to point ouE

anticipatei items of cross examination by defendants
to prepare Henderson as a witness'

Checking Henderson's data on Nunez p1-an, Act 20

plan; unotysis of plans for preparing Henderson
and in preparation for cross examination of de-
fendant's witnesses.

'1.C. Lo llendersorl re experL reporL; miscellaneous
oEher InatEers in preparation for trial and irt
response to clefeniantts discovery (1'5); review
of n.naerson t s rlata Eo be provided to def endants.

T. C. ro Ke1 togg re experE I s report sought by de-.
ferrdants r.hrouIh discovery (''25);'9I! Eo experEf s

reports, other discovery maELers ('75)'

T.C. llert<Iersoll regarding preparaE'ion for exhibiEs;
preparation of documentary evidence to support
Henderson t s tesLimonY.

Hours

7.5

8.5

6.s

6.75

1.75

1.0

L.75

3.25

4.0

3.5

T.C. Eo sociologist S. Laska to develop refutation
of demographics by defendanEs I expert Selle; data
work and research suggesEs thaE by Laska t,o det,ermine
usefulness of expert demographer or sociologist,
as rebuttal witness ' 1 '75
Telephone ca1ls to Kel1oB8r experts Engstrom,
Henderson; trial preparation with resPecE to experE
Eestirnony.

Analysis of report of defendant rs expert K. Se1le
obEained Ehrough discovery. Data work and research
with respect Eo Selle I s report in preParation for
deposiLicln of Sc. 11e and cross examinaEion aE Eria1.

Data work anrl research on Se1le's rep6rt in preParation
for deposition.

titT/83

t1



i)ate

lr'18,/B'l

lilBl8i

tlLe/83

r/20/83

lrll,/83

| ,t?2183

L/23/83

L/)3/83

Atfi

I tem

Travcl to New ()rlrl;trts Ior rlep<lsi
Henderson and rtef endant r s. expert
preparatiotr en route.

PreparaLion f.or wclrking meeting with co-counsel.

Prepar-atit>n of tlenderson for deposition (2'0);
deposition of Henderson (2.5); conference with
llCrrt.lcrson rcgilrrli ng Lask Lo be compleLed for Lrial
( I .75) ; examination of maps and documentory
evidence to be relied upon by experts, resoluEion
of sorne <lata problems, other general preparation
for trial ('l .75).

PreparaIitln fttr dclrosiLion of defendants' expert
Stelle; review of case files of Selle I s previous
testimony, partie,' larly in regard Eo slze of
bl ack tna.jori tv reqtt i red Lo wi n in Louisiana;
preparaEion for trial, ouEline of defendanE t s

case and evidence in preparation for cross
examination and rebuttal.

Preparat.ion for deposiEions, inconsisEancy of
Sel1e data; other trial preparations; sLatistical
evidence, Special master reports in Plaquemines
case and other cases.

Preparation for deposi Eions; lisEings of numerous
inconsisEancies and fallacies in Selle ts daEa and
methodoloBy, review of Se11e work in other cases
sEatistical and documenEary evidence for our
experts; tr lal preparation for cross examinaEion
and rebuttal.

('- r of StanleY A; HalPin

Hours

tions of
Se1Ie,

Meeting wiEh co-counsel re strategy, Progress re-
fot." 5n assigned task (.75); hearing on motions
it.fl); r:rlrtLinu.Li,rt'of worki.ng mecting with co-
counsel 12.75); calls and intervi'ews with expert
witnesses including Henderson' Engstrom, Cashmere 

'
Laska; coorrl inaLion of exhibits and documentary
evidence with experts t Eestimony; oEher miscellaneous
matters (a.75); preparaEion for deposition of experE , r ,tr
Ilenderson (2.5). L't)

Conference with co-counsel re pre-tria1 conference,
other maEters (1.0); pre-Eria1 conference-(1'25)'
inEcrvierv of expert's: Dr. Logston' Dr' Cashmere'
Dr. EngsErom, a1I of U.N.0. (5'75); preparation
for Henderson dePosition (2.0)'

4.5

2.5

9.0

7.5

9.0

8.5

t8



Ma jor v/--
Af f idav of Stanley A.

Item

PreparaEion for deposition of defendant I s

o* 1,i'.t Sol l t', itdrl.i t iottir l rlit ta ( 1 .5) ; deposi t'i on.
of Kenneth Selle, tlef endantsf chief experE (2'5);
conference with co-counsel' (1.0); return traivel,
review of documentary evidence en route (4'5)'

Legal research in preparation for Erial, re
legislative hisEory of section 2 and evidence
needed to meet burden.

T.C. Ke11oBB, notes re assigned Easks (.75);
trial preparaLion: otttline of experE witness
testimony, oEher matEers (2.5).

Trial preparation, miscellaneous other matters '

Trial preparaE.ion, analysis of state I s case
regarding needs for rebuctal experE wiE'nesses 'other matters.

Trial preperation data and statist'ics to be
relied upon by ex Pert Engstrom re differences
between 0rleans and Jefferson parish, lack
of commttniLy of .i nteresL, sllmmary of other
evidelce Lo be aducecl oI) Lhis point, miscellaneous
other matters.

'l'rLaI preparaLion, rcview oI documenEs.

Trial preparation re expert HenderSon t s testimony
using maps as visual aids Eo describe hlack
concentration and treatment of it by various p1ans.

Checking Henderson's data.

Trial preparation, adequacy of Henderson t s bloc
voting analysis r €Xplanations needed for certain
elections, techniques for explaining Eo Ehe court '
other miscellaneous matters.

reen

Date

t/24/e3

t/29/83

2ic2/83

2/04/83

2/06/83

2/12/83

JltL/8'.1
'2 / t8 /83

2/t9/83

2/21/83

2t',)'3I83

Halpin

Hours

9.5

4.0

3.25

t.75

3.5

2.7 5

..7s

2.25

2.0

5.0

Trial preparatiorl; preparation of Henderson by
phr:ne, prepar.ttion of Engstrom by phone, examinat,ion
and review of data, other miscellaneous maEt'ers
re expert EesEimony. 3'5

Trlal preparati.on Henderson polarizaLion data,
problems and resolution, other maEters regarding
expert preparation. 3'5

'2 i24 /83

t1



Date

2 /26 i83

2i21 /83

2,28i)3

3,/01/83

3 ,'()3 /83

3/04/83

Ma io-- r'. Treen
l-f? .vit of StanleY

Item

Trial preparation, 1egal research re admissability
of cerr-ain Ao.r,nunt= Ind other ev j dence' ob jected
;; ;y defendatrts, rules of evident section 2

tristory.

A. HaIpin

Hours

4.0

2.75

8.5

6.25

L2.O

I3.25

i'l iscellaneous matters In preparation for t ria1 .

Travel to New 0rleans for trial ' preparat'ion en

."rau (O.O); trial preParation in Loujsi ana

(2.s).

Preparation for cross examjnation of defendantsr
u*pL.a Se1-1e, fallacies in his conclusions' test-
inrony as special master in other cases ' review
of his materials Provided to the Justice
O"pnrtment in supptrt of section 5 precleal:ance
(4.5) ; tttisccllallcutls llrtiLLct s Icgardirlg documentary
evidence (2.25) .

Workirrg rttceLi.rrg wi Llr Kcl l()Bll' C rini:f' Quigley'
and Scheckman Tugarding final distribution of
wi tnesses on d i r6ct and cross examination ;

tact lcs and strategy, coordination of Eask

i:.2S1 t caLls to experEs Cashmere' EngsErom'
Laska , [lenderson , and wi Lness Lewis ( 2 ' Z5 ) ;
further meet i ng with Kellogg and Guini:t" re
deposition .i froria1 other mat'ters 1Z'25);
,ne,:ri,,g wiLIr (iuirticr rc sLrat-c8{: ilgvclopmenE
of case at Eria1, otner matEers ( I '25);
miscellaneous t.rial preparation, organizing
notes (2.0).

Analysis of deposiE'ions of Casmere' Logsdon'
and Engstrom E; coordinate expert Eestimony
aE triar (3.0;; ;;i;i'i"t,l= of'U'N'0' experE
witnesses' .666arch in U'N'0' library on

;;i;naun."' expert John t.lildgen's Published
polartzaEion studies in preparation-for
hiscrossexaminati.onatEriat,confer.ence
wit h Guinier i 4 .5 ) ; deposi E'ion of Morial
( 1.75); trial preparation, reading of
deposiEions' other maEters (4'0)'

Travel from New 0rleans Eo BaEon Rouge for
preparaEion f or wit'ness Turnl"y ' and
factual investigation, conference with
Guinier en .ouIe (1'5); inEerview with
RepreselltaLive Turnley re exclusion of
blacks from congressional redistricting
;;;.ess, othe. ,n,t ters, inEerview wiEh
itup"ra Rlchardson re statements aLtribuEed
fo'f,",. (l'.0); return travel' conference wiEh

Guinier re expert tesEimony, othef *aEters
en route ( 1 . Z5) ; calls to Feldman I s office re
J"r"nJont i s u."'.rf. Wi ldgen as expert ' conference
with Quig Ley re Bruno, Chehardy as witnesses ' 2-C



lLem

A f fil- 'it of Stanley A. Halpin

Hours

12.5

12.o

t2.5

r4-0

15 .0

Da L e

j/05/83

3i06/83

) lo7 /83

3/08/33

3/oe/83

ctrl.1 t<l expert Engstroln, other miscellaneous
,utaurt (t.ZS); interview in preparation of
ex[)erL witness Logsclon re Governor Treents
History (1.0); meeti.ng with Guinier,
Ke L logg, Qu igl ey , Scheckman re reports in
final divlsion af labor (3'0)'

l{eirding ancl analysis of Lewis deposiEion 
'

Jeffu.Ion Parish data in preparation for
handling Lervis on direct at trial (1'5);
prcp,-,r;..,ii,r,, of Loycl Lewi: ior Eria1, other
matters intermiEtantly (3.5); research regarding
<1 efendantst case, defendants' trial brief '
miscellaneous other matters (3.0); preparation
of daEa for Henderson's testimony (1.0); review
of our trial brief, final refinement of trial
senario, miscellaneous other matters (3'0)'

Final preparation of expert Henderson for Eest-
imony .egirrt ing ethnlc demography, socio-dconomic
data on N.,u 0rleans f rom I980 consus ' polar-
ization in 40 elections, political scier'ce
literature on participation; preparation of
Engstrom re pt-ilitical science literature'on'
diiution, re lationship of factors (5'5); trial
preparation, organizaEion of questions for direcE
examination of "*p"rts; 

final trial PreparaEion
in coordinati.on with co-counsel, work regarding
opening sIatemenE (7.0).

Preparati.on of opening statement, oEher trial
preparation ( 3.0) ; tri-a1 ( 7.0): opening sEat'emenE '
clirect testimoni' of HenderSon; f urther preparaEion
of Henderson (4.0).

Trial prepai-ation ( 1.0); tri.al- (6'75): exPert
testlmony; preparation for Engstrom aL lunch ( 1 '5);
mee Iing with experE demographer Laska in PreparaEion
f or cross exami-nation of Se11e, or use as rebuEEal
witness (1.25). 10'5

Trial preparation, cal1s to Bagneris, others to
prepare cross examination of def enclanE I s wit,nesses
.f oirning El'rat there was no bloc voting in Moria 1,
and other races with a black vicEor ( 1.5) ; pre-
paration wiEh expert Engst,rom for cross examination
of Sc.Ile (3.0); preparitLion for cross examination
of John Wildgen (4.5); assisting Guinier in prep-
araLion Ior cross-cxantirtaLicltt oE Treen, oEher
matters regarding possible rebuEtal case (3.0);
rriat (3.0).

&t



DaLc

3,/10/83

3/tt/83

]/r)iBl

-\ / t') i83

3/16/83

4 / ro /B'3

Ll13i83

L ,' L7 /93

4/20/83

,r+ /22 /83

4 /'23 /83

4/24/83

5/Oe/83

5/10/83

lula'i or v. 'een
Ff f tdavi' -..rf ScanleY A-

I Lenr

Preparation for cross-exantinaEion of Se11e
( t . )S I ; trial: ,lef endanErs case i-n chief ,

my cross-exatnination oF Sc1le, W.i ldgen (11'25)'

Meeting with co-counsel re division of post-
trial Iabor ( 1.50); notes regarding proposed
findings (2.5); conference with co-counsel Guinier
re proposed findings (1.75)'

Not es regarding proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of- 1aw (2.5); examination of docu-
mentary evidence for proposed findings on my

witnesses (3.5).

OrganizationofmaEerialsforfindingsregarding
my wi.tnesses.

Telephone call with Kellogg re transcript '

Post-ErialworkreproposeclfindingsoffacEand
conclusiotts of law.

Te 1 e phone ca1 I Lo Ke 1 Iogg re Henderson Eranscript .

Analysis, indexing, and noEes of trial transcripu,
Henderson test imony ( a.5 ) ; same with r:egard to
llenderson antt EngsErom experL tesEimony (5'5)'

Digest of expert testimony to be included in
proposed iindings.

hlork on input to proposed findings re experE
testim()nV, tletta.

Preparation of secEion of findings regarding
expert Engstrom r s Eestimony, and supporEing data,
summar y .

Summary o f experE t,estimonY ,

r:er-ord f or f indings of f act,
script.

supporting daEa in
indexing of tran-

Halpin

Hours

12.50

5.75

AnaLvsls of transcripEs of defendanEs I exPerE Se1le
oLher testimony for proposed findings of facE '

Summary of findings regardinA defendanE r s wiE-
n""""r, lack of credi bility, analysis of t'ran-
scr:.pts for findings of facE and conclusions of
1aw.

6.0

.;:
2.5

.25

2.25

.25

10.c

3.0

3.5

4.0

9.0

8.5

3.5

22



reen

I Lem

Analysis of defendantst exPertrs
f ind i rlgs.

Miscellaneous work wiEh resPect

InpuEs for findings, €vj-dence in
elected of f icials.

Eestimony for

Eo f indi.ng".

record on black

Preparation of section in findings on elecEed
officials throughout Lousisana from dat.a in
record, other miscellaneous work regarding find-
ings.

Information from t ri:r1 transcripts on defendants t

experE Wildgen's EesEimony, also Se11e, for
findings of fact.

Analysis of deIetrdattLst posL-Lria1 memo, checking
cases, checking Eranscripts for refuEaEion,
particularly with respecE to expert Eestimony.

Cross-referencing transcripts for refutaEion
of deIenCantrs memo.

hlork re preparation of judgment telephone call
Sheckmants office re documents lelephone con-
ference with Guinier re judgment.

Analysis of opinion in preparation for judgmenE.

Te Lephone conference with Kellogg re judgment.

Telephone call Lo Kelloggts office, clerk, oEher
miscel laneous ma E t.ers .

Telephone call to Kelloggts office.

Analysis of defenrlants' aPpeal and motion to
inEervene, checking cases ciEed, oEher research.

