Defendant Wood's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Houston Lawyers Association

    fe Ly pn ge Po 

Pei M7 
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -- | 

MAD 1 4000 | 
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. NO. MO-88-CA-154 

JAMES MATTOX, Attorney General 
Of the State of Texas, et al., 

Defendants 

DEFENDANT WOOD'S FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  

TO: Houston Lawyers Association and each of the following 
individually: Francis Williams and Rev. William Lawson, by 
and through their attorney of record, Julius Levonne 
Chambers, Esq and Sherrilyn A. Ifill, Esg., NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 16th 
Floor, New York, New York 10013; 

In accordance with the provisions of Rules 33 and 34 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor-Defendant Sharolyn 

Wood submits these Interrogatories and Requests for Production of 

Documents to Houston Lawyers Association, Francis Williams and 

Rev. William Lawson in the above captioned cause of action. 

 



  

You are each to answer interrogatories within 15 days, but 

may collectively produce all items responsive to these requests 

at the offices of Porter & Clements, 3500 RepublicBank Center, 

700 Louisiana, Houston, Texas, on or before 10:00 a.m. on 

April 33,1989. 

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 
  

DEFINITIONS:   

(a). Definition of "request": request shall mean these 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 
  

(b) Definition of "document": for purposes of this   

request, a document shall include any method of reducing and   

recording information in written form, whether a memorandum, a 

letter, a note, etc, including without limitation papers, books, 

accounts, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, electronic or 

videotape recordings, computer disks or tapes or other forms of 

computer memory storage, and other data compilations from which 

information can be obtained and translated, if necessary, by you, 

into reasonably usable form. The term document shall also be   

understood to include any other tangible thing which constitutes 

or contains matter relevant to the subject matter of this suit. 

{c) Definition of "identify": for purposes of this   

request, (i) when used with reference to a person or entity, the 

term "identify", shall mean to state the full name of such person   

 



  

or entity and his/her/its last known address and telephone 

number; (ii) when used with reference to a document, the term   

"identify" shall mean to describe the document, its date of     

creation and the name of its author. 

{d) Definition of "or": for purposes of this request, "or" 

shall mean and/or. 

INSTRUCTIONS:   

(a) The Interrogatories which follow are to be answered 

separately and fully, in writing and under oath, signed by the 

person making said answers. 

(b) This request applies to all documents and information 
  

within your possession, custody or control. 

(c) Documents produced in response hereto shall be   

organized and designated to correspond to the categories in this 

request or produced as they are kept in the usual course of 

business. 

(d) A copy of your response to each Request for Production 

should be served on the undersigned attorneys within thirty (30) 

days after service of this request. 

(e) If privilege or work product protection is claimed as a 

ground for withholding production of one or more documents in   

whole or in part, the response hereto shall identify the date of 

the document, its author, its subject matter, its length, its 
  

 



  

attachments, if any, its present custodian and all recipients 

thereof, whether indicated on the document or otherwise, and   

shall describe the factual basis for the claim of privilege or 

work product protection in sufficient detail to permit the Court 

to adjudicate the validity of the claim of privilege or protec- 

tion. 

(£) - In the event that a document called for by this recuest 
  

has been destroyed, the response hereto shall identify the 

preparer of the document, its addressor (if different),   

addressee, each recipient thereof, each person to whom distribut- 

ed or shown, date prepared, date transmitted (if different), date 

received, a description of its contents and subject matter, the 

date of its destruction, the manner of its destruction, the name, 

title and address of the person authorizing its destruction, and 

the reason(s) for its destruction, the name, title and address of 

the person destroying the document and a description of efforts 
  

to locate the document or recording and copies of it. 

{(g) This request shall be deemed to be continuing so as to 

require supplemental response in accordance with Rule 26(e) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 



  

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  

Interrogatory No, 1: 
  

As to each person you expect to call as an expert witness in 

the trial of this case: 

  (a) identify each person; 

(b) state the matter (s) on which each person is expected to 

testify; 

(c) state the substance of the facts and opinions to which 

the person is expected to testify, and summarize the grounds for 

each opinion; and 

(d) identify each person whom you have retained as a   

consulting expert in connection with the instant litigation, to 

the extent such person's opinion will be relied upon, in whole or 

in part, by any person identified in Answer to subpart (a) 

hereof. 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 1: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying each and every document,   

including, without limitation, each and every demographic report 

for study or compilation of demographic data, that has been 

submitted to, prepared by, or used by each person you expect to 

call as an expert witness, including his/her associates, with 

 



  

regard to the subject matter of this litigation and all documents 
  

furnished to persons identified in Answer to Interrogatory No.   

