Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Stay and for a Protective Order; Motion for Protective Order; Motion to Stay

     [||01b7126a-c2e1-4ff4-a3fd-ace9ede298c3||] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve. Civil No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al, 

Defendants. 

  

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY AND FOR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 
  

STATEMENT   

Plaintiffs in this action l/ have filed what can best 

be described as two distinct causes of action. The first 

involves a question of whether the Methodist Hospital of Gary, 

Inc. (Gary Methodist) has violated and is violating Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 20004 et. seg. and § 504 

Of the Rehabllitation Act of 1973, 29 U.85.C. § 794, and 

whether HEW has failed to enforce the assurances submitted 

by Gary Methodist and has continued to give federal financial 

assistance to a hospital which is allegedly violating Title 

VI and § 504. These allegations require, of course, the 

hospital as a party. 

The second cause of action involves the question of 

whether the Secretary has enforced the site selection regulation 

of Title VI and § 504 throughout the country. It also 

  

i/ This motion 1s directed toward the allegations in 
the Hatcher case, but is equally applicable to Terry, et al. 
vv, Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., et al., USDC ND, Ind., 
Civil Action No. 76-373, which plaintiffs have moved to 
consolidate with this action. 

  

   



alleges that proposals under §1122 of the Social Security 

  

Act, 42 U.S.C. §1320a-1, trigger some sort of review under 

Title VI and § 504. This second issue will involve extensive 

discovery and the hospital is not a necessary party for 

this litigation. In addition, these issues are now being 

litigated by the same counsel 2/ in NAACP v. Wilmington Medical 
  

Center USDC D Del., Civil Action No. 76-298 (Wilmington), an 
  

action commenced in September of 1976. Discovery requested 

in Hatcher has previously been requested and responded to in 

Wilmington, a number of pre-trial motions have been briefed 
  

argued and decided and administrative reviews by HEW regarding 

the Title VI and Section 504 issues. Therefore, to require 

HEW to now litigate the same issues in another forum at this 

time would result in an unnecessary duplication of effort and 

an burden on HEW. It may well be that resoluation by the Court 

of these issues here will be expedited by ordering a stay of 

these issues pending further action in the Wilmington suit.   

Thus, this Court is respectfully requested to stay all issues 

concerning HEW's nationwide enforcement of the site selection 

regulation of Title VI and § 504 and the applicability of 

Title VI and § 504 to a §1122 determination by the Secretary. 

ARGUMENT   

  

A. The Wilmington Case, Which Is On An 
Expedited Schedule, Raises The Issue 
Of Nationwide Enforcement Of The Site 
Selection Provision Of Title VI and §504 

  

  

On September 10, 1976, individual and organizational 

plaintiffs in Wilmington brought suit in District Court 

alleging that the proposed partial relocation 3/ of 

  

2/ Marilyn Rose and Christine Hickman are counsel for 

the plaintiffs in NAACP v. Wilmington Medical Center, 
USDC D Del., Civil Action No. 76-298, and undersigned counsel, 
Ms. Ross is counsel for the defendant Secretary. 

  

3/ Wilmington Medical Center presently has one facility 
in the inner city of Wilmington. It has proposed to relocate 
part of that facility in Stanton, Delaware, approximately 8 

miles away while retaining part of the facility in Wilmington. 

Bed” Sa  



  

Wilmington Medical Center would violate Title VI and § 504. 

The hospital does not receive Hill Burton funds but it does 

receive funds under the Medicare, Medicaid and Maternal 

and Child Health programs. In addition, because the 

Secretary acceded to the State's favorable finding under 

§1122 (as he was required by statute to do), HEW determined 

that the amounts attributable to the capital expenditure 

would not be disallowed because they did not need health 

planning criteria, standards and plans as developed by 

Delaware. 4/ Thus, the first issue in the Wilmington 
  

case involves whether the hospital has violated Title VI 

and § 504 and whether HEW has continued to give federal 

funding to a hospital which plaintiffs have alleged is 

discriminating. 5/ 

The second issue in Wilmington is whether the Secretary 
  

has enforced the site relocation provision of Title VI and § 

504 nationwide. And, the plaintiffs have also alleged that 

the §1122 determination by the Secretary can only be made 

after a Title VI and § 504 investigation is made. These 

issues do not involve the hospital. 

Pursuant to a request by the hospital, Judge Latchum 

put the case on an expedited schedule. HEW moved to dismiss, 

or in the alternative, for summary judgment based on the 

argument that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their 

administrative remedies and that Title VI and § 504 concerns 

attached to the underlying Medicare, Medicaid, and Maternal 

  

4/ The Secretary's §1122 determination did not mean that 
the hospital was guaranteed an increase in funding or 
any funding and indeed, if its activities violated some 
other statutory provision such as Title VI or § 504, all 
funds could be terminated. 

5/ There is also an issue concerning the environmental 
consequences of the proposed partial relocation which is 
not pertinent to this motion.  



and Child Health programs and were not triggered by a 

  

§1122 determination by the Secretary. 

The Court in its January 19, 1977 decision 
  

F. Supp. (D. Del. 1977), denied all motions and told 
  

the Secretary that he was to treat the complaint as if it were 

filed administratively or waive his exhaustion argument. 

Prior to receiving that decision, HEW began its administra- 

tive investigation. A report on that investigation was filed 

on July 6, 1977. The Court reserved ruling on the overall 

issues concerning §1122 and basically divided the lawsuit 

into the issues which involved both the hospital and the 

Secretary and those which involved only the Secretary. The 

former will be disposed of on a very expedited schedule in 

order to not prejudice the hospital. The latter are moving 

as quickly as plaintiffs complete discovery. 

B. The Wilmington Case Has Already 
Included Extended Discovery Similar 
To That Requested In This Case 

  

  

Plaintiffs' in this case have filed Requests For Admis- 

sions, First Interrogatories to HEW, and Requests For Produc- 

tion Inspection and Copying Of Documents. HEW's response to 

the Request For Admissions is one of the documents filed 

today. 

The interrogatories served June 10, 1977 are very 

similar to that requested in Wilmington. (See Attachment 1). 

Most of the questions are, however, related to the cause 

of action against both HEW and the hospital. The only 

interrogatory for which protective order is sought is 18(a)-(f). 

This interrogatory is not limited to Indiana or even to 

Region V of HEW. It requests extensive information concerning 

the relocation and for construction of second hospital 

facilities throughout the country which received federal  



  

funding for the last five years. That is particularly 

burdensome in light of Request For Production, Inspection 

and Copying number 5 which requires HEW to produce all 

civil rights files for every health facility relocation and 

for displacement project for the past 5 years. 6/ Moreover 

much of the information requested in 18(c) and (4d) was 

requested in plaintiffs' second interrogatories in the 

Wilmington case. HEW explained that it did not have the 

information concerning the patient population by age, race 

and national origin and when plaintiffs moved to compel 

the Court held that HEW did not have control over that 

information. See Attachment. 

