Defendants' and Defendant-Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs with Certificate of Service

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his official 

capacity as Governor of the State of North 

Carolina, et al., DEFENDANTS’ AND DEFENDANT- 

INTERVENORS’ FIRST SET 

OF INTERROGATORIES 

TO PLAINTIFFS 

(Rule 33, F.R.Civ.P.) 

Defendants, 

and 

ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

vd 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors, through their attorneys, hereby serve upon you as 

counsel for Plaintiffs the following written interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiffs are requested to answer these interrogatories under oath, in accordance with Rule 

33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Please take notice that copies of the answers to these 

interrogatories must be served upon counsel for Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors within 30 

days after service of these interrogatories. 

These interrogatories shall be continuing in nature until the date of trial and you are required 

to serve supplemental answers as additional information may become available to you as required  



by Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 

INSTRUCTIONS   

When an interrogatory answer relates to an oral communication, state whether or not 

the oral communication was by telephone or face-to-face. and state the names, present addresses, 

business positions, and occupations of all parties involved in said communicationand the names and 

addresses of any other persons present during said communications. 

You are required to furnish all information in the possession of the plaintiffs and all 

information available to them. This includes all knowledge available to each plaintiff, their attorney, 

their employees, and/or officers and agents, by reason of inquiry including inquiry of their 

representatives. 

Please describe any and all documents relied upon or referred to in preparation for 

or in answering each and every interrogatory. 

4. The singular and masculine form of any noun or pronoun shall embrace, and be read 

and applied as, the plural or the feminine or neuter, as circumstances may be appropriate. 

Whenever in these interrogatories information is requested which was previously 

fully and completely furnished in answer to another interrogatory, such information need not be 

restated, and it will suffice to identify the previous answer containing the information requested. 

6. Each interrogatory should be construed independently and not by reference to any 

other interrogatory herein for purposes of limitation. 

7 In the event the space provided for answering an interrogatory is not sufficient, please 

complete the answer on a separate piece of paper and attach it to these interrogatories. For your 

convenience, a disk containing these interrogatories also is being provided. 

2  



  

8. State whether the information furnished for each interrogatory is within the personal 

knowledge of the person answering and. if not, the name. if known. of each person to whom the 

information is a matter of personal knowledge. 

9. Identify each person who assisted or participated in preparing and/or supplying any 

of the information given in answer to or relied upon in preparing answers to these interrogatories. 

DEFINITIONS 
  

1. "Document" refers to all items subject to discovery under Rule 34 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, any written or recorded material of any kind, 

including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the originals by reason 

of any notation made on such copies or otherwise; notations of any sort of conversations, telephone 

calls. meetings (minutes or records of meetings) or other communications of any nature; studies; 

letters, notes and correspondence; memoranda reports, tests and/or analyses; publications reports 

and/or summaries of interviews and reports and/or summaries of investigation; opinions or records 

of consultants, circulars and trade letters; drafts of any document. and revisions of drafts of any 

documents; charts and all graphic or oral records or representations of any kind; mechanical or 

electronic records or representations of any kind including tapes, cassettes, disks, or records; and 

computer files (including e-mail records), tapes, cassettes, disks or records. If you consider any 

document otherwise called for in these interrogatories to be privileged from production, include in 

your response a list of documents withheld from production, identifying each document by date, 

addressee(s) or recipient(s), author, title and subject matter, and state the ground or grounds upon 

which each such document is considered privileged. 

2. "Persons" shall mean a natural person or an artificial person, including partnerships, 

 



  

corporations, proprietorships. unincorporated associations, governmental bodies or any other legal 

entity. 

3 "Communication" means any transmission of any sort whatsoever by one or more 

persons to one or more persons, by any means whatsoever, including but not limited to, telephone 

conversations, letters, telegrams, faxes. teletypes, telecopies, electronic mail, written memoranda, 

and face-to-face conversations. 

4, "Identify" or "the identity" means: 

(a) When used in reference to an individual, to state his/her full name, present 

and last known residence, business affiliation and address, and telephone number; 

(b) When used in reference to a document, to state the type of documents, date. 

author or drafter, addresses. title. its present location, the name and address of its custodian 

and the substance of the contents thereof. In lieu of identifying any document. copies thereof 

may be furnished; and, 

(c) When used in reference to a communication, to state the form of the 

communication; €.g., telephone conversation, letters, etc., the date of the communication, the 

dates on which the communication was sent and/or received, if not the same, the parties of 

the communication and the party who initiated it, the substance of the communication, the 

present location and the name and address of the custodian if the communication was 

nonverbal and/or of any written memoranda a verbal communication. 

