Correspondence from Lani Guinier to Prof. Peyton McCrary
Correspondence
April 14, 1983

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Response to Cavanaugh Plaintiffs to Motion to Consolidate, 1982. 4a00a483-d792-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/828ad435-9bd2-4e35-8956-0abeabb2536b/response-to-cavanaugh-plaintiffs-to-motion-to-consolidate. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
-/l -\ l O -7- (u'|L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR.ICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH DIVISIO}tr RALPH GTNGLES, €t al., ) civil Acrion No. 8l-803-crv-5PlainEiffs, ) )vs. ) ) RUFUS EDMISTEN, etc., et al., )Defendants. ) ) ) ALIJ,N V. PUGH, €t aI. , ) Civil Action No. 81-1066-CIV-5 Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) JAI{ES B. HUNI, JR. , etc. , €t )&L., )Defendants. ) ) ) JOHN J. CAVANAGH, €t al., ) Civil Action 82-545-CIV-5 Plaintiffs, ) )vs. ) ) ALEX K. BROCK, etc., eL a1., )Defendants. ) RESPONSE OF CAVANAGH PLAINTIFFS TO I"IOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Plaintiffs in Cavanagh vs. Brock, 81-803-Civ.-5 do not oppose defendants' Motion to Consolidate insofar as a joint trial on the merits of the above-captioned actions is con- cerned., should such ultimately be found necessary by the court. Cavanagh plaintiffs, however, request that any order to consolidate be qualified to the following extent to avoid prejudice to plaintiffs : 1. Discovery in Cavanagh should be conducted inde- pendently. (Since the claims in Cavanagh raise a question of law differelt-T?orn that iaised by the Gingles and Pugh com- plaints, and since it appears that the interests of the Cavanash plaintiffs do not coincide withffiTn^ Gingles and. f"eh, certail. digcovery- thailIFrelevanr in Pugh and Gingles will not-be relevant in Gffinagh,II;itEce-versa. Accordingly, CavaEaffi-ffiintiffs should be allowed Io'' fffiy Estover, assemble, and present information uniquely relevant to their case, and should not be required to parti- cipate in discovery efforts that nroperlv relate to the Pugh and Gingles plaintiffs only) 2. The time period for discovery in Cavanagh should not be abbreviated by consolidation 3. Consolidation should not affect plaintiffs' rights to move for sufinnary judgment, or Eheir right to appeal inde- pendently the disposition of any issue uniquely relevant to their case. This 16th day of July , L982. .n e-.i ) t*-;i i' ,/^l;; ,r ,i i !*! (i' .-S&;){I-L Attorney f-or Cavanagh Plaintiffs 450 NCNB PLaza Winston-Salem, N.C. 2710L (9r9) tzt-L826 OF COUNSEL W}IITING, HORTON AND HENDRICK 450 NCNB Plaza trllnston-Sa1em, N. C . 27LjL (919) 723-L826 WAYNE T. ELLIOTT, ESQ. SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOIINDATIO}tr, INC . 18OO CENTURY BOULEVARD, SUITE 950 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345 (404) 32s-22s5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE I hereby certify that I have this day served the fore- going Response of Cavanagh Plaintiffs to I{otion to Consoli.date upon all other counsel by placing a copy of same in the llnited StaLes Post Office, postage prepaid, addressed to: James T.IalLace, Jx., Esq. N.C. Department of Justice Post Offi.ce Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Jerris Leonard, Esq. Jerris Leonard & Assoc., P.C. 900 17th Streer, N.ld Suite l-020 trIashington, D. C. 20006 Arthur .]. Donaldson, Esq. Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser & Kenerly 309 North Main Street Sali,sbury, North Carolina 28L44 This 16th day of July, L982. Les Lle J . tr[lnner, Esq . Chambers, FergusoD,, WaLIt, ItIallas, Adkins & FulLer, P.A. Suite 730 East Independence PLaza 95f South Independence Boulevard Charlotte, North Carollna 28202 Jack Greenberg, Esq. Napoleon Will-iams, Esq. Lani Guinier, Esg. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 10 Columbus Circle Suite 2030 New York, New York L0019 (919) 723-1826