Judge Wood's Reply to Houston Lawyers' Association's Opposition to Motions for Costs

    PorRTER & CLEMENTS 
FIRST REPUBLICBANK CENTER 

  

700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3500 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-2730 

ATTORNEYS   
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING 

TELEPHONE (713) 226-0600 
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 

TELECOPIER (713) 228-1331 

TELECOPIER (713) 224-4835 
EVELYN V. KEYES TELEX 775-348 

(713) 226-061 

October 31, 1990 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau, Clerk 
United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit 
100 U.S. Court of Appeals Courthouse 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: No. 90-8014 and No. 90-9003; League of United Latin 
American Citizens, Council No. 4434, et al., Plaintiffs- 
Respondents, v. William P. Clements, Governor of the 
State of Texas, et al., Defendants, Judge Sharolyn Wood, 
etc., Defendant-Appellant; In the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Enclosed is the original and three copies of Defendant- 
Intervenor-Appellant Judge Wood’s Reply to Houston Lawyers’ 
Association’s Opposition to Motions for Costs and a Supplement to 
Judge Wood’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 

Please verify filing of these documents by placing your file 
mark in the margin of the fourth copies provided herewith and 
return to me for my records. 

All parties are being served with a copy of these documents by 
first class United States mail, postage prepaid. 

Very truly yours, 

EVK/cdf 
enclosures 

 



   
PorTER & CLEMENTS 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 
October 31, 1990 

Page -2- 

cc: Mr. Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 
Nallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. John L. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin; Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 
Attorney at Law 
Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 
29th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 
Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach 
2300 NCNB Plaza 

300 Convent Street 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. R. James George 
Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 
P. O. Box 98 
Austin, Texas 78767 

 



PorTER & CLEMENTS 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 
October 31, 1990 
Page ~3- 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 
201 N. St. Mary's St., #521 

San Antonio, Texas 78250 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O. BOX 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, II 
Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 

777 ‘South R. L. Thornton Frwy, Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 
2120 Welch 
Houston, Texas 77019  



    PorTER & CLEMENTS 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 

October 31, 1990 

Page -4- 

cc: Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 
Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 
1705 N. Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr. Paul Strohl 

Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Mr. Daniel M. Ogden 
Attorney at Law 
900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 and 

NO. 90-9003 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

versus 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE 

OF TEXAS, et al., 

Defendants, 

JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, ETC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

  

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland Division 

  

DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT JUDGE WOOD’S REPLY TO 

HOUSTON LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR COSTS 
  

  

Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant Harris County District Judge 

Sharolyn Wood ("Judge Wood") files this Reply to Plaintiff- 

Intervenor-Appellees Houston Lawyers’ Assoclation’s ("HLA"’s) 

Opposition to Defendant Parties’ Motions for Costs: 

1. The HLA claims that Judge Wood is not entitled to costs 

for Federal Express delivery. As set out in Judge Wood’s Motion 

for Costs and the exhibits filed therewith, this Court ordered 

Judge Wood to file documents by express delivery in order to comply 

 



  

with the expedited briefing schedule set by the Court. Under those 

circumstances, the rationale set out in Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 39 for refusing to allow "expensive special express 

delivery" — namely that it is not required — is inapplicable. 

2. The HLA opposes Judge Wood’s Motion for Costs associated 

with the filing of her Post-Submission Brief. Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 39(c) expressly includes briefs among taxable 

costs. It makes no exception for post-submission briefs. As 

explained in Judge Wood’s Motion for Costs, the brief — which was 

filed six days after oral argument and was accompanied by a Motion 

for Leave to File — addressed essential issues that were raised for 

the first time by the three-judge panel at oral argument. Those 

issues proved crucial both to the panel’s decision and to the 

argument at en banc review of this case. Only Judge Wood briefed 

those issues for the defense. The Department of Justice had 

briefed them for the Plaintiffs in an amicus brief filed on the eve 

of the panel argument. Under those circumstances, Judge Wood’s 

Supplemental Brief was necessary to the defense of the case. The 

HLA has cited no cases which deny recovery for costs incurred in 

the presentation of vital materials to the Court and Judge Wood has 

been able to find none. To the contrary, printing of the briefs, 

appendix and answer to a petition for writ of certiorari is all 

properly taxable as costs. Nash'v. Raun, 67 F. Supp. 212, 217 

(W.D. Pa. 1946) 

3. The HLA argues that, since they intend to file a petition 

for a writ of certiorari, this Court should deny Judge Wood’s 

 



  

Motion for Costs or, alternatively, postpone a decision on the 

Motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court. The HLA cites no 

cases in support of its request, and relevant authority supports an 

award of costs with the understanding that if the Supreme Court 

reverses the circuit court’s judgment, the award of costs by the 

circuit court must be vacated and costs awarded to the successful 

petitioner. Furman v. Cirrito, 782 F.2d 353, 356 (24 Cir. 193886). 

Judge Wood is willing to place all costs awarded in trust pending 

the decision of the Supreme Court on Plaintiff-Appellees’ intended 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari. 

4. The HLA’s opposition to this Court’s awarding Judge Wood 

her costs is directly contrary to the position previously taken by 

the HLA in this case when it sought interim attorneys’ fees (a part 

of costs) as a prevailing party in the district court. On March 

26, 1990, long after jurisdiction was lost in the district court 

and vested in this Court,'! the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors 

including the HLA — prevailing parties in the district court — 

together with Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox, assertedly acting 

on behalf of the State of Texas — losing Defendant in the district 

court — submitted a Joint Motion on Interim Attorney Fees to the 

district court, seeking attorneys’ fees for the Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiff-Intervenors. A copy of the Joint Motion is attached 

hereto as Exhibit "A." Neither the Plaintiffs nor Attorney General 

  

i This Court obtained jurisdiction over this case by Defendant- 
Intervenors Judge Wood and Judge Harold Entz’ Notices of Appeal 
filed on January 2, 1990. By Order entered January 11, 1990, it 
stayed all actions in the district court. 

- 3 - 

 



  

Mattox gave any prior notice of their Motion to Judge Wood and 

Judge Entz. 

5. Not only was the Plaintiffs and Attorney General Mattox’s 

Interim Motion on Attorneys’ Fees filed in a court which had no 

jurisdiction to hear it; it was in direct violation of Local Rule 

300-10 of the United States District Court for the Western District 

of Texas in which it was filed, which requires that 

(a) All post-judgment motions for an award of 
attorney’s fees shall be filed on or before twenty (20) 
days after the entry of judgment, except if a statute or 
regulation provides a longer period of time. Counsel for 
all parties shall meet and confer for the purpose of 
resolving all disputed issues relating to attorneys’ fees 
prior to making application and so certify in their 
application. The application shall include a supporting 
document which is organized chronologically by activity 
or project, listing attorney name, date, and hours 
expended on a particular activity or project, as well as 
an affidavit certifying (1) that the hours expended were 
actually expended on the topic stated, and (2) that the 
hours expended and rate claimed were reasonable. . . 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

(b) Objections to motions for attorney’s fees shall 
be filed on or before ten (10) days after the date of 
filing of the motion. 

