Correspondence from Lani Guinier to Gerald Hebert, Esq. Re: Louisiana Congressional Reapportionment (Deposition Subpoenas)

    -' ,. ,.,i;
!ii. .;'

, ;.ill:r. ri:,.,,1.
i.tt: rl l.d. He]:ert , Esg .
C.i.vj.I Rights Oivision
r..lni t-.r-:cl Sltates Departrnent of Justice
l.t)tl'r & Constitution, N.W
,i,:1.'.ngLon, D.C.; 20530

'tr.!

l-,oui siana Congressional
( i)eposit.'ron Strbpoenars )

F.S. il:2-050I

llrl:crt:

Janur;rry li, I9 B 3

Re appor t i onrnent

. wr:'.LLe t,o conf irm our convcrsrati.on of January 7,1983. yorr
,.' :,i)ri nrr: E,hqt .the Department of Justice wirr oppose enf orce-' '. '- of deposition subpoenas F. s r B2-o5or , ai the grounds:itated j.n Gerald,,Iones' Ie'Eter to me of rlanuary 6r I9g3l j..e.,

that,' in'formatlon,: such as the reasoning,' factu6t inierences oritPpllcatlon'of legal standards to the Louisiana Congressionalirunmission by.'the Justice Department staf f is not disioverable.
, ()'r' c:xampIe, the recommendations and analysis are. expurgated inrii. copy of ii'the; memorandum of Robert xwan, whi"n Mt. Jones
{.r.r ni.shec1 to me on January 6, r9s3 in response to plaintif f s June
,',i , .1.982 FOrA request and to our Decemter 13 afreemenf that r,,.,;L'i 1r. to enf orce t,he. surbpoenas LlntiI you provide:the po::tion of[,'/ilr,:)s:tecl informatlon that the De1:lartnrent will voluntarilyi :,tse . r assume, f rom, the DepartmenL.'s decision to withhord

it;
'lt

I

It'

'.i-. iiwanrs recommendationsr' that his recommendations arei\YvL{rr p !sevllurrsllt.tcLLJ.r.Jrr,57 L.r,tctL III!j Ie(]QllllltgnoaEIons are:ii.€,:::ont than the finar d.ecision of Mr. Reynold,s not to object,\Eyll\JrLrD I19 L E9 OpJeCl I)r:)i,'(l.9r,.-Grutnman.Aj.reraft,421.U.Sj].6B,-- .--.-
i,.:' ; t'.t ) r (n\emoranda contalnLng recorTtmendations or conclusions
t:ir;:rL' were adopted by the decision rnaker shouLd be d,iscloseci).
Since no recommendations or conclusions of the other staff whoreviewed the submission (i.e., you and Gerald. Jones, sectionchief , voting Rights section) hJve been provid.ed., r. assume asweII that those recommendations and. analysis were not reflectedin t-he final decision

You have indicated. that at this time, however,.the Depart-rnent tviII not stipulate that the oecision of the assistant
/\r:horney General not to object to Act No. 20 of the Louisiana[,r':gislature was inconsistent w.ith the analysis and recommenda-t-'otrs of the staff who reviewed the submisiion and. had prima::yrcrsiponsibility for the investigation. I will therefore need to
pr:oceed with deposltions.

r: t- U t,t rt U S c I R c L t: hIEV/ YOIIK N,'/ r 00 t !)



you agreed that it marces scnse for rne to renobice bheclep'65itions for a date afte:: t.he Dis:t::ict Cor_rr:t in Louisj_ana has;, chanc€i E.o rure on rhe relerreincc of i"rli-,!r";di;; inro rhi:,''i r-cnurstances :urrounding rev.ierv or- t-l-re sur-rrrrission, (ii ,,:,:'l;':i-t1[i-f f s lr4otion in Linr:'.ne to Ft;<cl.ucir: Evi-cience, attaclred). r.,r r- -l- l. p::obabry , rendticE-TEem f or u.,,,r"ti*" ".i"ii-rig";;: 
week o:fr 'i.'r'relr:y 2,4, 1983. p-Iease advise ,rc ii any clate that week is'i)ir.1'1--ir:u.1.;r::1y inconvenient for yo, o., ir," other propol.a';;p;:

', 'rrc'rition, r wourcl l.ike the record to ref rect that whi_re,''()operateci to a greal_ r,.,:<l-r::trt wi r-h my r(1q11(1 ,::tli :[o::; r)rr r lou Jrave decrined tr: pr:ov.i.de =J,,rurui i tems .t''1,',.1 Ly reque:;ted, e.9. Mr:. l(r,vari,s and ot.her staff. '.'.'r; i. :; , ,ecomme^da Lions , ancl mernorand.a ref recting the in-, ' '|''(1r, ,lr.'rrwll- by tlrt-. staJrf f :rorn tlre Jiaetlq 11$ Welr AS r:he1 i-tt'''- i' or wilriarn Llraclf orci. Reyno.l.ctsr Memoranclum to tlre F j.le, , ,',.r Jr-rne r8,,,rgg2. hrhile _r appreciate /"r, it ir.ictance toj:t-'.);rse che orlginar memorandy*,-';i*,it providing-;-- self _:i(:rrving explanatlon of its back.ao-tlrig-iE not satisf actory, x[]teref ore rene-w,,Ty lgque.st for t19 orlblnal of t,hir-."*o"undum,i:r's werl as for Mr. KwLn's and arr otnli staff .niry=i=,rrlcorTlm€[dations and memoranda ref lecting inferen"d, ar"rn byl.-itt: staf f f rom ,the f acts of the invuriigation. -At the very.l.oir.rit I r 
- 
requegt a sta,tement, that lvlr. Kwan,s and other st,af t,' '',rr)urrlencictt,lons.rlranaLysis and lnf eren'ees drawn f:roi- tno f aets" r'tr 'i'nconsistent with -and are noI ref lectecl in the clecision ofi..r,_r ,\ssistant,),t,torn.y General not to 6t-j;;:'. -"-,*=

Thank you, for your.,cooperation

S i ncere Ly /J.r'fi
Xtl"y/J+-yLani Guinier
Attorney for plaintiffs
I"Iajor v. Treen,
CiviI Action No. gZ-1L92

,]i

I,C: Sil

{)l.Uivruus cIRcL!: l?t?) 5r.rr;-tt.t.J7 NL:V,' YORK l00l {,