Dallas County Judge Entz's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Continuance of Trial

    HUGHES & LUCE 
2800 MOMENTUM PLACE 

  

1717 MAIN STREET 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 1500 FIRST STATE BANK BUILDING 

400 WEST 15TH STREET 
(214) 939-5500 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 
TELECOPIER (214) 939-6100 

(512) 482-6800 
. JELEX. 730836 

TELECOPIER (512) 474-4258 Direct Dial Number 
(214) 939-5581 

June 2, 1989 

CERTIFIED MAIL RRR 
  

7 
7” 

Mr. John Neill rd 
United States District Court 
Western District” of Texas 

Midland-Odessa Division 

316 U.S. Cdurthouse 

200 East Wall Street 

Midland, Texas 79701 fr 

Re: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), et 
al. v. Jim Mattox, et al., Civil Action MO 88 CA 154 

Dear Mr. Neill: 

Enclosed please find the original and two copies of 
Dallas County District Judge F. Harold Entz's Memorandum in 
Support of Motion for Continuance of Trial for filing in the 
above referenced cause. 

Please return file-marked copies to me in the enclosed 
envelope. By copy of this letter all counsel of record are 
being served with a copy of the Memorandum. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

very truly yours, 

[3 1 pz A 
EA. A LL Rinl'sty » 

David C. Godbey 7 

DCG/pai 

Enclosure 

 



HUGHES & LUCE 

  

Mr. John Neill 

June 2, 1989 

Page 2 

CC: William L. Garrett 

Rolando Rios 

Susan Finkelstein 

Sherrill A. Ifill¢” 
Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Edward B. Cloutman, III 

E. Brice Cunningham 
Renea Hicks 
Ken Oden 

David R. Richards 

J. Eugene Clements 
Darrell Smith 

Michael J. Wood 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 

AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) 

COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
MO 88 CA 154 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

C2
 

2 
CP

 
CP

I 
LI
 

LA
 

LA
I 

LP
I 

LA
I 

LA
A 

LA
) 

Defendants. 

DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL 
  

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BUNTON: 

Dallas County. District Judge FF... Harold Entz ("Judge 

Entz") supports the State Defendants’ motion for trial 

continuance for the following reasons: 

1. Judge Entz agrees with the reasons for continuance 

stated by the State Defendants in their motion. 

i Judge Entz further notes that plaintiffs' discovery 

responses also justify a continuance. Judge Entz has sent 

requests for production of documents and interrogatories to 

all three plaintiff groups that challenge Dallas County. 

These discovery requests covered the most basic factors that 

plaintiffs are required to establish. Almost invariably, all 

three plaintiff groups responded that they had no responsive 

information available as yet and would supplement as required 

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or failed to provide 

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 

SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 1 

 



complete answers detailing expert opinions and the factual 

bases for those opinions. Portions of those discovery 

responses are attached to this memorandum as Exhibits "A"-"C." 

3 For example, two of the three plaintiff groups to 

which Judge Entz sent discovery have not responded at all to 

Judge Entz's request for production of documents and none has 

even answered whether there is racially polarized voting in 

Dallas County judicial elections. None has identified the 

particular elections they have analyzed, who their preferred 

candidates were who were defeated at the polls, or which 

single-member districts they claim could be created in Dallas 

County and the racial make-up of those districts. Under 

Gingles, these are the plaintiffs' fundamental elements of 

proof, their analysis of which, as of this date, remains 

incomplete. 

4. This case has been moving on an expeditious schedule, 

and Judge Entz believes that all parties involved have been 

attempting in good faith to comply with that schedule. In 

particular, Judge Entz does not believe that counsel for the 

plaintiff groups were in any way acting in bad faith in 

providing the incomplete discovery responses mentioned above. 

Rather, Judge Entz believes that due to the time constraints 

of the Court's scheduling order, the plaintiff groups and 

their experts so far have been unable to complete their own 

trial preparation enough to respond fully and fairly to Judge 

Entz's discovery requests. Indeed, by letter dated May 31, 

1989 (attached as Exhibit "D"), counsel for the Houston 

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 

SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 2  



  

Lawyers Association indicated that plaintiffs' experts would 

not be prepared to testify on deposition until the first week 

in July, which is the week before trial. Thus, Judge Entz 

believes that the plaintiff groups would not be prejudiced by 

a continuance because, as shown by their discovery responses, 

the plaintiff groups are also not yet ready for trial. 