  

  

Federal Local Court Rules, Western District of Texas Rule 300-10 

(emphasis added). The Plaintiffs’ and Attorney General Mattox’s 

Joint Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees for the Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiff-Intervenors violated Western District Local Rule 300-10 

in that (1) it was not filed within twenty days of judgment but 
  

more than two months after this Court had obtained jurisdiction 

over this cause of action; (2) neither Attorney General Mattox nor 
  

the Plaintiffs conferred with Judge Wood about the Motion, nor did 
  

they certify in their application that they had met to resolve all 

disputed issues; (3) the application as served on Judge Wood 

- 4 - 

 



  

included no supporting document listing the hours expended and the 

attorneys’ names and dates nor any affidavit that the hours 
  

expended were actually expended on the topics stated or that the 

hours and rates claimed were reasonable; and (4) the ten day period 
  

allowed for objections was not honored. 
  

6. The district court granted the Plaintiffs and Attorney 

General Mattox’s Joint Motion on March 26, 1990 — five days short 
  

of the ten days allowed for objections. The court also signed a 
  

Supplemental Order on Interim Attorney Fees on March 27, 1990 

ordering Texas State Treasurer Bob Bullock to pay the fees awarded. 

Copies of the two Orders signed by the district court on March 26 

and March 27 are attached hereto as Exhibits "A," "B" and "C." As 

shown in Exhibit "C," the fees awarded totalled $273,589.00. 

7 To date, the State of Texas through Attorney General 

Mattox has never challenged the prevailing party status of the 

Plaintiffs or the Plaintiff-Intervenors, despite the Defendant- 

Appellants’ clear-cut victory on all issues in this Court; nor has 

the State challenged the reasonableness of the total hours or the 

hourly rate of the Plaintiffs; nor has the State of Texas 

instituted any collection proceedings for the amounts paid. This 

is so even though, by law, when a district court judgment is 

reversed on appeal any costs awarded to the previously prevailing 

party are automatically vacated. Furman, 782 F.2d at 355. 

8. Under the circumstances of this case it is disingenuous 

for the Plaintiffs-Appellants now to argue that Judge Wood’s Motion 

for Costs should be denied or, alternatively, that action thereupon  



  

should be delayed pending the ultimate resolution of this case 

since the Plaintiff-Intervenors themselves have benefited from an 

interim award of attorneys’ fees, which are by far the most 

substantial part of taxable costs, and from which they continue to 

benefit despite their loss in this Court. 

THEREFORE, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant Harris County 

District Judge Sharolyn Wood respectfully requests that this Court 

grant her Motion for Costs and the accompanying Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

Eugene Clements a I 
AL V. Keyes 
3500 NCNB Center 

P.O. Box 4744 
Houston, Texas 77210-4744 

Phone: (713) 226-0600 

Fax: {713) 228-1331 

  

  

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/ 

INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT JUDGE WOOD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that on this 31st day of October, 1990, a 
true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been 
mailed to all counsel of record by first class United States mail, 
postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Mr. Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

 



  

Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. John L. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 
Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 
29th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 

Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach 
2300 NCNB Plaza 

300 Convent Street 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. R. James George 

Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 
P. O. Box'o8 

Austin, Texas 78767 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 

201 N.aSt. Mary's St., #521 
San Antonio, Texas 78250 

 



  

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O., Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, 11 

Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 
7277 South R.. L. Thornton Frwy., Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 

2120 Welch 
Houston, Texas 77019 

Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 

Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 
1705 N. Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr. Paul Strohl 
Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 
Dallas, Texas 75202 

 



Mr. Daniel M. Ogden 
Attorney at Law 
900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

a 
EUGENE CLEMENTS 

    
  

a 

3285C:\DOCS\WO0027001\019  



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND /ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 

VS. Civil Action No. 
MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 
Defendants. 

JOINT MOTION ON INTERIM ATTORNEYS FEES 

The private attorneys for the plaintiffs, the private attorneys for the 

plaintiff-intervenors from Dallas County and the private attorney for the 

plaintiff-intervenors from Harris County,! and Jim Mattox, the Attorney 

General of Texas on behalf of the State of Texas, submit this Joint Motion on 

Interim Attorney Fees, as follows: 

I. 

The plaintiffs filed this case on July 11, 1988. The case was tried to 

the Court on September 18-22, 1989. On November 8, 1989, this court 

rendered its liability decision and made findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. In the November 8th decision, the court found violations of Section 2 

in all challenged judicial districts but found no constitutional violations.2 

On January 2, 1990, the Court enjoined further primary and general 

elections under the existing electoral system in the targeted counties. It 

ordered implementation on an interim basis of a new system for 115 judicial 

  

! In March, 1989, this court granted intervenor status to two parties as plaintiff- 
intervenors: (a) the Houston Lawyers Association and others based in Harris County; and (b) 
Jesse Oliver, a former state district judge, and others based in Dallas County. 

2 Orders of November 27, 1989, and December 26 and 28, 1989, modified the November 
8th decision, but left its liability determination intact. 

  

  exHIBIT A 
     



  

district elections scheduled for 1990. The Fifth Circuit stayed these 

~ orders.® Defendant State Officials filzd notices cf appeal on January 11, 

1990, and January 12, 1990. The Fifth Circuit expedited the briefing 

schedule on February 1, 1990. 

This case has been in litigation for close to two years and completion 

of -the appellate process. (through the United States Supreme Court) will 

take at least another two years. 

II. 

Movants recognize that Congress and the United States Supreme 

Court have held that interim awards of attorneys fees are appropriate under 

42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 757-58 (1980) 

("It is evident also that congress contemplated the award of fees pendente 

lite in some cases."); Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 

696, 723 (1974) ("To delay a fee award until the entire litigation is 

concluded would work substantial hardship on plaintiffs and their counsel . . 

. ."). The Fifth Circuit in James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 559 F.2d 

310, 358-59 (5th Cir. 1977) ("James"), held that an award of interim fees is 

appropriate to private attorneys where they have played a key role in 

vindicating the rights of plaintiffs (through a favorable decision on liability 

issues), as a matter of public policy, in order to prevent a cash-flow problem 

for plaintiffs and their attorneys and to prevent the danger that defendants 

"may be tempted to seek victory through an economic war of attrition 

against the plaintiffs." Id. 

  

3 Early on January 11, 1990, acting on emergency applications, the Fifth Circuit stayed 
this Court's January 2nd order. Later that day, this Court modified the 1990 election dates 
established in its January 2nd order, moving them from May and June to November and 
December. The next day, the Fifth Circuit extended its stay order to cover this Court's January 
11th modification order and denied a LULAC motion to halt the upcoming judicial elections. 

-2- 

 



  

® » 

III. 

Recognizing that the private attorneys for the plaintiffs and plaintiff- 

intervenors have achieved a successful judgment on the issue of liability in 

this case, the State of Texas agrees to pay interim attorneys fees to the 

private attorneys for the plaintiffs (William L. Garrett, Rolando L. Rios, and 

Brenda Hull Thompson), to the private attorneys for the Dallas plaintiff- 

intervenors (Edward B. Cloutman and E. Brice Cunningham), and to the 

private attorney for the Houston plaintiff-intervenors (Gabrielle K. 

