Major v. Treen Affidavit of Lani Guinier in Response to Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation

    ,f , i
{'t

tfttIN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIAI{A

X

BARBARA MAJOR, et aI.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TREEN, etc.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 82-1L92

Section CDAVID C.
et aI.,

AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE fO MAGISTRATEIS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMEB{DATION

C. Lani Guinier, deposes and states the following:

1. I am Assistant Counsel for the NAACP Legal

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., (f,Of) and have primary

responsibility for LDF's voting rights program. I am one

of the attorneys for plaintiffs in this case. I submit

this affidavit in supporc of plaintiffs I application for

attorneys t fees and in response to the l4agistrate' s Find.ings

and Recommendation of July 11, 1986.

2. The ivlagistrate denies my request for $508.05

expenditures for food, travel and lodging in New Orleans in

May 1983 incurred in connection with "confecting the post-

trial brief, reviewing exhibits and conferring with co-counsel



as to other post-triaI pleadings." One reason given

for denying this expenditure was the ostensible claim

that I had included One Hundred Twenty-Three and 51/100

($I23.51) dollars in hotel bil1s paid to a hotel in

Raleigh, N. C. The other reason given, and I was invited

to respond to this cIaim, was that I flew round trip to

Raleigh without proving the "cost of round trip air

flight from Raleigh/Durham to New Orleans and back to

Raleigh/Durham" was reasonably attributed to Ivlajor v.

Treen. (Recommendation at 39).

There is no evidence anywhere in the record that 1

billed or attempted, to include $I23.5I or any amount for

a hotel in North Carolina or that I flew round trip to

Raleigh, N. C. In fact, in my Affidavit in Response to

Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories, dated June 7, 1985,

I explained that I billed my hotel in Raleigh to another

case and. that I only charged defendants the cost of travel to

and from New Orleafls, as follows:

My total exPenses for the time period
(5/83) were $818.16. My fare to Raleigh,
North Carolina and my hotel there were
billed to another case. f bilIed defend-
ants (Treen, €t a}. ) only for my fare from
Raleigh to New Orleans and New Orleans to
New York -- $238.00 and for hotel and
meals in New Orleans $270.95. See
original affidavit and documentation pro-
vided therefor.

June 7, 1985 Affidavit at 10.

3. I, therefore, request reimbursement of $508.05 in

expenses incurred only in connection with my required Presence

in New Orleans on this case. By billing defendants for m)t

-2-



airfare from Raleigh to New Orleans instead of New York

to New Orleans, I was saving defendants several hundred

dollars from what I could have charged for round trip

airfare from New York to New Orleans.

4. The Magistrate denies my request for $85.55

reimbursement for service of subpoenas on the ground, that

the "court is unsure as to who was to be served, when the

service was to be accomplished and for what purposes ser-

vice was sought." fn fact, defendants were served with

copies of the subpoenas served by Associated Investigators

in December L982 on William Bradford Reynolds, Gerald Jones

and Gerald Hebert. These subpoenas were necessary to

plaintiffs' discovery of the Department of Justice files

surrounding the preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting

Rights Act of the plan submitted by defendants, approved by

Mr. Reynolds and ultimately rejected by this Court. fn

response to the subpoenas, plaintiffs were provided with

documents that are part of the trial record in this matter

and which assisted the Court in determining that the plaintj-ffs

vrere not barred, as defenCants suggested, from litigating

this matter de novo. 1, therefore, object to this finding and

request reimbursenent for $86.55 paid to Associated

Investigators.

5. I object to the Magistrate's disallowing $671.92 of

expenses to LDF paid to Gordon Henderson, expert witness.

The lIagistrate claims no receipts were produced by tvlr.

Henderson to substantiate this sum. In fact, I produced

-3-



receipts that LDF had paid this sum in connection with

the litigation and LDF should therefore by reimbursed.

With regard to Mr. Henderson's travel to his deposition,

defendants had previously agreed to have I"1r. Henderson

travel to New Orleans rather than submit to a deposition in

Indiana. The entj.re amount of hj.s travel, includ.ing first

class seating which was aII that was available, should be

reimbursed. Nevertheless, dt the Magistraters request

I will attempt to determine from Delta the cost of round

tip coach fare from New Orleans to Cincinnati to Dayton,

Ohio in March 1983, and will submit it upon receipt.

6 . In response to the l,lagistrate I s ruling that I may

clarify the amount expended and type of fare used for travel

on May 5, 19E5 from New York to New Orleans, returning May 8,

1985, I submit the following information, which is also

appended to my Af fidavit of I'Iay 13 , 1985. I f lew coach class

and. paid $450.00 for my round trip New York/New Orleans fare

on Piedmont and Eastern airlines. I request reimbursement

for this amount.

Further deponent sayeth not.

Sworn to before me this

l*- day of July, 1986.

Notary

(
\-/r

/

. GERTRUDE A. PEYI'JOLDS
Notarf otjl116, Si;ril ,rl ileit ]ork

l.lo. 2r-.i,12-.i2:i)

- 0ualiireo rn xrncs Uo,:niv
Commrsston Exirres,,jut,,, jl,' lgga

-4-