5, "Date" shall mean the exact day, month and year, if known to Plaintiffs or if exact 

date is unknown, the best available approximation. 

6. "Describe" means to provide a comprehensive, full, frank, fair, complete, accurate, 

4 

 



  

and detailed description of the matter inquired of. 

7. “State in detail” means to provide a comprehensive, full. frank. fair, complete. 

accurate, and detailed description of the matter inquired of. 

8. "1997 Plan" means the congressional redistricting plan enacted by the North Carolina 

General Assembly in 1997 and precleared by the United States Department of Justice. 

9, “1992 Plan” means the congressional redistrict plan enacted by the General Assembly 

in 1992 and subsequently precleared by the United States Department of Justice. 

INTERROGATORIES 
  

1. Identify and describe all congressional redistricting plans, regardless of whether they 

were presented to the General Assembly, developed by an outside organization. or 

are merely ones that you have thought of, that you contend the General Assembly 

could have lawfully enacted. 

 



2. For each plan identified in response to interrogatory 1. describe and explain whether 

  

you contend the plan 

(a) would have preserved the six to six Democratic/Republican balance in the 

congressional delegation; 

(b) should have met preclearance requirements under Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act; 

 



(¢) would have complied with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: and 

(d) would have protected the incumbents. 

 



  

L
J
 

[f you contend that any of the districts in the 1997 Plan are bizarre or have grossly 

contorted shapes. 

(a) please define the standards, if any, you applied in determining whether a 

district is bizarre or has a grossly distorted shape; 

(b) please identify each such district and state in detail any and all facts upon 

which you base your contention that the district is bizarre or has a grossly 

distorted shape according to the standards in subparagraph (a) above. 

 



4. [f you contend that either the First or Twelfth District is or embodies an 

  

unconstitutionalracial gerrymander, explain why, as to each district, including any 

and all facts upon which you base your contention. 

 



  

h
n
 

If you contend that alternative congressional district configurations that better protect 

the rights of citizens and voters in North Carolina were available to the General 

Assembly when it enacted the 1997 Plan, but were rejected, 

(a) please identify each redistricting plan which contains such alternative 

configurations; 

10 

 



(b) please identify the person or persons who requested that each such plan be 

  

drafted and all persons who participated in the development of each such 

plan. 

11 

 



  

(¢) please state in detail whether each such plan would have 

preserved the six to six Democratic/Republicanbalance in the 

congressional delegation, including any and all facts on which 

you base your statement; 

12 

 



(d) please state in detail whether each such plan would have protected the 

incumbents. including any and all facts on which you base your statement. 

 



6. [f you contend that the congressional districts in the 1997 Plan reflect an effort to 

  

segregate voters on the basis of race. please state in detail any and all facts upon 

which you base this contention and identify all persons who have knowledge about 

such facts. 

14 

 



7 [f you contend that race conscious redistricting in North Carolina 1s not always 

  

unconstitutional, please state in detail any and all facts upon which you base this 

contention and under what circumstances the State of North Carolina may redistrict 

In a race conscious manner. 

15 

 



8. [t you contend that any compelling interests exist in North Carolina to support the 

  

drawing of a majority-minority congressional district. please state in detail any and 

all facts upon which you base this contention. 

16 

 



9. If you contend that African-American individuals in the First and Twelfth 

  

Congressional Districts of the 1997 Plan have nothing in common with one another 

but the color of their skin, please state in detail and all facts upon which you base this 

contention. 

17 

 



10. If you contend that there is no community of interests in the First or Twelfth 

  

Congressional Districts of the 1997 Plan, please state in detail all facts upon which 

you base this contention. 

18 

 



With respect to the following statement: “In enacting the 1997 Plan. the General 

Assembly intended to preserve the 6 Democrat/6 Republican split among North 

Carolina’s United States Representatives,” state in detail the reasons for your 

agreement or disagreement, including any and all facts on which you base that 

agreement or disagreement. 

 



12. State in detail how plaintiffs contend the boundaries of the First and Twelfth Districts 

  

in the 1997 Plan would have been different if drawn without any alleged racial 

motivation, including any and all facts upon which you base that contention. 

 



13. Describe any racially discriminatory intent which you contend affected the shapes 

  

of the First and Twelfth Districts, including any and all facts on which you base that 

contention. 

21 

 



14. Describe any and all facts upon which you base any contention that the General 

  

Assembly enacted the 1997 Plan with the intent of assuring the election of two 

African-American Representatives. 

22 

 



[f you contend that any and all congressional redistricting plans that used the 1992 

  

w
h
 

Plan as a starting point would have been unconstitutional, regardless of what plan 

was ultimately adopted. state in detail the basis for that contention. including any and 

all facts which support it. 