McDonald) in the following amounts: $108,000.00 for Rolando L. Rios, $ 

90,000.00 for William L. Garrett, $34,000.00 for Gabrielle K. McDonald, 

$28,089.00 for Edward B. Cloutman, $4,500.00 for E. Brice Cunningham, 

and $9,000.00 for Brenda Hull Thompson. Therefore, under this motion, 

the total interim attorneys fee award is $273,589.00. 

This agreement does not include costs and expenses. Moreover, the 

figures quoted in the above paragraph constitute 40% of the total attorneys 

fees sought by the private attorneys through the trial of this case in 

September 1989. The parties to this agreement also recognize that in the 

event that the plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors are successful on appeal the 

"amount [paid] will of course be subtracted from the sum finally awarded for 

attorneys’ fees for the full course of the litigation." James, 559 F.2d at 359. 

IV. 

Nothing in this motion shall in any way prevent the State of Texas 

from challenging the prevailing party status of the plaintiffs or the plaintiff- 

intervenors under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), and its 

progeny in the event of an adverse order at the conclusion of the appellate 

stage of this litigation. Nothing in this motion shall in any way prevent the 

State of Texas from challenging the reasonableness of the total hours or 

-3- 

 



  

hourly rate of the plaintiffs or the plaintiff-intervenors under Johnson wu. 

Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (1974), and its progeny. 

Nothing in this motion shall in any way prevent the State of Texas from 

instituting collection proceedings for the amounts paid in the event the 

plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors are not successful at the conclusion of the 

appellate stage .of this litigation. ..  . 

On the other hand, nothing in this motion shall in any way prevent the 

attorneys for the plaintiffs or the attorneys for the plaintiff-intervenors from 

modifying their request for further attorneys fees, as allowed by law, in the 

event of success at the conclusion of the appellate stage of this litigation. 

Also, nothing in this motion shall in any way prevent the attorneys for Texas 

Rural Legal Aid or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 

People from seeking attorneys fees, costs, and expenses as allowed by law. 

V. 

Based upon the foregoing matters, the plaintiffs, the plaintiff- 

intervenors, and the Attorney General of Texas on behalf of the State of 

Texas urge the Court to grant this Joint Motion. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jim Mattox 
Attorney General of Texas 

Mary F. Keller 
First Assistant Attorney General 

Renea Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

  

 



Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548 
Austin, Texas 78711 
(512) 463-2025 

Attorneys for the State of Texas 

Rolando L. Rios’ 
William L. Garrett 

  

Law Offices of Rolando Rios. 
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 
(512) 222-2102 

Private Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
and, for This Agreement, on 
Behalf of the Private Attorneys 
for Dallas Plaintiff-Intervenors 
and the Private Attorney for 
Harris Plaintiff-Intervenors 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 2 V/A 74 day of March, 1990, I sent a copy of the 
foregoing document by first class mail to each of the following: William L. 
Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 8300 Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 
75225; Rolando Rios, 201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521, San Antonio, Texas 
78205; Sherrilyn A. Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10013: Gabrielle K. 
McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, Texas 78701: Edward 
B. Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C., 3301 Elm Street, 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene Clements, Porter & Clements, 700 
Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 77002-2730; and Robert H. Mow, Jr., 
Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum Place, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas 

Eo li] A fs 
Rolando L. Rios 

  

   



  

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I hereby certify that on March 21, 1990, I discussed the issue of 
- seeking interim fees with attorneys for defendant-intervenors Judge Entz 
and Judge Wood and they indicated that they had no objection to our al Ls re 
  

Rolando L. Rios 

 



  2,0 

27 bint Cat 
  

bed BIAL 
WL Eel ‘90 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Tap 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS... Fi0E 
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION 5y fom 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. Civil Action No. 

MO 88 CA 154 
JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. On
 

ON
 

CO
N 

CO
R 

LO
B 

LO
R 

LO
N 

ORDER ON INTERIM ATTORNEY FEES 

NOW COMES before this court the parties joint motion for interim attorney fees. 

Having reviewed the motion, the court is of the opinion that said motion 

should be GRANTED and enters the following order: 

1.) This case was filed on July 11, 1988 and after several extensions was finally 
tried in September of 1989. It is likely that besides the almost two years that 

this case has taken, it will take another two years before the appeal process 

through the Supreme Court is completed. 

2.) Congress and the United States Supreme Court have held that interim 

attorney fees are appropriate under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. See Hanrahan V. 

Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 757-58 (1980). 

3.) The Fifth Circuit has held that an interim fee is appropriate to private 

attorneys where they have played a key role in vindicating the rights of 

plaintiffs, as a matter of public policy, in order to prevent a cash-flow problem 

for plaintiffs and their attomeys and to prevent the danger that defendants 
"may bet tempted to seek victory through an economic war of attrition against 
the plaintiffs." James V. Stockham Valves & Fttings Co., 559 F. 2d. 310, 358-59 

(5th Cir. 1977) 

4.) The Court recognizes that the attorneys for the plaintiffs and plaintiff- 

intervenors have achieved a successful judgment on the issue of liability and 

the State of Texas agrees to pay an interim fee: 

  

    
EXHIBIT 44 

Rr —— AAAS big
 

~.C 

 



   Ee tL ES CR PLS VR EE SY TEES A SPU UP ro nae BTA ARM dh be andl Aad SA A SSB [RAT 2 AEN” 1305 ttt Aint Ad B30 an ce “i NA LodED ATO Nt Ut Bho ints   

It is therefore ORDERED that the State of Texas pay an interim attorneys’ fee of 

$273,589.00 to Rolando L. Rios, attorney for the plaintiffs, to be distributed as 
follows: 

  Rolando L. Rios $108,000.00 

William L. Garrett -------eee--- $ 90,000.00 

Gabrielle K. McDonald -------- $ 34,000.00 

Edward B. Cloutman ---—------- $ 28,089.00 

E. Brice Cunningham --------- $ 4,500.00 

Brenda Hull Thompson ------- $_9.000.00 

TOTAL INTERIM FEE $273,589.00 

This fee does not include cost and expenses and constitutes 40% of the total 

fees sought by the private attorneys through the trial of this case in 

September of 1989. Also, nothing in this order shall prejudice in any way the 

rights of the nonmprivate plaintiffs’ attorneys from seeking attorney fees and 

costs as provided by law. : El 

- . oll A ow Sah 2 Fen 
: PEI i AEE 

ze Te dy 

A Lod 

SIGNED AND ENTERED this 20 day of March, 

    

   
  

Lucius D. Bunton, 

Chief Judge 

 



MAR.27 SQ 10:02 IST CT TWWAU/STH CIF SCA ® EG a i c 
\ 

  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT A : FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXA$;R | 3 34 ul "90 MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

U.% 2 
BY LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al. 

