Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Production

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Civil Action No0.82-1192 

Section C 

DAVID C., TREEN, etc., et al, 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 
  
  

Plaintiffs Barbara Major, et al., oppose the defendants’ 

motion to compel further discovery on the following grounds: 

1. The defendants seek to have plaintiffs produce 

copies of all unpublished attorney fee opinions in your 

or your attorneys’ possession. 

This request for production arises from a duces tecum request 
  

which was part of a notice of deposition directed to plaintiffs’ 

attorneys, Mr.Stanley Halpin, Esq., of Lafayette, Louisiana; and, 

Ms.Lani Guinier, Esq., of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund of New 

York, New York. Undersigned counsel Mr.Larry Menefee, Mobile, 

Alabama, has been representing plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ 

attorneys in their claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in this  



matter, and the defendants also seek the same production from 

Mr.Menefee by virtue of the duces tecum request issued to 
  

Mr.Halpin and Ms.Guinier. 

2. First, the Court should be aware of the extensive 

discovery that has already been provided. Plaintiffs nave 

already provided over a hundred pages of detailed time records 

and expense statements. Plaintiffs have also provided an 

estimated 500 to 800 pages of supporting data, including copies 

of original time logs, telephone logs, xerox logs, copies of 

cancelled checks, vouchers for meals, lodgings, airplane tickets, 

express mail service, etc. Each of plaintiffs’ attorneys has 

been deposed by the defendants in this case. Tne defendants have 

filed three sets of written discovery requests to the 

plaintiffs. 

3. Magistrate Chasez has twice denied the defendants’ motion 

to compel the plaintiffs to produce all of their unpublished 

attorney fee opinions. The simple and most important fact is 

that an attorneys legal research is not discoverable. Moore's 

Federal Practice, paragraph 26.56[3] at footnote 2. This concept 

is reinforced by the provisions of Rule 33(b) which allows the 

discovery of factual contentions and mixed contentions of law and 

fact, but does not permit the discovery of “pure law." 

On the other hand, under the new language 
interrogatories may not extend the issues of “pure 
law", i.e., legal issues unrelated to the facts of the 
case.  



Notes of the Advisory Committee (1970 amendments). The 

defendants do not seek merely which cases plaintiffs contend to 

be relevant; they seek production of all cases in the possession 

of the petitioning attorneys or the attorney representing them. 

4. Tne defendants claim that this is necessary because of 

the expertise of the plaintiffs’ attorneys in this area of the 

law. If tne Court were to allow such discovery, every attorney 

in every case can claim that the opposing attorney has more 

"expertise," and would therefore be entitled to discover his 

opponents legal research. 

5. The request is overly broad and burdensome. The request 

is not restricted to opinions involving attorneys in this case or 

opinions from the Eastern District of Louisiana, or even to the 

Fiftn Circuit Court of Appeals. 

6. The information is equally available to the defendants. 

Any opinions which may be in the possession of the plaintiffs or 

their attorneys are in tne public domain and equally accessible 

to the defendants. Presumably the plaintiffs have obtained 

whatever unpublished opinions they had through their own work and 

research. For example, the request to Ms.Lani Guinier, staff 

counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, would require that 

organization to produce all of the opinions in its files which 

span litigation over decades conducted by a large staff of 

attorneys. Mr.Halpin similarly has a lengthy litigation  



experience of more than 20 years, and Mr.Menefee and the members 

of his firm, in excess of 15 years. 

7. The Magistrate has twice denied the defendants’ request 

and has apparently deemed it so far beyond the realm of 

cognizable discovery that it is not even warranted judicial 

comment of a written opinion. The Court should deny the 

defendants' motion. 

7 : 
Respectfully submitted this /g Siay of April, 1985. 

BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 

405 Van Antwerp Bldg. 
P. 0. Box 1051 

Mobile, Alabama 36633 

(205) 433-2000 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 
STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

R. JAMES KELLOGG 
QUIGLEY & SCHECKMAN 
631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

(504) 524-0016 

STANLEY HALPIN 
2206 W. St.Mary 

Lafayette, Louisiana 70506 

(318) 367-2207 

LANI GUINIER 
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 
99 Hudson Street 
6tn Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

(212) 219-1900  



ARMAND DERFNER 
5520 33rd Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20015 
(202) 244-3151 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

72 
I nereby certify that on this [5 day of April, 4985, 

a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE 

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION was served upon the following 

counsel of record: 

Patricia N. Bowers, Esq. 
Assistant Attorney General 
State of Louisiana 
Department of Justice 
234 Loyola Bldg., 7th Floor 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112-2096 

and was properly addressed and deposited in the United States 

Mail, postage prepaid.