Meeting with Qui g1.y, update of anticipated
iegislirive response Eo court decision ( .75);
factual investigaEion inEo response anEicipaLed
by legislature ( 1.5 ) , conference with Kellogg
(.2s).

Telephone call with Kellcgg re monitering legis-
lature; travel to Baton Rouge and monitering of
legislative response to court decision, obtaining
bi11s, checking with sympathetic members of legis-
laEure regarding adequacy of new plan.

flator v. I

Affid i .:f- St.anIey A. Halpin

Hours

.75

.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

5.5

3.75

t.25

.75

.25

.75

.25

2-5

2-5

4.25

Date

5/iL/83

5it2/83

5/r3/83

5/17/83

5,t 1g /83

6/4/83

6 /Os / 8'.3

e/2e/83

el30/83

l,()/5/83

tt/4/83

rr/28/83

12/01 /Bi

t2/8/83

1

1

L2/t2/83

23



Af-'i ,iE oaSEanley A. Halpi/

Date

i 984
I lom|

ti03l84

3i06/84

Item Hours

.25

2.75

i.5

576.25

'felcphone call Sclicckman,
coming hearing.

Preparation of affidavit,
matrers.

Preparatj-on of af fidavit.

oLher matEers re fnrEi'r

other adminisErative

TOTAL

et+



/^ :18, aEa(,Ir Er'PErrut Suanley A. HalPin

Dirte

2/28/83
thru 3/L3/83

t/t8/83
t hru I /'24 /83

t2/ L7 /82
thru 12/19182

: i gat ion xpen s es

T t cnr

Trial and Travel ExPenses
Parking r gas, ground t,ransportation ($)
Credit card food exPenses
Rental car .

Gas
Airfare

Deposition Tr:avel FxPenses

r ooq, ParkinS, misc. ( e )
Rental car
Airfare
Credit card food
Gas

Travel to New 0rleans for Case Preparation

Food, parking ($)
Gas
Airfare

l,orrg Di sEance TclePhone Cal1s

TOTAL

Amoun E

349.50
L34.62
200.00

52 .45
190.O0

1 41 .95
L35 .49
215 . 00

70.24
23.72

1 16 .70
23.94

210 . 00

N/C

1,863.61

&5



Uncler penalty of perjury, I certify that the foregoing statemengs are true

and correcE.

DAl'E STANLEY A. HALPIN, JR.
Attorney for Plaintiffs'

-5-

eb



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR fHE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIAT'IA

-x

BARBARA I'IAJOR, €t AI., :

Plaintiffs, z

v. : Civil Action No' 82-LL92
Section C

DAVID C. TREBI'I, etc., :

et dI. ,

Defendants.
:

-x

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF NEI"i YORK )

) ss.:
COUNTY OF NEI{ YORK )

c. LANI GUINIER, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in this

case, and I am employed as Assistant Counsel of the NAACP Legal

Defense and Eoucational Fund, Inc. ( "Legal Defense Fund" ) ' I

subnrit this affidavit in support of plaintiffs' aPPlication

for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

2. The Legal Defense Fund is a nonprofit corporation

which was founded in I94O and which has since furnished lega1

assistance in cases involving claims of racial discrimination

and deprivation of constitutional rights before state and fed-

e1



eral courts throughout the nation. see NAACP v' Button ' 37L

U.S. 415, 42L n. 5 (1963)' The Legal Defense Fund has been

approved by the Appellate Division of the state of New York

to function as a legat aid organization, and it has been cited

by the united states supreme court as having "a corporate repu-

tar-ion for expertness in presenting and arguing the diff icult

questions of Law that frequently arise in civil rights Iiti-

gation." NAACP v. Button, supra, 371 U'S' at 422' Attorneys

affiliated with the Legal Defense Fund have represented the

plaintiffs in landmark cases involving constitutional and

voting rights issues which have been decided by the supreme

r/ )/ 1/
Court,- the Fifth CircuLL,2' and other Circuits.-'

3.Neitherlnoranyotherattorneyonthestaffofthe

Legal Defense Fund has accepted or expects to receive any

compensation or reimbursement from the plaintiffs in this case'

ffii ,-ii". ". v,iilson, 3o-t ffil; Nixon
v. Condon, 286 U.S.

2/ I,,laIlace v. House , 377 F - Supp. LL92 (w'D' La' I9741 'fff ,ffiStn Cir. L915) rev'd, 425 U.S. 947

ml , iemanded, 538 F.2d t13B ( 5th Eh. 1916);_ Bo{td y.
wnitu,' S6g;X-L3g7 ( 1975 ) ; Gilmore-Y.-9reeng-Counlv P9mogfa-

X\ n r -- d^,'&L.-'^l1Nhite, 50Er;E-L397 (Lezs ) ; 9i1!'919.Y:=gregn?=coun:v uemocra-
tic Party Exec. Com., 435 f-Z '

Smith v. Paris, 386 F'Za 979 (1967);
HalI v. Naqel, 154 F.m t.titchell Y, i{riqht , I54-ffial , cert. denied, 329 u.s.--33 ( 1945) '

3/ Brown v. Bd. of Sch. Com' rs of . Ilob i Ie 99un!v '- +IF ' ' ,70-6
F'.2d
Enarrr ar Ertor- - c.i l-v of N-y-ffiO (2nd Cir. L974\;Board of Elec., city of N.Y., 495 F.2d IUyU (ZnO UIr. Latc)i

I (4th Cir' 1949); Rice v.-Elmore'
.Dd. sn J.tl v, D!vwrr, Lr1

ffiir, cir. Lg4i), cert. denied, 333 u.s- 875

L,, Escarnbia Countv v. I{cMi 1Ian, 99 L. Ed. 2d 36 (March 27 ' 1984 ) ;

i"raffiobjrer--A6 446 u.s. 55 (1980),.remanded, 542
; ul i tea . ..reg i s! grg?P i z?ti?ns v .

carevl 430 u.s. L44 (1e7zl, Eg:t@=s!|ogl e9;
?jldrsnatt, 424 u.s. 536 it Erections'
393 U.S- 544 ( 1959); Ander;;; ;:'M
i"irv,r. ea.*s, tni'u i-::t

(1e48).

2- d3



No counsel fees, costs, or expenses will be obtained for work

done or money spent on this case by the Legal Defense Fund or

its staff attorrreys unless the Court awards such feesr. costs'

and expenses against the defendants. Any such award to attor-

neys employed by the Legal Defense Fund will be paid over to

the LegaI Defense Fund-

4. I am aclmitted to practice law before the following

courts: The supreme court of the united states, the united

states Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, sixth and Eleventh

circuits; the united states District courts for the Eastern

District of Michigan and the District of columbia; the District

of columbia Court of Appeals; and the supreme court of I'[ichigan.

5. Attached as Appendix A to this affidavit is a resume

which correctly summarj-zes my biographical data, educational

background, employment history, and professional experience'

6. Since my graduation from YaIe Law School in L974, T

have specialized in civil rights and constitutional litiga-

tion. F.rom Lg14 to Lg16 I was a law clerk to a federal dis-

trict court judge. During my clerkship, I was resPonsible for

reviewing many cases involving Constitutional law issues'

From Lg77 to 1981, I was special Assistant to the head of the

civil Rights Division in the united states Department of Jus-

tice. During this period, I worked on a number of civil and

criminal cases involving claims of deprivation of civil and

constitutional rights. For example, I.had major responsi-

bility for drafting the amicus brief filed in the district

-3 ,o*t



court by the Unir-.d States rn Chavis v. Stat- of North Carolina,

63i F.2d 2I3 (4th Cir. 1980). I was one of two trial attorneys

representing the United States in the civil rights prosecution

in Booker v. unired states, 655 F.2d 562 (4th Cir. I98I). I

also helped reorganize the Voting Rights Section Five Unit, and

consulted with the Assistant Attorney General on Section Five

subnrissions. Since April 198I, I have worked primarily on

voting rights cases as a staff attorney at the Legal Defense

Fund. I was the Fund's principal representative in the success-

ful LgB2 legislative effort to extend and amend the Voting

Rights Act of 1965.

- 7. I have broad experience in the litigation of voting

rights cases uncler the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

In addition to the case at bar, I have had substantial. resPon-

sibility for representing prevailing parties in Ginqles v.

Edmisren, No. B1-803 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 1984) (three judge

court), stay denied, No. A-653 (Feb. 27, I984) (Burger,

C.J. ),reapplication for stay denied, No. A-653 (March 5,

1984) (By the Court), and Valteau v. Edwards, No. 84-L293

(8.D. La. Iularch 21 , I984), stay denied, No. A-770 (l'larch 28,

I984) (ey the Court). I represented successful habeas corpus

petitioners in Bozeman v. Lambert, C.A. 83-H-579-N (t\'1-D.

A1a. April I3, I9B4) and Wilder v. Lambert, c.A. 83-H-580-N

(t4.D. AIa. April 13, 1984) wherein the court termed my repre-

sentation "highly effective and competent." Memorandum

Opinion and Order at 4, filed June 29,1984. I had a sub-

stantial role in preparing the amicus brief filed by the Legal Defense

Fund in Roqers v. Lodqe,45B U.S.613 (1982

Anderson, 537 F. Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1982),

appeal dismissed, 458 U.S. II23 (I982)

l, and Flateau v.

(three judge court),

-4 3o



(

8. I ha..re rrade a number of presentations and lectures to

conference ano training programs on voting rights Iitigation and

related topics- The most recent of these conferences and Pro-

grams include the following:

Bostr:n Lawyers Commictee for Civil Rights Under Law
Symposium on the L964 Civil Rights Act, Seminar on
Political Participation, Boston, Massachusetts,
June 1984

Thirtieth Anniversary of Brown v. Board of
Education, "With A11 Deliberate Speedr"
tale La\^/ School, April 1984

Fourth National Policy Institute for Black
Elected Officials, a nonpartisan and educational
conference, sponsored by the Joint Center for
Pol itical Studies,
Seminar on The Voting Rights Act,
Washington, D.C., March I984

Lawyers Conference on "Enforcing Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act, " Seminar on proving a
Section 2 violation in redistricting cases,
Lawyers Committee for CiviI Rights Under Law,
New OrIeans, Louisiana, I.{arch 1984

Association of Southern Political Scientists,
Seninar on l"linority Vote Dilution
Birmingham, Alabama, November I983

Consultation on Citizen Responsibility,
Poiitical Participation, and Government
Accountabi I ity, The New Viorld Foundation,
ltrew York, N. Y., September 1983

Lecture to graduate seminar on Local Government
Election Systems,
The {-lniversity of Texas at Austin,
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
Professors Barbara Jordan and Terrell Blodgett
Sepiernber l9I3

Keynote speaker, UDiversity of l,lichigan,
Journal of Law Reform, "Enforcement of the
Voting Righr-s Act"
March 1983

9 . I am co-author with Drew S. Days , TTT, of a chapter

entitled "Enforcernent of Section 5 of the Votirtg Rights Act"

in C. Davidson (ed.), Minori[y Vote Dilution (Howard Univer-

si r1,- Press -991) .

3t-a



/

10. My hourly rate is $160.00 per hour. Attachect as

Appendix B to this affidavit is a schedule ot the hours

which I have spent on tnrs case rrom my rnrErar lnvolvement

in 1981 through July Li, 1984. These hours were compiled

from conternporaneous time records which I have maintained

t-hroughout this period.

11. In addition to the hours listed in Appendix B,

cther attorneys employed by the Legal Defense Fundr of, coop-

erating with the Fund, have reviewed documents filed in this

case and have conferred with me from time to time concerning

this case. These attorneys include Director-Counsel Jack

Greenbergi, First Assistant Counsel Lowell Johnston and

Charles Stephen Ralston, and Assistant Counsel Napoleon B.

Iti I I iams . In acidition, Janice l4cCaughan, a law student em-

ployed at the Legal Defense Fund from i{ay 1984 through

August 1984 worked a total of 80.5 hours devoted to

assisting counsel in the preparation of plaintiffs' post-

trial memoranda of law and preparation for oral argument.

fn order to provide a conservative statement of the time

spent on this case and to eliminate any hours which might

conceivably constitute a duplication of effort, the Legal

Defense Fund is not requesting fees for the services of

attorneys Jack Greenberg, Johnson, Ralston or Williams.

12. Attached as Appendix C is the Statement of Time of

Janice McCaughan.

13. Attached to this affidavit are the following
appendices reflecting expenses paid or incurred-by the Legal

Defense Fund in this case from I98l through July L7,1984:

6

3L



. Appendix D:' A summary

food, and lodging.

Appendix E: A summary

ing and postage

appendix F: A summarY

of expenses for travel,

of expenses for photocopy-

of long distance telephone

calls.
Appendix G: A summary of Court and Court Reporter

Costs, Witness Fees and other miscellaneous cos{g paid by'LDF.

C. LAMT NIER

Subscribed and sworn to before

C

me this i'l4a^t of July, 1984.

Quslalbd in Wca'-ciic::ter &untyt
Cor:rnrission Expireo fulctch 30, 19.iri

7-

33



CAF.OL LAI.II GUINIER

lOO LaSalle Street, #2IG
New Yorki N. Y. 10027
Tet. (2t21 2I9-1900

(2t2) 662-1171

Education

PreparatorY:

Undergraduate:

Professional:

Le ca I Exrrerience :

Assi,stant
Counsel:

r APPENDIX A

RESU}lE

Date of Birth:
ApriI 19, I950

Andrew Jackson High Schoo1
St. Albans, New York, graduated June,
1967

Honors: Graduated 3rd in Class of
L,441

Radcliffe College (Harvard University)
Carnbridge, Massachusetts
B. A. Cum laude, June 1971

Honors: Dean's List, f967-L97L
Honors l'1ajor (Social. Studies)
National Achievement Scholarship

for Outstanding Negro Students,
sPonsored bY the National Merit
CorPoratj.on and The New York
Times, I967-1971

Yale Law School
New Haven, Connecticut
J.D., June I974

Hoaors: Finalist, John Fletcher Caskey
Prize Trial , 1973

Director, Barristers Union Board,
1973-197 4

NI{ACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc'
9) Hudsor, street, r6th Floor
New York, N. Y. 10013

APPENDIX A
j4



S.oec ia1
Assistant

Re feree :

a
APPENDIX A

I litigate in all areas of civil rights
Iaw, although I work primarily on voting
rights cases. I also work on our legisla-
tive docket. For example, I was the LDF
representative in Washington providing
technical assistance to the effort Lo
extend and strengthen the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.

Drew S. Days, IfI, Assistant Attorney
General, Civil RiEhts Division, United
States DePartment of Justice, Washington,
D. C. 20530, October L97? to February 1981'

I consulted and advised the Assistant
Attorney General and other staff members
in the development and implementation of
Division policies involving enforcement of
all civil rights statutes and laws adnin-
istered by the DePartment of Justice. I
also litigated cases with the Division's
Appellate, Criminal and General Litigation
Sections. f was resPonsible for Human
Rights Liaison wj.th the State Department
and the United States Congress Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe. I
coordj-nated and supervised Department-wide
investigations into complaints of domestic
human rights violations. I acted as a
deputy for the Civil Rights Division for
legislation. I received a SPeciaI
Commendation Award for my work on the aml-cus
brief that the Department filed in the
Wilmington Ten case; f also received twc
Outstanding Performance P.atings.

