North Carolina School Integration is Pressed by Legal Defense Fund

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM,'et al., ) 

) 
Plaintiffs, ) 

) 
) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 
Plaintiff-intervenor, ) 

) 
) 

v. ) 
) 

CHARLES E. ROEMER, et al., ) 

) 
Defendants. ) 

) 
 ) 

Civil Action No. 
86-4075 

Section A 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

Please that notice that the United States will present the 

attached motion to lift stay of discovery for hearing in Section 

A of this Court on January 4, 1989, at 10:00 A.M., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard. 

JOHN VOLZ 
United States Attorney 

Respectfully submitted, 

JAMES . TURNER 
Act . Assistant Attorney General 

GERALD W. JONES 
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM 
ROBERT S. BERMAN 
Attorneys, Voting Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 66128 
Washington, D. C. 20035-6128 
(202) 724-3100 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-intervenor, 

V. 

CHARLES E. ROEMER, et al., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 
86-4075 

Section A • 

MOTION FOR THE UNITED STATES TO LIFT STAY OF DISCOVERY  

The United States, plaintiff-intervenor in the above-styled 

action, moves for the entry of an order lifting the stay of 

discovery. 

Counsel for the United States has attempted, pursuant to 

Rule 3.11, Local Rules for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to 

obtain the consent of counsel for the entry of the requested 

order. The attorney for the private plaintiffs, Judith Reed, 

said that she did not oppose the motion but the attorney for the 

state defendants, Robert G. Pugh, has refused to give his 

consent. 

WHEREFORE, this Court should enter the attached order 

lifting the stay of discovery. 



• 

JOHN VOLZ 
United States Attorney 

Respectfully submitted, 

JAMES P. TURNER 
Actin sistant Attorney General 

GERALD W. JONES 
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM 
ROBERT S. BERMAN 
Attorneys, Voting Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 66128 
Washington, D. C. 20035-6128 
(202) 724-3100 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, et al., ) 

) 
Plaintiffs, ) 

) 
) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 
Plaintiff-intervenor, ) 

) 
) 

V. ) 
) 

CHARLES E. ROEMER, et al., ) 

) 
Defendants. ) 

) 
 ) 

Civil Action No. 
86-4075 

Section A 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the motion of United States to lift 

the stay of discovery , and the arguments and papers filed in 

response to said motion, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the stay of discovery issued by 

this Court on November 22, 1988, is lifted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the defendants shall submit the 

reports of their expert witnesses to the plaintiffs and plain-

tiff-intervenor within three (3) days of the entry of this 

order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that within seven (7) days of the 

entry of this order the parties shall: (1) confer and attempt to 

reach an agreement upon a discovery schedule that provides for 

this case to be ready for trial by March 1, 1989; and (2) file an 



agreed-upon discovery schedule or, in the event agreement is not 

reached, each party's proposed schedule. 

Done this  day of   1988. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 



• 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, et al., ) 

) 
Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 
Plaintiff-intervenor, ) 

) 
) 

V. ) 
) 

CHARLES E. ROEMER, et al., ) 

) 
Defendants. ) 

) 

 ) 

Civil Action No. 
86-4075 

Section A 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES IN 
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY OF DISCOVERY 

The United States seeks an order lifting the stay of 

discovery because there no longer is reason to believe that the 

defendants will promptly and voluntarily abandon the challenged 

multi-judge district election system and adopt a new election 

system in time for the 1990 election. 

I. STATEMENT 

The Chisom plaintiffs and the United States claim that the 

multi-judge district for electing members of the Louisiana Su-

preme Court violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. This Court has ruled that there is a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits of that claim, 

690 F. Supp. 1524, 1535 (E.D. La.), vacated on other grounds, 853 

F.2d 1186 (5th Cir 1988), and had scheduled trial for December 

14, 1988, with discovery set to close on December 2. 



On November 18, 1988, this Court held a status conference at 

the request of the Chisom plaintiffs. Four days earlier, the 

Supreme Court had denied the defendants' petition for review of 

the court of appeals' ruling that Section 2 applies to judicial 

elections. 

At the status conference, the parties informed the Court 

about Governor Roemer's Judicial Selection Task Force. That task 

force was empaneled in response to Judge Parker's ruling that 

certain multi-judge district systems for electing trial and 

appellate judges violate Section 2 and his order that the state 

propose a remedy by January 31, 1989. Clark v. Roemer, No. 86-

475-A (M.D. La. August 15 and 31, 1988). 

