Memorandum In Support of Response to Motion to Extend time for Answering Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions

    IN THE T'NITED STATES DTSTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DTSTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIVISION

RALPH GINGLES, et a1., ) Xo. gl-903-CIV_5
)plaintiffs, 
)
)vs. )
)

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, €t aI., )
)Defendants. )
)

-and- )
)

ALAN V. PUGH, €t a1., ) No. 8I-IOG6-CIV-5
)Plainti.f f s, )
)

vs.

JAI{ES B. HITNT, JR. r €t d1.,

Defendants. )

FILED
FEB 1 1 1S3

J. RICH LEONARIJ, CLERK

U. S. DISTRICT COURT

E. DIST. NO. CAR.

-and-

JOHN J. CAVATIAGH, €t a1.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

AIEX K. BROCK, €t a1.1

Defendants.

No.82-545-CIV-5

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF RESPONSE TO IUOTION
TO EXTBND TI!18 FOR
ANSWERING INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

The Defendants to this acti.on, by and through their
undersigned counsel, oppose the Pugh Plaintiffsr motion '

to extend discovery in order to enable Defendants to respond



-2-
to the Praintiffsr untimery interrogatories and requests for
admission.

Plaintiffs brought this action charrenging the consti_
tutionality and the legality under the voting Rights Act of
1955r ,.S amended, of the reapportionment plans adopted by
the North carorina General Assembly for districts for erection
of representatives and senators to the North Carolina General
Assembly. plaintiffs r initiar compraint and Notice of
Hearing for preri-minary rnjunction, dated November 25, r9g1,
were filed in the superior court for rredell county, North
carolina. Defendants responded promptly by moving on December
2, 1981, for a change of venue to the superior court of wake
county, North carolina. Defendants then removed the action
to this court in a petition for Removal filed on or about
December 15, 1981. This action has thus been pending in
this court for more than thirteen months.

rn August of Lggz, counsel for all parties to the three
cases herein consoridated for trial agreed to a discovery
schedule. That schedure provided for compretion of discovery
by all parti.es to pugh v. Hunt and @ by
March 1, 1983, with discovery in @ to be
completed by october g, Lgg2. That stipuration was signed
by counsel for all parties, and specifically by Robert N.
Hunter, Jr-, on behalf of the pugh plaintiffs, on August 16,
1982. That same stipulation also provided that the parties
to Pugh v. Hunt and @ would be prepared
to go to trial by April 1, I9g3.



-3-
Prior to servj-ng Plaintiffs ! First Set of Interrogatories

and Requests for Production; Requests for Mmissions, dated
January 29, 1983, the pugh plaintiffs had not engaged in any

discovery at all, except for sitting in on depositions scheduled
by other parties. Now, fourteen months after plaintiffs filed
their action, more than thirteen months after the action was

removed to this court, and nearly six months after stipulating
to the compretion of discovery by March 1, the pugh plaintiffs
have filed their First set of rnterrogatories and Reguests

for Production; Requests for adrnissions. These discovery
requests are dated .lanudry 29, 1983. The Federal Rules of
civil Procedure, Rule 33, alrow a party 30 days to respond to
interrogatories. Rule 34 provides 30 days for a response to
a request for production of documents. Rule 36 provides 30

days to respond to a request for admissions, RuIe 6(e) a11ows

an additionar three days to be added to the prescribed period
whenever a party is required to do something after service
upon him by mail, since the pugh praintiffsf First set of
rnterrogatories and Requests for production; Requests for
Admissions, certify that they were placed in the united states
Post office, postage prepaid, on January 29, 1983, Defendants

have 33 days to respond. Rule G (a) of the Federal Rures of
civil Procedure specifies that the day of the act or event

from which the designated period of time begins to run sharl
not be included, but the last day shall be included unless

it is a saturday, sundayr or legar horiday. Beginning with
January 30 as the first day for Defendants to respond, 33 days



-4-
after service of the pugh plaintiffs r di.scovery requests gives
Defendants until Thursday, March 3, 19g3, to respond. That date
is obviously outside the March 1 stipulated deadline for com_
pletion of discovery. Even if Defendants $/ere allowed only
30 days after receipt of plaintiffsr discovery request, those
reguests could not have been and were not received untl1
January 31, 1983, since the 29th and 3oth were saturday and
sunday. consequently, even 30 days after receipt of the
request would give Defendants until March 2, r9g3, a date
which is also outside the stipulated time for compretion
of discovery.

The pugh plaintiffs have unquestionably been diratory
in seeking discovery in this acti.on. on the other hand,
Defendants and the Gingles plaintiffs have made all discovery
requests so as to aIlow the statutory time period for response
prior to the March 1 stipulated date for completion of dis-
covery. rndeed, Defendants are currently investing large
amounts of time in responding to the timely interrogatories
served by the Gingres plaintiffs shortly within the deadline
for service of discovery reguests. with a stipulation that
the parties will be ready for trial by Aprir I of this year
and wi-th Defendants already investing large amounts of time
in responding to the timely dlscovery requests of the Gingres
Plaintiffs, it would be unfair and undury burdensome on

Defendants to require them to respond to untimely discovery
requests at this late date, whether by shortening the time
for Defendants to answer or by extending the time into the
last month prior to the date by which the parties have



-5-
agreed to be prepared for trial.

For all these reasons, Defendants oppose the motion
filed by the pugh plaintiffs in this action requesting
that Defendants' time to respond to praintiffsr Eirst set
of Interrogatories and Reguests for production; Requests
for Admissions be extended for three days.

Respectfutly submitted this rhe /L day of
Februaryr lgB3.

for

lilgigt, North Carolina 27602(919) 733-3377

Norma Harrell
Tiare Smiley
Assistant Attorneys General

John Lassiter
Associate Attorney General

Jerris Leonard
Kathleen Heenan
Jerris Leonard & Associates, p.C.
900 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20006(2021 872-L095

Attorneys for Defendants

RUFUS L. EDMTSTEN

Mru
eD

t
ty Attorney
ga1 Affairs
Office Box

pu
LA
4t

n

962

eral



CERTTFICATE OF 9ERVTCE

r hereby certify that r have this day served the fore_
going Memorand:* ir support of Response to Motion to Extend Timefor Answering rnterrogltories -ana hequests for Admissi-onsbv placins a -copy of -dail-in-t[J-u;i6; 

siates i"it-orrice,
postage prepaid, addressed to:

Mr. J. Levonne Chanbers
Ms. Les1ie Winner
Chambers, Ferguson, I{att, Wa1las,

Adkins & Fuller, p.A.
951 South fndependence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina Zg2O2

Mr. Jack Greenberg
Mr. James M. Nabritt Iff
Irls. tani Guinier
10 Columbus Circle
New york, New york lOOl9

Irtr. Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser & Kenerly
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 2g144

Mr. Robert N. Hunter, ilr.Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 3Z4S

\- Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

Mr. Hamilton C. Horton, Jr.Whiting, Horton c Hendrick
450 NCNB plaza
Winston-Sa1em, North Carolina 271OiL

Mr. Wayne T. Elliot
Southeastern Legal Foundation
1800 Century Boulevard, Suite 950Atlanta, Georgia 30345

This the U day of _February , 1993.