DEPUTY 
vi 

MO-88~CA~154 

W
T
 

W
a
 

Ge
” 

pm
 

w
p
”
 

JIM MATTOX, et al. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON INTERIM ATTORNEY FEES 

IT HAS COME TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION that its Previously- 

entered Order on Interim Attornav’s Fees failed to specifically 

designate Bob Bullock on behalf o7 the State of Texas. The Court 

wishes to correct this omission and will do so by vacating its 

previous Order and entering this Supplemental Order on Interim 

Attorney Fees, Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED this Court's pPreviously-entered Order on 

Interim Attorney Fees in the above-captioned cause is hereby 

VACATED. 

IT IS FURTHER CRDERED that Bob Bullock, on behalf of the 
State of Texas as its Comptroller, pay an interim attorney's fee 

of $273,589.00 to Rolando L. Rios, attorney for the Plaintiffs, 

to be distributed as follows: 

Rolando L. Rios $108,000.00 
William L. Garrett 80,000.00 
Gabrielle K. McDonald 34,000.00 
Edward B. Cloutman 28,089.00 
E. Brice Cunningham 4,500.00 
Brenda Hull Thompson —39,000,00 

Ca TL y589.00 

SIGNED AND ENTERED this dav of March, i   

lrry iY oy 

Juons D. BUNTON, CHIEF JUDGE 
  

  

EXHIBIT 7 Z 
 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 and 

NO. 90-9003 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 

COUNCIL NO, 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

versus 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE 
OF TEXAS, et al., 

Defendants, 

JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, ETC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

  

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland Division 

  

SUPPLEMENT TO JUDGE WOOD’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 
  

Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant Harris County District Judge 

Sharolyn Wood ("Judge Wood") files this Supplement to her Motion 

for Attorneys’ Fees to request that the Court consider the fees of 

local counsel for Judge Wood, Darrell Smith, as set out in the 

accompanying Affidavit of Darrell Smith and its exhibits, attached 

hereto as Exhibit "a." Exhibit "A" was timely filed in the 

district court but was inadvertently excluded from the materials 

filed in this Court. 

 



  

WHEREFORE, Judge Wood respectfully requests that this Court 

grant her Motion for Attorneys’ Fees as supplemented by Exhibit "aA" 

and that it grant her such other and further relief in law and in 

equity to which she may show herself justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

~ 2 
a ~~ - 

3 ml Eo im——— " By: ® a x eT — a, 

J. Eugene Clements 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
3500 NCNB Center 

P.O. Box 4744 
Houston, Texas 77210-4744 
(713) 226-0600 

  

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/ 

INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT JUDGE WOOD 

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 4, 7 day of October, 1990, a 
true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been 
mailed to all counsel of record by first class United States mail, 
postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

  

Mr. Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Loulsiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

 



  

Mr. John L. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, H1ll & laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 
Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 
29th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 

Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach 
2300 NCNB Plaza 

300 Convent Street 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. R. James George 

Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 

P. O."Box 98 
Austin, Texas 78767 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 
201: MN. St. Mary’s St., #521 
San Antonio, Texas 78250 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

 



  

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O. Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, 11 

Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 
797 South R. L. Thornton Frwy. , Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 

2120 Welch 
Houston, Texas 77019 

Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 

Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 

1705 N. Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr... Paul Strohl 

Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Mr. Daniel M. Ogden 
Attorney at Law 
900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

  
Lt If » 

EVELYN JV. KEYES 
3285C:\DOCS\WO0027001\020 

 



A @ ceed 0cT 2 2 1990 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 
CITIZENS (LULAC), et al, 

Plaintiffs 

vs. 
NO. M0-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants 

W
O
N
 

WO
N 

WO
N 

W
N
 

WO
N 

WO
N 

W
O
 

W
O
N
 

AFFIDAVIT 
  

STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF BEXAR 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day appeared DARRELL FRANK 

SMITH, who being personally known to me and first being duly sworn according to 

law, upon his oath deposed and stated as follows: 

"My name is Darrell Frank Smith. I am over eighteen years of age. I reside at 29624 Terra Vista, Boerne, Texas. I am fully competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and they are all true and correct. 

I have been licensed to practice law in the State of Texas since December 16, 1968. My State Bar of Texas Number is 18558000. I am familiar with fees for professional services rendered by lawyers in cases such as the above-entitled and numbered. I am rated "a.v." by the Martindale-Hubbell system. 

Attached to this my affidavit as its Exhibit "A" is an itemized statement for services I furnished and charges for such services in representing Defendant Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood in the above numbered and entitled cause consisting of my statement dated October 17, 1990. The amounts charged for such services were and are reasonable at the times and places such services have been provided, and the services ltemized were necessary." 

luna Fit 
DARRELL FRANK SMITH 

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. 

   



  

STATE OF TEXAS § 
§ 

COUNTY OF BEXAR § 

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED on the 17th day of October, 1990 by DARRELL FRANK SMITH, 
to certify which witness my hand and seal. 

A ’ / / L LL 3 / 7, 4 // /, 

Notary Publyc in and for the 
State of Texas 

Name printed: 
Commission expires: 

  

  

  

LNA Te aa A 
  SRE TEs le GT a SOR 

BEVERLY A MC AUSIER 
Notary Public 
STATE OF TEXAS 

My Commission Explres 
December 10, 1993 

  

  a a a a a TL EEE i = = en 

 



  

DARRELL FRANK SMITH, P.C. 

Suite 905, CityView Bldg. 

10999 IH-10 West 
San Antonio, Texas 78230 

(512) 641-9944 

October 17, 1990 

The Honorable Sharolyn Wood 
c/o Porter & Clements 
3500 RepublicBank Center 
700 Louisiana 
Houston, Texas 

TO FEE: 

02-20-89 

02-21-89 

02-22-89 

02-27-89 

03-01-89 

03-03-89 

03-09-89 

03-10-89 

77002-2730 

Re: LULAC et al v. Mattox et al 

Attention: Mr. Clements 

Telephone conference with attorney Evelyn Keyes of Porter 
& Clements 

pick up pleadings from Midland Airport Federal Express 
office and review, file with U.S. District Clerk, 
Midland-Odessa Division 

Telephone conference with Ms. Keyes of Porter & Clements 
letter to Ms. Keyes, Telephone conference with Ms. Keyes 

To Austin for Hearing on Motion to Intervene, conference 
with Messrs Clements and Wood, conferences with various 
counsel for parties, received and reviewed Plaintiff's 
response 

Received copy of Notice of Appeal by Midland County 

Received letter from Ms. Keyes forwarding substitution 
pages to First Set of Interrogatories to Houston Lawyers 
Association, received First Set of Interrogatories and 
Requests for Production of Documents to each of Houston 
Lawyers Association and Black Legislative Caucus, 
received court's Order. 