1(d), above. 

Interrogatory No. 2: 
  

State the qualifications of each expert witness and/or 

consulting expert identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1   

to render an opinion with respect to the matters for which you 

have retained his services. 

Answer: 

Interrogatory No. 3: 
  

State the factual basis for your claim in 93 of vour 

Complaint in Intervention that you represent the black voters of 

Harris County, Texas. 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 2: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

provide the factual bases for your answer to Interrogatory No. 3. 

Interrogatory No. 4:   

Identify all officers and members of the Houston Lawyers   

Association. 

Answer: 

 



  

Interrogatory No. 5:   

State the factual basis for your claim in 922 of your 

Complaint in Intervention that blacks and/or Hispanics are denied 

the right to participate equally in the judicial electoral 

process in Harris County. 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 3:   

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

support or otherwise refer, relate, or pertain to the claim that 

blacks and/or Hispanics are denied the right to participate 

equally in the judicial electoral process in Harris County. 

Interrogatory No. 6:   

State the factual basis for your claim that you have 

personally been denied the right to elect state district judges 

of your choice. 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 4:   

Production for inspection and copy all documents which   

support or otherwise relate to answer to Interrogatory No. 6. 

 



  

Interrogatory No. 7: 
  

State whether you are alleging that the system of electing 

state district judges at large in Harris County is the result of 

an intent to discriminate against blacks and/or Hispanics. 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 5: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that refer,   

relate, or pertain to your answer to Interrogatory No. 7. 

Interrogatory No. 8: 
  

(a) State whether or not you are claiming that the system, 

currently in effect in Harris County, Texas, of electing district 

judges at large to serve specialized functions, such as the 

adjudication of civil disputes or criminal disputes or family law 

matters, should be abolished or otherwise changed; and (b) if 

your answer to part (a) is affirmative, describe in detail how 

you would change said system; and (c) if negative, fully describe 

how each single member judicial district could be drawn to 

preserve judicial specialization. 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 6: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents which 
  

refer, relate, or pertain to your answer to Interrogatory No. 8. 

 



  

Request for Production No. 7: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your claim that Texas 

has a history of official discrimination against the right of 

black citizens to participate in the democratic process. 

Interrogatory No. 9: 
  

State whether or not you are claiming that blacks and 

Hispanics are or have been denied the right to participate fully 

in the election of state district judges generally in Texas or 

only in certain counties and explain the reasons for your answer. 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 8: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your answer to 

Interrogatory No. 9. 

Interrogatory No. 10: 
  

State the claimed relevance of your contention in 19 of 

your Complaint in Intervention that the State of Texas and its 

political subdivisions are covered by Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, 

Answer: 

 



  

Request for Production No. 9:   

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your claim in q19 of 

your Complaint in Intervention that the State of Texas and its 

political subdivisions are covered by Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965. 

Request for Production No. 10:   

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

support or otherwise refer, relate, or pertain to your claim in 

920 of your Complaint in Intervention that elections in Harris 

County are characterized by significant racial bloc voting. 

Request for Production No. ll: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

support or otherwise refer, relate, or pertain to your claim in 

q21 of your Complaint in Intervention that "Texas has tradition- 

ally used, and continues to use unusually large election dis- 

tricts, particularly in large metropolitan areas such as Harris 

County, which have concentrations of minority voters" to dis- 

criminate against blacks. 

Request for Production No. 12: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

support your claim in 922 of your Complaint in Intervention that 

the political processes leading to nomination or election of 

state district judges in Harris County in particular are not 

equally open to participation by blacks. 

10 

 



  

Request for Production No. 13: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

support or otherwise relate to your claims in 923 of your 

Complaint in Intervention regarding the size of Texas' population 

and the percentage of blacks in Texas. 

Request for Production No. 14: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

support or otherwise relate to your claim in 426 that only 2% of 

district judges in Texas are black. 