Wayne Countl' Juvenile Court
1025 E. Forest, Detroit, llichigan 48207
September 1975 Septendcer L977

Presided over all juvenile court proceedings
except waiver cases and jury trials. Con-
ducted pre-trial conferences with attorneys,
took teitimony, ruLed on motions and objections
of attorneys, maoe findings of fact and
re,comnended dispositions to the Probate Court
judge. Adjudicated dellnquencl' as well as
iependency/rregLect cases where court had
jurisCictron. Set bcnd and aut.horized the
lrling of petitions at Preliminary Hearings.

-2-

APPENDIX A
3s



Law Clerk:

Bar Associations

Admitted to:

Professional
As soci aticns

The Honorable Damon J- Keith, Chief Judge,
United States District Court, Eastern
Oistrict of }lichigan (Now Judge, United
States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit)
August L974 August L976'

Was responsible for researching the l"*
and prelaring memoranda, recommendations'
and Lrdlrs on all motions; researching
and preparing draft's of opinj'ons-!o be
enteiea- Uy tfie court; handling "I] 

prisoner
corresponhence and supervising Writ Clerk
with hlbeas corpus and civil rights cases
iii;d-Ey' fisontrs; preparing jury
instructions.

APPENDIX A

District of Columbia Bar llarch 1980
itut" Bar of l"lichigan APril 1975
United States SuPreme Court
United States Court of APPeals

Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh
Circuits

United States District Courts
Eastern District of l'lichigan
District of Columbia

Flember of Board of Directors:
Lawyers Committee for International

Hurnan Rights
Public fnterest Law Foundation of

New York UniversitY School of Law

National Conference of Black Lawyers

-3-

APPENDIX A
34r



Date

1981
Dec. L2

13

L982
girr. A

Iaay I0

June I

5

I

Oct.

l.iov.

APPEDIX B

I'1\IOR v. TRml

STATEI{E}M OF TIJ',IE

OP

C. ISNI q.iINIER

Senrice-s Rendered

Initial Confererce with Kellogg and Origley irr
Ilev.r Or1ean-e.

lbt again with O:ig1eY and Kellogg

@nference call wittr Napoleon Willias and Kellogg

Tlelephone coilEl:sation with Kellogg

Onversation with O:igleY

Conrrersations with O:rgley and Kwan

trarrelled to DC to neet with Robert Kwan, U.S. De1rt,- of
Jr:slice, to revr*i file of Iorrisiana Ongressional sub-
rnission tc see State' s Reslrcrr.e to Reguest for nore
ilfor:nation

Ilet wiflr attornel's fr"om Davis, Polk re researdt for brief
on applicability of 52, legislaLive l'r-istory and standards
of nsr Act
l,bt with Ke11ogg, Quigley and Scheclsnan
I'Et with Ke11ogg, Or:1g1ey and Sckreclsnan to discr:ss litiga-
Llon stratery re: Irlov. elestion as/as necessitry for hi-rlng
e)pert, erc.

calied Kellogg; also ta]ked to Bernie Gr.ofrnan re our proof

I'bt with Davis,Pclk re: researchTbrief on 52 as anended

Pr"epar:ed ane:rded conS'Iaint and discr-lssed depositions w:Lti
Departnent of Jr:stjce staff
@nference with co-counsel
Telephone caLl to Der:artr.rent of Jus*'ice and l(ellogg

Researched i;u of exec.:tive privilege to anticipate
M/OJash Subpoena on Reynolds, Kwart, Jones ard ileberf';
FDIA request, convinced IGJ-logg to depose legislators

tburs

5.0

2.0

1.0
.2

5.3

3.0
2.0

3.0

.5

2.5

4.3
3.5
.2

r0.0

.2

.3

25

1
2

JuIy

7

9

l,""

26

L4

30

J

APPB':DI>: B

3'7



Date
1982
E.

19B3

Jan. 4

6

8

1-?

I5

Senrices Perfo::red

S;nke to E clerk re: subPoena

Spcke to lGllogrg re: depcisitions

TeJ.ephone conrrersatiors witl'r Iosell & Arnand
re : DJ response to lbtice of repositions;
coniaersaLions witi st2ff lar4rer re: toJ offer;
conversation wittr Kellogg re: depositions

Spoke to OrigIeY, Hebert.

R=viewed RT file on Ocngressional Subrnissi-on

Revisued BI file on @ngressional Subrnission
pursrEnt tO agreenent not to enforce sr:bpoena,
call to }ie1Iogg and Quigley frcrn D.C.

telephore
Nabrit,

Brief and

Hou::s

r.4

.3

4.0

3.5

L2.0

2.5

11.0

16.0

L2.0

4.0

2.5

1.5

.2

.4

I6

17

ksearched la,u for
non-parEy deSnnent
l4ction in Lirrutne

enforcen'ent
a questions

subpoena of
evidence for

of
of

Spoke for t hour to Annand Erfner on
re : l4ction in Lirnine; also consulted
Schrnpper & Keilogg

ksea::ch a drafted }4ction in Limine e

Offer of Proof
6

7-9

IO

bsearclied lar,s on I.tction il Limine & began drafling
brief to e.vclude erridence of Jr:-stice preclearance

Eafted brief and affidavit afcer revis.iing i.:nfor-
nation receiraed from Jr.Lstie; edited and nBiled
to Iouisiana for filing

Drafted Sr-pplo:rental Affidavit ; consulted Nabrit,
i-or,seII & bn Bllis; rmiled Fbdem-I bPress to
Kellogg for filing

Telephone caII wittr Stan Ha1pin re: strategy and
f;:nding of his crcr.r:t tjrre; also spoke to Kellogg
re: elqlert testj-rony; or.ganized files i.rn preparation
for trial

Organized files for trial; revis,ved &curcnts

Preparation for argnlrent in I'trtion i-n Limine;
researched la,v in resPonse to defendant's lbtion
to Disquali4'

-2-
APPEiDIX E

L2

I3

14

L7

6.0

str



LEt t_c

APPB\DIX B T .

Se::r,'j-ces Perfornedm
.:an. rg Researched law re: Ef 's lbtion to Disqualify;

conferred with lo*eII e C1yde re: strategy;
travelled to lr]sd Orleans; onferred wTXe[ogg
and PrePared for arqr-rrerrt

19 Arped }btion il Linine; conferred witt Kellogg,
Orig1g/ a IIaIpin at breakfast and that after-
n@n; caIled EJ and a:rangred to have doqments
authenLicated; prepared the docr:nents

20 Atterrded pre-trial onference; intenria,red Logsden
Cassj-nere and Engs-."rcm (oqpert witnesses); talked
with Henderson re: dePosition

2L AttendeC deposition of Henderson; conferzed with
Iialpil and KellogE re: trial st-rategy jn vi*r
of n:ling on l&tion j:r Limine; travelled bad< to
ller York arrirred hcne at 11:30 P.M., because fIid1t
cancelled

25 Re-orEanized files; w::ote to D.f re: authenticating
doctllents and attached 19 e>*Iibits

Ibur:s

16.0

L2.O

12.0

L2.3

r.3

Feb. 10 Discussed concl:sions of law witi Kellogg for pre-
trial brief - '7

L7 kvignred Erre T)reen's delnsition 1.0

22 Discr:ssion with Jj:n Kellogg i.:: preparation to defend
depositions of 3 oper:cs 2.5

23 Fbrty-firze rninute telephone ceJl w/ Engstr.cm and
f.ellogg to prrepare for Brgetr:crn's deposilion, 8 hoi:rs
r"esearCd:rg and draf"i:rg Proposed Oonclusions of La^/ 8.8

24 Drafted and edited Proposed 6nclusions of lar.r; dis-
cussed fin&il6 of fact with Kellogg and sent hirn
my ccnnents 8.0

25 hdrafted @nch-rsiorrs of Lar,v after discr:ssing tJ:sr,
with Kellogg; also drafted on 2/23/83 lbtion to
en:ol1 as attorney; discr:ssed Clehardy's deposi-tj.on 5.0

28 Shipped files to Ns* Orleans i-n prepa::ation for trial;
revis^red and ml-lecteC cases 2.2

j!br. 1 tial preparatron; ccnpleted Onch.rsions of Iar^' 6.0

2 TI.avelled to l.b*, Orl-ean_s; r€t with co-coi:nsel; divided 14
trial assigrinarts 9.0

-3-
PPN.JDIX B

s1



Date

I'lar.

24

Apr.25

26

27

28

29

1

2

5

6

3

4

5

6

/ APPE\DIX B (-

Serraces Perforned

I,Et with elpert witnesses; prepared direct e:<aln

travelled to Baton buge to reet T\rrnley (6 hour
trip and neeting), net with Engstrcm; rnlcrAed wittr
Kellogg on operLing, rrevisred e>fijbits

Drafced nriaL lh:rcrandsn

Pinished drafLirrg IIEITo; net with Caqiinsie and
prepared dlrect exarnination

kial in cour-t frcor 9 - 7:00; p:epared d'irect exam

f:rcm 8 - 1:00 AI'1

In court fr:crn 9 A.M. r:nLi1 6:30 P.M.; pr"epared clsss
of defendant Tteen

In 6urt frrcm 9 A.lr,l. r:ntil 1:00; preparation of CtoSS
from 2 P.M., unLil 2 A.M.

In court from g A.M., r:nli1 10:30 P-M.

Conferred with o-cor:nsel re: post-trial briefing;
packd and shipped files back to }dew York; arzived
hcxre at 10:30 p.m,
Ocnference Erfner
@nferred with Ke11o99 re: budget and operrses;
drafted IIErD to Jack Greenlcerg re: neh, budget

Errisared rcguests for payrent and reqursitioned elp€nse
rrone), for Gordon, Shirlev Tasker and l1gllogg

Draft Fcst-trial findirrgs

kvisnred transcript ; sr-unmrized

Drafced post-tria1 findings

Post trial frndings; ccnfe-:=ed with Halpin
(co-cotursel)

Edi-ted findings (draft I)

hwrote findings

Findings of fact post-trial

Conferzec *1ttr co-counsel in Xery Orleans;
revieweC e>fr.ibits

Reirisrved eld'riitit-s and drafb. findingts wlth co-courrsel-

-4-
APPBDIX B

Hcnr:rs

12.5

l-5.0

15.0

14.5

15.0

16.0

17.0

L2.5

12.0
.7

2.0

2.0

10.0

I0.0

11.0

u.0

1.0

5.0

8.0

r0.0

15.0

IO

1l

l7
I8

qo



Ete

Ir,lay 7

14

1s

15

l7

IO

I1

1-2

13

APPE\DIX B

Se::rices Perforned

l€t with f-e11ogg fronl 9:30 - L2:30 A-M-, :e:
fildirrgs

Left }levi Gleans at 9:45 A.l'L ; a:rirzed trcne at
4:30 P.M.

Oonfer:=d with Kellogg on Shone re: revis,v of
e>ftibits

Began revisi-:rg post-trial fi-ndings

Worked f::om 4:30 P.ld, r:nLil 11:00 P.M., cn findings;
t:xi hone

Findings of fasb post-trial (5 h::s. ) . Onirersation
with Halpin :=: findings (1 hr.)

Findings post-trial-prcofed 2nd draft; revised,
researcjred 1aw; revie*ed o*rilcits (8 hours) talked
witi Kellog (10 rnijn.) and Halpin (20 rdrr.) re: evidence

E-rnn:ote fi-ndings to incorporate'trial *fiibits and
evidene; resea:rhed 1a,s for proposed conclusions

Edited findings

kr,'j-seo findings

Edited and pr:oofed findings (9 hours) . Researched
1ar,v for Conclrrsions of l-aw (3 hours) . Left wod<
at 12:30 A.M., and took cab hone

W::ote @ncli-rsiorrs of Law; proofed and edjteC findings;
consulted witJ: Stanley Halpin and Jjm l(ellogg about
i:rserts and transcripe references -- took taxi
hcne at 10:00 P.M.

Final revision of findings
Researcheo law for post-trial brief
hseard:red 1aw for post-trial brief; r.evievred briefs
filed in ottrer Sestion 2 cases; drafted first 6 pages
of Statenerrt of Fasls

Researctred la,v; Crafteo paEes 8-I3 of Statenent of
Fac+-s for TYial Brief and ksponse

Worlced fr.om 10:00 A.M., until }bon and fram 7:30 P.M.,
r.rntjl 9:30 P.M., on brief . rcok taxi hcne

I,v-rote a d:-afc brief :-n response to
defendant' s post-Lrial nenorandu'n

-5-
AP?BDIX B

tbu:ls

3

5.8

.2

4.0

5.5

7.0

8.5

8.0

3.0

6.0

L2.0

18

l9
23
24

12.0

3.0

4.2

5.0

5.3

4.0

3.0

25

26

31

4t



.t

I

I

hte

APPE\DIX B /.