Received notice of setting before 5th Circuit, Notice of 
Appeal by Midland County and transcript order, order 
allowing intervention and order concerning admissions 

Received Amended Notice of Appeal 

HOURS: 

.20 

1.50 

.50 

+10 

40 

.10 

. 10 

 



  

03-11-39 

03-15-89 

03-20-89 

03-21-89 

03-22-89 

03-24-89 

03-25-89 

03-27-89 

03-30-89 

04-03-89 

04-04-89 

04-06-89 

04-07-89 

04-10-89 

04-11-89 

04-13-89 

04-14-89 

Received Amended Notice of Appeal NC 

Received letter from attorney for Plaintiffs regarding 
designation of experts and analysis of census/election 
returns. .10 

Telephone conferences with Ms. Keyes and Mr. Clements, 

telephone conference with attorney for Judge Bunton «dS 

Received copy of plaintiff-intevenors Legislative Black 
Caucus of Texas' First Response to Defendant-Intervenors 

Requests for Production of Documents «10 

Telephone conference with Evelyn Keyes «20 

Received Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Extend Time for 

Amended Pleadings +10 

Received letter from attorney for plaintiff, received 

order extending time for amending pleadings .10 

Received copy of Plaintiff-Intervenors Houston Lawyers' 
Association's First Response to Defendant-Intervenors 

First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production 
of Documents +30 

Received Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss .20 

Received Judge Entz's Interrogatories to Oliver et al 
and First Request for Production, received copy of Judge 

Wood's Motion for Involuntary Dismissal .40 

Forwarded copies of Entz Discovery to Evelyn Keyes «20 

Received Motion to Intervene, Order, Complaint, Response 
to Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, telephone conference 
with Ms. Keyes .60 

Received Motion to Admit Pro Hoc Vice attorney for 
Houston Lawyers Association 

Received copies of Judge Wood's Motion to Compel Discovery 
from Houston Lawyers' Association, Brief and Order «20 

Received Judge Entz's Interrogatories to LULAC, 
Plaintiffs' Original Answer to Defendant - Intervenor 
Wood's Counterclaim, First Request for Production of 
Documents to LULAC . 20 

Telephone conference with attorney Polino of Judge Bunton's 
office, called for Mr. Clements or Ms. Keyes; received 
Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Judge Wood +30 

Telephone conference with Ms. Keyes, received and reviewed 

 



Defendant Harris County District Judge Wood's First Set of 
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to 
Representatives of Larry Q. Evans and Senphronia A. Thompson, 
Motion to Modify Order Allowing Intervention 

Received copy of U.S. District Court Clerk's transmittal to 
Clerk of 5th Circuit, received copy of Notice of Deposition 
on Written Questions and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Richard Murray 
Order Granting Motion of Legislative Black Caucus of Texas to 
Intrervene as Plaintiffs; Order allowing Ifill to appear pro 
hoc vice 

04-19-89 Received Amended Notice of Deposition on Written Questions 
and Subponea Duces Tecum to Professor Murray 

04-21-89 Received Houston Lawyers' Association reply to Defendant- 
Intervenor Wood's Motion to Dismiss and Original Answer to 

Counterclaim and Reply to Motion to Compel Discovery, First 
Amended Complaint in Intervention of Legislative Black Caucus 
and Plaintiff's Response to Travis County Intervenors Motion 
to Modify 

Received First Amended Complaint in Intervention of Legislative 
Black Caucus of Texas, Plaintiffs’ Response to Thirteen Travis 
County Defendant-Intervenors' Motion to Modify Order Allowing 
Intervention 

Received order denying motion of 13 Travis County Judges 

Received and reviewed The Legislative Black Caucus of Texas' 
Answers to Interrogatories of Dallas County District Judge F. 
Harold Entz and Representative Larry Q. Evan's Answers to 
Interrogatories and Response to Request for Production of 
Documents of Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood 

Received and reviewed Defendant-Intervenor Wood's Response 
to plaintiffs' First Request for Production and Defendant- 
Intervenor Wood's Answers and objections to plaintiff's First 
Set of Interrogatories 

05-03-89 Received and reviewed Motion to Strike Intervention by Judges 
of Travis County and Order 

05-05-89 Received Order denying motion to dismiss, Judge Wood's 
Motion to Dismiss Legislative Black Caucus and letter 

05-08-89 Received order striking intervention by Travis County District 
Judges, proposed order, Responses of Honorable F. Harold Entz 
to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production of Documents, Answers to 
Interrogatories propounded by Entz from Jesse Oliver, Fred 
Tinsley and Joan Winn White and responses to Request for 
Production, Memorandum in support of Wood, Motion to dismiss 
First Amended Complaint of Legislative Black Caucus, telephone  



conference with Mr. Clements 

Received Responses of Honorable F. Harold Entz to Plaintiff's 
First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production 

Received letter from attorney for Houston Lawyers' Association 
regarding deposition of Chief Justice Phillips 

Received and reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of 
Time to File Request for Attorney's fees from the Travis 
County Defendant Intervenors and proposed Order; letter 
from attorney for Houston Lawyer's Association detailing 
documents to be produced by Chief Justice Phillips; Notice 
Duces Tecum to Take Oral Depositions of James Hury, Mike 
Toomy, Harold Dutton, Nicholas Perez, Sam Russell and Paul 
J+ Hilbert 

05-17-89 Telephone conference with Mr. Clements and Ms. Keyes 
regarding coverage of Austin depositions 

05-18-89 Preparation for depositions 

05-19-89 Received supplement to LULAC's response to Interrogatories 
of attorney for Dallas District Judge; Notice Concerning 
Plaintiff's Name; Motion to Strike Intervention by 
Legislative Black Caucus and Order 

telephone conference with Ms. Keyes, received and reviewed 
Cancellation of Deposition on Written Questions and Notice of 
Oral Deposition, letter from attorney McDonald cancelling 
depositions and requesting withdrawal by Black Caucus serve 
as Responses to Wood's Motion to Dismiss, Order of Extension 
of Time to File 

Received and reviewed Defendant-Intervenor Wood's Answers 
to Plaintiff-Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories 
and Request for Production : 

Telephone conferences with Ms. Keyes, preparation for 
deposition of Chief Justice Phillips 

Travel to Austin, pick up attorney Keyes and law clerk at 
airport, conference at Attorney General's office with 
attorneys Hicks, Keyes, Wood, Mow; deposition of Chief 
Justice Phillips; various defense conferences at Supreme 
Court Building joined by Assistant Attorney General 
Guajardo; return 

Received and reviewed Notice Concerning Ethnicity, 
Plaintiff's attorney Finkelstien's letter supplementing 
response to interrogatory 4, Notice of Rescheduling of 
Oral Deposition of Professor Murray 

Received and reviewed Judge Wood's Second Amended Original  



  

06-05-89 

$ 

Answer and Counterclaim, Travis County District Judge's 

Response to Motion for Extension 

Received and reviewed Dallas county Judge Entz's First 
Amended Answer to LULAC's Second Amended Complaint; 

Answer to Legislative Black Caucus of Texas First 

Amended Complaint; Answer to Plaintiff Intervenors 

Oliver, White and Tinsley; Harris County Judge Wood's 
Support for State Defendants' Motion for Trial 

06-07-89 

06-08-89 

06-16-89 

06-22-89 

06-26-89 

06-29-89 

06-30-89 

07-03-89 

07-05-89 

07-06-89 

Continuance; supplement to responses to interrogatories 

letter of attorney for plaintiffs; Notice of Deposition 

on Written Questions of LULAC; Plaintiffs' Answer to Judge 
Wood's Second Amended Counterclaim; Judge Entz's 
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Continuance of Trial 

Received Exhibits A-D and Memorandum in support of 

Motion for Continuance of Trial, letter from attorney 

for NAACP regarding scheduling of depositions, 
intervenor Plaintiffs Oliver et al Answers to Judge 

Entz's Interrogatories etc. 