5. Although the plaintiff groups have acted in good 

faith, the fact remains that Judge Entz has been unable to 

obtain paper discovery from the plaintiff groups to date, and 

apparently may not obtain informative depositions of 

plaintiffs’ experts in a timely manner. As the Court is 

aware, the discovery cutoff is June 15, 1989, less than two 

weeks from this date. Without complete discovery responses 

from the plaintiffs, Judge Entz has been deprived of any 

effective opportunity to prepare his defense and rebuttal to 

the factual contentions of plaintiffs and their experts. 

Thus, absent a continuance, the Court is faced with two 

equally unpalatable options: either plaintiffs will be barred 

from introducing proof beyond the scope of their discovery 

responses (which would be tantamount to a directed verdict for 

defendants), or Judge Entz will be unfairly prejudiced by the 

introduction of testimony that he has not had fair opportunity 

to review and rebut prior to trial (which surely would be 

reversible error). 

6. Even 1if the plaintiff groups supplement their 

discovery responses by the discovery cutoff, Judge Entz will 

have been deprived of any opportunity to review those 

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 3 

 



  

responses prior to deposition of plaintiffs' experts, and will 

have only four weeks to consider and respond to what surely 

will be 5 massive statistical analysis. Given the 

significance of this lawsuit and the detailed consideration of 

statistical evidence that is required, supplementary responses 

on the basic issues by plaintiffs only four weeks before trial 

simply does not provide enough time for Judge Entz to prepare 

a proper defense. 

7. Finally, as further support for the State Defendants’ 

argument about repeated disruption of the state judicial 

system caused by consecutive redistricting (see State 

Defendants' Motion at 8), Judge Entz would note that the Texas 

Constitution requires redistricting of judicial districts   

following every federal decennial census. Tex. Const. Ann. 

art. 5, .8 Ta({e) (Vernon Supp.’ 1989), Thus, a judgment from 

the Court before the 1990 census data is available would 

guarantee two redistrictings within two years. When viewed in   

light of the residency requirements for judicial candidates, 

see Tex. Const. Ann. art 5, § 7 (judicial candidates must have 

lived in district for two yvears prior to election), such 

upheaval would inevitably result in many incumbent judges 

being constitutionally unable to run for reelection because of 

the residency requirements and would therefore result in a 

great loss of judicial expertise. This is precisely the kind 

of disruption of the judiciary the Fifth Circuit has directed 

district courts to avoid. Chisolm v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186, 
  

1189-92 (5th Cir. 1988). 

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 4 

 



  

A 
[5 

WHEREFORE, Judge Entz joins in the State Defendants’ 

request that trial of this action be postponed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

elt, 
2 

  

Robert H. Mow, 

David C. ny 

Bobby M. Rubarts 
Esther R. Rosenblum 

of HUGHES & LUCE 

2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 939-5500 

ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS 

COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 

F. HAROLD ENTZ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 
instrument was served upon all counsel of record by certified 
mail this 2nd day of June, 1989. 

  

  

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 5 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 
AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) 
COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 

MO 88 CA 154 
Vv. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

C2
1 

(2
1 

C2
 

LP
) 

LA
I 

LI
 
LO

 
LP
I 

CA
 
L
A
I
 

Defendants. 

DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL 
  

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BUNTON: 

Dallas. County District Judge FPF. Harold -Entz ("Judge 

Entz®) supports the State Defendants’ motion for "trial 

continuance for the following reasons: 

1. Judge Entz agrees with the reasons for continuance 

stated by the State Defendants in their motion. 

2 Judge Entz further notes that plaintiffs' discovery 

responses also justify a continuance. Judge Entz has sent 

requests for production of documents and interrogatories to 

811 three plaintiff groups that challenge Dallas County. 

These discovery requests covered the most basic factors that 

plaintiffs are required to establish. Almost invariably, all 

three plaintiff groups responded that they had no responsive 

information available as yet and would supplement as required 

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or failed to provide 

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 

SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 1 

 



  

complete answers detailing expert opinions and the factual 

bases for those opinions. Portions of those discovery 

responses are attached to this memorandum as Exhibits "a"-"C.*" 

3. For example, two of the three plaintiff groups to 

which Judge Entz sent discovery have not responded at all to 

Judge Entz's request for production of documents and none has 

even answered whether there is racially polarized voting in 

Dallas County judicial elections. None has identified the 

particular elections they have analyzed, who their preferred 

candidates were who were defeated at the polls, or which 

single-member districts they claim could be created in Dallas 

County and the racial make-up of those districts. Under 

Gingles, these are the plaintiffs' fundamental elements of 

proof, their analysis of which, as of this date, remains 

incomplete. 