Sen'ices Perforned Hou:ls

Jr:re I revis^Ed defenoant's nEnorandurn again; ontin-ed
qrriting plaintiff 's Snst-trial brief 7.0

2 Pcst-triaL brief ; rerrierrred cases cited by defendants;
fjnished drafting StatenEnt of Ftscts; proofread second
draft 8.0

3 V*crked from 6:00 P.M., r-u'rlil 2:00 A.It{., on IDSt-tJiaJ-
brief 8.0

4 Fjnished 2nd dr:aft of facts portion of brief; finished
lst draft of lega1 arguert. hlorked r:ntiI 2:00 A.M. t4.5

5 Onferred witi Arnrand Erf,eer about renedy portion of
brief 1.0

8 Spoke w'ith Stanley Ha1pin about rereo\l porEion of
brief ; finished writ-ing 2nd draft; proofread trrcrti-on
Crat was tlped 7.0

9 Reviewed and appended recent 6Ur Circuit casei proof-
read brief; prepared it for fiUng; discr-rssed renedies
with Jim r.eIIogg 10.0

24 l^lorked on arglrent for court hearing on 6/29; revisrred
Sr-prene 6t::*. c=qe and oollected slip opinions at
:egr:est of Politz's 1as clerk 7.0

23 Prepareo for oral argrurrent on 6/29/83 5.0

26 Preparation for oral argr:nenL on 6/29 4.0

?7 I',bot court from 4:00 - 7:30. Prepared before and
after, revis,v'j.ng cases cited i:: brief and suporrising
iaw studerrt researd: on incr-urbenq/, ccnstituUional
issues and hearsay 9.0

28 kseardeed in office for 4 ho':::s; travelled frrcur, 3:30
- 8:30 P.M., witJ: li,apoleon Willians discr:ssi.:rg argn:-
nent anc strategDr; nevj-s.red Supr.erre Ocur:t opjJl-ion ca:
plane; prepared fr"om 9:00 - 3:00 A.ld 15-0

29 }rrepared frpm S:00 A.M. - 11:30 A-M. Irbot court
fronr 12:00 - L:00 P.M. Trr court froln 1:l-5 - 3:30 P.M.
Travelled fr'om Nsr Orleans to Binrlindlan - 6:00 - 9:30 P.lt{. 10.3

Su'Ft.2l irep<rratron of i.:dclr:nt pe,r order of cor":ft 2.0
30 Prepared judq.ent; procfed 3.0

N:r:. 2l Telephcn,-: con!'ersatron with co-cornsel re: notj_ce of
appeal - .2. ksearchz'conr.'ersatron with Stephen
FiaLstcr': about S.rprerre Cour'. procedure ,4 .6

-6-
APPE\DIX B Ll-t



APPEI.DIX B _ (_

Senri.ces Perforred

Revisred notj-ce of appeal and notion to intenrene
Discr:ssed v{it} Quigley
Discr.rssed witlr Napoleon Willians

Discr-rssed strategg with Stanley Halpin for
arpncachj.:rg nouion to intenrene and notice
of appeal
lEt with Kellogg re ilts:rention of Bn:neau ir ligft1,--
of defendant's rrcLice of appeal, ca11ed Quigley
ksea:iched law on interventi.on

Resea:rch on intenrention

Intenrenti-on researdt

Ttrree hou::s Sr:nday writing ResSnnse to Intenrention
Serren hor:rs lbndav re{^rriuinq
Called cecounsel'

Preparation of attorney fee staterrent

Draft attorney f". .ff:-arl,,it

Conference call re attorney's fees

Preparation affidavit and exhibi'ts, 8:00 -
taxr hsre

.Pifidavit revision

Conversation with Larry- l4enefee

Frepa:ation cf affiCavit and eJribits

,aifidavit a ex]:ibits

I0:25 Pl'l,

Tot;il

-7-
APPEDI}: B

HoursEte

llcv. 22 .3
.I
.4

28

29

Ec.5
.,

9

T2

I5
1984

.8

.5

L5
6.0

3.0

9.0

10.0
.3

1.0

-2

.3

.g

-9

.5

.5

I.l
3;0

-5

2-4

.8

.2

.5

2.0

Jan. 23

24

25

30

FEb. 6

9

FEb. 14

15

v29
r.:ne 15

28

11t 11

13

16

I7
694.3

13



APPB{DIX C

' (-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

I"TAJOR :

Plaintiffs, :

V.

Defendants. :

TREEN

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 82-1192

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

CC

Janice t'lcCaughan being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

I. I am a student at Columbia Law School. I will be graduating

in June, 1984.

Z. f was employed.as a legal intern at the NAACP Legal Defense

and Educational Fundr Inc. ouring the summer of 1983.

3. Under the direct supervision of Lani Guinier, EsQ.r

I performed the various tasks in this case listed on the Statement

of Time which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Exhibit A is an

accurate Statement of the time spent and was prepared by me from

individual time sheets I prepared contemporaneously with the task

described. Additional time spent in oiscussions, eonferences and

travet which was not recordeC is not included-

APPEI'DIX C

4Ll



APPMJDIX C

4. This aff idavit has ben prepared for use in conne'c-

tion with plaintiffs' application for fees and costs. r have no

personal interest in any fees or costs recovered in connection

with my work in this ease, such sums being payable to the NAACP

Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Sworn to .before
Eh is /* aay

me
of h."r,

SLORENCE J. GlurNT -
*otr, ''-FuUttc, Staie of Ncw Yorlt

No.- 31-16681&

*ffi::i:l'9,#:,'f *ril:Ir#

2-

APPNiDIX C

, 1983.

uZl-
Notary Publ i.c

q5



Date

1983

I'4ay 14

Odrj-trit "A' To APPendix
(-

}AfOR v. TREEN

Statenent of Tirre

of

JAI.IIE }IfAIJGHAN

Senries Rendered

Resea:rc.1r-ing for IIEIrD - eviderce issr.e of a&nissi-bility
of hea:rsay staterEnts introdued rnt for plorrJng tleir
t:atft

Case table, d:eckilg cites

Esearch-ing cases for nenorandr-un and taking rotes

writing draft of ngro::andun

writing nenp::andun on hearsay issr.e

Finishirrg nerrprandur, on hearsay issue

Rechedcing nenoran&rn on heaJ:say issue. A&ing ca.*s
ard erpha-sizing fact Patterns

Esearch-ilg cases on inanrbenqg protection and
reapportionnent

l.tcrking on IIEIrDrandun on validity of inolrlcencry
protection irr @ngnessiornl apportionnent cases
(votirg ri$tts)

Writing nenprandr^un on irsr.rrbenq/ Protecticrr -
rrcLing ri*Its. Turned irl.

B^ort<ing nerrorandun on inorbenry Protection

EuDrkirg rsrorardr-un (efiPhasing other issre) state
legislacive apportionnent and standarril consLitutional
rerrier* urder equal Plpt€ctj.rn clause

Reading latest IISSC cases tairing rptes for argnurent
' on l{ednesday

Eading latest TJSSC cases on rrcting rights and
ccnpiling nctes

Ilo::rs

5,0

5.0

7.0

7.A

7.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

7.5

7-0

6-5

9.5

4.0

3.0

80.5

I5

I6

L7

20

2t

22

22

23

24

26

27

28

29

Tlctal

Exhibit A to APPendix C

Llb



(-

APPBiDIX D

su&{Arur oF EG,BISES PAID BY tDF reR TRA\IEL, rocD AI{D IXDq}IG

.Flrpunt' Date

June

1983
Januaql

Mardr

l,lay

June

r984

July

Total

1981
Oeffir $ 626.00 Conference with co-corrnsel arxt plainuiffs in

1982
tilar Orleans (IC)

i.ZS Trarrcl to D.C. to review Jtrstice D€pt,. files
(tG)

Decenrber 146.00 travel to DC to reyi*r B] files (I,C)

703.95 He-arirtg on Pretrial lbtions, De1psitions,
trial prep. (IC)

1896. 67 rrial preP. ard TriaL (16)

508.05 Fost-trial brief , Rg/i€r, etribits, onfer
witlt co-counsel New Orleans (LG)

35.65 IeaI taxis (IC)

478.59 tbarilg, til*r Orleans (IC)

535.75 lbari,ng, l{el., Orleans (NE{}

10.00 Local taxis (16)

$ 5,!32.91

APPEIIDIX D

Ll'l



APPBiDIX E

ST.IIT{ART OF LDP E(PBISES TOR IIA]OR v. TREII
(PhotooEfing at .15 per page ard postage)

Photocogli.ng:
Date Frnrunt

L/L0/83 S 30.45 Section 5 SubrTission c WBR Itinerarlz (203 pp)

l/L2/83 17.10 elcrk copy (IIa ppl

L/L7 /83 105.00 Brief , htion, affidavits (700 pp1

L/24/83 8.40 l{ork Copy (56 ppl

L/?4/83 73.50 work Copy (a90 pp)

2/25/83 6.00 Conc}:sions of lav (40 pprl

3/25/83 5.10 Bills c Receipts (3a pp1

3/27 /83 20,52 @1or xeroxing

5/3/83 21.75 Findings of Fact (145 pp)

6/L5/83 149.55 Post-trial brief (997 pp)

6/20/83 48.75 !4encrardr.rn (325 pp)
6/23/83 24.75 Brief (155 Pp)
6/27 /83 36.00 Cases requested by ou::t

9/26/83 364.50 Irtrgrcrardrsn @inion (2430 pp)

9/26/83 121.50 l,lsncrarr&m @in1on (818 pp)

9/28/83 3.00 lra*s cliprping (20 pp1

9/29/83 182.25 work copy (1215 pp)

l0 / 24/ 83 50 . 75 opirrions (a05 pp)

L/24/83 10.20 Various legal papers (68 pp)

Total $ 1289.07

APPEMIX E

qr



/ (-

APPBIDD( E

PGTIGE

Date

1/10/83

tlL2/83

3/LL/83

6/9/83

L2/L2/83

Ilotal
-:

PhotmEfjrtg
Postage

Total

Ancunt

s 32.00

19.00

L0.27

31.00

34.00

s 116.27

-!!-EB

$ 
'1289.07

L16.27

Itsn

lbtion ard Brief to lGl1ogg tD,
Federal Epr€ss

Srgplanentar1l affrdauit to Jares
Kellogg, Esq., by Federal Epress

Ifial nraterial to Larli Qrinier
by UPS

fi-rdirqs of Fact g 6nclusio:s of
Ler, Puro1dor, to Jenes R.
Kel1ogg, F.sq.

Opposition to intervertion 
"ora -wiILiEm Quigley

APPE\DIX E

q1



(

I'IAJOR v. TREEN

Summary of LDF long distance telephone records

Appendix F

Date

11-1 2-82

11-2 3-82

11- 30 -8 2

rl_-30-82

L2-9-82

L2-L2-82

12- 15-8 2

l-2-16-82

i2-L7 -82

L2-L7-82

L2-L7-82

1-6-83

1-7-83

1- 19 -8.3

i-19-83

1-19-83

1-19-8 3

1-21-83

l-2r-83
1-21-83

1-21-8 3

1-23-83

1-25-83

2-27-83

3-4-B3

Amount

$ .25

1. 05

1. 95

1.08

7 .66

.91

4.2L

.49

.77

11.17

3. 08

.38

1 .95

I .12

2.L9

.39

7.0r

3.08

1.16

.16

.33

.54

.94

- 9.00

2.L9

Appendix F-1-

5o



Summary of 
":"

appeirdix f
MAJOR V.TREEN

long distance telephone records (@nt'd)

Date

3-11- I 3

3-18-8 3

3-27 -83

4-18-83

4-25-83

5-2-83

5-I4 -8 3

5-30-83

5-30-8 3

5-31-83

5-5-83

6-5-8 3

6-6- I 3

5-6-83

6-29-83

6-29-83

9-20:83

LL-22-83

11-30-83

2-L0-84

3-20-84

3-22-84

5-2-84

5-5-84

Amount

$ 5.40

9 .82

13.40

1. 08

8.56

.38

5.13

.85

.36

.50

.36

3.83

.38

1.54

.77

t ->)

13. 02

2 .30

5. 36

.54

.50

1.01

_ .66

4.50

i'r:i$. j

-2-
Appendix F

5t



(-

MAJOR V.TREEN

Appendix

-3-

Appendix F

AmountDate

5-5-84

5-6-81

5-5-84

6-5-84

5-5-84

TOTAL

s 5.89

L.92

3.28

.50

.60

$ 156.78

5L



f-

APPEIIDIX G

su{.,IAFg oF @uF!t al{) @uHxl REPORIEI @s?IE, WI1INESS FES,
.END MISCEIANEpUS @6'15 PAID HT lDF

Date Paid .erpunt Descr"iprtion

tlarcfi 11, 1982 $ .31558.28 Oclrpensati|on to G' Ilenderssr for analysis
of data

-,tt 
L

s' July 14, 1983. 50.00 Court' cost

53.50 Legal Printir-,q

FebnrarT 16, 1983 85.65 Associnted fnvestigators for serrice of
sutpoenas

!,tarch 28, 1983

May 26, 1983

l,lay 31, 1983

381.49 Shirley Laska, e:<pert uitness fee

11654.90 Gordon tEndersqr, erq)ense, orrly for depooitict

April 8, 1983 L,L26.85 J.H. Ecfrezabal, trja'l trargsfprt

658.63 Trial transciF't

1,002.19 G. Ilenderson' trial er<pense'e

ggE3I -q--9,s82-4e,

ASPEIDIX G

53



+

STATE OF LOUISIANA

PARISH OF ORLEANS

R. JAI4ES KEITLOGG'

duty sworn, dePoses and saYS:

1. I am one of the attorneys for plaintiffs in the matter

of Major v. Treen, C.A. #82-1 Lg2, 574 F. Supp. 325 (8.D. La', 19831

in the united states Di-strict court for the Eastern District of

Louisiana. PIy responsibilities on the case were the day-to-day

operationofthecase,Supervisoroftrialpreparationand

overall coordinator.

2.IwasgraduatedfromtheSchoolofLaw'Columbia

university, New York, New York in l'Iay, Lg76 and have been ad'mitted

to practice in the state courts of Louisiana and the United States

Di-strict courts for the Eastern, tr{idd1e, and western Districts

of Louisiana, the united states court of appeals for the Fifth

Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court'

3. My law practice since graduation has been ove::whelm-

ingly devoted to civil rights and civil liberties issues' I

was staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of

Louisiana from Lgl6-77 and was senior staff attorney for the

Louisiana Center for the Pubtic Interest ( a public interest

law firm specializing in the rights of the elderly and the

d'isabled)d'uringLgs2.Atallothertimeslhavebeenin

private practice.

4. I have served as a consultant to the New orleans

Legal Assistance corporation, Northwest Louisiana Legal Services'

North Louisiana Legal Services, Acadiana Ldgal Services' Southeastj

Louisiana Legal Services, and New I'lexico Legal Services' I have j

.t4



served as locat counsel or co-counsel in civil rights/civil

liberties litigation with the NAACP Lega1 Defense Fund, the

American CiviI Liberties Union of Louisiana, the American Civil

Liberti-es Union (National) Women's Rights Project, the National

Prison Project, the l,lental HeaIth Law Project, the National

Seni-or Citizens Law Center, Advocates for the Developmentally

Di.abled, Lambda Legal Defense, Southern Prisonerr s Defense

Committee, Southern Coalition on Jails and Prisons, Louisiana

Coalition on Jails and Prisons, the Childrenls Defense Fund,

and the Mental Health Association in Louisiana.

5. Approximately ninety percent of my Iitigation

experience has been in federal court on civil rights/civil

liberties issues. I have handled approximately thirty-five

cases concerning the conditions of confinement at various state

and local penal and mental institutions. I have litigated

approximately fifteen cases involving emplolment discrimination

and ten voting rights cases, dS well aS a number of other cases

under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and other civj-l rights statutes.

6. I have lectured on civil rights and civil liberties

at the University of New Orleans, Delgado Col1ege, DiIlard

University, Loyola School of Law, Tulane School of Law, Columbia
I

School of Law (New York City), and have served on numerous panel
"l

at various public forums 
. t7. I have been generally accepted as an expert in federal i

civil li-tigation, with a specialty in civil rights and civil

liberties. My particular areas of expertj-se include the rights

of prisoners, the rights of mentar patients, employment discrimi-

ls



(-

nation, voting rights, the rights of the elderly, the rights

of the developmentally disabled, the rights of gay men and

lesbians, and the First Amendment.

8. I keep contemporaneous time records on all legal work

which I perform. Those records reflect that I spent the. following

time (itemized in attachment A in pursuit of the Major

litigation.

