Fax from Smiley to Cox RE: edits on pretrial contentions

    TO ToDo Cont 

PLASC CALL ME AS SOON AS POSS I181& 

              

8C:b 66. IT AC £99914616: XE 1171 "IBIJ34S 58 ON  



  

CIVIL RULES : | Rule 24. 
        

the attorney conference provided for in 

the court may excuse the copying of 

ee. other exhibits. Except as otherwise 

> pre-trial order, it will be deemed that 

Pr late that all exhibits are authentic and 

Be into evidence without further identi- 

pct c Grounds for objection as to authen- 

Sr seibility must be set forth in the pre-trial 

practicable, trial exhibits should carry 

per as in the depositions and references 

‘depositions should be changed to refer 

A oxhibit number. It is not necessary to 

Rr hibits that are to be used solely for 

gee or cross-examination. 

Biv: Designation of Pleadings and Discovery 

wc The designation by line and page of all 

pleadings and digeovery materials, includ- 

tions, interrogatories and requests for ad- 

Kav ))ab each party may offer at trial by reference 

nent volume, page number, and line. Objec- 

27 opposing counsel shall be noted by document 

gS nage number and line, and reasons for such 

00S. chall be stated. It is mot necessary to 

"5 deposition, any other discovery material, 

partion of a deposition, that is to be used solely 

sachment or eross-exgmination. 

V7 Witnesses, A list of the names and address- 

fall witnesses each party may offer at trial, 

er with a brief statement of what counsel pro- 

to"establish by their testimony. 

pended October 15, 1997) 

04 Conduct of the Final Pre-trial Confer- 

Wiss 
a LN ’ 

(2 ‘Purpose. To resolve any disputes concerning 

the contents of the pre-trial order. 

) Counsel shall be fully prepared to present to the 

t all information and documentation necessary for 

pletion of the pre-trial order, Failure to do so 

i yesult in the sanctions provided by this rule. 

Belo io i, : 

fy: (c)_ Sanctions. Failure to comply with the provi- 

sions of Rule 24.04(b) may result in the imposition of a 

fmonetary fine not to exceed $250.00 against the of- 

g fending counsel and may vesult in any other sanction 

{allowable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

Pigainst the parties or their counsel. 

+ (8) To the extent this local rule is in conflict with 

), this rule shall take precedence. 

8C:b 66. CC NON 

  

24.05 Sample Pre-trial Order. A pre-trial ox 

in the following form shall be sufficient to comply w 

"these rules: 

283 

JOHN DOE, by his guardian 

ad litem, JANE DOE, 
Plaintiff 

No. 5:94-CV-125-F 

XYZ CORPORATION, 

Defendant 

) 
) 
) 
) 

VE. ) PRE-TRJAL ORDER 

) 
) 
) 

Date of Conference: August 12, 1998 

Appearances: John Y. Lawyer, Raleigh, North Car- 

olina for plaintiff; Sam ¥.” Attorney, Fayetteville, 

North Carolina for defendant. 

1. STIPULATIONS. 

A. all parties are properly pefore the court; 

B. the court has jurisdiction of the parties and 

of the subject matter; 

C. all parties have been correctly designated; 

D. there is no question as to misjoinder or non- 

joinder of parties; 

E. plaintiff, 8 minor, appears through his guard- 

ian; 

F., Facts: 

1. Plaintiff is a citizen of Wake County, North 

Carolina. 

9 Defendant is a New York corporation, li- 

censed to do business and doing business in the 

State of North Carolina, 

G. Legal Issues: 

May 2 nine-year old minor be guilty of contributo- 

ry negligence? 
: 

H. Factual Issues: 

1. Was plaintiff injured and damaged by the 

negligence of the defendant? 

5 What amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled to 

receive of defendant as compensatory damages? 

II. CONTENTIONS. 

A. Plaintiff 

1. Facts: 

(a) That Richard Roe was driving defendant's 

truck as defendant's agent. 

(b) That Richard Roe was negligent in that he 

drove at an excessive speed and while under the 

influence of intoxicating liquor. 

2 Factual Issues: 

What amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled to 

recover of defendant as punitive damages? 

B. Defendant 

1. Facts:  



MC PG SPECIAL LTT ® Now 22 09 ® P.O} 

  

TO 5 ToDD. Cox 

Rom: TES 

(18 page wf Cover) 

P/EASC CALL ME AS S090 AS fO3s 1814 ! 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM “aaa Nov a® 12:25: Nn.006 P.O1. 