The Request for Production, Inspection and Copying 

Of Documents presents an even clearer reason for staying 

nationwide discovery. As Attachment 2X demonstrates, 

Requests 1-17 were already responded to in Wilmington. 
  

While HEW does not object to obtaining the documents in 

Requests 10 and 17 for Region V since those documents were 

only obtained earlier for Region III, the other requests 

would be duplicative of materials plaintiffs' counsel has 

already obtained. HEW should not be required to again 

gather and copy those documents for plaintiffs' counsel. 

Thus, HEW requests a protective order as to Requests 1-17 

except for 10 and 17 for which HEW will provide the infor- 

mation for Region V. 

  

6/ As discussed infra., these files have already been 
turned over to Ms. Rose and Ms. Hickman in the Wilmington 
case. 

  

 



  

C. Plaintiffs' Rights In Hatcher Will 
Be Protected If This Action Is Stayed 
  

The cause of action against the Secretary for enforce- 

ment of Title VI and § 504 will not require extensive, if 

any, testimony by individual plaintiffs. It will potentially 

involve testimony or evidence by HEW officials and outside 

health experts. Those persons will undoubtedly be examined 

by plaintiffs' counsel in Wilmington and full exploration of 
  

this issue can occur there. To require HEW to try the same 

issue with the same persons testifying and with the same 

counsel present amounts to a kind of forum shopping in which 

HEW must bear the burden. 

And if plaintiffs should feel that some issue was not 

explored in Wilmington after a decision is reached there, 
  

the discovery could be transferred to this Court for the 

purpose of exploring that issue. Thus a stay of this action 

will not in any way prejudice the rights of plaintiffs. 

D. It Is Within This Court's Discretionary 
Power To Stay This Issue 
  

1A Moore's Federal Practice 40.204 at p. 2201 
  

states: 

All courts, federal and state, have a 
broad and inherent power to control 
their own processes to prevent abuse, 
oppression, or unnecessary hardship; 
and to do substantial justice. Included 
within this broad power is a general 
power to stay an action pending before 
it, as incidental to control over causes 
on the court's docket, when reasonably 
exercised in light of all competing 
interests. 

 



  

The Supreme Court in Landis v. North America, 299 U.S. 
  

248 (1936), explained the perameters of this discretionary 

power: 

Viewing the problem as one of power, 
and of power only, we find ourselves 
unable to assent to the suggestion that 
before proceedings may be stayed to 
abide the proceedings in another, the 
parties to the two causes must be shown 
to be the same and the issues identical. 
... [Tlhe power to stay proceedings is 
incidental to the power inherent in every 
court to control the disposition of the 
causes on its docket with economy of time 
and effort for itself, for counsel, and 
for litigants. How this can best be done 
calls for the exercise of judgment, which 
must weigh competing interests and maintain 
an even balance. (cites omitted). True, 
the applicant for a stay must make out 
a clean case of hardship or inequity in 
being required to go forward, if there 
is even a fair possibility that the stay 
for which he prays will work damage to 
someone else. Only in rare circumstances 
will a litigant in one cause be compelled 
to stand aside while a litigant in another 
settles the rule of law that will define 
the rights of both. Considerations such 
as these, however, are counsels of moderation 
rather than limitations upon power. 

Id. at 254-55. See also, Rodgers v. United States Steel 
  

corp., 508 F 24 152, 162 (34 Cir. 1975); Rosenfeld v,. 
  

Schwitzer Corp., 251 ¥. Supp 758, 763 (SD NY 1966). 
  

The instant case presents a strong justification for 

a stay of the nationwide issues and its corresponding 

discovery. Both suits ask for what amounts to a declaration 

that the Secretary has not fulfilled his responsibilities 

in enforcing the site selection regulation of Title VI 

and § 504. The counsel for both HEW and the plaintiffs 

are the same. The discovery requested would be the same. 

The persons testifying if trial becomes necessary would 

be the same. And the discovery in Wilmington has already 
  

been extensive. Plaintiffs have taken the depositions of 

 



  

two past directors of the Office for Civil Rights and 

the former and present directors of the § 504 program 

as well as two sets of interrogatories, two requests for 

production of documents and one request for admissions. 

To require HEW to needlessly repeat this discovery in 

order for plaintiffs to obtain two decisions on the same 

issue is a waste of the Court's time as well as that of 

the parties and counsel. Furthermore, it will prejudice 

the rights of Gary Methodist through extensive delays. 

Such delays will work its greatest prejudice on the rights 

of those Medicare, Medicaid and Maternal and Child Health 

program recipients. On the other hand, as explained, 

supra, the plaintiffs in this case will be in no way 

prejudiced by the stay. 

CONCLUSION 
  

Defendant Joseph Califano respectfully requests 

that the nationwide issues be stayed; that a protective 

order be entered as to discovery on those issues; and 

that the issues concerning Gary Methodist proceed as 

expeditiously as possible. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

BARBARA ALLEN BABCOCK 

Assistant Attorney General 

  

RICHARD L. KIESER 

United States Attorney  



  

OF COUNSEL: 

JEFFREY CHAMPAGNE 

U.S. Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare 

MARVIN G. GARVIN 

Regional Attorney 

EDWARD L. KOVEN 

Assistant Regional Attorney 
Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare 
300 South Wacker Drive 
18th Floor 
Chicago, Illinois 

  

FRED W. GRADY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

  

DENNIS G. LINDER 

  

REBECCA L. ROSS 

Attorneys for Defendant 
Attorneys, Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 
Telephone: 739-4267 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

  

I certify that copies of Motion For Protective Order; 

Motion To Stay; Motion For Extension Of Time; Memorandum Of 

Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion For Extension 

Of Time; Defendant's Response To Plaintiffs' First Request 

For Admission To United States Secretary Of Health, Education 

And Welfare; and Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support 

Of Motion To Stay And For A Protective Order have been served 

this \ 2X day of July, 1977 by mailing postage prepaid 
  

£oO: 

Ms. Beth Lief 
Mr. Jack Greenberg 
Mr. Melvyn Leventhal 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Mr. Julian Allen 
2009 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 46407 

Ms. Marilyn G. Rose 
Ms. Christine B. Hickman 

1757 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr. Bruce E. Sayers 

Hodges, Davis, Greenberg, Compton 
& Sayers 

5525 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 46401 

Kipton Kaplan 

Executive Director, Northern Indiana 
Comprehensive Health Services 
Agency, Inc. 