Sworn and Subscribed before me,

this 25 a"y of June, 1984

Kellogg

c-Attorney

conmrission i.s for life



DATE

I981
DECEMBERr_--
4.t

5

7

9

11

L2

13

11

17

198 2
JnfTenyf-

4

8

22

MARCTIr
19

26

STATEMENT OT TII'18
otr

R'. JAMES KELLOGG

WORK PTRFORMED

rcview preliminary statistics; conference
with co-counsel

rbid.
Ibid.i meet with Jackson, Johnson, Bajoie,
6ii!-fey, Scheckman

meet with vaious community leaders

draft complaint; research

voting rights conference; meet with Halpin,
Quigley C Scheckman

Ibid.; also with Guinier & community leaders

rbid.
meeting with Quigley & Schecknnan

meeting with tlalpin, Quigley e Scheckman

conference with Quigley e Shcekcmani meetingwith clients
telephone conference with Hendersoni confer-
ence with euigley & Scheckman

drafting complaint & supporting docLments

memorandum in support in injunctive relief;
meeting with Quigley & Scheckman

meeting with plaintiff & Cuigley
meeting with Quigley e Scheckman

meeting with Quigley & Scheckman

redraft complaint, etc.
filing lawsuit, transfer, meet with Judge
Collins

IIOURS

1.50

1.50

4.75

2.50

3.00

5. 00

5.00

4.00

4.00

2.00

2.50

1.50

4. 00

3.00

1.00

.40

.3

3. 00

4.00

2



MAY
T_

-2-

telephone call with DeJcan; meeting wlth
Quigley

telephone call with Guinier

telephone 6a11 with Williams

telephone ca1ls with clerk, Williams re:
Motion to Recuse Duplantier

conference with Judge Collins; draft order

telephone calls with Klick, DeJean

hearing on motion for summary judgment

phone calls to Williams, Fe1dman, DeJean,jeet with Quigley

phone Fritz Windhorst, senate staff, Feldman

phone Feldman (: times), Judge Collins
phone WilLiams, Klick, Dr. Mark Carltonl DE.
Joe Gray Taylor

phone Klick (twice); Wllliams

phone Guinier

phgng Halpin, I{illiams; conference with euigley& Scheckman

travel to Washington, D.C.

meet with Kwan (3.0 hoursl, trip to New york
(4.75 hours); meet rvith LDF attorneys (2.0
hours)

10

L7

25

.80

.25

.75

1.25

3.00

.75

.75

1.50

1.00

.75

1.00

.75

.25

.75

2.75

JUNET
I

9

10

11

Letter to Williams; phone call to Williamsi lettersto Poynter, DeJean and Judge Collins; phone callsto Poynter & DeJean; draft Reguest for produc-
tion of Documents 3.50

draft Iist of vritnesses; phone DeJean, Klick,Fifth Circuit, Judge Clark (re: 3 judge couri);E.D. Clerk; letter to poynter - 
2.OO

15

16

I8

2L

23

25

28

30

JULYr-
9.75

5t



2

5

6

7

13

20

23

.,4

28

AUGUSTt-
SEPTEMBER

-

OCTOBER6-
7

8

15

18

2L

22

25

27

-3-

meet with LDtr (2.75 hours); with Quigley &
Scheckman (1.75 hoursl

trip to l.!ew Orleans

phone Klick (twicel, Kutcher

phone Guinier, Klick; motion
trial

to continue

opposition to men.o to reconsider partial
sumr.ary judgment

phone Klick, DeJean re: documents

motion to certify class

phone FelCman re: documents

motion to certify class

phone Guinier, DeJean re: discovery

meeting with Quigley E Scheckman

final draft of menp

begin trial book

meeting with eulgley & Scheckman

meeting with Engstrom; phone Henderson

phone calIs to Dr. Renwick, DE. prestage;
Board of Supervisors of Elections, Klick

. (twice), Kwan, Halpin; meet with euigley e
Scheckman

phone conference with Guinier
meeting with Logsdon t Cassimerei meet
Scheckman

with

4 .50

3. 00

.75

3. 00

L.25

.75

3 .00

.25

L00

,50

L.2

2. 50

8.00

3 .00

3.00

3.50

.50

2.00

2.00

.75

meet with Quigley & Scheckman; phone Halpln
letters to potentlal experts

51



29

I.IOVEMBERr-

2

3

4

5

I

9

l0

I2

14

t5

LI

18

DECEMBER

-

-4-

phone Guinier

amended complaint; meet with Qulgley &

Scheckman; letter to Feldmani phone calls
with Prestage C Malcolm Burns

phone Feldman re: Governorrs deposit,ion

meet with Mayor Moriali memo to file
me,et with L. Chehardy, memo to file
answers to interrogatories; research re:
attorney's work prod,uct

trip to Baton Rouge; conference with Quigley
& Scheckmani memo to file
meet witn Halpin

phone Guinier

phone call to K1ick,. letter to Judge Co1lins

conference with Halpin; Guinidr, euigley,
Scheckman

motion to amend; phone caLl to Feldman

redraft answers to interrogatories; meet with
Quigley e Schekcman

phone conference with Halpin

phone calls with Henderson l2l i letter to
Judge Collins
phone conference with Guinier

phone Feldmani meet with euigley & Scheckman

phone calls with Feldman, Guest, Guinier,
Halpin, llotice of depositions

review and organize documents

phone cal1s with Feldman, Guinier, Halpin;
preparation for depositions; meet with euigley
& Scheekman

.25

3.00.

.25

1.50

2.50

2.75

6.00

1.75

.25

.50

3.50

3.00

3.00

.50

.?5

.50

1.75

2.50

2.50

3

7

I

l0

13

3.00

At



15

I7

19

20

23

,o

1983
JANUARY

(
-5-

meet with Quigley & Schcckman

phone calls to Guinler re: Governorrs
clepos ition; Justice clocuments

preparation for Governor's deposition

preparation and Governorr s deposition;
memos to file

meet with Quigley & scheckman

meet with llalpin

phone Guest, Dr . llenderson

deposition of Hainkel; first draft of pre-
trial order, memo on trial strategy
expert reports; pretrial order; research;
phone calls t,o lla1pin, Ilenderson; neet with
Quigley & Scheckman

phone calls to Secretary of State, Board of
Election Supervisors (Orleans e Jefferson);
review documents

review Selle reporti review llenderson-
Quigley material; motion in liminet pre-
trial order; review Kwan memo & documents
for statement of uncontested facts; meet
with Quigley & Scheckman

final draft of uncontested facts; review
DOJ documentsi statement of contested facts,
review Feld.manrs opposition to motion to
amend; letters to Feldman, Kutcher; phone
calls with Henderson, Ealpin, Engstrom,
Cassimere, Feldman, Guinier; review and
organize documentsi memo to file re: docu-
metns

review clocumentsi meet with Engstrom,
Cassimere, Logsdon

review documents, list; Rule 26 (b) state-

.50

.75

4 .50

14.00

1.75

1.50

.50

6.50

4.75

1r.50

11.50

1.50

2

3

5

L2

I3

14

15

r.50

ment; List of witnesses,. letter to Kutcher 6.00

A;



I6

L7

IB

L9

20

zl

24

I

-6-

phone tlenderson;
documcnts

statement of facts;

preparation and meet with Kutcher on pre-
Erial order; schedule e assignment of tasks;
phone I(lick; Guinier

phone calls to K1ick, Guinier, Halpin,
Feldman; document,s; schedule e assign-
ments; meet with Guinier

meet with Halpin, Guinier, Quigley; pre-
paration for oral argument on motions to
certify class, to amend complaint., in
limine, to disqualify Guinier; oral argu-
ment; preparation of pretrial order

preparation for pretrial; pretrial confer-
encei pregaration of tlenderson

preparation for deposition of Hendersoni
deposition; Ilenderson plan to Kutcher

deposition of Selle; meet with Halpin,
Quigley and Scheckman

neet witn opposing counsel; meeting with
Quigley E Schecknan

phone conference with Halpin

meet with Quigley & Scheckman; phone Kutcher

phone conference vrith Guinier re: conclusions
of law

meet hrith Scheckman re: documents as exhibits
phone Chehardy, Lewis, Kutcher re: schedullng
depositions; meet wlth Quigley e Scheckmanl
outline testimony of Lewis, Cassimerei phone
calls with Dr. Logsdon, Nunez, Landrieu, Che-
hardy

flow chart of legislation; outline testlmony;
phone conference with Guinier, Engstrom

7. 00

8. 50

I .50

L2.50

r1 .50

6.50

5.25

3.00

.50

L.25

.75

1.00

4 .50

3.00

2

7

26

FEBRUARY

10

11

2l

.,)



23

24

25

2B

-7-

meet with Engstrom, Logsdon; Logsdoh
deposition; research; preparation of out-
line of facts to prove

Lewis, Engstrom depositionsi review
Chehardy notes; meet with Quigley & Scheck-
man

outline opening statenetn

meet vrith liunez, Morial; outline of Moria1
testimonl,; outline of other witnesses;
meet with Quigley & Scheckman

review, oEganize file notes; opening state-
ment

outlining; trial book; memos to file; meet
with llalpin & cuinier, Quigley & Scheckman

review depositions; Sel1e, Engstrom, Cassimere
materials; deposition of t'torial; phone calls to
Garringer, Turnley, mixc., trial preparation

review depositions of Treen, Bruneau; meet
with Barringer; review defendantst proposed
findings, trial brlef; revision of opening,
agenda of unfinished items; meet with co-
counsel

openingi prepare Treen cross, prepare
Chehardy; misc. trial preparation

preparation and trial
preparation and trial
rbid.
rbid.
rbid.
meeting with co-counsel

memos to file; adding expenses

phone call with Ha1pin re: transcript
letter to Guinier

call wieh Guinier

9.00

4.00

2.50

10.00

6.50

L3.00

11.50

g. 50

7.00

12.00

16. 50

L2.25

11.00

15.50

2.00

2.00

.25

.25

1.00

MARCHT-

2

3

10

11

14

L7

15

18

6;



APRILr
L2

I3

20

2L

))

25

MAYr
6

7

i2

l3

16

25

26

JUNE6--

7

28

29

NOVEMBER
16

phone call

rbid.

phone calls
analvsis of

rbid.

-B-

to Cuinier

to Halpin, Henderson

transcripts

.50

.50

.75

4. 00

1.00

4.00

.25

4.25

2 .25

2.25

3.00

3.00

1.50

.75

.25

L7s

rbid.
phone ca'I1 with Guinier

work on posttrial brief
rbid.
rbid.
review & summarize exhibits, transcripts
brief revision; phone conference with
Guinier

phone conferences with Guinier
phone call to Hendersoni letter to
Guinier

phone ca1.t from Gulnier

phone call from Klick re: briefing, oralargulent; phone call to Guinier, Ibid.
rbid.

PreParation for oral argument

preparatlon and oral argument

ls0

meet with Quigley a Scheckman;
Guinier

1.0

5.0

phone
2.75

/a(r-



-9-

phone call from tlalpin

phone cal1s with Kutcher,
Guinier

I{earing

Attorney fees

Attorney fees

Attorney fees

Rosenberg,15

FEBRUARYE--
7

8

17
TOTAL

.25

.75

1,0

6.0

6.0

2.0
5T670

6,



STATE OF LOUISIANA

PARISII OF ORLEANS

STEVEN SCHECKMAN, duly sworn, deposes and'says:

I. I am one of the attorneys for plaintiffs in the matter

of Maior vs. Treen, Civil Action #82-.LL92, 57 4 F. Supp ' 325

(E.D.La. 1983), in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana-

2. I graduated from the Tulane university school of Law

in 1978 and have been admitted to practice before the United

States District Courts for the Eastern, t'liddle and Western

Districts of Louisiana, the United States Court of Appeals for

the Fifth Circuit and the united states supreme court.

3. My practice has been overwhelmingly devoted to civil

rights and civil liberties issues. I was a staff attorney for

the New Orleans Legal Assistance Corporation from 1978-1981,

after which I entered private practice of law as a partner in

the firm of Quigley and Scheckman from August, 198I to the

present ti-me. I was a member of the Board of Directors of

the American Civil Liberti-es Union of Louj-siana for t$ro years

and have litigated civil rights cEses on behalf of the A.C.L.U.

of Louisiana as a cooperating attorney. As of January 1984, I

have served as one of two Legal Docket Coordinators for the

A.C.L.U. of Louisiana.

4. I have been lead counsel or co-counsel involving the

rights of those institutionalized in 1oca1 and state iuvenile

,<()-



f acilities, and adult penal institutions. !-rrrthermore, I

co-counseled on the suit which successfully challenged the

failure of the State of Louisiana to provide attorneys for

people who are subjected to the civil commitment law for the

mentally iII.

5. I have been recoqnized as an expert in the field

of civil liberties/civil rights Iitigation, with a special

emphasis on the rights of juveniles and juvenile law, the

mentally handicapped, PriSoners, and have served as a guest

lecturer at th6 Loyo1a University School of Law and the

TuIane University School of Law.

6. I keep substantially contemporaneous time records

on aI1 Iegal work which I perform. Those records reflect

that I spent the following time pursuing this action. Add-

itionally, attached hereto is a statement of expenses that

were reasonable and necessary in order to prosecute this

litigation.

Sworn to and subscribed

before rne this 3

r984.

