Draft Letter to Judge Boyle from Smiley RE: Pretrial Order

    State of North Carolina 
MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice 
ATTORNEY GENERAL P. 0. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Tiare B. Smiley 

RALEIGH Special Litigation 
27602-0629 (919) 716-6900 

FAX: (919) 716-6763 

October 19, 1999 

The Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge 
United States District Court 

306 East Main St. 

Elizabeth City, NC 27907 

Re: Cromartie v. Hunt Pretrial Order 

Dear Judge Boyle: 

Counsel for the parties have met and begun making arrangements to prepare a pretrial 
order for the trial of this case. We are cooperatively trying to work out a reasonable schedule 
which will allow us to exchange materials and produce a final pretrial order in the compressed 
time frame we are working under in this case. We are taking the liberty of jointly proposing what 
the parties agree is a workable arrangement under the circumstances of this case, and present it 
here for your consideration. 

First, we would propose filing a final pretrial order midday on Friday, October 29. 1999, 
with the trial scheduled to commence on Monday, November 1, 1999. Counsel have come to 
agreement on a series of interim dates that will allow time to prepare and exchange the various 
materials which make up the final pretrial order in order to meet the proposed filing deadline. 

Second, we would propose roughly following the format of the pretrial order in Shaw. 
In that case, the parties were not required to present proposed findings of fact until after the trial. 
Arrangements are already being made to have daily transcripts, which will allow the parties to 
prepare their proposals in a reasonable time frame. 

Third, with regard to exhibits, we propose assigning exhibit numbers as follows: 

1 to 99 Deposition Exhibits (There are about 85 deposition exhibits in total.) 
100 to 199 Maps and Stipulated Statistical or Other Exhibits 
200 to 299 Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 

300 to 399 Defendants’ Exhibits 
400 to 499 Defendant-Intervenors’ Exhibits 

Fourth, the parties would appreciate the flexibility of not having to designate deposition 

 



Page 2 

testimony until after the trial when the proposed findings of fact are due. The parties would be 
allowed three days in which to file any objections to deposition designations. The parties anticipate 
that allowing this leeway will limit unnecessary over designation of deposition testimony. 

We hope the proposals outlined above provide an acceptable plan of action and address any 
concerns the Court might have. 

Sincerely, 

Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General