900 East Colfax Avenue 
South Bend, Indiana 46617 

Michael Schaefer 
Assistant Attorney General 

of Indiana 
219 State House 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 

REBECCA 1. Gr  



  
 
   

  
 
 

  
  

 
   
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

  
  
 
   

  
  

  
 
 

  
   
   
  

  

 
 

  

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

  

  
  

 
 

  
  

 
 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 

  

 
 
 

  

  

  
  

    
 
   
 
   

  
  
    
 
 
  
  

      
  

  
  

 
 

   
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

  
  

  
  
  

 
 
 

 
 

    
  

 
   

  
  

 
 
 

 
   

  
 
 

 
 

  
 
 

 
 

  
 
     

  
 
 

  
  

    
 
 

 
  
     

  
 
 

 
     

  
  

  
 
 

  
  

  
 
 

 
 

  
  

  
    

. 
* 

 
&
 

# 
hy 

* 
# 

por 
® 

of 
18] 

5. 
> 

3 
{3 

o> 
» 

\ 
v 

F 
* 

pet 
{ 

i
1
7
3
 

" 
$ 

4 
i
 

- 
Sa. 

\ 
. 

'
 

fa 
Sd 

ol 
< 

~4 
; 

LJ 
pe 

% 
¢ 

4
 

bg 
3 

gi 
; 

fod 
pn 

£3 
5 

hi 

i 
' 

- 
- 

r
s
 

a! 
~¢ 

- 
o 

. 
5
0
 

Pg 
: 

{ 
i 

{3 
. 

¥ 
at 

. 
« 

§ 
—
c
-
 

. 
’ 

i
 

~
~
 

% 
. 

: 
o
e
 

a
 

a 
r 

§ 
3 

.
 

x 
5 

: 
3 

2 
rh 

3
 

shod 
*
 

4
 

- 

g 
i 

. 
} 

. 
r
e
 

3 
ik 

’ 
/ 

4
 

) 
kK. 

p 
0 

{ 
- 

) 
Pre 

>, 
{ 

A 
7s 

¢ 
a 

e
g
 

of 
o
—
 

¢ 
in 

'} 
Lid 

{ 
»
 

4 
D 

‘ 
fd 

$30 
» 

god 
id 

> 
Soy 

N 
2 

\ 
- 

R 
a, 

( 
pt 

: 
?.% 

; 
d 

C
3
 

PAS 
~ 

V
v
 

2 
3 

C
h
 

> 
bod 

7 
. 

~ 
|
)
 

if 
2 

“ 
bo 

e 
: 

od 
" 

4 
* 

4 
HW 

Lu. 
% 

2 
it 

¢ 
4 

7
 

' 
po 

2% 
a 

tJ 
4 

» 
y 

= 
S
y
 

: 
w
r
 

s 
—
 

: 
$ 

pg 
8 

; 
w
d
 

- 

, 
s 

hy 
| 

» 
¢ 

bY 
} 

r 
t 

» 
if 

ul 
v 

# 
Y 

VJ 
: 

J
 

" 
r
y
 

; 
3 

} 
4 

$
d
 

: 
s 

i 
: 

” 
: 

Vi 
i
 

/ 
“ae 

id 
- 

. 
U 

~
 

¢ 
” 

i 
. 

i 
-d 

r 
vs 

. 
: 

V 
¢ 

; 
i 

- 
ry 

! 
re 

6 
Vs 

me 
‘ 

J 
ow 

- 
. 

~~ 
] 

~ 
< 

- 
pa. 

{ 
2 

: 
. 

{ 
2 

©) 
H 

{ 
~~ 

~~, 
We 

Feo 
. 

: 
: 

1 
x 

1] 
{ 

a 
x 

—
 

< 
- 

- 
hi 

“ 
’ 

- 
te 

y
l
 

, 
< 

’ 
w
e
 

P
t
 

: 
u 

- 
% 

} 
~ 

£
3
 

9 
p
d
 

¢ 
} 

A 
r
y
 

J 
y 

J 
N 

4 
S
s
 

L
y
 

h 
\ 

- 
ry 

Y
P
 

p
'
s
 

uo 
w
l
 

- 
—
 

a 
- 

. 
. 

p 
¢ 

i
y
 

? 
. 

. 
od 

4 
‘ 

L
W
 

3 
’ 

i 
Ts 

i
 

LF 
4
 

1
 

bo 
(J 

Te 
| 

3 

i 
r 

A
 

=
 

"a. 
i 

of 
ji 

Vi 
LS 

~
.
 

; 
. 

"n 

. 
ok 

hs 
ad 

LRP 
i 

ed 
- 

>
<
 

g
p
’
 

-d 
{ 

§ 
i
}
 

bo 
§ 

t 
. 

w
a
 

-h 
p
o
 

. 
pi 

- 
n
d
 

4 
a
 

+ 
a
 

4 
’ 

i 
. 

. 
i 

J 
Ts 

{ 
: 

d
r
 

a
 

tJ 
i 

J
 

a 
s 

pl 
d 

. 
i
 

3
 

: 
a
 

pe. | 
- 

{ 
wlpult 

GC) 
wt 

i 

2 
x 

i 
$4 

hed 
} 

r 
» 

~ 
3 

p- 
‘ 

* 

" 
i 

- 
a 

. 
He, 

£1) 
¢ 

~
~
 

¥ 
© 

grat 
) 

. 
” 

4 

- 
~ 

’ 
yon 

3 
Kas 

\
/
 

{ 
{/ 

N 
Is 

; 
'® 

po 
; 

- 
- 

adn 
Lid 

/ 
4 

t 
-1 

$ 
J 

py 
i 

b 
. 

, 
” 

- 
¢ 

i 
4 

oe 
> 

oS 
P
g
 

@ 
- 

{ 
. 

y 
7A 

~ 
8
 

WN 
‘ 

. 
j
o
 

: 
e 

y 
~ 

: 
4 

c 
(i) 

{; 
§
 

-
 

{0 
«od 

fog 
8
 

3 
a
 

{ 
p
d
 

1 
{ 

F
N
 

3 
= 

~ 
. 

- 
: 

: 
y 

: 
‘ 

& 
. 

“ 
& 

r
s
 

v 
| 

+ 
(98 

i
 

v
=
 

) 
“4 

oe 
- 

. 
“ 

a
 

8 
. 

id 
i 

4
 

o
h
 

J
 

{ 
3 

) 
§ 

4 
1 

: 
' 

: 
3 

- 
¢ 

Lh 
| 

L 
Ji 

J
 

(i) 
(7) 

re 
* 

. 
“ 

~ 
A
J
 

ta 
| 

—
—
 

$m, 
a
 

4 
4 

od 
-
 

hash 
4
 

y 

oo” 
4 

. 
HH, 

4 
. 

re 
0
 

{ 
} 

ey 
ry 

”y 
" 

: 

dud 
o& 

A 
[% 

x 
be 

i 
E 

’ 
ai 

. 
od 

. 
+ 

: 
v 

} 
: 

v 
bt 

“ 
£8 

| 
wd 

~
4
 

hd 
3
 

CS 
p
d
 

. 
‘ 

t 
: 

1@! 
+
 

7s 
vr 

Py 
> 

‘ 
ne 

% 
J 

UU 
bs 

3
 

& 
o 

goon 
? 