 



[f you contend that any and all congressional redistricting plans that used any part of 

the cores of the districts in the 1992 Plan as a starting point would have been 

unconstitutional, regardless of what plan was ultimately adopted. state in detail the 

basis for that contention, including any and all facts which support it. 

 



17. State in detail the basis of your claim that the 1997 Plan deprives you of your right 

to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment. including any and 

all facts on which you base your claim. 

 



  

18. State in detail the basis of your claim that the 1997 Plan abridges your rights as 

registered voters under the Fifteenth Amendment, including any and all facts on 

which you base your claim. 

26 

 



  

19. State in detail the basis of your claim that the 1997 Plan deprives you of your rights 

under Article I. Section 2 of the United States Constitution, including any and all 

facts on which you base your claim. 

27 

 



  

20. State in detail the basis of your allegation in paragraph 28 of your amended 

complaint that under the 1997 Plan the Twelfth District has boundaries which were 

drawn pursuant to a predominantly racial motivation, including any and all facts on 

which you base your allegations or claim. 

28 

 



  

to
 State in detail the basis of your allegation in paragraph 28 of your amended 

complaint that under the 1997 Plan the First District has boundaries which were 

drawn pursuant to a predominantly racial motivation, including any and all facts on 

which you base your allegations or claim. 

 



State in detail the basis of your allegation in paragraph 26 of your amended 

complaint that under the 1997 Plan each of the six counties of the Twelfth District 

was divided along racial lines and for a predominantly racial motivation, including 

any and all facts on which you base your allegations or claim. 

 



  

23. State in detail the basis of your allegation that under the 1997 Plan the Twelfth 

District did not conform to traditional districting principles, including any and all 

facts on which you base your allegations or claim. 

 



State in detail the basis of your allegation in paragraph 25 of your amended 

complaint that under the 1997 Plan the First District did not conform to traditional 

districting principles. including any and all facts on which you base your allegations 

or claim. 

 



  

NO
] 

(4
) State in detail how the 1997 Plan has injured and impaired the rights of plaintiffs as 

citizens, residents. and registered voters of the State of North Carolina. including any 

and all facts on which you base your statement. 

3" 
Jd 

 



  

26. State in detail how the 1997 Plan has diluted the votes of white citizens in the State 

of North Carolina in violation of the constitution or the Voting Rights Act of 1963, 

as amended, including any and all facts on which you base your statement. 

 



  

27. State in detail how the creation of congressional districts by the 1997 Plan had a 

racially discriminatory effect on the plaintiffs, including any and all facts on which 

you base your statement. 

35 

 



  

28. State in detail each and every fact showing that the creation of congressional districts 

by the 1997 Plan was the result of intentional racial discrimination directed at white 

citizens or voters in the State of North Carolina. 

 



State in detail each and every fact showing that the creation of congressional districts 

by the 1997 Plan was the result of racial animus directed at white citizens or voters 

in the State of North Carolina. 

 



  

t
o
,
 

~
~
 

N
r
 If plaintiffs claim that the current Representative from the 12th Congressional 

District does not adequately represent the interests of white citizens residing in that 

district, state in detail any and all facts on which you base your claim. 

 



  

hy [f plaintiffs claim that the current Representative from the 1st Congressional District 

does not adequately represent the interests of white citizens residing in that district, 

state in detail any and all facts on which you base your claim. 

39 

 



[f you contend that the First District in the 1997 Plan is not “narrowly tailored” in a 

  

(U
S)
 

No
 

manner that satisfies “strict scrutiny” standards under the Equal Protection Clause. 

state in detail the basis for that contention, including any and all facts that support it. 

40 

 



  

This the 3d day of September. 1999. 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

by, dice 2 nll 

Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 

Chief Deputy Attorney General 

N.C. State Bar No. 4112 

  

Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

N. C. State Bar No. 7119 

Norma S. Harrell 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

N. C. State Bar No. 6654 

N.C. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh. N.C. 27602 

(919) 716-6900 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

By: Cds ~ fl ge 

Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, 

Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 

312 W. Franklin Street, Suite 2 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

  

Todd Cox 

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 

1444 1 Street NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

ATTORNEYSFORDEFENDANT-INTERVENORS 

41 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

  

This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Defendants” And 

Defendant-Intervenors’ First Set Of Interrogatories To Plaintiffs in the above captioned case upon 

all plaintiffs by personal delivery to the following: 

Robinson O. Everett 

Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg. 

301 W. Main Street 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham. NC 27702 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 

This the 3d day of September, 1999. \ 

Tes 
he # 

Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney Genera 

  

  

INTERR1.WPD