Objections Alternatives, and Recommendations of the MEA to reports of the Desegregation Panel

    P H O N E  (901 )  5 2 5 -  S  6  O IRATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS

M A R V IN  L. R A T N E R  

R. B. S U G A R M O N , J R .  

L O U IS  R. L U C A S  

W AL TE R L. BAIL EY ,  JR .  

I R V IN  M S A L K Y  

M I C H A E L  8 .  KAY 

W I L L I A M  E. C A L D W E L L

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

S U I T E  5 2 5

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G  

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103

February 10, 1972
B E N  L.  H O O K S  

O F  C O U N S E L

Honorable James A. Higgins, Clerk 
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Sixth Circuit 
Room 601, Post Office Building 
5th and Walnut 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Dear Mr. Higgins: .
This letter will constitute plaintiffs' response to 

the motion of the Detroit Board of Education defendants to 
consolidate appeals, designate parties, and establish a 
schedule for filing appendix and briefs. Plaintiffs are 
in substantial agreement with the motion filed by the 
Detroit Board of Education defendants, which we understand 
to provide as follows:

1. The above-numbered appeals shall be consolidated 
and heard together.

2. The Detroit Board of Education defendants and the 
State defendants shall be designated as Appellants 
and Cross-Appellees; plaintiffs shall be designated 
as Appellees and Cross-Appellants; defendant-inter- 
venor, Detroit Federation of Teachers, shall be 
designated as Cross-Appellee.

3. The briefing schedule shall be determined by the 
Court's disposition of plaintiffs' pending motion 
to dismiss the appeals and plaintiffs' pending 
motion for leave to proceed on the original papers.

4. Should the Court deny both of plaintiffs' motions, 
then the State defendants and the Detroit Board of 
Education defendants shall have 90 days after 
whichever of plaintiffs' motions was last denied
to file the appendix, and ten days after that within 
which to file briefs as Appellants. Plaintiffs shall 
then have 30 days within which to file their brief 
as Appellee and Cross-Appellant. The State defen­
dants and the Detroit Board of Education defendants

RE: Bradley, et al. v. Milliken, et al
Nos. 72-1064, 72-1065, 72-1066



2

Honorable James A. Higgins February 10, 1972

would then have 14 days within which to file 
reply briefs, and these defendants and the 
defendant-intervenor, Detroit Federation of 
Teachers, would have 30 days from the filing 
of plaintiffs' brief to file briefs as Cross­
Appellees .

5. Should the Court deny plaintiffs' motion to 
dismiss but grant the motion for leave to pro­
ceed on the original papers, the State defen­
dants and the Detroit Board of Education 
defendants would have 40 days after the date 
on whichever of plaintiffs' motions was last 
disposed of to file briefs as Appellants.
The schedule for filing briefs would then be 
as stated in paragraph 4 above.

6. The order of presentation at oral argument would
be: first, State defendants and Detroit Board
of Education defendants would present their 
arguments; second, plaintiffs would present their 
argument; third, defendant-intervenor, Detroit 
Federation of Teachers, would present its 
argument and State defendants and Detroit Board 
of Education defendants would present rebuttal, 
if they reserved time for same.

Plaintiffs agree substantially with the motion of the 
Detroit Board of Education defendants and join in the motion, 
with the exceptions which follow. With regard to the order 
of filing briefs set forth in paragraph 4 above, plaintiffs 
feel that it would be more efficient for the State defendants 
and the Detroit Board defendants to file their reply briefs 
at the same time that they file their briefs as Cross-Appellees 
and, in accordance with Rule 28(c), F.R.A.P., plaintiffs*feel 
that they should have 14 days after all Cross-Appellees' briefs 
are filed to file a reply brief. The order which we suggest, 
therefore, is as follows:

(a) Plaintiffs shall have 30 days after the filing 
of Appellants' briefs by the State defendants 
and the Detroit Board defendants within which
to file a brief as Appellee and Cross-Appellant;

(b) State defendants and Detroit Board defendants 
shall then have 30 days to file reply briefs
and briefs as Cross-Appellees, and the defendant- 
intervenor, Detroit Federation of Teachers, shall 
within the same time file its brief as Cross­
Appellee ;



3
Honorable James A. Higgins February 10, 1972

(c) Plaintiffs shall then have 14 days to file a 
reply brief to the Cross-Appellees' briefs.

This schedule, although it allows the State and Detroit 
Board defendants more time within which to file reply briefs 
to plaintiffs' brief as Appellees, eliminates the filing of 
two sets of responsive briefs by the State and Detroit Board 
defendants which would be the result under the Detroit Board's 
motion. This schedule also permits plaintiffs to file a 
reply brief to the Cross-Appellees' briefs, which the Detroit 
Board's motion does not provide for.

With regard to the order of presentation at oral 
argument set forth in paragraph 5 above, plaintiffs feel 
that they should have rebuttal on the issue which plaintiffs' 
appeal, should they reserve time for such rebuttal.

With the particular exceptions just mentionedr we 
join'in the motion of the Detroit Board of Education defendants 
and respectfully pray the Court to enter an order accordingly.

We are enclosing three copies of this letter for the 
benefit of the Court. Thank you for your cooperation in 
this and other matters.

WEC:pw
cc: George T. Roumell, Jr., Esq.

Eugene Krasicky, Esq. 
Theodore Sachs, Esq. 
Alexander B. Ritchie, Esq.

Very truly yours
RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS

William E. Caldwell

Enclosure