NOTARY PUBLIC

day of lu1,r*t ,

.t
lr

.'r \"-

I

6L



DATE

l9 81

DECEMBERT-

MnJoR v. TREEN (

STATET.IENT OF TIMtr
or

STEVIIN SCIIECKMAN

WORK PERFORMED

conference with co-counsel Quigley &

KeIlogg re3 review of preiimi-nary stat-
istics
conference with co-counsel Quigley &

Kellogg re: review of preliminary stat-
istics
conference with co-counsel Quiqley &

Kellogg re: review of preliminary
s tatis t ics

conference with co-counsel Quigley &

Kellogg re:'review of preliminary stat-
istics; division of responsibility for
litigation; conference with state re-
prcsentatives, J. Jackson; J. rlohnson,
Diana najoie

organizational meeting with plaintiff,sl
community leaders

strategy conference hrith co-counsel
Quigley e Kellogg; telephone conference
with .Diana Bajoie

telephone conference urith Diana BAjoie;
telephone conference wlth Attorney Generalrs
office concerning obtaining a copy of Act
20i research ln library on history of the
passage of Act 20 from neerspaper articles;
Census Bureau for material; visit to state'
rep. Bajoie office to retrieve congressional
reapportionment material

telephone conference with K. DeJean re!
receiving copy of Act 20

retrieving back issues of Times-Picayune/
States ftem for history of Act 20i meet with
Kellogg, Quig1ey, Ilalpin

telephone conference with K. DeJean res
forwarding reapportionment plans

HOURS

L.5

.5

.5

.7

L2

14

I5

4.75

2.5

2.7

.I

2.5

.2

16

17

18

I EXHIBIT

,t'D
L



30

23

27

28

1982
JANUARY
T-J

4

6

11

'))

MARCH
E-J

T,PRILT
JUNET

28

30

-2-

research at library on history of Act 20

review of clraft of comments before U.S.
Justice Department

telephone conference with Diana Bajoie;
reviewing back issues of Tjrnes-Picayune re!
reapport.ionment of U.S. Congressional Dis-
tricts in Louisiana

telephone conference with co-counsel L.
Guinier

meeting with co-counsel Quigley s KeIlogg re3
conunent to O," submitted to Justice Department

strategy meeting with co-counsel Quigley &

KeIIogg

strategy meeting for reapportionment lawsuit
with Quigl.ey & Ke11og9

review with co-counsel B. Quigley on inserts
in U.S. Justice comment

meeting with co-counsel to review comment to
be submitted to Justice Dept.

meeting with Quigley e KeI1o99

meeting with Kellogg & Quigley

conference i.n U.S. District Court Chambers of
Judge Collins r.rith Judge Collins e Judge
Cassibry

conference with co-counsel Quigley & Kellogg

travelling to Washington, D.C. to meet with
Justice Departnent officials

r.5

-1. 0

1.8

.2

1.0

1.0

1.0

.3

.4

.3

-3

1.0

.5

2.75

6



JULY

telephone conference with L. Guinier; tele-
phone conference with opposing counsel, R.
Kutcher .2

-3-

meeting with Robert Kwan; travelling to New
York City to meet with co-counsel of LDF in
planning litigatiorr strategy; review casesi
meeting with L. Guinier & Jack Greenberg

meeting with L. Guinier e N. Williams;
meeting with Kellogg & Quigley

trip to New Orleans

meeting with Quigley re! documents

meeting with Kellogg & Quigl.ey

strategy meetlng with co-couDsel Quigley e
Kellogg

review amended conrplaint

conference with witness Mayor Morial

additional work on trial book t reviewed E

sorted the state documents produced in dis-
covery

9.?5

4.75

3.0

2.O

1.20

1.0

.4

1.5

SEPTE}lBERT3-
22

OCTOBERE--

15

I8

l9

22

25

NOVEI"IBERT-

strategy conference r.rith co-counsel Quigley e
Kellogg .. 3.0

meeting with expert witness, Richard Engstrom 2.5

strategy meeting with co-counsel Quigley t
Kellogg 1.5

review of draft of Lssues to prove in lawsuit;
preparing first draft of trial book 2.9

conference with e<pert witnesses Logsdon,
Cassj.mere with Kellogg 2.O

strategy meeting with co-counsel Quigley &

KelJ.ogg 2.O

2

3

)

61

3.4



9

I4

-4-

conference with Edwin Edwards, including
travel time with Quigley s Kellogg

additional work on trial book

strategy conference with S. Halpin, L.
Guinier, Quigley & Kellogg

conference with co-counsel Quigley &

Kel logg

conference with co-eounsel Quigley &

KelJ-ogg; telephone conference with S.
tialpin

further review with Kellogg of documents
provided by 

,state 
e discovery process

conference with co-counsel planning strategy
for depositions

depos itions

meeting with co-counsel euigley E Kellogg

meeting with co-counsel euigley & Kellogg

meeting with co-counsel Quigley & Kellogg

strategy meeting witn Kellogg

meeting with Qulgley e Kellogg

telephone conference with Board of Elections;
retrieve from Board of Elections office
1982 returns

review of various election returns with
KeIlogg

meeting with P.. Kutcher re: pre-trial plead-
ings; meeting at UNO with Dr. Cassirneri

5.0

3.5

3.5

l.g

1.7

2.5

1.0

2:0

.5

.5

1.75

.5

1.0

1.1

1.0

2.0

10

L7

DECEHBEii

13

l1

I5

20

23

I983
5ffi0anvT_-
L2

14

16

L7

7o



19

24

26

FEBRUARY

9

It

I7

2t

23

24

23

28

MARCH

-

-5-

motion hearlng (USDCI

strategy meeting with co-counsel Halpin,
Quig1ey, Kellogg

meeting with opposing counsel with Kellogg;
meeting with co-counsel Quigley & Kellogg

strategy meeting & assignments for trial
preparation of exhibits for trial & pre-
paring index of exhibits .9

meeting with Kellogg res documents to use at

2.0

1.5

3.0

I.0

1.0

.I

2.4

1.5

.5

2.0

r.g

4.5

3.0

3.0

trial
telephone conference with opposing counsel
R. Kutcher ,

conference with co-counsel euigley & Keltogg
e working on organizing exhibits for trial
further organization of exhibits for trial
meeting with Quigley s Kellogg

deposition of witness L. Chehardy

final preparation plaintiff's conclusLons of
law & fact; meeting with co-counsel euigley
& Kellogg

meeting with co-counsel Quigley & Kellogg;
further organlzation & analysis of documents
for trial
further organizatlon t analysis of documents
for trial e finalizLng lndex for exhiblcs &
documents for trial
meeting with co-counsel

trial preparation - preparation of witnessesi
reviewing wlth co-couDsel, indexlng scheme &
import of partlcular documents, preparation
of visual aids for trial l1.O

7t



7

I

9

10

11

MAY
TT
20

JUNET
NOVEMBERi3-
18

-6-

final trial preparation, including preparing
final strategy, preparing Judgers bench books,
continuous review with co-counsel of documenta
for triaI, miscellaneous trial preparatlon

PreParation e trial
rbid.
rbid.
rbid.
meeting witn co-counsel

review of defendantrs brief
review a edltlng brief

preparation for oral argument,,

meeting qith Quigley & Kellogg

telephone conference with counsel for Emi.le
Bruneau, Harry Rosenberg res intent to file
notion to intervene

revelved & reviewed motion t memo to inter-
vene

9.5

16.50

L2.25

11.00.

15 -50

2. 00

1.0

2.0

3.5

2.50

22

ol

.3

28 telephone conference wlth II. Rosenberg re3
continuing motion to lntervene; re3 renoticing
motion to lntervene .2

8OTAI. 217I[6

,l



I,TAJOR V. TREEN

Litigation ExPenses-
Incurred 5y Steven Scheckman

I. Expert and Professional Assistance

Richard Engstrom (see attached)
74.25 hrs aE $100 .00/hr

Joseph Logsdon (see attached)
32.00 hours at $100/hr

Raphael Cassimere, Jr. (see attached)
34.00 hrs at $L00/hr

ShirLey Laska (see attaetred)_
13.00 hrs at $25lhr - $325.00

ldapmakers and Supplies

Photographer

II. Depositions

A. Treen
B. Hainkel
C. Henderson
D. Selle
E. Logsdon
F. Cassimere, Chehardy
G. Lewis, Engstrom
H. Morial

IIL Travel

Express Mail

TOTAL H(PENSES

$ 7 ,425.00

3 ,200 . o0

3,400 .00

381.49

3,500 "00

350.00

356.40
99.90

151.90
27 6 .L4
70.00

143 .90
128 -30
445.40

1,200.00

400.00

$21 , 539 .43

,l



-,ii,? j r
I

<a

Ttoe Spenc oo !q[9, v. IIg
Blchrrd L. Engrcro, Ph.D.

Dttt ltnc Act lvttv

LzlllEZ I hr. Discusct! of caoe wlt,h Hr. Halptn (vta tclcphone).

L2128182 2t hrr. Dlacuggton of varlans approeche! to lnferrtn3 gcrry-
oanderln3, and rcvler of- aoclal rcleoco tltcrearrc-
on eubJect, rlth l{r. lLalptn.

llt.4l83 I hr. Preparatton ol aernorandul for Hr. Iollogg.

Ll2Ol83 3 hra. Pre-crlal preperatton nich Mr. ltalpl,n rnd !b. GuLnlcr.

2123183 lt hrs. Pre-crlal prcprratton sl'Eh l{r. Kcltogg.
t hr. Dlscuselon of roclal aclence cvtdcnca ulth llr. f,rlpta.

2124183 3 hrr. Deposttloo (cal,co by defendantr' rttorncy). ri

3lLlE3 t hr. Preparatlon of ratertals requecced by Hr. Peldoaa
durtng deporLttoo.

313183 2 hra. Pre-trlal preperatlon ulch !tr. ltalpln and !lr. Gulnler.

3l3lE3 3t hrs. Mortal deporttlon.

316183 4| hra. Preparsclon for Brlal.

3l7tE3 12 hrs. A.gatscance aG aod fol.lorlng trlal.

3lll83 10 hrs. Asstscance at end follortng trlet.

319183 11 hrl. Asrlscaoce st rnd followtng trt8l, (lncludlng evelur-
tlon of defcndantar erpert rlcnece rGport).

3lLOl83 15 hre. Asslstance at tr1a1, tncludlng avetlebtllty ae rcb,uttel
trltnegs.

6l?9183 4 hrs. Asglstance aE trlal.

'r.3,.

TOIAL T4t hrs.



--

&regh Lgrdon
lrtrlcrt londqrcd
Dlor v. trcen

Inltlal lrteeting I hr.
Sccond lrteeting I hr.
Dlrcuarion about depoeltlon prGprration I hr.
Dcpoeitlon 3 hrE.
Rcviey of transcript I hr.
Dlrcuccion about deposltlon 2 hrt.
Court attendance 3 hrt. ''' ,.,;"diiltti-ti

Rcasarch 20 hrt.
TOTAL 32 hrt.

73 t,



--tFitrF
i: .l'

' .r l
-o

Iplrol Carel.ncre, Jr.
Irrlcm Rrndcrcd
I:lor Y. trccn

lnttlal nceting

8ocond DcGtlng

Dlacursl.on about depoaltlon preparutlon

Doporltion

Rcvlcr of tranecrlpt
DlrcuasLon about depogltlon

Court attendance

Rercarch

rO?AL

and caae review

I hr.

I hr.

I hr.

3 hrl.
I hr.

3 hrl.
{ hrs.

20 hra.

3l hrl.

lla



Blll for Professlonal Scrvlces to Qulgley rnd Scheckman
Jan. 13, 1983 - lhr. I, I9g3

Shlrlty Lasla, Ph.D.
Argoclrtr Professor of Soclology
Ocpartnnt of Soclology
thlvrrrlty of. lla 0rlerns
Lr 0rlcrns, LA 701{8
Soclrl Sccurlty lltder: 019-34-2489

lhta rnalysls and consultatlon:
13 hrs' c 325/hr' '

Long dlstance phone calls:
3 calls .

Fedrral Erpress dellvery: .

llarch 15, 1983

t325.00

32.99

23.50
T3EI:inr

1r



a

STATE OT LOUISIANA

PARISIT OF ORLEANS

BEFORE ME, the undersi-gned notary, personally came and appeared

Willian P. Quigley, who after duly sworn, deposed and said:

1. I am one of the attorneys for pLalntiffs ln the matter of

Major vs. Treen, Civil Action tl82-Ltg2,574 F. Supp. 325 (E.D.La. 1983), ln

Ehe Unired States Dlstrict Court for the Eastern Distrlct of Loulslana.

2. I am a L977 graduate frou Loyola Law School and I was adnlt-

ted to practice in the State of Louisiana ln Ehe sane year. I am admitted

to practice before the United States Distrlct Court for the Eastern, tlest-

ern, and Middle Distri-cts of Loulsiana, the FifEh Circult Court of Appeal-s'

and the United States Supreme Court.

3. I am the General Counsel for the Louisiana Amerlcan Cl.vll

Liberties Union. I have held this positlon since 1981. As General Counsel

I am counsel of record on every federal action fl1ed by the organization. I

have the ulEimate 1egal responsibiLity for decldln! whether or not the ACLU

wiLl be involved in litigation in Louislana. I am aLso intlmately irrvolved

in the selection of cocounsel for each case as well as planning, luplementlngt

and concluding each piece of lltigatlon handled by the ACLU ln Louislana.

4. I have been counsel to numerous other pubLlc interest and

civil rlghts groups including the Louisiana chapter of Ehe Southern Christlan

Leadersiilp Conference, the Loulslana CoaliElon on Jal1s and Prlsons' the

New Orleans Public Housing Tenants, Inc., the Louisiana Farmworker ProJect

and others.

'l <l



:

,'

I

I

a
-L-

5. I have c<tcorrrrselccl wlttr rhe Legal Defense Funcl in Ehis case

and ofSers. I am presently cocorrnseling with the Legal Defense Fund of the

Deaf on a civil rights case and I am preparing to cocounsel with the National

Housing Law i,roject on federal litigation here in New Orleans. I have also

cocounseled with Team Defense on several Louisiana death penalty cases which

raise substantial issues of constitut.ional law.

6. In the area of votingq rights t have been lead counsel in the

acrion enriElecl Valreau vs. Edwards, ll84-L293 (E.D.La. 1984) where supPorters

of Rev. Jesse Jackson sucessfully challenged the suspension of the Louisiana

Presidential Preference Primary. I am also presently working on a challenge

to Louisiana's voter registraEion laws with the ACLU and the 1egal Defense

Fund.

7. I have been working in the area of constitutional law, federal

civil rights in housing, especially federal court enforcement of these

actions for many years. 1 clerked with Benjanin E. Smith, Jack Peebles, and

John P. llelson while a student at Loyola Law School. With these atEorneys'

I was heavily involved in civil rights and constltutlonal cases, primarlly

in federal court. I was a staff aEtorney with New. Orleans Legal Assistance

Corporation from 1977 until 1978. During that tlme, I handled several federal

cases including a challenge to Ehe Courunity DeveJ-opment BLock Grant Program

in Jefferson Parish by the Louisiana Black Asseurbly on constitutlonal, civl1

rights, and federal starutory grounds. Because of this federal Litigatlon

experience, I was hired as an assistant clty attorney for the City of New

Orleans in 1978 with responsibility for legal oversight of all of the clty?s

federal programs (CETA Program, coastal zone management, Conrgrunity Develop-

ment Block Crants): programs with a yearly budget of over sixty milllon

do]Iars. Upon leaving the ClEy, I returned Eo Nefc Orl-eans Legal Asslstance

75



-3-

Crrp,r.rtion wlrere I lrirtl prlmary responsiblllcy for several ot.her maJor federal

actions - class action involving .t t tie tcnants of the Desire Housing Project,

more federal program cha1lenges, the continuation of the Parkchester Houslng

liclgarion, ancl litiqation challenglng activit,ies of Ehe Plaquemines Parish

Conrnission Counc|l. I have been in private pracEice since 1981 speciallzing

in constitutional, civil rights and civi-l liberties ratters-

8. In ttre years 1981 and L982, I helped create' coordinate, and

taught a special course on "poverty 1aw" for Loyola University Law Schoolts

Clinical Program. Additlonally, for several years since then I have assisted

the Loyola Universlty Law Clinic and the Tu1ane University Law Cl-lnic ln

co-counseling and superyising students in public lnt,erest litigation.

g. I have been an lnvited panellstr.and a presentor aE numerous

public interest events. For example, I was a scheduled speaker for the legal

conference of the National Association.of State Boards of Educatlon ln October

of 1983 at their national conference. I addressed the attorneys for the fifEy

state boards of education regardlng: "Civil rights litlgatlon and good falch

irumrnity." I am a member of the Office of the tluniclpal InvestigaEion Task

Force set up by the City Council- of New Orleans ln.1983, member of the Natlon-

al Milltary Law Task Force slnce 1982 and a member of the Legal Mvisory Net-

work of the Center on Law and Pacifisu slnce L982.