Cs 
rm 

Re 
- 

—
 

fy 
BR 

nob 
oF 

b
i
 

v 
1 

. 
A> 

4
4
 

§ 
{ 

“
 

~ 
} 

ag 
J 

+
2
4
 

: 
{ 

RY. 
‘ 

" 
{ 

"
 

. 
4 

v 
“I 

~
 

a
 

N 

ER 
i 

a 
0} 

&5e 
v2: 

3 
4 

At 
~ 

N 
>
 

/ 
~
 

: 
- 

- 
a
p
 

4 
\
 

o~ 
F
y
 

h
y
 

L 
H 

J
 

—
 

N 
‘ 

» 
3 

— 
oa 

i 
2 

. 
’ 

5 
. 

. 
- 

. 
% 

ws 
“d 

-p 
i: 

a
 

{ 
3 

" 
s 

La 
| 

(3 
. 

| S
0
8
 

«
3
 

f
y
.
 

v 
—
 

—~ 
PM 

r 
: 

L
n
 

- 
rr 

~~ 
\ 

f 
. 

’ 
wy 

‘ 
v 

d 
r
i
 

- 
. 

i
=
 

i 
( 

¢ 
Py 

- 
f 

~ 
J
 

2 
pe 

a
 

: 
~ 

' 
: 

p 
i 

f 
i 

by 
, 

wn. 
-
 

"
9
 

{ 
8 

i 
V 

3 
4
 

” 
5 

ol 
- 

pe 
! 

d 
: 

UJ 
1 

d
d
 

ve 
-d 

pi 
{ 

pros 
5 

} 
g 

\ 
: 

in 
L
y
]
 

Sie 
Ia 

. 
- 

ha) 
LL 

3 
{ 

—
4
 

A
d
 

”~ 
Fe 

1
 

“sy 
“ 

» 
4 

i 
. 

. 
Foe 

g
y
 

iy 
L
A
 

-
 

\ 
To 

m
o
 

ft} 
¢ 

. 
a 

. 
od 

ln 
| 

? 
(
W
R
 

i 
L
F
 

i 
.-d 

§ 
- 

=
 

t
O
 

3
 

r
y
.
 

. 
n
r
,
 

o 
J 

‘ 
“/ 

v 
M4 

; 

7 
£
3
 

Cn 
gun, J 

4 
¢ 

2¢] 
-~ 

“ 
. 

)
 

M 
- 

£, 
\. 

» 
KY 

. 
~ 

\ 
at 

= 
“ 

“J 
’ 

rn 
i 

, 
. pr 

wid 
Ia 

! 
~~ 

g 
. 

! 
p> 

\U 
4 

i 
re 

\J 
Se 

i 
. 

i 
» 

peg 
2 

{ 
Ky 

Mon 
A 

z 
A 

5 
Lo 

|
 

: 
" 

- 
-— 

w 
8 

? 
y 

§ 
[3 

’ 
y 

L
e
 

a 
ind 

—
 

A 
,
 

pe 
; 

’ 
3 

i” 
§ 

] 
Yo 

» 
o 

= 
PM 

» 
e
g
 

hon 
/ 

- 
2 

L 
=
 

Fi 
he 

’ 
fl 

"2 
- 

y 
>, 

PZ 
f"™) 

. 
P
a
 

“
a
o
e
 

i 
—
 

4 
{ 

" 
h 

r
r
 

5 

-
 

H 
r 

f
F
 

M
 

ry 
~ 

c
n
 

3 
gd 

J
E
 

J 
” 

; 
o 

R 
PY 

r
R
 

a
l
 

Ca 
id 

ts 
2 

. 
-
 

4 
r 

p- 
: 

ji 
e
l
 

v 
WJ 

pd 
a. 

-
 

vd 
J 

—
 

) 
/ 

" 

= 
tL 

® 
4 

nn. 
J 

i
 

~ 
£ 

3 
ie 

P04 
o
r
 

ed 
ft? 

” 
~ 

ved 
i 

i 
p
d
 

N
d
 

3 
ee 

; 
ek 

{ 
g
e
m
d
 

Y 
: 

’ 
~~ 

w
l
l
 

—
 

S
t
k
 

- 
{ 

i 
P., 

£49 
~~ 

: 
¢ 

~ 
. 

' 

{ 
= 

op 
$ 

ye 
: 

— 
Su 

re 
-
 

IS Sy 
J
 

— 
4 

ee 
[ 

S
i
 

i
 

¢ 
Nn 

Sy 
€ 

" 
v 

S 
5 

¥ 
: 

i 
- 

r- 
» 

v 
p 

a 
i
 

3 
4 

r 
iy 

x 
. 

ad 
54 

FR 
4 

J
 

. 
: 

a 

r
y
 

ior 
a 

Co. 
C
a
 

wiped 
E> 

a
 

4 
vi 

ny 
~ 

3 
~ 

{) 
) 

2
 

p
e
n
d
 

u 
i 

. 
4 

V
R
 

~ 
“
 

— 
3 

: 
3 

cs? 
. 

: 
- 

~~ 
l
i
)
 

' 
- 

-~ 
7 

ra 
: 

’ 
b
o
d
 

~4 
- 

. 
< 

§ 
¥, 

# 
nd 

id 
. 

{ 
3 

. 
5 

» 
. 

Eo 
~~ 

/
 

; 
. 

h 
wv 

~ 
® 

pm 
a 

2 
3) 

—
 

. 
. 

4
 

8 
. 

: 
sii 

» 
‘ 

\ 
° 

4 
i
a
 

J 
Ud 

wae? 
is 

> 
oe 

£2 
38 

te 
¢ 

’ 
5
 

« 
, 

- 
po 

pets 
. 

w
d
 

8
 

™ 
" 

” 
gd 

a 
’ 

~ 
~
~
 

Hh 
J 

i 
- 

L
E
 

# 
hs 

- 
’ 

- 
u
d
 

5 
. 

Sd 
f
i
 

Aa? 
-
y
 

{ 
J 

rr 
+ 

3 
b 

io 
wr 

oo 
wg 

BF 
oi 

3 
™ 

EV 
5 

3 
: 

“rt 
Y 

’~ 
= 

iy 
Sod 

ping 
4 

o
d
 

‘ 
1 

2% 
¥ 

$ 
“ 

sr 
% 

\ 
4
 

I) 
pd 

 
 

 



  
    

 
 

  
    

 
 

  
 
 

 
 
    
 

   

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

  
    

  
  

  
 
 

    
  

    
  

  
  

  

  
  

  
 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 
 

 
 

  
 
    
   

  

   

      
  

   

   
 

 
 

 
   

  
 
   

 
 

  
    

  
 
   

 
   

  
  
 
   

  
 
 

  
 
   

    
    

  
 
 

  
       

 
 

 
 

  

  
 
 

 
 

  
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

  

 
 

  

  
 
 

 
 
 

  
  

  
  

  
  
    
  
 
 
 
   

  
 
 

  

 
 
   

 
 

  
 
 
  
  

       

  
 
   

  
 
 

 
 

 
 

h
 

b 
-—- 

: 
{ 

. 
4 

: 
» 

’e 
® 

’ 
é 

. 
8 

- 

’ 
N 

wil 
> 

B
a
g
 

4 

ES 
A 

M 
Ll 

a 
1 

” 
: 

. 
a
d
 

s 
= 

N 
: 

4 
a 

i
 

- 
i 

: 
“
o
n
 

‘ 
hod 

: 
vi 

*r 
te 

{ 
- 

¥ 
~
 

. 
» 

i% 
) 

¥ 
. 

a 
. 

py 
i 

; 
—
 

F 
“ 

4 
” 

a
 

, 
Na 

} 
d 

. 
i 

} 
J 

— 
. 

vi 
Lt 

~ 
pe | 

’ 
Fl 

: 
a 

Eyre 
4 

‘ 
. 