The task force also had authority to review the election 

system at issue in this case and to propose a course of action. 

Its report was due to be made public on December 15, 1988, and 

there was reason to believe that following the report the Gov-

ernor would call the legislature into a special session. 

Under those circumstances, the parties agreed to a stay of 

discovery until December 19, 1988, and this court ordered that 

m[t]he stay shall remain in effect thereafter unless any party 

moves . . . to lift the stay." The court also scheduled a status 

conference for February 1, 1989. 

On December 16, 1988, the state obtained an extension of 

time until the conclusion of the 1989 legislative session1/ in 

1/ The legislature is scheduled to be in session from April 17 
through July 10, 1989. 

2 41.1111• 



which to propose a remedial plan to Judge Parker in the Clark 

case. The task force did not issue its report on December 15, 

and we understand it does not plan to issue its report until 

March 1989. 

II. ARGUMENT 

The United States submits that discovery should be resumed 

and trial scheduled for March 1989. Such a schedule would pro-

vide the Court sufficient time to render a decision, and if a 

Section 2 violation is found, afford the defendants the oppor-

tunity to devise a remedy during the 1989 legislative session. 

Any remedial plan could then be in place for the election now 

scheduled for 1990. 

There is no reason for the stay of discovery to continue. 

The defendants •have made no commitment to abandon the challenged 

multi-judge district system before the 1990 election. Nor have 

they provided any reason to believe that, absent this court's 

finding a Section 2 violation, they will modify the challenged 

election system. 

Although the governor's task force is empowered to make a 

recommendation about the system for electing the Louisiana Su-

preme Court, it is not obliged to do so. Even if the task force 

were to propose a new system, the legislature would not be bound. 

The United States remains willing to try to resolve this 

matter by consent and the defendants have it within their power 

to do so. But the litigation should proceed so that, if the 

3 MEP 



Court finds the Section 2 violation we allege, the remedy can be 

in place in time for the next election. 

Accordingly, the Court should allow discovery to resume. 2/ 

We propose that the Court enter an order lifting the stay of 

discovery and requiring the parties to confer and submit a 

proposed discovery schedule within seven days after the entry of 

the order. The discovery schedule should provide for the case to 

be ready for trial by March 1, 1989. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the motion 

to lift the stay of discovery and enter the proposed order. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JOHN VOLZ JAMES P. TURNER 
United States Attorney Acti ssistant Attorney General 

GERALD W. JONES 
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM 
ROBERT S. BERMAN 
Attorneys, Voting Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 66128 
Washington, D. C. 20035-6128 
(202) 724-3100 

2/ The next step in the discovery process is for the defendants 
to provided their expert witness reports. The Chisom plaintiffs 
and the United States served their expert witness reports on No-
vember 1, and defendants' reports were due on November 21, three 
days after the status conference at which discovery was stayed. 



S 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this day offifarANIA01988, I 

served a copy of the foregoing Motion and Memorandum in Support 

of the Motion for the United States to Lift Stay of Discovery by 

mailing a copy, by overnight express mail, to the following 

persons: 

Robert G. Pugh 
330 Marshall Street, Suite 1200 
Shreveport, LA 71101 

Julius L. Chambers 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
C. Lani Guinier 
Judith Reed 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

and by mailing .a copy postage prepaid to the following persons: 

William P. Quigley 
901 Convention Center Blvd. 
Fulton Place 
Suite 901 
New Orleans, LA 70130 

Roy Rodney, Jr. 
643 Magazine Street 
New Orleans, LA 70130 

Pamela S. Karlan 
University of Virginia Law School 
Charlottesville, VA 22901 

Ron Wilson 
Richards Building, Suite 310 
837 Gravier Street 
New Orleans, LA 70112 

William J. Guste, Jr. 
Attorney General 
Louisiana Department of Justice 
234 Loyola Avenue, 7th Floor 
New Orleans, LA 70112 



ty 

M. Truman Woodward, Jr. 
909 Poydras Street, Suite 2300 
New Orleans, LA 70130 

Blake G. Arata 
201 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, LA 70130 
George Strickler, Jr. 
639 Loyola Street 
Suite 1075 
New Orleans LA 70113 

A. R. Christovich 
1900 American Bank Bldg. 
New Orleans, LA 70130 

Moise W. Dennery 
601 Poydras Street 
New Orleans, LA 70130 

ROBERT S.BERMAN 
Attorney, Voting Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 66128 
Washington D. C. 20035-6128 
202-724-3100