Received Order continuing discovery and trial, Order 

rescinded, and Order Granting Motion to Strike 
Intervention 

Received John Garcia's answers to Plaintiffs’ 
Deposition on Written Questions to LULAC 

Received letter from Court Reporter for Phillips 
deposition 

Received copy of Judge Wood's Motion for Response to 
Objections and Amended Motion to Compel Discovery 
from Houston Lawyer's Association; and Order from 
Mrs. Keyes, and Supplement to Answers to Interrogatories, 
and First Set of Interrogatories to plaintiff 
Fuller and Intervenors Parker and McGinty 

Received copy of letter to LULAC attorney from attorney 
for Travis County Judges' attorney 

Telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes 

Received correction page to Harris County District 
Judge Sharolyn Wood's First Set of Interrogatories 

Received and reviewed copy of Zipes opinion, letter 
from attorney for plaintiffs, letter from attorney for 
Dallas County intervenor, Judge Wood's Supplement to 
her Answers to Plaintiff Intervenor's First Set of 
Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Received and reviewed Wood's Motion to Compel 

ced 

+70 

23 

Jd0 

.10 

NC 

+50 

.10 

.10 

+350 

 



  

07-07-89 

07-10-89 

07-11-89 

07-12-89 

07-17-89 

07-19-89 

07-21-89 

07-24-89 

07-25-89 

07-26-89 

07-28-89 

08-02-89 

Discovery and proposed Order from Mrs. Keyes +20 

Received and reviewed Plaintiff LULAC Statewide Responses 
to Defendant Wood's First Set of Interrogatories and 
Request for Production of Documents «30 

Received Travis County District Judges' Motion to 
Modify .20 

Received Plaintiff's Response to Defendant-Intervenor 
Wood's Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs, 

Notices of Oral Deposition to Ray Hardy, Weldon Berry, 

Alice Bonner and Matthew Plummer, telephone 
conference with Mrs. Keyes 40 

Received Plaintiffs' Response to Travis County District 

Judges' Motion to Modify and copy of letter from attorney 
for Plaintiffs to attorney for Dallas County District Judge 

Received Mr. Clements letter regarding deposition scheduling 

Received and reviewed copies of LULAC's supplemental responses 
to Entz' and Mattox's First Sets of Interrogatories and 
First Requests for Production, court reporter's outline 
of Justice Phillips deposition «25 

Received supplemental Response to Interrogatory of Attorney 
General and Plaintiff Response to Defendants' Second Set of 
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, 
received Notice of Intention to take Deposition by Written 
Questions «30 

Received telephone call from CCL regarding proposed 
depositions, telephone conference with Attorney General's 
Joseph Meyers +25 

Received John Garcia's responses to deposition on written 
questions from attorney Finkelstein, Plaintiff Matthew 
Plummer's Response to our First Set of Interrogatories and 
Request for Production .20 

Received further supplement to Plaintiffs’ Responses to 
Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for 
Production, telephone conversation on attorney Godbey's 
secretary 

Received waiver of Notice from attorney Godbey .10 

Telephone call for Mrs. Keyes and left message, received 
Joint Motion for Protective Order and Agreed Protective 
Order, received Plaintiff's attorney's letter to clerk of 
Sth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Midland County's 
appeal and Plaintiffs' Response to supplemental Motion 

 



  

08-03-89 

08-09-89 

08-11-89 

08-14-89 

08-17-89 

08-18-89 

08-21-89 

08-23-89 

08-24-89 

08-25-89 

08-28-89 

to Compel 

Received cross-interrogatories to Harris County Clerk, 
received scheduling memorandum from plaintiffs’ attorney 
and Plaintiffs' Notice Concerning Decision in Rangel and 
Munquia v. Mattox 
  

Received notices of depositions for Judge Routt, 
Judge Leal and Weldon Berry 

Received exhibit | to the Notice of Oral Deposition 
and Request for Documents to Weldon Berry; Plaintiff's 
Deposition Notices for Anthony Griffin, Sandy Torres, 
Maria Mercado and John Davis; Judge Wood's Supplement 
to Motion to Compel Discovery 

Received notice of docket call and jury selection, 
received defendant Entz's Motion to Compel Discovery and 
Brief in Support therof, called for Mrs. Keyes and 
left message, telelphone conference with Mrs. Keyes, 
telephone conference with US Magistrate 

Received Judge Wood's 3rd supplement to her Answers to 
Interrogatories, order for Judge Entz's Motion to 
Compel, supplement to LULAC's Answers to Interrogatories 

Received Notice of Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum 
for deposition of Delbert Taebel, Plaintiffs' Motion to 
Reconsider Intervention by District Judges in their 
individual capacities and Brief, draft of Joint Pre- 
Trial Order, and Order regarding our motion to compel. 

Received Order denying Travis County Judges' Motion to 
Modify; letter enclosing Defendant Wood's Motion for 
Protective Order and Protective Order; letter enclosing 
Notices of Oral Depositions and Requests for Documents to 
Francis Williams, Bonnie Fitch and Craig Washington; letter 
enclosing Amended Notice of Deposition and Subpoena Duces 
Tecum to Prof. Richard Murray, Order and Motion to 
Shorten time 

Conferences with Mr. Clements, deposition of plaintiff's 
statistical political science expert 

Received Judge Entz's Supplemental Interrogatory Answer 
Motion to Admit Pro Hac Vice 

Telephone conferences with Mrs. Keyes, received letter 
from attorney for Plaintiff regarding depositon scheduling, 
attended depositons of Dr. Dwyer, Dr. Brisquetti; received 
supplementary response from Plaintiffs 

Received Order granting Motion for Leave to Shorten 
Time for Deposition on Written Questions of Richard 

«75 

.50 

. 20 

.30 

1.20 

«20 

.50 

.50 

6.50 

«25 

7.50 

 



08-31-89 

Murry, Protective Order, deposition Notices to 
Plaintiff's for Becky Beaver, David Richards, Paul 
Canales, Tony Ferro, L. Sturns, Bob Stein and 
Steve Murdoch, CCII notice for Carl S. Smith, 
telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes 

Received notice of depositons of Tony Champagne and 
Steve Murcock 

Received letter from attorney for plaintiffs enclosing 
letters of objection from Civil Rights Division of 
Justice; letter to attorney for Judge Entz; memo from 
attorney for Plaintiffs regarding pretrial order; Notice 
of Second Depositon of Dr. Taebel, Judge Entz's Response 
to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Intervention by 
District Judges in their individual capacities 

Received plaintiffs’ attorney's letter to clerk enclosing 
notices of rescheduling of depositions of David Richards, 
Paul Canales, Tony Ferro and correcting Becky Beaver notice 