. 
j 

a 
~s 

>
»
 

rs 
“
4
 

‘ 
<
 

E
)
 

n 
- 

a
r
 

pa 
| 

7
)
 

_— 
—
 

" 
¢ 

\ 
. 

! 
¥ 

‘a 
pas 

7 
0) 

\ 
» 

- 
o
p
 

-—~ 
I] 

ig 
i 

go! 
4k 

: 
I 

J 
Ji 

a 
) 

] 
[ 

. 
~ 

” 
4 

r
 

r 
~
 

o
m
 

A 

fi 
i
 

¢ 
7
 

{/ 
3 

) 
» 

p
o
d
 

i) 
” 

¢ 
' 

" 
: 

7 
: 

7 
J
 

% 
or 

5 
e
d
 

LW 
| 

2 
- 

i 
{ 

{ 
C3 

po 
, 

. 
By 

4 

od 
at 

b
t
 

J
 

. 
4 

12 
: 

re 
-q 

2 
p= 

vy 
bi 

ed 
45 

—
 

’ 
“ 

¥ 
- 

« 
{ 

o
p
 

; 
oe 

i 
) 

. 
5 

, 
: 

‘ 
4
 

g
s
 

C
a
 

™
 

; 
” 

J 
r
d
 

.p 
<J 

: 
F 

§ 
p= 

: 
‘ 

pil 
J 

v
e
.
 

[| 
9 

. 
$ 

| 
LEYS 

i 
Ed 

[ 
! 

’ 
/ 

: 
) 

4 
QO 

i 
ni 

yo 
{ 

‘ 
“ 

” 
Lan 

| 
v
e
 

™
 

= 
J 

f 
Ke 

- 
F
Y
 

> 

rg 
oo) 

~ 
’ 

bg 
i 

Pe 
J 

- 
s
t
 

® 
» 
py 

. 
Ba 

3) 
( 

E 
~ 

R 
. 

M 
1 

v 
< 

’ 
, 

( 
; 

L 
{ 

M0 
\ 

~ 
- 

4 
Ee 

a
 

J 
. 

bi 
J 

0 
J 

L/ 
— 

$ 
{ 

; 
§ 

Se 
- 

4 
J 

. 
o 

{ 
—
 

ty 
~~ 

all 
wil 

+ 
4 

- 
J 

3
 

~~ 
3 

pe 
: 

" 
e 

= 
: 

S 
] 

r
i
 

2 
. 

r 
} 

ro 
i 

2 
S
i
 

po 
i 

h
e
 

L 
ki 

o 
pd 

rd 
a 

R
i
 

p 
h
i
 

p
o
 

be 
. 

L
A
D
 

L, 
¥
-
%
 

& 
- 

ji 
J 

i
 

rhs 
~~ 

r~y 
ri 

J 
»
 

} 
f 

J 
4 

J 
. 

; 
= 

.- 
io! 

|
 

a) 
iy 

p 
3 

/ 
wd 

3 
H 

{ 
1] 

[1 
» 

; 
< 

o 
x. 

ion 
UN 

Us 
d 

S
A
 

—
 

. 
4 

- 
- 

. 
~~ 

: 
te 

¢ 
: 

4 
: 

hii 
~ 

“ 
o
n
 

A 
. 

re 
be 

" 
vrt 

J
 

- 
ji 

J 
. 

C 
) 

(
\
 

C 
- 

v 
e
r
 

- 
e 

» 
e
p
 

. 
. 

pe 
: 

J 
-
 

»
 

° 
pd 

y
n
 

§ 
: 

Me 
3 

$s 
rn 

\ 
ri 

¢ 
$= 

} 
. 

J 
y 

) 
J
 

v 
J
 

13 
$i 

3
 

py 
3 

> 
J
 

pod 
~
 

Xe 
— 

i
 

§ 
/
 

wih 
h
t
 

: 
i
E
 

4 
oF 

p
o
 

v 
} 

@ 
rn 

—
 

. 
B 

. 
y 

p— 
(3 

} 
: 

" 
rr 

:: 
pil 

ey 
en 

ue 
y 

4 
- 

¢ 
iJ 

“/ 
. 

ud 
§ 

%
 

§ 
$ 

—
 

=, 
4
 

> 
- 

—
 

- 
uf 

b
E
,
 

E
e
 

pik 

{ 
[ 

~ 
g 

— 
L 

J
 

. 
8 

. 
I
Q
 

5 
3 

: 
; 

- 
» 

i
f
 

h
g
 

~
~
 

L
 

; 
¥ 

9 
ae 

J 
pel 

0 
) 

: 
py 

3 
? 

1 
- 

¥ 
~4 

~ 
v 

Wd 
w
s
 

t
d
 

. 
- 

y 
‘ 

V
a
 

r 
- 

3 
ir 

» 
» 

.s 
’ 

. 
bs 

ig 
d 

* 
id 

H 
v 

pod 
WU. 

. 
po 

a 
v
8
 

% 
{ 

~
~
 

2 
“ 

’ 
i 

~ 
d 

J 
’ 

LN 
o
r
 

~ 
. 

$ 
~~ 

> 
> 

: 
3 

i, 
J 

. 
 \J 

> 
> 

"- 
UN 

od 
~~ 

; 
( 

’ 
) 

: 
: 

2 
ot 

vi 
“a 

¥ 
GJ 

S 
Q
 

op 
’ 

t 
J 

ed 
y 

ie. 
4] 

- 
a 

- 
} 

3 
a 

v 
; 

r 
. 

-
 

§ 
— 

-
 

-
—
 

N 
3. 

- 
e
s
 

_ 
A 

R 
- 

450 
a 

» 
. 

>
 

@ 
o
r
 

‘ 
" 

“l 
4 

~~ 
F
e
 

- 
r- 

& 
ad 

J 
J
 

he 
gr 

tr) 
~ 

© 
in 

{ 
t 

: 
be 

a 
\ 

U
s
 

—
 

3 
. 

pr 
" 

} 
L
_
—
 

ae] 
2 

~~ 
d 

if 
’ 

J 
’ 

$1] 
- 

3
 

¢ 
+ 

” 
p 

. 
. 