10. I keep substantially contemporaneous time records on all work

which I perform. Those records reflect that I spent t,he tlme indlcated

the ttached sheets worki.ng on thls dqse.

in

on

and

7b



DATE

I9B1
iiSiEmbe!
f8--

30

Decemberr-

S'TATIIMENT OF TIMI.;
OF

WILLIAI.I P. QUIGLEY

WORK PERFORMED

conversation with Johnnie Jackson re:
legislative & congressional reapport-
ionment

telephone conference with Stanley Halpin
re: New Orleans registration

conversation with S. Halpin re: redist-
ricting in New Orleans; meeting with
J. Jackson, D. Bajoie House/Congress

telephone conference with Justice De-
partment; telephone conference with
Carl Gable Voting Section; talk
with S. Halpin legislative history
talk with Bajoie-re: documents

meeting with Steven Scheckman, James
Kellogg, Bill Qulgley re: updating
statistics & documents; meeting with
J. Jackson, Johnson, comrmrnity leaders

legal research on Voting Rlghts Act;
conference with NAACP Inc. Pund; speak
with J. Jakcson; conference with Xellogg
t Scheckman

call to LDF (N. Carolina decisionl;
conference with Scheckman E Kelloggt
telephone conference with Carl Gable;
letter to Justicet telephone conference
with LDF; conference wittr S. Halpin

comparing 1980 plans with census data;
conference with Barbara MaJor

conference with Kellogg E Scheckman;
meeting with Jackson, Johnson, BaJoie

preparation of voting rights factsheets;
conference with LDP-re: research by
Southern Regional Councili conference
with J. Kellogg; telephone conference with
M. Darnell; meeting in 9th Ward re: Justice
comment

IIOURS

3"1

4.5

3.0

.3

.1
20

24

25

o

.3

r.9

1.9

4.75

5.8

rxHlBlr



('

10

1T

L2

-2-

telephone conference-Joyce (Lake Charlesl t
telephone conference LDF Lani Guinier(twice); telephone conference with S.Ilalpin ( twice)

outlining comment structure; conference
with Bajoie office (re: congressional
data) ; telephone Guinier

research on comrnent - prior laws;
newspaper archives; writing 1st draft
of history
confereince with Halpin, Kellogg, c
Scheckman

meeting with Statewide con-listing ob-jections; al,so with Halpln, Guinier,
Kel logg

conference strategy-Gordon Henderson-
(develop alternate plan) ; meet].'ng with
Kellogg, Guinier, Halpin

telephone. conference Justice Department-
re: submLssion of plans; conference with
Kellogg & Scheckman

preparing lst draft of comment

telephone conference with Hendersoni work
on comment

matbrial to Henderson; phone Hend6rson;
preparation of comment; meeting with
Kellogg, Scheckman, Halpin

preparation of comrnent; t,elephone confer-
ence with L. Guinier; retainer E letter
to clients
conference with N. Williams-LDF-updated data;
preparation of factsheets

telephone conference-M. Darnell-re: data;
preparation of comments

.80

2.50

6.4

5.0

I3

l4

5.00

4.0

.8

.8

2.7

4.0

4.3

1.3

3.2

15

15

L7

18

22

23

'?-i



.529

-3-

preparation of congressional data

rcviewing contrcssional data for G.
Ilenderson; spoke with N. willisma-
draft of comment

meeting with clients; meeting with co-
counsel; conversation srith S. Halpin

telephone conference with Reapportion-
ment Committee; conversation with G.
Henderson; strategy meeting with co-
counsel-lawsuit

preparation of Congressional comment

strategy_meeting with JK S SS; letter
to LDF

telephone conference-Justice D.ept. - re3
submission; congressional cornnent E€-
search & preparation; call to LDF; call
to J. Jackson-comment update

Max Salazar-Justice Dept.-Congressional
comment; meeting vrith B. Major,- JK-comrnent
c suit; rneeting with Representatives
Bajoie, Jackson, Johnson re: suit; con-
versation with L. Guinier-comment

conversation with R.Kwan-at Justice House
E Congress; telephone conference with
Reapportionment Conrmittee; map research
conversation with City Planning Commlss-
ion; conversation wlth Delta Reproduc-
tions re: maps; final preparation of
congressional comment; meeting with S.
Scheckman re: Justice inserts; information
conversation and letter Opelousas area

confersation with Southern Regional Coun-
cil (twice) i conversation r/rith Justice
Dept. ( twicel

Clerk-ref to reapportionnnent commenti
reapportionment committee for documents;
City Planning Commission; research E mapsi

30

I982
Jaluarv
3

4

2.3

3.5

r.g

1.6

L.2

5.4

3.6

2.8

i.. 'f;

11

L2

13

.g

,7,



-4-

14 preparation of congressional maps; Dixie Art
visit for assistance in graphics; analyzing
congressional date & map; information on
Treen-with C. Galman; telephone conference with
F,eapportionrnent Cornmittee; phone LDp (three
times) telephone conference with G. Henderson
re: computer data; telephone S. Halpin; J.
Jackson; map analysis; James Gran-information
on reapoortionment, 7.L

Delta Reproductions mapsi conversation
with c. Galmon re: history; conversation
with R. Champagne re: Survival Codlition

Telephone G. Ilenderson, S. Halpin, Jackson,
legislat,ive office
review state submission; call R. K*an (list
of legislatdrs, commentators); call to
D. Bajoie;. Johnson, Jackson, Major

Telephone LDF, llenderson, review llenderson
Plan; prepare Congressional Commenti re-
viewing G. Henderson plan, do map anatysis
G. Henderson plan; preparing section of
congressional commission

review Craft g meeting with co-counsel

final congressional draft
telephone conference wit,h Southern RegionalCouncil, preparation of congressional-sub-
mission; telephone conference with R. Kwdn;
mailout & map preparation; telephone conf-
erence with LDF re3 comment 

,

talk with R. Kwanr phone Southern Regional
Council

I.9

l. .6

4.9

L.2

2.0

6.8

2.5

.3

1s
.7

23

18

2L

22

25

)'7

38

26

call Henderson

telephone conversation wit,h G. Ilenderson re:alternative plans (two calls!; map work
House; telephone conferenee - Alexandria
info-comment material

8

2.2



29

PEBRUARY:i--
I

25

MARCH

-4

5

l5

I9

(
-5-

send out material to leglslature; analysis
of IIousc justification

talk with Justice (tr.rice); talk with Scott
Roy; talk with Renwick; telephone conference
with c. Henderson (twice); talk with M.
Charles; talk with Secretary of State; -'.
taLk with Wildgen; talk with State-Times;
begrn Jefferson/OrLeans analysis; Jefferson/
Orleans analysis of census; statistical
abstract; 2nd draft of [ouse Comment; analyze
Ilenderson data,' phone LDP; Margaret Ford;
preparation of final draft-House Commission

telephone conference with R. Kwan; analysis
of Congressional data; 2nd congressional
submission ,

conversation with R. Kwan

letters to clients
analyzing G. llenderson plan & preparing
Justice documents

talk with R. Kwan (twice) i preparation of
and securing maps; telephone conference
with G. Henderson-alternate plans (three
calls )

telephone conference witn oarnelfi telephone
R. Kwan; preparatlon of statewide naps for
Department of Justice

talk with Krran,. Darnell, Arnaud Derfuer;
analyze congressional letter

letter to R. Kwan

letter to N. Williarns; telephone conference
with M. Darnell

conference with J. Kellogg e S. Scheckman-
preparation of lawsuit; phone Jose Garza,
Mexican-American LDF: Guinier; Les1Legrlinner (N. Carolina)

2.7

6.5

5.6

7.0

3.1

.1

.5

22

I.3

t,



B

9

25

-6-

tclcphonc Winner

telephone llenderson ( twice)

reviewing complaint; telephone Anni.e
Smart, M. Darnell, B. Major, B. St. Cyr;
LDF; Johnson, Jackson, Bajoie; meet with
Kellogg; telephone Secretary of State

filing, 61lotment t status conference
with judge; telephone Henderson, Darnell

telephone Henderson (three times); Kwan
( twice)

telephone Darnell, Kwan (twice); Bajoie,
Jackson

letters to elients

Telephone Kwan; telephone Halgin, Guinier

conference with R. Kwan

conference with J.Kellogg re: motions
strategy/recusal; review Coulig memo

hearing on motionsi telephone Kwan

telephone Kwan, Poynter, Darnell, Morial,
Chehardy, Livingston, Kwan, Davidson;
conference with Scheckman t Kellogg

research on recusal

meeting with Chehardy; telephone Kwan;
AFL-CIO; House staff; conference with J.
Kellogg out,lining case/docunents

review House 2d submission; phone Tyler
Posey (Livingston aLde re! their
submission) t Mike Darnell; Robert Kwan

prepare sununary judgrment pleadings t
research; telephone Crill (AFL-CIO);
Lloyd Lewis

.2

.2

2.5

4.2

L.7

1.9

.2

1.O

.7

.8

2.8

2.3

.2

6-4

1.4

30

31

APRILr
12

13

26

27

27

29

l4

23

24

26

t'



I-TAY
T6- R. Kwan-racial bloc-Times-Picayune

articles
talk with James Gilliw (Times-Picayune)

R, Kwan - visit with Johnson s Jaikson

conference with N. williams s KeIIogg
trial preparation; speak with Judge's
secretary-motions; research recusal

telephone conference with Darnell;
research recusal

R. Kwan; John Nelson re: Statets rights
recusal research & writing
rectrsal research t proofing; conference
with R. Kwan

teleohone conference with fOf-research;
Iett,er to clients
R. Kwan-alternative plansi Dr. Thompson:
history; telephone conference with G.
!Ienderson-comp data

talk with R. Kwan r)

telephone conference-Senate staff:
documents

talk with G. Henderson - plans

talk with R. Kwan (three times); talk
with G. Hendersoni talk with Chehardy;
talk with legislative staff (two times);
talk with N. Williams (corunent/suit)
(two timesl; talk with B. Major

talk with R. Kwan (votlng bloc analysisl;
telephone conference with Guinier (voting
bloe analysis); library research of Times-
Picalrune

L2

L4

L7

:.8

2L

22

24

25

26

29

JUNET-

.4

.2

?

') 't

28

r. 60

4.0

4.0

3.5

1.7

.4

2.8

.7

.5

.1

,4

8

3.4



.g

.9
6

-8-

telephone conference wlth R. Kwan (three
times); telephone conference with Darnell
( twice)

talk with R. Kwan; talk with L Guinier;
talk with R. Kwan

setting up tasks for updated proofi prepara-
tion for pretrlal conferencei pretrial coD-
ference; talk with L. Guinier; talk with
S. Nunez; talk with R. Ktran (three times) ;voting analysis-Jefferson Parish 6.9

analysis; computer printout; letter to
Justice, preparing overall intent menoi
talk with R. Kwan (twice); talk with
N. Williams; talk with L. Chehardy (twice)
telephone conference with leglslative
staff (re: documentsl; analyze data

conference with L. Boggs office (archives)
(twicel ; conference with t.v. ,library
(twice!; talk with L. Chehardy; research;talk with Hunger Coalition re: Ietter toJustice; collecting & preparing data

speak with R. Kwan;. speak with HungerCoalition; preparing research

telephone conference with R. Kwan; res,
viewing Governor rg position
preparing argument

preparing supplemental objections

talk with DeJean; talk with Kwan; talkwith L. Chehardy

review comnent; talk with J. Kellogg
res strategy; talk with N. willianii
talk with Robert Kwan; talk with B.
Major; letter to clients; speak with
R. Kwan

speak with B. Majors; speak with N. Williams;
speak with R. Kwan .6

I

10

11

L2

8.0

7.0

2.4

o

2.5

8.5

1-L

4.7

'Fli',..j

l3

I4

I5

I6

8



-9-

L7

18

28

;. Kwan & research (west Bank growth)
(three cal1s)

conference with R. Kwan; telephone coD-
ference with L. Guinier

conference with R. Kellogg s S. Scheckman;
telephone conference with co-couns€l
(numerous)

_R. Kwan

travel to'Washington, D.C. to meet wittr
Justice officials and review files

meet with Kwan; trip to New york Cityi meetwittr LDF; '

meet with Guinier e Greenburg; with Kellogg& Seheckman; trip to New OrleqDs

conference wilh R. Kwan; telephone con-ference with legislative stafi re: docu-
menta

conference with R. Kwan-Congressional;pre-tria1 conference

R. Kwan-res cong. memd

Quigley & Scheckman-reviewing productlonof documents

reviewed & indexed documents

reviewed & indexed documentg

B. Quigley, S._scheckman, J. Kellogg
meeting-factual / legal development

preparing discovery

conference with S. Scheckman, J. KeIIogg,B. Quigley

2.2

.5

L.7

.2

2.75

9.75

7.75

.7

1.1

.2

2.0

4.5

.5

1.2

.8

29

30

JULYr
2

6

L2

AUGUSTE--
SEPTEMBER13-

28

CCrcBERE-

15

15

1't

8

3.0



9

15

-10-

letter to Morial

telephone conference with Henderson-
plans; meeting with Engstrom

talk with Kwan; telephone conferencewith legislative office re: documents;
conference strategy; call to L. Che-
hardy; speak with E. Edwards

talk with L. Lewis,. revie$, of J. Kellogg's
review of experta

meeting with co-counsel

meeting wtih co-counsel

meeting witll Morl.al & prep

meeting with Chehardy e prep

meeting with Gov. Edwards

meeting with co-counsel

conference wtth Scheckman t Kel1ogg

conference wlth Scheckman & Kellogg

conference with Scheckman t KelloEg

conference wlth Scheckman E Kelloggi
Governorts depoeition

conference with Scheckman & Kellogg

.2

2.1

2.4

.5

2.0

1..0

I.5
2.5

5.0

1.5

1.0
E

6.5

1.75

]B

22

23

NOVEMBERT-
3

4

I

I4

DECEMBER

-

I3

15

20

23

19 83

JAI!UARY

-
3

call to Lamson

{"ry Strasser; call Lamson; R. Turnley;deposition preparation; deposition -Hainkel,. strategy meeting

.1

Y

3.1



A.1

5

7

10

l1

14

18

19

L2

13

-l l-

meeting hrith Scheckrnan & Kellogg

research/Iegislatlve stipulation prep

election returns workup

stipulation prep

analyze in limine motion; telephone with
L. Guinier - motions; review Kwan- in
house file
talk with Strasser (twice); talk with
Lamson; conference with J. Kellogg &
S. Scheckman

conference with Craig Henry t M. Strasser;
review facts of proposed findings r trial
preparation;, preparation of exhibit llst
maps at Relional planning Commission

meeting with map people E ,o.f on exhibits
meeting with counsel prior to hearing;
hearing; demographics prep t conf wiin
S. Laska

pre-trial conferencei meeting with artists
re: exhibits; meetlng with Henderson re:
maP6

telephone -conference with artist,. upilate of
census (additional precincts! i telephone'
conference with Armond-re: exhlbitsl
telephone. conference re: continuance

meeting re3 maps; strategy meeting with
Kellogg, Halpin, Scheckman, euigley
telephone conference with Laska-deomgraphics

telephone conference wLth artists; confer-
ence with Kellogg & Schecknan (trlal prep);
telephone conference with L. Guinier -

meeting with map people

..25
L.2

2.0
2l

1.1

2.4

6.1

2.3

1.6

2.O

.3

1.9

-5
'rf'l:''i

9.5

20

2L

24

25

26

a?