Received Plaintiffs Notice of telephone deposition of 
Travis Shelton and Judge Wood's Notices of depositions to 
each of Jerry Wilson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Rev. William Lawson; 
and Judge Wood's Fourth Supplement to Her Answers to 
Interrogatories 

Received Plaintiff's attorney's letter to clerk forwarding 
requests for judicial notice of voting rights cases, cases 
concerning discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity 
and Department of Justice letters of Objection 

Received Plaintiffs' Second Deposition Notice and Subpoena 
Duces Tecum (Taebel) and plaintiffs' Supplemental Request 
for Judicial Notice of Department of Justice letter of 
Objection; Order granting HLA request to file more than 
10 admissions, Order granting extension of discovery 
deadline, Order denying motion to reconsider prior order 
allowing intervention by District Judges in individual 
capacities, Order allowing pro hoc vice appearances of 
Fred Tinsley and Joan Winn White, Order Granting 
reconsideration of Wood Motion to Compel, letter 
rescheduling of Entz and James depositons, called for 
Mrs. Keyes and left message 

Received copies of Joint pre-trial Order under cover 
cover of letter to clerk from attorney for Plaintiffs; 
Plaintiffs' proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions 
of Law and Dallas County Plaintiffs'/intervenors' 
Proposed findings of fact and Conclusions of Law; Wood 
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Intervention; Proposed Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider 
Intervention; Judge Entz's Motion to dismiss and brief letter notifying that Judges Marshall and Wright will be  



  

09-13-89 

09-14-89 

09-15-89 

09-18-89 

09-19-89 

09-20-89 

09-21-89 

09-25-89 

09-29-89 

10-02-89 

10-03-89 

10-05-89 

10-06-89 

10-09-89 

produced for deposition; comments to draft of pre-trial 

order; telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes 

Received Wood's 5th supplement to Answers to Interrogatories, 

attachments to Pretrial Order including proposed findings 

and conclusions of law; Judge Entz's attachments; addition 

to Plaintiff's list of deposition transcripts; Plaintiff's 
Exhibit List 

Received Fed Ex of Exhibits 1-22 for defendant 

intervenor Judge Entz 

Received Judge Entz's Objections to Request for 
Judicial Notice; called Evelyn Keyes; letter from 
attorney for Dallas Chamber of Commerce including 

Motion for Leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief, Order 
and Brief 

Travel to Midland for trial, conferences with Judge 

Wood, Mr. Wood, Mr. Clements and Mrs. Keyes 

Trial, conferences with Mr. Clements and briefing attorney 

Polino, return to San Antonio pending Harris County 

evidence scheduling 

Received Order Denying Motion to Dismiss LULAC; Defendant 
Wood's Motion in Limine, Objections to Request for Judicial 
Notice, Deposition Summary of Ray Hardy, supplement to 
Exhibit List 

Received order granting leave to file amicus curiae brief 
to Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce, telephone conference 
with Mr. Clements' secretary Dorothy 

Telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes, received Notice of 
Cross Questions 

Received Judge Entz's Sworn Offer of Proof, Plaintiffs’ 
Post Trial Brief 

Received Judge Entz's Brief, Judge Wood's Brief, Motion 
for Leave to Supplement Record 

Telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes 

Received Mrs. Keyes letter forwarding corrected page 
30 of Brief and Exhibit "B" to Motion for Leave to 
Supplement 

Received letter forwarding Plaintiffs' Response to Post 
Trial Briefs 

Received Wood's Reply to Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Brief 

.30 

.20 

40 

15.00 

10.00 

. 30 

«30 

«25 

. 20 

«20 

 



  

10-10-89 Received Motion of American Jewish Congress for Leave 
to Submit a Brief Amicus Curiae and memorandum in 

support thereof and order .10 

10-12-89 Received Order of Extension of Time to File for 

Attorney's Fees Midland County and Order allowing 
American Jewish Congress to file brief amicus curiae .10 

  

10-23-89 Received Application to Practice Pro Hoc Vice and 
Order and Brief Amicus Curiae of American Jewish 
Congress; Wood's Response to HLA Reply Brief 40 

11-06-89 Received court's order regarding the motions of 
American Jewish Congress' attorneys to appear 
pro hoc vice «10 

11-10-89 Telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes .20 

11-14-89 Received and reviewed Court's opinion 1.20 

11-17-89 Received Order correcting clerical mistake 10 

11-28-89 Telephone conference with Carolyn Clarke NC 

11-29-89 Telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes, received 
Order «2d 

11-30-89 Telephone conference with Austin attorney regarding 
Governor's announcement +25 

12-01-89 Called for Mrs. Keyes and left message .10 

12-05-89 Telephone conference with Court's assistant, 
telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes +50 

12-11-89 Telephone conference with Court's assistant 2S 

12-12-89 Telephone call for Mrs. Keyes and left message, 
telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes «25 

12-14-89 Letter to Mr. Clements 20 

12-18-89 Received Judge F. Harold Entz's Motion for Certification ; 
Statement and Order, letter to clerk +20 

12-20-89 Received Motion for Certification for Interlocutory 
Appeal and Motion for Stay and Order . 10 

12-26-89 Received Defendant Wood's Objections to Plaintiffs’ 
and Mattox's "Remedial" Plan, Mr. Clements letter to 
Clerk, received Notice of Appeal by Defendants, 
received Judge Entz's Objections to Proposed Interim 
Plan(s) and Motion for Stay, received Motion of Bexar 
County Judge to Intervene, Original Intervention of 
Bexar County Judge, Orders as to Bexar County Judges 

10 

 



  

12-29-89 

01-03-90 

01-04-90 

01-05-90 

01-08-90 

01-10-90 

01-11-90 

01-12-90 

01-13-90 

Intervention, called for attorney Wheatley and left 
message .60 

Received court's order correcting clerical 
mistake, Plaintiffs' Motion for Correction of 
Clerical Error «10 

Telephone conference with Court's assistant, 
received Order to Correct Clerical Errors «25 

Received and reviewed Order, Notice of Appeal and 
Clerk's certificate, letter from attorney for Judge 
Entz «30 

Telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes, received copy of 
notice of appeal for Judge Wood, Plaintiffs' Motion 
for Correction of Clerical Errors, Application for 
Stay .30 

Received Notice of Appeal of Bexar County, 
Texas State District Judges; Joint Motion of 
Plaintiff Appellees and Dallas-Plaintiff- 
Intervenor-Appellees to Dismiss for want of 
Jurisdiction Requests for Stay of Entz and Wood, 
Defendant-Intervenor Wood's Emergency Application 
for Stay, Petition for Expedited Permission to 
Appeal, Motion to Consolidate and Exhibit List; 
received Notice of Appeal of Secretary of State .90 

Received Notice of Appeal of Bexar County State 
District Judges, Dallas Judge Entz's Response to 
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss, Judge Wood's Response 
to Mattox's Motion to Alter +50 

