Correspondence from Winner to Leonard; Stipulation of Extension of Time; Correspondence from Winner to Wallace; from Edmisten to Winner

    CHAMBERS, FERGUSON, WATT, WALLAS, ADKINS & FULLER, P.A
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

951 SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARO

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 24202
TELEPHONE r704) 375-a461

April 2L, 1982

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS

JAMES E, FERGUSON, II

MELVIN L. WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL ADKINS

JAMES C, FULLER, JR,

YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN \|r', GRESHAM

RONALD L. GIBSON

GILOA F. GLAZER

LESLIE J. WINNER

JOHN T, NOCKLEBY'

. OF O C- BAR ONLY

Mr. J. Rich Leonard, Clerk
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of North Carolina
Post Office Box 25670
Raleigh, North Carolina 276LL

Re: Gingles,
et a1. :

et al. v. Edmisten,
No. 81-803-Civ-5

Dear Mr. Leonard:

Enclosed please find the original and three copies of the
Stipulation of Extension of Time to be filed in connection
with the above referenced case. Please return a "fil-ed"
stamped copy to me.

By copy of this letter I am serving copies of the above upon
counsel for the defendants.

Thank you for your usuaL cooperation.

Sincerely,

,flruLh/*Leslie J. Winner

LJW: ddb
Encl-osures
cc: Mr. James C. WalLace, Jr.

Mr. Jerris Leonard
Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Mr. Arthur J. Donaldson



rN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT
FOR THE EASTERI.I DISTRICT OF }.IORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGII DIVISIOItr
No.81-803-CIV-S

RALPH GfNGLES, €t dI.,

Plainti ffs ,
STIPULATION

v.

RUFUS EDMISTEN, etc., et dl.,
Defendants.

OF EXTENSION OF TTME

Plaintj-ffs and Defendants in the action entitlecl Gingles,
etaI.v.'Edm@ta1.,Civi1Actionl]o.B1-8o3-CrV-5,

stipulates that Plaintiffs must respond to the Defendantrs First
Set of Interrogatories and Requests for production hy Monday,

May 13 , 1982, the defendants having agreed to stipulate an addi-
tional period of time for the plaintiffs to r:espond.

This the 2l day of April, tg}2.--.r_

Suite 730 East Independence plaza
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
704/37s-846t

Attorney for Pla

Affairs

of
stice

st Office Box 629

9l-9/733-3377

Attorneys for Defendants

E J. I^TfNNER
Chambers, FYrguson, I{att, WaI1as,

Adkins & Fuller, P.A.

ilil;;y"?VL"qut
ey Generalrs Office
Carolina Department

Raleigh, liorth Carolina 27602



CERTIPICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certi-fy that I have this day served the foregoing

Stipulation of Extension of Time upon aIl other parties by placing

a copy of same in the United States Post Office, postaqe prepaid,

addressed to:

Arthur J. Donaldson
Eurke, Donaldson, Iiolshouser & Kerely
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28l-44

Robert ltr. Iiunter, Jr.
Post Office Box 3245
201 lrrest Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402
Attorneys for plaintiffs in Puqh v. tiunt

This tine 2) a., of April , 1982.



CHAMBERS, FERGUSON, WATT, WALLAS, ADKINS & FULLER, P.A
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

95I SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202
TELEPHONE (704) 375-4461

April 2L, 1982

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS

JAMES E, FERGUSON. II

MELVIN L WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL ADKINS

JAMES C FULLER. JR.

YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W, GRESHAM

RONALD L, GIBSON

GILDA F. GLAZER

LESLIE J, WINNER

JOHN T NOCKLEBY'

. OF O C BAR ONLY

Mr. James C. Wallace, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General for

Legal Affairs
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Re: Gingles v. Edmisten

Dear Mr. Wallace:

Ihis letter is in response to your letter of April 20, L982,
and in confirmation of our telephone conversation of earlier
today.

With regard to your second set of interrogatories, which con-
cern Congressional reapportionment, I have mailed today under
separate cover, plaintiffs'Request for Voluntary Dismissal of
the claims concerning the Congressional plan. If the Court
approves this dismissal, then I assume that you will withdraw
those interrogatories, and you agreed that there is no point
in plaintiffs' answering your second set of interrogatories
at this time.

Your first set of interrogatories concern the current appor-
tionment of the North Carolina General Assembly. As you know,
the United States Department of Justice entered an objection
to those apportionments on April L9, 1982. Thus, unless the
State files suit in the District Court for the District of
Columbia, and gets a declaratory judgment approving the plans,
they cannot be enforced. Thus those questions which relate
to the particular apportionments are, or may be, irrel-evant.
I have enclosed our stipulation that plaintiffs will answer
these interrogatories by May 13, L982, as we agreed today on
the telephone. I am also mailing three copies to the Clerk.



