Response to Cavanaugh Plaintiffs to Motion to Consolidate

    -/l

-\ l
O -7- (u'|L

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR.ICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIVISIO}tr

RALPH GTNGLES, €t al., ) civil Acrion No. 8l-803-crv-5PlainEiffs, )
)vs. )
)

RUFUS EDMISTEN, etc., et al., )Defendants. )
)
)

ALIJ,N V. PUGH, €t aI. , ) Civil Action No. 81-1066-CIV-5
Plaintiffs, )

)
vs. )

)
JAI{ES B. HUNI, JR. , etc. , €t )&L., )Defendants. )

)
)

JOHN J. CAVANAGH, €t al., ) Civil Action 82-545-CIV-5
Plaintiffs, )

)vs. )
)

ALEX K. BROCK, etc., eL a1., )Defendants. )

RESPONSE OF CAVANAGH PLAINTIFFS
TO I"IOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Plaintiffs in Cavanagh vs. Brock, 81-803-Civ.-5 do not

oppose defendants' Motion to Consolidate insofar as a joint
trial on the merits of the above-captioned actions is con-

cerned., should such ultimately be found necessary by the

court. Cavanagh plaintiffs, however, request that any order

to consolidate be qualified to the following extent to avoid

prejudice to plaintiffs :

1. Discovery in Cavanagh should be conducted inde-

pendently.

(Since the claims in Cavanagh raise a
question of law differelt-T?orn that
iaised by the Gingles and Pugh com-
plaints, and since it appears that the



interests of the Cavanash plaintiffs do
not coincide withffiTn^ Gingles and.

f"eh, certail. digcovery- thailIFrelevanr
in Pugh and Gingles will not-be relevant
in Gffinagh,II;itEce-versa. Accordingly,
CavaEaffi-ffiintiffs should be allowed Io''
fffiy Estover, assemble, and present
information uniquely relevant to their
case, and should not be required to parti-
cipate in discovery efforts that nroperlv
relate to the Pugh and Gingles plaintiffs
only)

2. The time period for discovery in Cavanagh should

not be abbreviated by consolidation

3. Consolidation should not affect plaintiffs' rights
to move for sufinnary judgment, or Eheir right to appeal inde-

pendently the disposition of any issue uniquely relevant to
their case.

This 16th day of July , L982. .n
e-.i )

t*-;i i' ,/^l;; ,r ,i i !*! (i' .-S&;){I-L
Attorney f-or Cavanagh Plaintiffs
450 NCNB PLaza
Winston-Salem, N.C. 2710L
(9r9) tzt-L826

OF COUNSEL

W}IITING, HORTON AND HENDRICK
450 NCNB Plaza
trllnston-Sa1em, N. C . 27LjL
(919) 723-L826

WAYNE T. ELLIOTT, ESQ.
SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOIINDATIO}tr, INC .

18OO CENTURY BOULEVARD, SUITE 950
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345
(404) 32s-22s5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the fore-

going Response of Cavanagh Plaintiffs to I{otion to Consoli.date

upon all other counsel by placing a copy of same in the llnited

StaLes Post Office, postage prepaid, addressed to:



James T.IalLace, Jx., Esq.
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Offi.ce Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Jerris Leonard, Esq.
Jerris Leonard & Assoc., P.C.
900 17th Streer, N.ld
Suite l-020
trIashington, D. C. 20006

Arthur .]. Donaldson, Esq.
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser

& Kenerly
309 North Main Street
Sali,sbury, North Carolina 28L44

This 16th day of July, L982.

Les Lle J . tr[lnner, Esq .
Chambers, FergusoD,, WaLIt, ItIallas,

Adkins & FulLer, P.A.
Suite 730 East Independence PLaza
95f South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carollna 28202

Jack Greenberg, Esq.
Napoleon Will-iams, Esq.
Lani Guinier, Esg.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
10 Columbus Circle
Suite 2030
New York, New York L0019

(919) 723-1826