Received Supplement to Secretary of State Bayoud's 
Emergency Application for stay; supplements to 
Bayoud's Response to Motion to Strike; Submission 
of Relevant Parts of Record in Support of Bayoud's 
Emergency Application for stay pursuant to Rule 8(a) 
FRAP; Secretary of State's Petition for Permission 
to Appeal; letter from plaintiffs attorney to clerk of 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals forwarding Opposition 
to Requests for Stay; Motion for Leave to file and Amicus 
Curiae Brief from 27 incumbent Harris County Judges; 
Response to our Motion to Consolidate; letters from 
Porter & Clements and Response to Plaintiff's Motion 
to Dismiss 

1.25 

Telephone conference with Court's assistant «20 

Received Motion of Jefferson County Judges for Leave 
to File Brief of Amicus Curiae, Notice of Appeal 
by Attorney General et al, Amended Notice of Bexar 
County Judges 

+20 

11 

 



  

01-16-90 

01-17-90 

01-18-90 

01-24-90 

01-25-90 

01-26-90 

01-29-90 

01-30-90 

01-31-90 

02-05-90 

02-14-90 

02-15-90 

02-16-90 

02-20-90 

Received Attorney General et al Notice of Appeal; 
Appearance of Counsel by attorneys for Judge Entz; 
Judge Wood's transcript Order; Judge Entz's Petition 
for Permission to Appeal .20 

Received Designation of Record on Appeal by 
attorneys for Bexar County Judges; Order .20 

Received Notice of Appeal from Bexar County 
Judges, and Judge Entz's Motion for Establishemnt 
of Expedited Briefing Schedule «10 

Received form of John Hill for Appearance of Counsel NC 

Received Secretary of State's Motion for Expedited 
Briefing Schedule; Plaintiff-Appellee's Response 
to Motion to Establish Expedited Briefing Schedule «10 

Received Secretary of State's Response to Motion to 
Certify State Law Question or Alternatively to 
Disqualify Counsel .10 

Received Judge Wood's Motion for Establishment 
of Expedited Briefing Schedule .10 

Received Plaintiffs' Response to Secretary of State's 
and Judge Wood's Motion to Establish Expedited 
Briefing Schedule .10 

Received Plaintiff Appellees Suggestion for 
Rehearing En Banc «40 

Received motion to file Brief Amicus Curiae from 
Judges and attorneys in Dallas and Tarrant Counties 
of Afro and Mexican American descent .10 

Received copies of Defendant-Appellant 
George S. Boyoud, Jr.'s Brief, and Brief for 
Appellant Presidint Judges, and Notice of 
Designation of Independent Counsel, clerk's 
transmittal letter forwarding record and transcript 
to 5th circuit, Brief of Bexar County Judges 

Received Appellant Presiding Judges' Motion to 
file Brief through Independent Counsel, Brief of 
Judge Entz and Brief for Judge Wood 1.10 

Received copy of letter forwarding Judge Wood's 
supplemental Record Excerpt to the Clerk of the 
5th Circuit Court of Appeals «10 

Received copy of letter from attorney for presiding 
judges 

+10 

12 

 



03-01-90 

03-05-90 

03-06-90 

03-09-90 

03-12-90 

03-15-90 

4 Rl 

Received copy of letter from attorney for secretary 
of State to Court of Appeals and Appellant Presiding 
Judges' Response to Motion to Certify State Law 
Question 

Received Plaintiff-Appellees Brief and revised 

Received Secretary of State's Reply to Attorney 
General's Reply to Response to Motion to Certify 

Received Defendant-Appellant Reply Brief of 
Secretary of State 

Received Reply Brief of Judge Entz 

Received Judge Wood's Reply Brief 

Received copy of letter to clerk of Court of Appeals, 
Judge Entz's Opposition to Motion for Leave to 
File Amicus Brief 

Received letter from attorney for plaintiffs to 
clerk of 5th Circuit Court forwarding Motion for 
leave to file a brief amicus curiae exceeding 
20 pages in length 

Received Judge Wood's Opposition to MAL Caucus 
et al Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief 

Received copy of Joint Motion on Interim Attorneys 
fees and Order on Interim Attorney fees from 
plaintiffs attorney 

Received copy of Supplemental Order on interim 
Attorney fees 

Received Order on Interim Attorney's fees 

Conference with Mrs. Keyes 

Received order regarding refund of Appellate Filing fee; received letter of attorney for Secretary of 
State to clerk of Court of Appeals 

Received letter to clerk of Court of Appeals 

Received copy of letter for Houston Lawyers Association et al to Clerk of Court of Sth Circuit 

Received letter forwarding Dallas County Intervenors' Motion to Extend Time for Oral Argument 

Received copy of letter from attorney Godbey forwarding 

.30 

«40 

no charge 

 



  

04-28-90 

04-30-90 

05-01-90 

05-09-90 

05-11-90 

05-12-90 

06-06-90 

06-07-90 

06-09-90 

06-12-90 

06-20-90 

10-12-90 

10-17-90 

FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES . + + « + . 

copy of revised Monroe v. City of Woodville opinion 
to clerk of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 

Received Brief for the United States as 

Amicus Curae 

Received letter to clerk from attorney for Judges 

for the District Judges for Jefferson County for 
Leave for Late Filing of Amicus Curiae Brief 
and Brief 

Called for Mrs. Keyes and left message, telephone 
conference with Mrs. Keyes 

Received Ms. Keyes letter to clerk forwarding Motion 
for Leave to file Post Submission Brief and Brief 

Telephone conference with Mr. Clements 

Received Houston Lawyer's Association's 
Opposition to Judge Wood's Motion for Leave 
to File a Post-Submission Brief 

Telephone call for Mrs. Keyes, received 

Attorney General's amicus brief and copy 

of AG's amicus brief in Chisom, received 

Appellant Defendant-Intervenor Wood's 

Supplemental En Banc Brief 

Received Motion for Leave to file Amicus CURIAE 
on behalf of Janice Clark, et al and copy of 
brief, letter from attorney for Secretary of 
State 

Received US Department of Justice Motion for 
Permission to Present Oral Argument 

Received copy of letter from attorney for Secretary 
of State to clerk of 5th Circuit, received brief of 
Houston Lawyers' Association et al 

Telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes 

Received and read Court's opinions en banc 

Telephone conference with Mrs. Keyes, prepared 
and faxed affidavit 

(114.50) hours at $150.00/hour) 

EXPENSES: 
  

02-21-89 Airfare $198.00; Parking $5.00; Mileage $4.00 . . . 

14 

.20 

.10 

. 20 

«25 

«23 

.10 

.10 

+350 

«40 

. 20 

1.25 

207.00 

 



  

02-27-89 

05-25-89 

08-23-89 

THANK YOU 

mileage to Austin 184 miles 

February long distance . 
February copies 

March long distance . 

April long distance . 

mileage to Austin 200 miles 
May long distance . 

June long distance . 

Lunch ® » . . LJ 

September long distance . 
October long distance . 
January copy log . 

January postage 

January long distance . 
April parking expense . 

May copy log . » 

15 

TOTAL DUE 

55.20 
«38 

7.00 
18.17 
13.37 
60.00 
4.82 
1.49 

18.70 
3.17 
5.67 
2.40 
2.00 
5.67 

10.00 
10.60 

$17,600.64