Request for Production No. 15: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate to your claims in 927, 28 and 29 of 

your Complaint in Intervention regarding the size of the Houston 

and Harris County population and the percentage of blacks in each 

and the percentage of blacks in the voting age population of 

Harris County. 

Request for Production No. 16:   

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

indicate the size of the pool of potential black and Hispanic 

attorneys eligible for election as state district judges in 

Harris County, including, without limitation, all documents that 

indicate the number of black and Hispanic attorneys in Harris 

County and/or their years in practice. 

Request for Production No. 17:   

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that   

indicate the percentage of black and Hispanic attorneys among all 

11 

 



attorneys eligible to run for election as state district judge in 

Harris County. 

Request for Production No. 18: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate to your claim in {32 of your Com- 

plaint in Intervention that black candidates lost in the November 

1986 general election despite overwhelming black support. 

Request for Production No. 19: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate to your claim in 934 of your Com- 

plaint in Intervention that there is substantial residential 

segregation by race in Harris County. 

Request for Production No. 20: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate to your claims in 935 of your 

Complaint in Intervention that blacks in Harris County are 

politically cohesive, that they are geographically insular, that 

their candidates are usually defeated, and that white voters in 

Harris County vote as a bloc. 

Interrogatory No. ll: 
  

State whether and, if so, the reasons why, you are claiming 

that black voters and Hispanic voters will combine their votes in 

districts where together they constitute a majority of the 

electorate to vote for a minority judicial candidate over a white 

candidate. 

Answer:  



Interrogatory No. 12: 
  

State where you would draw each of the "eleven single member 

geographically compact districts" with black majorities that you 

claim in 941 of your Complaint in Intervention could be drawn. 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 22: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your answer to Inter- 

rogatory No. 12. 

Interrogatory No. 13: 
  

Describe how a "non-exclusionary at large system utilizing 

limited or cumulative voting" would, as alleged in 942 of your 

Complaint in Intervention, allow black voters "a more equal 

opportunity to elect district judges." 

Answer: 

Request for Production No. 23: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your answer to Inter- 

rogatory No. 13. 

Interrogatory No. 14: 
  

State whether or not you are alleging that the determination 

of the size and location of state judicial election districts is  



  

Interrogatory No. 15: 
  

State whether or not you are alleging that under a single- 

member district system, a minority voter residing in a non- 

minority district should have the right to venue of his case in a 

minority district and the reasons for your answer. 

Answer: 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

  

AL vo : 3 
Lo Bae IN 

\ J% Eugene Clements 
: 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
~_J Houston, Texas 77002-2730 

(713) 226-0600 

ATTORNEYS FOR HARRIS COUNTY 

DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD 

OF COUNSEL: 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

John E. O'Neill 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, Texas 77002-2730 

(713) 226-0600 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 7 day of February, 1989 
a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was 
mailed to counsel of record in this case by first class United 
States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed as follows: 

  

William L. Garrett, Esq. 
Brenda Hall Thompson, Esq. 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
Attorneys at Law 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Rolando L. Rios, Esq. 

Southwest Voter Registration & 
Education Project 

201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 221 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Susan Finkelstein, Esq. 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 600 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Julius Levonne Chambers, Esq. 
Sherrilyn A. Ifill, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

Gabrielle K. McDonald, Esq. 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress, Avenue 
Suite 2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Jim Mattox, Attorney General of Texas 
Mary F. Keller, First Assistant Attorney General 
Renea Hicks, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
Javier Guajardo, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
P. O. Box 12548 
Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78701 

is 

 



  

Edward B. Cloutman, 111, Esq. 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C. 
3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

E. Brice Cunningham, Esq. 
777 So. R.L. Thornton Freeway 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Ken Oden, Esq. 
Travis County Attorney 
P. O. Box 1748 
Austin, Texas 78767 

David R. Richards, Esq. 

Special Counsel 
600 W. 7th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 

Bb. OO. Box 2559 

Midland, Texas 79702 

Darrell Smith, Esq. 
Attorney at Law 

10999 Interstate Highway 10, #905 
San Antonio, Texas 78230 

Michael J. Wood, Esq. 

Attorney at Law 

440 Louisiana 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Robert H. Mow, Jr., Esq. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

[pv] AS 

Evelyn V. Keyés 
  

vl 
/ 

WO001/07 

16