~ 
J 

4
 

f 
r
g
 

3 
} 

. 
1) 

iy 
e
s
 

’ 
H 

* 

] 
: 

) 
5. 

or 
ory 

. 
® 

\ 
5 

1 
} 

i
 

i 
. 

by 

% 
i 

wiped 
ge? 

3 
d
d
 

=
 

© 
pd 

1) 
| 

3 
> 

¥ 
“i 

y” 
y 

i
.
 

~ 
) 

! 
} 

} 
. 

. 
’ 

. 
J 

i
 

\J 
<
 

o 
J 

: 
~ 

fad 
{ 

3 
£3 

=» 
? 

- 
i 

$ 
~ 

: 
- 

i 
. 

: 
beg 

od 
D. 

’ 
- 

2 
} 

H 
) 

4 
oe 

' 
/ 

Ww 
J
 

£ 
i 

u/ 
r 

P
n
 

¢ 
po 

& 
§ 

t 
§ 

: 
g 

y 
oo 

. 
re 

rh 
: 

- 
Y 

J 
[ 

~~ 
/ 

* 
9} 

» 
¢ 

i
 

\ 
4 

~
~
 

Ef 
- 

a
 

- 
od 

a
 

a
]
 

- 
a
d
 

7 
hie 

. 
py 

{z3 
{ 

[ 
! 

1 
13 

- 
3 

% 
es 

f 
. 

- 
y 

. 
v 

. 
we 

be 
ad 

wo 
¢ 

r 
: 

A 
J 

Sot 
1} 

™
 

ie) 
g
g
 

1
3
 

i 
b 

>
 

4 
} 

p= 
0 

gong 
- 

J 
: 

~ 
. 

o
Y
 

} 
3} 

{) 
" 

£3 
v 

i
n
m
a
t
e
 

. 
/ 

n 
¢ 

> 
ha 

p 
. 

y 

~ 
} 

 
—
 

- 
{ 

-
 

. 
of 

. 

J 
N 

> 
4 

o
 

N 
V
J
 

~
 

~ 
3 

, 
; 

: 
i" 

2 
‘ 

P
N
 

~d 
dd 

BK 
. 

® 
J 

¥ 
Yd 

po 
" 

r 
* 

™ 
n 

L 
S
—
 

S
a
”
 

- 
—
 

la 
~ 

~
 

. 
: 

g 
~ 

“ 
J 

- 
i 

“ 
~~ 

¥ 
5 

rq 
_. 

Q 
0
,
 

: 
fest 

0 
OJ 

s 
3 

. 
. 

-~ 
, 

» 
= 

wind 
: 

% 
4 

4 
» 

§ 
; 

et 
i 

» 
HY 

oped 
i 

. 
bo 

> 
> 

: 
S 

; 
ho 

od 
y 

; 
: 

. 
hh 

; 
J
 

\J 
- 

A 
3) 

H 
[4 

LN 
A 

¢« 
M
e
 

Ls 
hy 

|] 
o 

N 
“
 

> 
Aw 

¢ 
J 

}- 
[ 

. 
\/ 

PA 
wo 

% 

y 
’ 

 



  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

 
 

 
 

  
  

  
 
 

 
 
 
 

  
  

  
 
 

 
 

 
 

  
   
 

  
    

 
   

  
 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 
  

  
    

I. 
J
 

y 
. 

. 
. 

. 

> 
he 

J 

i 
“J 

~~ 

—
 

>
 

ST 

| 
3 

P 
« 

A
 

~
~
 4 

3 
A 

Tg 

y 
E
T
 

< 
of 

wd 
: 

 
 
  

 
 

 
 

  
  

 
 

| -
 3} 

  
  

  
 
 

 
 
  

 
 

  
 
 

  
  

  
 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

  
  

 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

 
 

  
  

  
  

   
 

 
  
 

 
 

  
  

  
 
 

1 

U
d
 

a
 

v3 
bg 

rs 

‘r~ 

  
 
 

    
  

¢ 
J 

H 

=
 

J 
~~ 

sci 

~
~
 

v 
. 

t
r
 

H 
’a 

ud 
A
 

~~ 
d 

+4 

  
 
 

 
 

  
 
 

 
 

  
 
 

  

   

      
   
 
 

 
 

U
d
 ~ 

x 

A
 

~
 

3 

Ul 
| 

& 

QA) 
(8! 

113] 
N
e
 

S
|
 

= 

» 
La 

[ 
v 

a) 
ti 

J
 

« 

a 
7% 

1
e
 

r 
t
s
 

~
~
 

Fy 

s 
) J
 

—
 

La] 
. . 

o
o
 

P
y
 

; 
: 

Y
d
 

u
d
 

* 
. 

h
a
 

N
a
?
 

. 

 
 

 
 

  

~4 

  
 
 

 
 

 
 

  
  

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 
 

  
  

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 
 

 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

  
   
 

  
 
 

L
—
 

 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
  

  
  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
  

  
 
 

  
 
 

 
 

 
 

  
  

 
 

 
  
 

 
 

  
 
 

 
 

  
  

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 



    
  
 
 

  
  

  
  

  
  

    
  

  
    

  
    

    
    

      
    
 
 

  
    

  
   
    
 

  
 
   
 
 

 
  
 

  
    
 
 

  
 
 
  

  
  

 
 
 

  
 
 

  
        

 
 

  
    
 
 
 
   

    
 
 

  
  

  
  

    
  

  
 
 

  
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

  
  

 
 

    
   
 

   
     

  
  

  
 
 

 
   
   
 

 
 

   
 

  
    

  
   
  
           
 
 

        
    

  

   

 
 
 

 
 
   

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

    
 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 
  

 
 
 

  
  

 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 
  

  
 
 

  

 
 
 

    
  

  
 
 

  
        

   
 

    
 
 

    
  

 
   
 
 

  
 
   

  
  

   
 

 
 

  
 







  
  

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
  

 
 

  
  

  
  

  
  

  

ke 4 

 
 

 
 

 
   

  
 
 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 



 
 
 
  
 

 
 
 
   

      
  

  
  
  

  
  

  
  

   
 

 
 

 
 

   
   

  
 
 

 
 
 

  
   
 

 
 
  

 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

  
 
 

{ 
>
 

 o- 

1 
q
d
 

ig 

~
 

———— 
of 

- 
" 

r 
. 

~y 
~
 

o
n
 

3 
-o 

« 
» 

pet 

“in 
" 

pe 
o, 

3 

~ 
~
~
 

. 
’ 

» 
) 

: 
’ 

” 

[ 
‘ 

P 
3 

f
y
 

-
 

£4 
- 

~ 
- 

i: 
i 

18 
7) 

_
 

bot 
Foe 

F 
- 

oJ 
—t 

Potute 
3 

F 
: 

i
a
 

r
y
 

v 
w
d
 

¢ 
p
d
 

: 
$ 

' 
Lr 

’ 
; 

- 
e
d
 

# 
> 

od 
p
r
 

; 
§
 

H
d
 

” 

pod 
) 

ul 
; 

FS 
- 

od 
L 

3
 

- 
. 

