Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Objections

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs,

v.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, Civil Action

Defendants, No. 35257
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
LOCAL #231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-
Intervenor,

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Defendants-
Intervenors

et al
/

MOTION ON BEHALF OF STATE DEFENDANTS 
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO 

FILE OBJECTIONS

•FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Eugene Krasicky
Gerald F. Young 
Assistant Attorneys General
Attorneys for Defendants 
Milliken, Kelley, State 
Board of Education, Porter 
and Green

Business Address:
720 Law Building
525 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DI'VIS ION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

V .
Plaintiffs,

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,
Defendants,

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 
LOCAL #2 31, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant- 
In tervenor,

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.

Defendants - 
Intervenors,

Civil Action 
No. 35257

MOTION ON BEHALF OF STATE DEFENDANTS 
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO 
__________FILE OBJECTIONS___________

Now come defendants Milliken, Kelley, State Board of 
Education, Porter and Green, by their attorneys, Frank J. Kelley, 
Attorney General of the State of Michigan, et al, and move this 
Court to enter an order extending the time in which to file 
objections to the desegregation plans and recommendations of the 
desegregation panel and the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
for the reasons hereinafter set forth:

1. On July 20, 1972 the Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit entered its order staying all proceedings in this Court 
in this case other than planning proceedings pending the hearing 
and disposition of these defendants' appeal on the merits. In



the same order the Court of Appeals advanced the appeal on the 
docket and directed the parties to file simultaneous briefs and 
appendix by August 14, 1972, with reply briefs to be filed no 
later than August 21, 1972, and oral argument to be had on 
August 24, 1972.

2. On July 31, 1972 both the desegregation panel and 
the Superintendent of Public Instruction filed their respective 
desegregation plans and recommendations with the District Court.

3. On August 1, 1972, counsel for plaintiffs, at the 
request of the District Court's law clerk, informed counsel for 
these defendants that the District Court expects the parties to 
file their objections to such desegregation plans and recom­
mendations by August 15, 1972, although counsel for these 
defendants is informed and believes that no hearings will be 
held on such objections by this Court pending appeal.

4. On August 2, 1972 these defendants filed a motion 
in the Court of Appeals seeking an order enforcing the July 20,
1972 stay order by directing that the parties hereto need not
file their objections to the desegregation plans and recommendations 
of the desegregation panel and Superintendent of Public Instruction 
pending the disposition of these defendants' appeal on the merits 
by the Court of Appeals.

5. On August 7, 1972 the Court of Appeals denied such motion 
without prejudice to these defendants seeking similar relief from 

this Court.

6. These defendants submit that the filing of objections 
to the desegregation plans and recommendations is not within the

- 2 -



• •

scope of the planning proceedings that were permitted to go 
forward under the Court of Appeals' order of July 20, 1972.

7. The desegregation plans and recommendations filed
by the desegregation panel and Superintendent of Public Instruction 
consist of 3 documents totaling some 150 or more pages of material. 
These defendants would stress, in support of their motion that it 
is manifestly unfair, if not impossible, to be required to both 
prepare briefs and appendix for purposes of appellate review on 
the merits under the accelerated briefing schedule established 
by the Court of Appeals and to review the desegregation plans and 
recommendations and prepare objections to same for filing in this 
Court. Further, counsel for these defendants are presently working 
seven days a week to meet the briefing schedule established by the 

Court of Appeals.

8. The Court of Appeals has expressed its awareness of
the many and complex questions in this cause, 13 of which
were raised by these defendants and 4 of which were raised by order 
of the Court of Appeals, by informing the parties that the page 
limitations on briefs in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 
need not be followed in this appeal. These defendants would stress 
that the time of counsel is far better employed in briefing the 
major constitutional law questions before the Court of Appeals than 
in reviewing these desegregation plans and recommendations and 
preparing their objections thereto, particularly in light of the 
fact that this Court does not contemplate hearings on such objections 
until after the disposition of the pending appeal by the Court or 

Appeals.

- 3



9. The relief sought by this motion is that this 
Court enter its order directing that the parties hereto need 
not file such objections pending disposition of the appeal on 
the merits by the Court of Appeals.

10. Alternatively, that this Court enter its order 
directing that the parties hereto need not file such objections 
until 30 days after the oral argument on appeal scheduled for 
August 24, 1972.

11. Plaintiffs' counsel have indicated to counsel for 
these defendants that they have no objection to extending the 
time for filing such objections to 10 days after the oral argument 
on appeal scheduled for August 24, 1972, assuming that the stay 
order of July 20, 1972 has not been previously vacated by the 
Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, these defendants respectfully request this 
Honorable Court to enter its order granting the relief sought 
by paragraph 9 of this motion, or, alternatively, the relief 
sought by paragraph 10 of this motion, extending the time for 
filing objections to the desegregation plans and recommendations 
of the desegregation panel and the Superintendent of Public 
Instruction in this cause.

Respectfully submitted
FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Gerald F, Young 
Assistant Attorneys General

Business Address:
720 Law Building
525 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913

- 4 -