Smallwood Appellants' Application for Extension of Time to File Brief on the Merits with Certificate of Service

    CHAMBERS, FERGUSON, WATT, WALLAS, ADKINS & FULLER, P.A
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

951 SOUTH INOEPENOENCE BOULEVARO

CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 28202
TELEPHONE 1704t 375-8461

May 11, L982

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERs

JAMES E, FERGUSON, II

MELVIN L, WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL ADKINS

JAMES C, FULLER. JR.

YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W. GRESHAM

RONALO L. GIBSON

GILOA F, GLAZER

LESLIE J, WINNER

JOHN T, NOCKLEBY'

. OF D C BAR ONLY

Honorable F. T. Dupree, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District of North Carolina
Post Office Drawer 27585
Raleigh, North Carolina 276LL

Re: Gingles v. Edmisten, No. 81-803-Civ-5
Pugh v. Hunt, No. 81-1066-Civ-5

Dear Judge Dupree:

As I am sure you are aware, in late April, L982, the North
Carolina General Assembly once again amended its apportion-
ment of the North Carolina House of Representatives and
Senate. These apportionments were then submitted to the
Unj-ted States Department of Justice for preclearance under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and on April 30, L982
rrere precleared. A primary eLection has been scheduled for
June 29, L982. The Gingles plaintiffs do not intend to
attempt to enjoin this election but do intend to proceed
with this action seeking final injunctive relief after a
trial on the merits. It is my understanding that the Pugh
plaintiffs will not atLempt to obtain preliminary relief to
enjoin the June primary either.
On Febr:uary 22, L982, the parties to Ginglgs and to Pueh
entered into a set of stipulations which irrcluded a Effiula-
tion that the parties would complete discovery in the attion
!y the 30th day following the United States Attorney General-'s
decision on the preclearance of the apportionment pian and
that arl responses to interrogatories ind requests would be
due in 15 days following service.

Because expedited consideration of this matter no longer
appears to be necessary, this truncated discovery process does



Honorable F. T. Dupree, Jr.
May 11, 1982

Page 2

lot appeer to be appropriate at this time. r have spoken with
James trIallace,, attorney for the defendants and Robert Hunter,attorney for the Pugh plaintiffs, and they join me in this re-quest that the paiEiEs either be allowed to-enter into a newdiscovery stipulation or that the court schedule an initialpretrial conference in order to establish a discovery schedule.
A11 parties are _cgrrently proceeding with discovery,-and we alr
]Bree thqt we will be able to concui on a new distovery stipu-lation if the court so permits. rn addition, Mr. wallale r"l
gyggts that the stipulation be delayed unril after rhe June zg,
L982 primary is he1d.

On behalf of all counsel, I thank you for your continued patience
and cooperation.

LJW: ddb
cc: Mr.

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

Sincerely,

'4*l*M|'Le*1i6 J. Winner

Arthur J. Donaldson
Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Jerris Leonard

Napoleon Williams
J. Rich Leonard w/three copies