~ 
\
 

. 
r
 

g 
L 

r 
' 

3 
{GG 

: 
» 

4¥ 
od? 

r
t
 

§
 

Ave 
" 

. 
pm 

pr 
u 

“lJ 
a
d
 

» 
5 

f
a
 

~
~
 

A
N
 

) 
. 

} 
{ 

4 
Pe 

po 
’ 

oe 
4 

A 
—
 

“
s
 

~~ 

. 
i
 

. 
pe, 

J 
\ 

« 
} 

!
 

¥ 
} 

dd) ' 
a
 

2 
“ 

-
 

" 
r
 

| 
a
s
 

| 
-y 

R
o
 

ot 
. 

Sednd 
' 

—
 

|
 

P
y
 

3 

'
®
 

(C 
L
o
 

i 
y 

A 
J 

te 
i. 

i
e
 

_
n
 

: 
: 

Ji 
e
r
 

p- 
F 

and 
J 

% 
7) 

hd 
» 

‘ 
J 

»
 

~ 
. 

 





 
 

  
 
 

 
  
   

 
 

 
 

  
    

 
 

  
  

  
  

 
 

 
 

    
 
 
 
 

    
  

 
 

    
 
 
  

. 
Ld 

w 
ud 

. 
‘ 

R 
: 

: 

» 
" 

» 
ot 

’ 
w 

. 
’ 

. 
. 

o
w
 

. 

: 
. 

7 
.. 

. 
v 

: 
- 

: 
1 

» 
. 

«
®
 

. 
-. 

. 
if 

2
 

. 

" 
. 

-
 

. 

y 
= 

. 

* 
: 

ww 
“ 

J 
-. 

’ 
3 

. 

. 
. 

: 
. 

- 
9 

K 
- 

i 
SA 

» 
- 

oi. 
‘ 

. 
. 

¢ 
. 

- 
M 

2 
PE 

J 
» 

- 
e
s
 

- 
$s 

K 

fe 
- 

>
i
 

: 

- 
a 

-
*
 

. 
- 

| 
. 

. 
. 

X 
i 

" 
. 

a
g
.
 

~ 
> 

. 
‘ 

: 
y 

§ 

. 
M 

' 
- 

i” 
. 

§ 
K 

_ 
¥ 

\ 
2 

~ 
. 

. 
% 

T
a
N
 

" 

5 
- 

. 
. 

~ 
. 

. 
- 

oe 
“ 

4 
. 

a
 

- 
: 

. 
. 

\ 
. 

. 
‘ 

- 
© 

* 
1} 

. 
¥ 

. 
4 

- 

< 
. 

© 
ps 

J 
. 

~
.
 

- 
> 

* 
% 

M 
. 

# 
O) 

) 
es 

. 
. 

% 
’ 

. 
~
 

. 
_" 

i 
7
 

J 
NS 

. 
- 

" 

§ 
—
 

be 
nd 

” 

{ 
bg 

J
 

a
 

k 
f 

“ 
sd 

- 

; 
hy 

a 
| 

& 

A 
po 

- 
Vi 

yt 
a) 

: 
oot 

i 
J
 

., 

. 
J
 

: 

- 
3
.
3
 

3
 

-» 
. 

i 
put 

¥ 
—
 

le 
LJ 

’ 
4 

»
 

a 
fo 

J
 

. 
t 

o
t
 

. 
- 

p! 
o
y
 

P 

48] 
] 

_
—
 

3 
~
y
 

- 

N
e
 

ps 
-/ 

3 
3 

va 
l 

. 
wiped! 

A
A
"
 

sm 
| 

g
d
 

an 
~ 

- 

¢ 
i 

§ 
G
4
 

—
 

. 
4 

‘ 

“7 
d 

uJ 
ne 

| 
LY 

f
h
 

wind 
. 

i 

4 
p= 

KK 

[ 
f 

r
r
 

t
i
 

jp 
—~ 

2 
-~ 

L 
J 

P™ 

wy 
Apt 

2 
’ 

. 
: 

- 
. 

NEE 
J 

" 
h
n
 

». 
3
 

oF 

pall 
. 

2
8
)
 

Ld 
. 

w 
. 

3 
‘ 

A
y
 

. 
. 

- 
4 

. 
. 

* 
+ 

} 
i
E
 

v 
" 

* 

14 
: 

. 
W
E
 

e 
. 

>
 

} 
~
 

: 
. 

d 
. 

se’: 
J 

-
’
 

LB 
J 

* 
~
~
 

. 
hd 

. 
“ 

. 
bh, 

~
 

s 
1 

" 
2 

® 
E. 

r
a
d
 

» 
- 

’ 
v 

L
I
 

. 
y 

5 
: 

» 
. 

. 
w® 

. 
. 

. 
. 

3 

> 
- 

 



  

IN THE UNITE 

FOR THE DY f
a
i
l
 7 3 = 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THD * 

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, * 

ET AL., * 
¢ ”~ 

Plaintiffs * 
* 
” 

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 76-298 
: * 

THE WILMINGTON MEDICAL CENTER, * 

ET AL., * 
* 

Defendants Ld 
> 

gels ale leat aly ale alee Sale alee wl ely le Malle Wale Talons 

REQUEST. POR PRODUCTION, INSPECTION, AND COPYING 

OF DOCUMENTS UPON DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH, 

EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

plaintiffs request that the following documents be made available 

£0 plaintiffs, by their counsel, at the Suinolpa offices of the 

Office for Civil Rights, 300 Independence Avenue., S.W., Wash- 

ington, D. 'C., on Januvary 24, 1577:3/ 

(1) All drafts of the State Agency guidelines prior to 

rorkvthe draft dated August, 1975; 

{2) Transcripts, tapes, summaries, comments, criticisms, 

on the State Agency guidelines of August, 1975 by 

Peter Holmes (former director of the Office for 

Civil Rights), Martin Gerry (present Director of 

the Office for Civil Rights), and by the regional 

and national chiefs of the Health and Sccial Ser- 

vice Branch, Office for Civil Rights; 

  

1/ 
—' Please note that the ~~ ese requests, with minor modifications, are 
the identical requests rth in attachment to hand-delivered 
letter dated December 13, 1 , which followed and grew out of 
depositions of December 8-9, 1976. Although Counsel for the 
Justice Department, at the depositions, indicated that documents 
requested orally at the depositions would be made available if 
the requests were reduced to writing, and plaintiffs counsel in 
the December 13, -1978, letter asked that three of the items be 

made available by Thursday, December 16 (items (1), (16) and (17)})) 

- 
SC

Y 

! 

and indicated that piecemeal production would be acceptable, no 
~ 3 Lo } ig N Ed a an Wa - ~ 1 =y $= production has occurred to date “A Na - 

 



  