EvErReTT & EVERETT 
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 

SUITE 300 

R.0. EVERETT (1878-1971) 301 W. MAIN STREET 

ER enh) O90 187 TEL: (919) 682-5691 
DAWN T. BATTISTE DurtHam, NORTH CAROLINA 27702 FAX: (819) 682-5469 
SANDRA G. HERRING 

  

OF COUNSEL 

ROBERT D. HOLLEMAN 
OF COUNSEL 

CRAIG M. KABATCHNICK 
(ADMITTED N.C., D.C.) 

i Mr. Adam Stein, via fax to 967-4933 
Mt. Todd Cox, via fax to 202-682-1312 

From: Robinson Everett, Marty McGee, Doug Markham or Seth Neyhart 

Subject: Discovery Issues 

Date: November 22, 1999 

Approximate Pages: 30 

Enclosed are materials provided to Ms. Smiley over the weekend, including stipulations, 

contentions, and some preliminary deposition designations. 

 



   

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al = Noy. 22°09 12:26 No.006 P.0O2 

EVERETT & EVERETT 
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 

  

SUITE 300 

RO. EVERETT (1878-1871) 301 W. MAIN STREET 
XATHRINE A. EVERETT (1893-1992) 
A, 0. EVERETT PO sox ser TEL: (919) 682-5891 DWNT. BATTISTI 8 DurMAM, NoATH CAROLINA 27702 FAX: (919) 682-5409 

SANDRA @. HERRING 

OF COUNSEL 
ROBERT D. HOLLEMAN 

OF COUNSEL 
CRAIG M, KABATCHNICK 
(ADMITTED N.C., D.C.) November 21, 1999 

(919) 716-6763 

Ms. Tiare B, Smiley 
Special Deputy Attorney 
State Of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

RE: Stipulations, Senator Roy Cooper & Dr. Gerald R. Webster 

Dear Tiare: 

We will be forwarding a revised copy of our proposed stipulations in approximately one 
hour. We reserve the right to add additional stipulations, This is to confirm that you intend to 
inform us on Monday as to those stipulation you find objectionable and to forward your proposed 

Nr stipulations to us. 

This is also to confirm that you have rejected our offer to permit the State to submit 
Senator Cooper's prior affidavits as well as his entire deposition in lieu of his testifying at trial. 

We have reconsidered your proposal to permit Senator Cooper to testify via video tape. 
If the State will agree to also admit his discovery deposition at trial, we are willing to permit 
Senator Cooper’s video testimony to be taken on Friday, November 25™ provided that the 
logistics can be worked out. While this is a hardship for us, we want to make every effort to 
accommodate Senator Cooper’s prior commitments. 

We are not at this time in a position to consent to the State offering Dr. Websters 
deposition transcript in lieu of his testifying at trial. We realize that he will need to make travel 
arrangements, but we will continue to consider any alternative to having his live testify at trial. 

Please let me know as soon as possible if our proposal regarding Senator Cooper is 
acceptable. 

or’ 

Sincerely, 

-— 

\ Robinson Q. Everett 

 



      

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL : 9     
   ERETT & EVERETT 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 

SUITE 300 
R.Q, EVERETT (1878-1971) 301 W. MAIN STREET 
KATUSRINE B, EVERETT (1899-1992) P.O. BOX 508 
RC JON O. RVRARTT 
DAW T. BATTISTE 
SANDRA G. HERRING 

DurHAM, NortH CAROLINA 27702 

  

OF COUNSEL 
ROBEAY D. HOLLEMAN 

OF COUNSSL 
CRAIG M. KABATCHNICK 
(ADMITTED N.C., D.C.) 

FAX TRANSMITTAL 

DATE/TIME: 
  

  

TO: are. Sune ley 

  

RE: Cole, 38 SyY~S. 

FAN NUMBER: ( Qq ) 

  

JH T6063 

9~682-546G Nov 22'S 12:26 No .006 P03 

TEL: (019) 602.5601 
FAX: (915) 682.6469 

  

Number of pages transmitted: Cover page plus 3 pages. 

Ciclosed Description of document; are he 
  

confer Hon S 
  

ore lim) Na" Gy 

| ~ 
ela Ak Es 

CTE deme em. en 
  

  

  

  

Seth. From: 
  

This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the 
iddressce named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile. or the employes or agent 
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that 
this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error 
iclophone and return the original facsimile (0 us at the above address via the United 
you, 

NL 

any dissemination or copying of 

please notlly us immediately by States Postal Service, Thank 

 



   
EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL : 919-682-5469 Noy: 22°99 12:27 No .006 P.O4 

PLAINTIFFS’ PRE-TRIAL ORDER DRAFT, NOVEMBER 21, 1999 

1. Stipulations 

II. Contentions 

A. Plaintiffs’ Factual Contentions 

1. A significant number of persons were either included or excluded from the 1997 version of 
District 1 and District 12 on the basis of race. 

