Withdrawal of Motion to Consolidate with Certificate of Service

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Reco 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) Devi W¥. Dias 
avia W. Daniel, Clerk 

US Diz sict Court E MARTIN CROMARTIE. et al, By i Sl stesmeemeenenes. OP. Clork 

Plaintiffs. 

V. 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

JAMES B. HUNT. JR.. in his official ) 
capacity as Governor of the State of North ) . 
Carolina, et al., )! : PROPOSED 

) 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

DISCOVERY PLAN 
Defendants. 

and 

ALFRED SMALLWOOD. et al.. 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. the parties, represented by Robinson O. Everett. Counsel for 

Plaintiffs, Tiare B. Smiley and Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Counsel for Defendants, and Adam Stein, 

Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors, met on July 1, 1999, for the purpose of establishing a discovery 

plan. The parties agree that this litigation should be resolved as quickly as possible in order to 

minimize the potential for disruption to the elections process and harm to the voters of North 

Carolina. Accordingly, it is stipulated that the scheduling order entered by the Court in this case 

should provide as follows: 

1. The parties be allowed until September 20, 1999, to complete discovery. 

2. The parties be allowed until July 30, 1999, to join additional parties or to amend pleadings.  



“ we 
3. The plaintiffs be allowed to serve up to 50 interrogatories and the defendants. including 

defendant-intervenors. be allowed to file up to 30 interrogatories which shall be apportioned between 

defendants and defendant-intervenors as they may agree and, absent agreement. divided equally. 

4. The plaintiffs be allowed to notice up to 15 depositions of non-expert witnesses. and the 

defendants, including defendant-intervenors.be allowed to notice up to 15 depositions of non-expert 

witnesses which shall be apportioned between defendants and defendant-intervenors as they may 

agree and, absent agreement, divided equally. In noticing depositions, reasonable effort should be 

made to accommodate the schedules of witnesses and counsel. 

5. The parties be required to identify expert witnesses and serve their Rule 26 reports on or 

before August 20. 1999, and such witnesses shall be made available for deposition at times and 

places agreeable to the witnesses and counsel. 

6. The parties be allowed until August 31, 1999, to make a good faith effort to disclose the 

identity of all trial witnesses, together with a brief statement of what a party proposes to establish 

by their testimony. 

7. All motions. except those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial, are to be filed on 

or before October 1, 1999. 

8. For purposes of this trial, the parties stipulate and agree that should it become material during 

the trial with respect to the drawing of the First Congressional District whether these Gingles 

preconditions exist -- namely that (1) the minority group (African-Americans) is sufficiently large 

and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district, (2) the minority 

group is politically cohesive, and (3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it  



  

w we 
usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate -- plaintiffs do not contest the existence of 

preconditions 2 and 3 above, but only contest the existence of precondition 1. 

~ 9. For purposes of this trial. the parties further stipulate and agree that African-Americans in 

North Carolina for many decades were victims of racial discrimination and a substantial majority 

ot African-American citizens in North Carolina are still at a disadvantage in comparison to white 

citizens with respect to income, housing, education and health. In addition. through the 1990 

elections, some appeals have been made to North Carolina voters on the basis of race. 

10. With regard to the North Carolina congressional preclearance materials submitted to the 

United States Department of Justice pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the parties stipulate 

and agree as follows: 

a. The 1997 Submission, comprising five volumes (sections 97C-27A-1 through 97C-28H- 

1). is a complete and accurate copy of the legislative history of the enactment of Chapter 11, the 

1997 congressional redistricting plan. The parties further stipulate and agree that the 1997 

Submission previously filed with the court under the affidavit of Gary O. Bartletton March 2, 1998, 

constitutes a joint exhibit for trial and shall be designated as Exhibit 1. 

b. The 1998 Submission, comprising two volumes (sections 98C-27A-1 through 98F-28F- 

2), is a complete and accurate copy of the legislative history of the enactment of Chapter 2, the 1998 

congressional redistricting plan. The parties further stipulate and agree that the 1998 Submission 

previously filed with the Court under the Third Affidavit of Gary O. Bartlett on June 1, 1998, 

constitutes a joint exhibit for trial and shall be designated as Exhibit 2. 

Cc. At the request of a party, the Court may take judicial notice of materials offered as an 

exhibit from the 1992 Submission. 

 



    

ot we 

I 1. The parties will be ready for trial on or after October 11. 1999, and estimate the trial should 

take approximately 4-3 days. The parties request the Court to schedule a final pre-trial conference 

and trial as soon as the Court's schedule may permit. 

12. Reasonable access to the public terminal with the North Carolina General Assembly's 

redistricting computer system will be provided by appointment to counsel for the plaintiffs or their 

experts under the supervisionof the Legislative Automated Systems Division (LASD) during regular 

business hours in the Legislative Office Building, 300 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North 

Carolina. Such access will be subject to LASD’s public access procedures, except that the extent 

of usage may be expanded based on availability. 

This the 14th day of July, 1999. 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 

    

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

A i SCE ln 20 nt 7. a — 
Robinson O. Everett Edwin M. Speas, Jr. J A 

P.O. Box 586 Chief Deputy Attorney General 

Durham, N.C. 27702 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

BN JuFauls, 
    

Xdam Stein iare B. Smiley y 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Special Deputy Attorney Gene 
Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 

312 West Franklin Street, Suite 2 N.C. Department of Justice 
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 P.O. Box 629 
Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors Raleigh, N.C. 27602 

(919) 716-6900 

Counsel for Defendants 

4 

 



   

Certificate of Service 

[ certify that I have this the 14th day of July, 1999, served the foregoing motion upon the State 

defendant and intervenor-defendants by personally delivering it. 

Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 

Senior Deputy Attorney-General 

North Carolina Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 629 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 

Attorney for State Defendants 

Adam Stein, Esquire 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 

312 West Franklin Street 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 

Attorney for Intervenor-Defendants 

  

obinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett, Attorneys 

301 West Main Street 

Suite 300 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, North Carolina 27702