(3) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

££ 

Corrected copy of enforcement activity chart for 

1975, and copies of similar charts for all years from 

1972 to date; 

Complete civil rights file for the Methodist Hospital, 

Gary, Indiana; 

All civil rights files for all health facility reloca- 

tion and/or displacement projects for the past five 

years, and if the project was a Hill-Burton facility, 

Part I of the Hill-Burton srpiication and the narra- 

tive description of the project; 

Policy paper from Region V on the problem of reloca-— 

tion of health facilities, and comments, memoranda, 

letters, and criticisms from the Regional Health 

Directors and from all persons within the Office for 

Civil Rights and the Health Resources Administration, 

both from Region V and Washington; 

Any document from the Office for Civil Rights to the 

Office of Surplus Property, DHEW, concerning possible 

civil rights consequences and/or advisability of a 

civil rights review in the circumstances of the 

Chicago Vateran's Hospital; 

Copy of Notice of Hearing, Letter of Noncompliance, 

and any other public documents involving the Park 

City Hospital, Bridgeport, Connecticut; 

Civil Rights file on West Virginia relocation project; 

Current enforcement activity report for Region III 

showinc¢ each health and social service civil rxichts 

matter in the office; 

All civil rights files for all Hill-Burton projects 

showing civil rights issues considered by Office for 

Civil Rights and State Hill-Burton agencies for past 

five years; 

 



  

» 

(12) 

£13) 

(14) 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

Date: 

’ 

- 
i Copies of all reports received from the Delaware 

Department of Health and Social Services since July 10, 

1975; 

All complaints under section 504, date received, 

whether resolved (and if so, how resolved), whether 

on-site reviews conducted, and program area (health, 

education, social services, etc.); 

All complaints raising site location issue under 

either Title VI or section 504; 

Letters finding violations and notices of opportunity 

for hearing under section 504; 

Worksheets, charts, inventories, and other documents 

showing number of person days needed to perform each 

of the component parts of the civil rights program 

for each Region developed during survey by Office 

for Civil Rights team in summer of 1975; 

Staff allocation and actual positions filled in 

Health and Social Services Branch of the Office for 

Civil Rights for the past five years, nationwide and 

in Region III. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

Marilyn G. Rose 
Christine B. Hickman 
Center for Law and Social Policy 
1751 N Street, BW 

Washington, DC 20036 

{202) 872-0670 

  

Joseph Flowers 
1300 North Broom Street 

Wilmington, DE 19806 
{302) 655-3338 

Of Counsel: 
  

  

Chavies UH. doliver, IV 
eb pic IO cll Be adh ov. ~ 1 - fo RE J " Ng - i Aida Wasersteiln Alan Bernard Scher 

Community Legal Aid Asgistant City Solicitors 
204 West 7th Street 252 Public Building 

Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801 
(302) 571-4200 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   

ereby certify that on this date, copies of t 
request for production have been served upon counsel 

as follows: 

1 

n 

Hand-delivery upon: 

Rebecca Ross 

General Litigation, Civil Division 

Department of Justice 
Room 3342, Main Justice 
Washington, D., CC... . 206530 

First-class mail upon: 

Rodney M. Layton 
Wendel Fenton 
Richards, Layton & Finger 

4072 DuPont Building 
Vilmington, DE 15889 

Malcolm Cobin, Assistant Attorney General 

Division of Public Health 
State of Delaware 
Room 420, Jesse Cooper Bldg. 

Dover, DE. 19801 

WW. Laird Stabler 

U.8. Attorney 
New Federal Building 
9th" and King Streets 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

William C. Gordon 

2501 Silverside Road 

Suite £5 
Wilmington, DE 19810 
(President, Hercules) 

JL un SAY 

Date: ' | 
  

“I \ Hs Joseph Flowers 

 



* 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. ; Civil No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

ét al., 

Defendants. 

  

MOTICN FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 
  

Defendant Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of the Department 

of Health, Education, and Welfare by his undersigned attorneys, 

hereby moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, for a protective order limiting 

discovery to the causes of action described in paragraphs 25 (a) 

and (b); 26{a), (bb), (coc), (e) and (£); 27(a) and (bb); 2%3{(a) and 

26 (1) of the Complaint until further order of the Court so 

that discovery is limited to issues concerning defendant Methodist 

Hospital of Gary, Inc. 

The grounds for this motion are that similar issues raised 

by the complaint are now pending in NAACP v. Wilmington Medical 
  

Center, USDC D Del., Civil Action No. 76-298, an action commenced 

in September of 1976 and which is being litigated on an expedited 

basis, and that to produce identical information and litigate 

identical issues is unduly burdensome and inefficient for the 

Court, counsel and the parties. 

 



  

* 
In support of this Motion, the Court is respectfully 

referred to the Memorandum Of Points and Authorities In 

Support Thereof filed herewith. 

OF COUNSEL: 

JEFFREY CHAMPAGNE 

U.S. Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare 

MARVIN G. GARVIN 

Regional Attorney 

EDWARD L. KOVEN 

Assistant Regional Attorney 
Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare 
300 South Wacker Drive 
18th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

BARBARA ALLEN BABCOCK 

Assistant Attorney General 

  

RICHARD 1.. KIESER 

United States Attorney 

  

FRED W. GRADY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

  

DENNIS G. LINDER 

  

REBECCA L. ROSS 

Attorneys for Defendant 
Attorneys, Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 
Telephone: 

20530 
739-4267 

 



4 * 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. Civil No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

  

MOTION TO STAY 
  

Defendant Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of the 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare hereby moves 

this Court to stay until further Order of the Court the issues 

described in paragraphs 26(d), {(g), (h) and (3); 27(c); 28(b); 

and paragraph 26(i) of the Complaint except as it relates 

to defendant Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. 

The grounds for this motion are that virtually identical 

issues are now pending in NAACP v. Wilmington Medical Center, 
  

USDC D Del., Civil Action No. 76-298, an action commenced 

in September of 1976 and which is being litigated on an expedited 

basis and that to produce identical information and to litigate 

at this time identical issues in this action would be inefficient 

and a waste of judicial time and resources. 

In support of this Motion, the Court is respectfully 

referred to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support 

filed herewith. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

Barbara Allen Babcock 

Assistant Attorney General  



a. * 

  

  

Richard 1. Kieser 

U.S. Attorney 

  

Fred W. Grady 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

  

Dennis G. Linder 

RY. 2 7 > 
F Yn Von A A os A IML CA NT rel 
Rebecca L. ROSS 
  

Attorneys for Defendant 

Attorneys, Department of Justice 
10th & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
Tel: (202) 739-4267 

Of Counsel: 

Jeffrey Champagne 
U.S. Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare 

330 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 

Marvin G. Garvin 
Regional Attorney 

Edward L. Koven 

Assistant Regional Attorney 
Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare 

300 South Wacker Drive, 18th Fl. 
Chicago, 111. [||01b7126a-c2e1-4ff4-a3fd-ace9ede298c3||]