Letter from West to Lord RE Motion, Memorandum Brief and Supporting Documents

    T H O M A S  H .  A D A M S  
E D W A R D  T.  G O O D R I C H  
G A R L A N D  D.  T A I T  
J A Y  W  S O R G E  
E L L I O T T  H . P H  I L L I  P S  
W I L L I A M  W.  S L O C U M ,  J R .  
T H O M A S  E .  C O U L T E R  
M A R T I N  C  . O E T T I  N G  
L E E  B D U R H A M ,  J R .
W.  M E R R I T T  J O N E S ,  J R .  
R O B E R T  B .  W E B S T E R  
D O U G L A S  H .  W E S T  
D A V I  D  L .  R O L L  
T I M O T H Y  W.  M A S T  
T I M O T H Y  D . W I T T L I N G E R  
M A R K  K . W I L S O N  
P A U L  J . K R A E M  E R  
V I C T O R  F .  P T A S 2 N I K  
R O B E R T  J .  L E I D I C H  
R O B E R T  J .  R O S S  
R I C H A R D  E . S M O K E

HILL, LEWIS, ADAMS, GOODRICH & TAIT
3 7 0 0  P E N O B S C O T  B U I L D I N G  

D E T R O I T ,  M I C H I G A N  4 0 2 2 6

T E L E P H O N E  ( 3 1 3 )  9 6 2 - 6 4 0 5  

C A B L E  A D D R E S S :  H I L L

S H E R W I N  A .  H I L L  ( 1 0 0 5 - 1 9 6 1 )

G L E N N  M.  C O U L T E R  
C O U N S E L

C H A R L E S  E  . L E W I S  
P E R C Y  J .  P O W E R  
E D W I N  J .  M E R C E R

O F  C O U N S E L

January 9, 1973

O A K L A N D  C O U N T Y  O F F I C E  
I O I  S O U T H F I E L D  R O A D  
B I R M  I N G  H A M ,  M I C H  I G A  N 4 8 0 0 9  
T E L E P H O N E  6 4 2 - 9 6 9 2

Mr. Robert J. Lord 
Attorney at Law 
8388 Dixie Highway 
Fairhaven, Michigan 48023

Re: Bradley v. Milliken; Civil Action No. 35257

Dear Mr. Lord:

On behalf of The Grosse Pointe Public School System, 
we are in receipt of your four-part Motion, Memorandum Brief 
and related documents in support thereof, together with your 
request that we express concurrence therewith. In this regard, 
we would like to advise you as follows:

1. With respect to part 1 of your Motion, relating to 
a vacation of the conditions on intervention, Grosse Pointe 
Schools takes no position on your request for concurrence, other 
than to express to you the following position. By order of the 
District Court dated March 15, 1972, your clients were granted 
leave to intervene solely under F.R.C.P. 24(b)(2)--Permissive 
Intervention. By the same order, the Motions of the suburban 
school districts were granted alternatively under F.R.C.P. 24(a) (2) 
Intervention of Right, and 24(b)(2)— Permissive Intervention. 
Totally aside from the question of whether or not the District 
Court was in error in imposing conditions upon the school districts 
which were granted intervention of right, the Court's exercise of 
its discretion to impose conditions upon the permissive interven­
tion by your clients, was clearly proper.

The December 8, 1972 decision of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit clearly establishes the proposi­
tion that any school district defendant which may be affected by 
a metropolitan plan of desegregation is a "necessary party" to



Mr. Robert J. Lord 
January 9, 1973 
Page 2

the action, and this, in all likelihood, renders the question of 
the propriety of conditions having been placed upon the interven­
tion of the suburban school districts' participation in the suit, 
moot. Further proceedings in the District Court will certainly 
clarify this situation. In any event, however, we believe that 
there is nothing whatsoever in the December 8 decision of the 
Court of Appeals which would lead the District Court to view 
the status of your clients, or the conditions imposed upon their 
intervention and their participation in the cause, to be changed 
in any respect.

To the extent that part 1 of your Motion also requests 
the Court to grant relief on behalf of Grosse Pointe Schools, 
as one of the intervening school districts, the 3rd numbered 
paragraph of this letter is applicable.

2. With respect to part 2 of your Motion, praying for 
an Order that your individual clients, Kerry Green, et.al., be 
determined to represent a class of all school children attending 
the public schools located in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties, 
the Grosse Pointe Public School System wishes to inform you that 
it does not concur. We do not believe that the propriety or 
impropriety of the earlier order of the District Court, deter­
mining the individual plaintiffs to represent all Detroit parents 
and school children, has relevance with respect to your Motion. 
The interests of the children and parents in the Grosse Pointe 
School System, as well as the other suburbian communities, are 
sufficiently diverse and varied to make us seriously question 
the adequacy of representation of the entire proposed class by 
only one organized group. Consequently, Grosse Pointe Schools 
will oppose said Motion if, and to the extent, you should go 
forward with that part of such Motion praying that children 
residing within the geographical boundaries of the Grosse Pointe 
Public School System be included in the class which you are 
requesting the Court to determine.

3. Regarding parts 3 and 4 of your Motion, relating to 
adequacy of plaintiffs pleadings and the vacation of prior order 
of the District Court, we acknowledge that these are matters 
which may warrant consideration by the District Court at some 
appropriate time in the course of the future proceedings of 
this cause, together with certain other matters that the deci­
sion of the Court of Appeals has given rise to. These matters,



#
Mr. Robert J. Lord 
January 9, 1973 
Page 3

however, relate solely and exclusively to the rights of the 
school district defendants who are, or who may become, "necessary 
parties" to this cause, as well as to the state defendants.
Under the guise of representing your named clients, you appear 
to be moving the Court for certain relief on behalf of the 
school districts and the state defendants. The various counsel 
for the school districts, suburban to Detroit, as well as the 
Michigan Attorney General's Office, are earnestly attempting 
to represent the best interests of their clients with respect 
to the claims being asserted by those parties who are clearly 
in a position adversary to that of their clients. The coordina­
tion of this representation is difficult enough without unnec­
essary and gratuitous interference by counsel for other parties, 
whom we would hope we would not find necessary to also perceive 
as adversaries in the future.

withdraw parts 3 and 4 of your Motion, as well as part 1, to 
the extent that it prays for relief on behalf of parties other 
than your named clients. In the event that the same is not 
withdrawn, The Grosse Pointe Public School System will oppose 
said Motion and the standing of you or your clients to pursue 
the subject matter thereof.

For these reasons, we request that you immediately

Very truly yours
HILL, LEWIS, ADAMS, GOODRICH & TAIT

DHW/kns
cc: United States District Court,

Eastern District, Sourthern Division

All Counsel of Record