Correspondence from Kellogg to Judges Politz, Cassibry, and Collins

    LAW OFFICES OF 

QUIGLEY & SCHECKMAN 
631 ST. CHARLES AVENUE 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 

TELEPHONE: 504-524-0016 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY IN ASSOCIATION WITH: 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN R. JAMES KELLOGG 
MARK S. GOLDSTEIN 

RONALD J. PURSELL 

April 26, 1983 

Honorable Henrv A. Politz 

United States Circulil Judge 

Room 2B0O4 

500 Fannin Street 

Shreveport, Louisiana 71101 

Honorable Fred J. Cassibry 

United States District Judge 

500 Camp Street 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Honorable Robert F. Collins 

United'States District Judge 

500 Camp Street 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

RE: Majoyxr, et al vi. Treen, et al 

Civil Action #82=1191, 

Division C 

Your Honors: 

Although I am hesitant to respond yet again to Mr. Feldman's 

belated attempt to supplement the record by submitting an inter- 

nal memo by Mr. Revnold's as plaintiffs’ Exhibit 49X, I feel the 

following comments are necessary. 

1. Mr. Feldman makes much of his desire to make the record 

concerning "preclearance" complete. In fact, plaintiffs review- 

ed a great number of records at the Department of Justice re~- 

lating to. preclearance which they did not seek to introduce. 

Surely this Court does not need nor does it desire a "complete" 

record on this point. There are literally boxes and boxes of 

material open.for public inspection. Plaintiffs' counsel spent 

several days sifting through the material and culled those docu-  



Honorable Henry A. Politz 

Honorable Pred J. Cassibry 

Honorable Robert F. Collins 

April 26, 1983 

Page Two 

ments which we deemed relevant to counter the defendants' attempts 

to introduce the letter of preclearance. Defendants had the same 

opportunity to review the material and were put on notice in both 

the pretvial ordey and by plaintiffs" motion in limine that if 

they were successful in their offering the letter of preclearance 

in evidence, plaintiffs would counter by offering Department of 

Justice documents relating to the process. Not only did they not 

review the material in question, they never asked for copies of 

the material from plaintiffs’ counsel. 

2s In the motion in limine filed before twvinl, plaintiffs’ 

counsel went to great :lenagths to voint out that the entire pre- 

clearance process was suspect under the particular facts of this 

case. The very validity of the document which defendants now 

seek to introduce for plaintiffs has been called into question. 

Not only had Mr. Reynolds admitted that the memo in question was 

backdated by him (it was written after the letter of preclearance 

was issued, but backdated by him to appear that it was written 

before the letter was issued), but there is clear evidence that 

Mr. Reynolds wrote the memo not only in anticipation of litigation, 

but with the full knowledge that this litigation was pending. 

5. Every Justice Department document introduced by plaintiffs 

was under seal. Although plaintiffs did: not object to the authen— 

ticity of the letter of preclearance introduced by the defendants 

at trial even though it was not under seal (although objections were 

made on other grounds), we feel the authenticity of the document 

which defendants now seek to introduce is questionable. It is 

our position that if the defendants are allowed to introduce the 

memo in question, they should be required to produce the original 

under the Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 1002 and 1003. Plain- 

tiffs have ‘inspected the original, which clearly shows that it 

has been backdated. 

4. Due to our objections, vlaintiffs respectfully submit that 

the question of admissibility of the memo should be addressed for- 

mally by the Court through a motion fileé@ by the defendants in 

accordance with the PFPederal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local 

Rules of the Eastern District. An exchange of letters is an in- 

appropriate vehicle for resolution of this hotly contested issue 

and formalities should be imposed on defendants (including cita- 

tion of authorities regarding the timeliness of defendants' proffer 

and their standinc to offer an exhibit for defendants).  



Honorable Henry A. Politz 

Honorable Fred J. Cassibry 

Honorable Robert F. Collins 

april 26, 1983 

Page Three 

We reiterate our position that the defendants' attempts on 

this issue should be dismissed out of hand, or course, but if 

any consideration is to be given to defendants' proffer, we 

trongly feel that the usual umotion practice be followed. 

Sincerely, 

~ 
R. ames Kellogg 

Lani Guinier 

Stanley A. Halpin 

William P. Quigley 

Steven Scheckman