.828

Y'



3l

-I2-

meeting re: maps; telephone conference with
M. Strasser; telephone conference with D.
Girard; meeting with D. Girard; research
population maJority statistics, Orleans &

Jefferson; conference with exhibit prepar-
ation people

conference with Scheckman, Kellogg re;
trial preparation; telephone conference
with G. Henderson re: maps

analyzing deposition & indexing for trial
telephone conference with M. Strasser;
meeting with artists
working with photographer

analysis of Livingston.s submission; tele-
phone confbrence with Strasser

meeting with Kellogg, Scheckm#-trial
preparation

telephone conference with M. Strasser;
deposition of Logsdon; telephone con-
ference with M. Strasser

meeting with D. Girardi prepare L. Lewisfor deposition; L. Lewis deposition;
trial preparation - Kellogg, Scheekmani
Qulgley, preparation flow chart
telephone conference with M. Strasser

strategy meetJ.ng Kellogg t Scheckman;
preparation for Morl.al meetlng;
Morial meeting

review G. Henderson deposition; meetingwith R. Kutcher; telephone conference
with lt. Strisser
aecure demonstrative aids; neeting with
D. Girard re: pictures; meeting with
S. Halpin, L. GulnLer, J. Kellogg re!
trial preparation

FEBRUARY

3.6

L.2

1.7

.5

1.0

1.1

.7

r.9

3.6

.2

2.13

1.6

IO

1l

I9

20

27

28

2L

23

24

MARCHr

7;

4.6



- 13-

meeting erith Iu. Landrieu-witness prepara-
tioni meeting with map folks re: correct-
ions

trial preparation L. Guinier, S. Halpln.
J. Kel!.ogg, S. Scheekman, B. euigley;

5

L.2

flow chart preparationi review trial brLef 4.5

meet with artlsts; work on flow chart; meet
with L. Lewls- prep.i document preparation;
trial brief preparation & review; exhlbit
preparatlon; review & correct pre-trial
order

trial preparation

trial preparation

trial prepat'ation S trlal
trial preparation & trial
trial preparation

meeting w.ith J. Kellogg, S. Scheckman,
B. Quigley, S. Halpin, L. Guinier re!
briefing schedule

telephone conference to Jock Scott-
reapportionment documents in records

review trial testi.mony

7

p

11.0

7.5

13.0

10.5

11.0 .r
,..:r_,!t.i"i

14.5

2.0

.5

L.z

9

10

1l

14

APRIL))

}1AYT telephone conference with politz, clerk;
telephone conference wlth L. Guinier;
telephone conference wLth politzts offlce .7

JUNE
Z5- preparation for oral argument Scheckman &

QuigLey Z.s
29 preparation for oral argument (a1l) i oralargument S.0

NOVIEMBER
f- telephone conference with B. Majorr €t al;

telephone conference with Rep. J. Jackson .z

t,



-14-

l0 meeting with B. St. Cyr, B. Major;
telephone conference with L. Chehardy re:possible plans; telephone conference with
M. Landrieu

telephone conference with clients re3
congressional plans

meeting with J. Jackson, B. st. Cyr, T.
Quant re: remedy; telephone call wLth L.
Guinier, S. Halpin re! strategyi review
motion to intervene & send to L. Gulnier
strategy meeting with counsel

telephone conference with Collinrs clerk,
Lee David, Judge,s clerk
telephone cdnference with L. Guinler re!interventipn; telephone conference wlth H.
Rosenberg re: motion to continue; tele-phone conference with G. Hendcson

telephone conferenee with 1,. Guinier re:int.
telephone conference with G. Henderson res
remedy; cartographers

trying to get cartographer

talking with cartographer

talk with Kwan re! lawsuit
call to Nunez

telephone conference with L. Chehardy rerremedy; telephone conference with J.
Jackson re: remedy

telephone conference with L. Guinier re:intervention
!O8AL

l1

14

1.9

.2

4.9

2.5

.2

.{

a
atL

a76:E

.6 .,'l'+*t,i

.4

.4

.1

.3

.4

.I

29

l6

22

28

30

DECElIBE3T--
5

6

7

8



I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISLIIIA

BARBABA UAJOR, et al.,

Plaintiffe,

v.

DAVID C. TREEN, et a1.,

Defendaats

-x

C.A. ilo.82-L192
Sectioa C

ATFIDAWT OF A.B}IAITD DENFNEB

DISTN.ICT OF COLUI.{BIA
CIIY OF WASEINCTON

I, Aruaud Derfner, being duly erorn, do depoee aod oay as folloys:

. Iu this care I have bceu essociated a8 counael by the priocipel

agtorneys for the plaintiffa, for thc purpose of aeriatiug the

plaintiffar case in certain aaeaa shere I hgve had long experience,

particularly with refereuce to procedures uoder sectioo 5 of the Yoting

Rights Act aud procedural gueatioua, includiug reocdies, iu votc

dilutiou caaeo. Thig affidavit, deecribing ,y tine and servicce iu theE

repreteotatiotr, ia filed in eupport of plaiutiffsr application for

attoflrey f eea.

)
)

qt



I

-2-

2. I wae first aduritted to Ehe Bar in the District of Columbia, in

1965, aud to the United StaEes Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

during Ehe same year. I am also a member of the Bar of the SuPreoe

Court of the Uaited Stat,es, the St,ate of South Carolioa, and nunerous

otber federal district and circuit court Bars.

3. I au a graduate of Princeton University (4.n. 1960), aad Yale

Law School (LL.B. 1963), where I was Note & Conrment Editor of the Yale

Law Journal. Upon graduat,ion I was law clerk t,o Hon. David L. Bazelon,

Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeale for the Dietrict of Columbia

Circuit.

4. Since I was firsc admitted

specialized in federal litigation,

Rights Act, and other voting rights

to the Bar in 1965, I have

especially in cases under the Votiug

ca8ea.

In 1968-71 I was with the Lanyere Constitutiooal Defense
Co"'-ittee, in Jacksou, Miseieaippi, rhere I engaged in voting
rights litigation both in Miseissippi and in Louisiana (for
example, wvche v. !-ost-, 297 F. Supp.46 (I{.D. La. fg69);
Tonev v. I{hite, 488 F.2d 310 (5ttr Cir. 1973))

Iu l97l-74 I was with the Lawyers Co"'-ittee for Civil Righta
Under Law, iu Washington' D.C., where I sorked full tine in
voting litigation as head of the Lawyers Cor"-itteers Etection
Law Project,, and participaEed in voting righta cases'
eepecially gerrynandering and dil.utiou casee, iu oost of the
southern states and several other 8tate8.

Ia 1974-81 I wae in private Practice in Charleston, S.C.,
shere I again apecialized in voting Litigation in the course
of a geueral private practice.

In 1981-82 | vae with the Joint Center for Political Studiee,
in l.Iashington, D.C., shere I provided technical aesistance on

q1



-3-

the exEeneion of the Voting Righta Act,.

Iu 1982-83 I was a Visiting Professor of Law at the Anerican
University Law School, teaching courses in Election Law,
Const,itut,ional Lav, and Civil Rights.

Since L982 f have been in private practice in Washington'
D.C.,.again engaged principally in voting rights litigation.

5. Soue of the reported voting cases in shich I have been principal

counael are:

Al1en v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (f969);

Perkine v. Matthews, 4OO U.S. 379 (f971);

Ferqueon v. t{illiaus , 405 U.S. 1035 (1972) (appeal only) 
r.;.0r.,

Citv of Petersburq v. United Statee,354 F. Supp. 1021 (D.o.C. "''{

L972), aff'd,410 U.S. 962 (1973);

Sr,evenson v. We6t,413 U.S. 902 (1973);

Comissionere of Election v. Lvtle, 509 f .2d 1049 (4ttr Cir.
L974)(appeal only);

Citv of Richnond v. United Statee, 422 U.S. 358 (f975);

Morris v. Gresgette, 432 U.S. 491 (L977);

Eawrard v. 91eJL, 456 F. S,rpp. 1151 , 1156 (D.s.c . Lg77 ) , af f rd,

573 F.2d 187 (4th Cir. 1978);

Allen v. Ellisor, 477 F. Supp. 321 (p.S.C. 1978), revrd eo
banc, 654 F.2d 391 (4th Cir. 1980), vacated, 454 U.S. 807
(1e8r);

Blandins v. DuBoee , 454 U.S. 393 (f982);

Sumter County v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 694 (D.D.C.
1983 ) ;

McCain v. Lvbraud, 465 U.S. --- (February 21, 1984)(shared
principal reeponsibility with another lawyer).

a1a-



-4-

6. Sooe of the reported cases not involving voting in which I have been

principal counsel are:

Robinson v. Cooprsood , 2g2 F' Supp ' 926 (N'U' Uise' 1968);

Trisrer v. Universilv of Miseissipoi, 420 F'2d 499 (5th Cir'
r969 ) ;

Lucasv.Cbapman,430F'2d945(5thCir'1970);

Battlev.Mulholland,43gF'2d321(5ttrcir't970);

CarDenter v' Davie, f'2d (5th Cir' 1970);

Yates v. Breazeale, 402 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1968), vacated, 408

u.s. 934 (L972);

oliverv.KalauazgoBoardofEducation,5T6F.2dTl4(6thcir.

Brovn v. Porcher, 50? F' Supp' g49 (D'S'C' 1980) ' aff'd' 660

F.zd lOOl (4th Cir. 1981), cltt' denied' 459 U'S' 1150

(1983)(ehared p.io"ipii-i""po""ibility with aaother lawyer)'

T.InaddiEiouEonylitigationexperience,Ihavetaughtase

Visiting Professor of Law (Americau Uuiversity Law School' 1982-83)' aud

aealectureratPracticingLawluetituteandotbercoDtiDuiEgeducation

PrograDs,bavewritteulagreviewarticlesaudotherpublicatione,and
haveteetifiedfrequeutlybeforeCooitteeeoftheU.s.SenateaudBouge

of Bepresentativee' My topics in theee instances have geuerally

includedvotingrighta,othercivilandconstitutionalrighte,federal

litigation,federaljurisdictionaodprocedure,andattorneyfees.In

addition, I have fregueotly beeo coneulted by other lawyers for

aesistaace aad suggestione in their voting rights casea'

q(



-5-

8. As I understand it, I was brought into thie caee by plaintiffe!

counsel because, alt,hough they are extraordinarily capable and

experienced (as shown by Ehe excellent results achieved in this caee),

there were a number of novel iseues here in which I have had long

experience. My work in voting righte has included nany trials and

appellate arguments, amicue briefs in nany casee Dot cited ab.ove, aud

close involvement in Congress' conaideration of the Voting Rights Act

extension of L982, aa well as long experience in the adninistrative

proceduree of the Justice Departmeut relating to enforcenent of the

Voting Rights Act. Therefore, issuee like the ueaning of auended

sectiou 2, the effect of eection 5 pre-clearance on a Bectiou 2 claim,

and the nature aud availability of Justice Department records, were all

iseues on which I vaa able Eo offer ueeful suggestione to the

plaiutiffe I counsel.

9. Because of ny experience I sas able to provide this aeeistauce

efficiently, and sithout having to duplicate any of the time spent by

plaintiffst priocipal counsel. Likewise, I did uot Eo have to apend

more than a fev minutea being briefed ou Ehe procedural eituatiou and

t,he questions on which ny aseiatance was requeeted. Therefore, the

nuober of hours I speut wae small eompared to what othere night have had

to spend to provide tbe saae aasigtance

10. Listed belorr is a eumary of ny Eine, baeed on couteoporaueouo

recorde:

Oclu



-6-

Drtc Tina Tork

1982

05/0r

Uay 82

L?IOL

12102
,2la6
Lzl13
Dec 82

l9E3

0r/05
Jao 83

03/0e
03/15

o3l16
03117

03/r8
Ulr 83

06/06
Jun E3

09127
09129
09130

3.0

3.2

3.0
2.5
0.5

3.0

0.5
r.5

0.7
3.4

0.7

0.6

0.4
1.5
3.5

3.0

9.2

3.0

6.8

0.6

Revier Section 5 filc, iocluding llorc
Iuforuetiou Bcquert aod acndcd lettcrr;
aead to &rinier

Bcviev USDJ Final Action llor; cosf Bury
tfciobcrg-(USDJ)

Rercarcb oa producibility of USDJ docuueatl;
Dreft eubpoena; tcl Grinier
Tcl Qriuicr

Bercerch oa lotioB in lirdsei tcl &rialc1,.,.

fcl Griaier aG trirl .BartcSy
tavicv UIIDJ racordr rc introductioa of .t.ff

uonndur oa rocCion 5 objcctiou
Tel Oriairr tc rteff rrrradur
fcl USDJ officialr Gctry Eobcrt, Prul Erncocl;

tcl Qrinicr
fel Elcine Jooel (U)f ) rc icctioo 5 tteff, ucoo

lel GuiaiGr re rcnedy

fel GuioiGr re Opiaioo (dccidcd 9123)
lcvicv Opiuioo, Isl Etbcrt (U8DJ)
Bcviev Opiuioa; drrft Judgrcue; trl Guiaicr

Seot 83 5.4

fotrl
A11 Eoure 2E.0

g



-7 -

It. I believe a fair market rate for my work would be $175 per

hour if pa),roeBt were not contingent and delayed. The United Statee

District Court for the District of Columbia has recently awarded $175

per hour (before adjustuent for riek and delay) to lawyere sho, like me,

were 20 or rnore years out of law school. Laffev v. @,

Inc., 572F. Supp.354 (D.D.C. 1983). In fact, the record in that caee

ehows that many experienced federal litigators io the Dietrict of

Colunbia charge higher rate8.

L2. Because payEent in thie case lras contiugent rather thau

guaranteed, and because even if avarded would be delayed, ae it has .. 1i,, ...,,....-),;,

beeo, I believe the $175 per hour which would be fair for

guaranteed-payuent rork is not in fact a fair oarket rate for ny work.

Instead, I believe that a fair uarket rate for my work ia this case,

considering the risk and the delay, ie twice the S,uarauteed-paynent

rate. That is what Ehe court held in Laffev, SPgg, and more importaaE,

that ie what the Fifth CircuiC held in another votiug righte c88e'

Grsvee v. Barueg, 704 g.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

dr'.



-8-

13. Although I believe the principal plaiutiffsr ettorueya io thia

case deserve a poot-lodest8r adjustueut for ercelleoce of reaulte, I do

not eeek such an adjuetmeut for my work becauee the results are due

chiefly to their rork rather thao to Ey relatively linited

contribut ion.

FURTEER DEPONENT SAYSTE NOT.

Ssorn to and aubseribed before Ee this

c./sa[a<"v somiseiou expirea

I\