Mr. James C. Wallace, Jr.
April 2L, L982

Page 2

However, I reiterate that I have signed the stipulation
without waiving our right to object to questions about the
particular apportionments which are, or become irrelevant.
As we discussed earlier, I have appreciated our ability to
cooperate in the past, and I believe that we will both be
better off if we continue our past rational, level headed,
approach which has, for the most part, saved boEh of us, as well
as the Court, needless work. After this afternoon's dis-
cussion, I am confident that this smalL dispute is resolved
and that we will continue to cooperate as we have in the
past.

Sincerely,

(,(,1,n,-"-_

J. Winner

JLW: ddb
Enclosure
cc: Judge James Dickson Phillips, Jr.

Judge F. T. Dupree, Jr.
Judge W. Earl Britt
A11 Attorneys of Record



RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY OENIRAL

Ft*e rf pfuth @urolina
peprtmetd of ilurlttue

P. O. Box 629
RALEtoH
27eO2

April 20, \982

Ms. Leslie Winner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wa11as,

Adkins & Fu11er, P.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carol-ina 28202

Re: Gingles, €t dl., v. Edmisten, €t aI., No. 81-803-CIV-5
Pugh, €t d1., v. Hunt, Jr., etc., €t al., No. 81-I056-CIV-'5

Dear Ms. Winner:

As you knowr on February 22, 1982, attorneys for all
parties in the above-referenced consolidated cases entered
into a stipulation which provided that responses to interroga-
tories and requests for production propounded thereafter would
be due fifteen days following receipt of the same. Attorneys
for defendants readily consented to such a stipulation, appre-
ciating the need to expedite all pre-triaI procedures and recog-
nizing the similar statutory duty imposed upon our three-
judge court in these reapportionment cases.

On March 29, 1982, defendants propounded their FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (GTNGLES). PUT-
suant to your reque'st, attorneys for defendants prepared for
your signature, and they themselves executed and delivered to
you, a second discovery stipulation, allowing the Gingles plain-
tiffs approximately fifteen days additional time in which to
respond to the interrogatories and requests for production. My
recent communication with the Clerk's office indicates that you
never executed, or at least never fi1ed, the stipulation you
requested. Yet, to dater w€ have received no response.

Presently, defendants are uninformed as to the facts sup-
porting the allegations of your complaint; they are unable to
determine the accuracy of the mathematical calculations which are
the basis of your reapportionment proposals; they have no infor-
mation whatsoever regarding the identity of your witnesses or the
matters to which they are expected to testify; they are at a loss
as to whom to depose. At this rate, Ms. Winner, when and if this



April 20, 1982

state ever resol-ves its differences v.,ith the united states
Attorney General concerning the forty counties of the state
covered by the Voting Righis Act of 1965, as amended, the partiesto this action are going to fal1 woefully short of being alte toproceed in the Eastern District. r remind you that thi; state
has yet to hold its "spring prj-marj-es" and Lhat a general state-wide election is scheduled for lrlovember of this yeir. ft seemsan understatement to note that time is of the eslence.

our reason for refraining from a Motion to compel is twofol-d: First, the court has never entered an order Lpproving oradopting our discovery stipuration, leaving us only iomewha[
suspect that you are not bound by your own agreement. second,
and more importantly, we would prefer that all parties continueto cooperate in discovery matters r ES has been the case in thepast. A11 parties, as well as the court, benefit from this
approach.

Despite our exercise of restraint at this point, however,I woul-d rernind you that serious and highly complicated matterswirl eventually come before the court. our clientsr interest
can only be protected by our own insistence that responses toformal and ]egaIly supportable i-nquiries be forthcomirrg.

Please regard this correspondence as notice that we will
soon feel compelled to take more formal 1ega1 action regarding
the defendants' first set of interrogatorj-es.

As an asj-de, r remind you that defendants' second set ofinterrogatories was propounded on April 5, tgg2. we also offeredyou an additional fifteen days in which to respond to those inter-rogatories. As of this date, you have not signed the stipulati-on.
Very truly yours,

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN

JIJJR: eh

CC: Iionorable James Dickson Phillips, Jr.
Honorable F. T. Dupree, JE.
Iionorable Ii. Earl Britt
All Attorneys

ATTORI\IEY G

Wa11ace,
ty Attorn neral