4. This case has been moving on an expeditious schedule, 

and Judge Entz believes that all parties involved have been 

attempting in ‘goO0d faith to comply with that schedule. In 

particular, Judge Entz does not believe that counsel for the 

plaintiff groups were in any way acting in bad faith in 

providing the incomplete discovery responses mentioned above. 

Rather, Judge Entz believes that due to the time constraints 

of the Court's scheduling order, the plaintiff groups and 

their experts so far have been unable to complete their own 

trial preparation enough to respond fully and fairly to Judge 

Entz's discovery requests. Indeed, by letter dated May 31, 

1989 (attached as . Exhibit’ "D"), counsel for the Houston 

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 2 

 



Lawyers Association indicated that plaintiffs’ experts would 

not be prepared to testify on deposition until the first week 

in July, which is the week before trial. Thus, Judge Entz 

believes that the plaintiff groups would not be prejudiced by 

a continuance because, as shown by their discovery responses, 

the plaintiff groups are also not yet ready for trial. 

5. Although the plaintiff groups have acted in good 

faith, the fact remains that Judge Entz has been unable to 

obtain paper discovery from the plaintiff groups to date, and 

apparently may not obtain informative depositions of 

Plaintiffs! experts in a timely manner. As the Court iis 

aware, the discovery cutoff is June 15, 1989, less than two 

weeks from: this date. Without complete discovery responses 

from the plaintiffs, Judge Entz has been deprived of any 

effective opportunity to prepare his defense and rebuttal to 

the factual contentions of Plaintiffs and their experts. 

Thus, absent a continuance, the Courtiiis faced with two 

equally unpalatable options: either Plaintiffs will be barred 

from introducing proof beyond the scope of their discovery 

responses (which would be tantamount to a directed verdict for 

defendants), or Judge Entz will be unfairly prejudiced by the 

introduction of testimony that he has not had fair opportunity 

to review and rebut prior to trial (which surely would be 

reversible error). 

6. Even if the . plaintiff ‘groups supplement their 

discovery responses by the discovery cutoff, Judge Entz will 

have been deprived of any opportunity to review those 

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 3  



  

responses prior to deposition of plaintiffs' experts, and will 

have only four weeks to consider and respond to what surely 

will be B® massive statistical analysis. Given the 

significance of this lawsuit and the detailed consideration of 

statistical evidence that is required, supplementary responses 

on the basic issues by plaintiffs only four weeks before trial 

simply does not provide enough time for Judge Entz to prepare 

a proper defense. 

7. Finally, as further sypport for the State Defendants’ 

argument about repeated disruption of the state judicial 

system caused by consecutive redistricting (see State 

Defendants' Motion at 8), Judge Entz would note that the Texas 

Constitution requires redistaicting of judicial districts   

following every federal decennial census. Tex. Const.. Ann. 

art. 5, § 7af{e) (Vernon Supp. 1989). Thus, a judgment. from 

the Court before the 1990 census data is available would 

guarantee two redistrictings within two years. When viewed in   

light of the residency requirements for judicial candidates, 

See Tex. Const. Ann. art 5 © 7 (judicial candidates must have 

lived in district for two years prior to election), such 

upheaval would inevitably result in many incumbent judges 

being constitutionally unable to run for reelection because of 

the residency reguirements and would therefore result in a 

great loss of judicial expertise. This is precisely the kind 

of disruption of the judiciary the Fifth Circuit has directed 

district courts to avoid. Chisolm v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186, 

1189.92 (5th Cir. 1988). 

JUDGE ENTZ*S MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 4 

 



  

WHEREFORE, Judge Entz joins in the State Defendants’ 

request that trial of this action be postponed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

gli, 
og 

  

Robert H.' Mow, 
David C. ig 
Bobby M. Rubarts 
Esther R. Rosenblum 

of HUGHES & LUCE 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 939-5500 

ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS 
COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I: Certify that a. true and correct: copy of the foregoing 
instrument was served upon all counsel of record by certified 
mail this 2nd day of June, 1989. Th 

Pt , 

etl oS Voor Ie oi / if 
/ ~ 
  

JUDGE ENTZ'S MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT OF CONTINUANCE -- PAGE 5