2. The General Assembly’s predominant racial motive is revealed by: 
a. The racial assignment of precincts, parts of cities, and parts of counties in the construction of 

the challenged districts. 
b. the sequence in which redistricting plans were developed after the Supreme Court decision in 

Shaw v. Hunt 
c. recorded statements and correspondence by legislators and legislative staff contained in the 
legislative record, Section 5 preclearance submission, and internal E-mail. 

d. The quick agreement on the heavily black districts 1 and 12. 
e. the retention of the racial cores of District 1 and District 12 
f Disregard for traditional redistricting principles such as respect for the boundaries of cities, 

counties and other political subdivisions, geographic compactness, contiguity and communities of 
interest resulting from geographic proximity 
g. The concern about complying with the Department of Justice maximization policy 
h. The advice given to the General Assembly that a district which was not majority-minority was 

not subject to Shaw v. Reno 
i. The relation of the 1997 plan to the 1992 plan which makes clear that the later plan maintains 
the “vestiges” of the earlier plan and is the “fruit” of the unconstitutional Twelfth District and 
First District in the 1992 plan, 

j. The pretextual explanations and post hoc rationalizations offered in defense of the 1997 plan 
k. The results of the congressional election in District 12 under the 1998 plan, which revealed 
that a politically safe “Democratic” 12® district could be drawn without linking together 
geographically dispersed black communities in order that the total minority population would be 

around 47%. 
1. The inconsistency between the results of the Associated Press survey taken of legislators in 
late 1996 and the defendants’ claim that the 1997 redistricting plan had a predominately political 

motive, 

3. The efforts to claim a political motive for the First and the Twelfth Districts of the 1997 plan 
are pretextual. 

a. The claim that “partisan balance” drove the formation of these districts has been misused 
repeatedly by the state defendants throughout the 1990s. 

b. The statistical analysis by Dr. Peterson is neither reliable nor relevant because it ignores 
heavily black internal precincts in the 12" District, does not give varying weight to the varying 

A population and minority population in his “segment analysis”, uses flawed data which, when 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al) Noy. 22'99 12:27 No 006 P .05 

corrected, would lead to a contrary conclusion, and is riddled with numerous additional errors. 
¢. The challenged districts are overly safe for Democratic candidates, but are instead 

constructed so that blacks predominate in the Democratic primary electorate. 

4. No compelling government interest has been shown to exist for creating the racially 
gerrymandered Twelfth District or the racially gerrymandered First District as is revealed by: 
a. The effort on the part of the General Assembly to comply with the unconstitutional 

maximization policy of the Department of Justice in its administration of Section 5 Preclearance. 

b. The inability of the defendants or anyone else to show that a geographically compact district 
can be created in which a majority of the voting age population is African-American. 
c. The geographic dispersion of Aftican-Americans in North Carolina, as a result of which only 5 
of 100 counties have a majority black population and no geographically compact district can be 
created wherein a majority of its total population is African-American. 

d. The statements by officials of the State in the past which acknowledged that such a 
geographically compact district can not be created in North Carolina. 
e. The reliance by the defendants on an undefined and undefinable concept of “functional 

compactness,” which is used to support the unconstitutional theory that a person of one race has 

less community of interest with a person of another race in his own city or county than he has 
with a person of his own race located in a distant city or county. 
f. The attempt to justify their racial composition by reference to purposes such as partisan 
balance and incumbent protection, which are clearly not compelling government interests. 

5. Even if such a compelling governmental interest could be imagined for either the 12™ District 
or the 1" District, neither District 12 nor District 1 of the 1997 plan is narrowly tailored to further 
that interest. 

a. The districts are not narrowly tailored by shape and disregard geographical compactness. 
b. The districts are not narrowly tailored because they unnecessarily violate the integrity of 

political subdivisions. 
¢. The districts are not narrowly tailored in their racial composition because they 

overconcentrate African Americans and thereby unduly reduce minority participation in the 
electoral process in other districts. 

d. The districts are not narrowly tailored because they concentrate African Americans far more 
than is necessary for them to elect a candidate of their choice. 

B. Plaintiffs’ Contested Legal Contentions 

1. Plaintiffs in this action are not barred by claim preclusion from presenting their claims as a 

result of the Shaw litigation, 

2. Because of the unconstitutionality of the 12" and 1" Districts in the 1992 plan, the General 
ur Assembly was not free to use that plan as a benchmark and to draw the 1997 plan so as to 

 



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Noy 22799 12:28 No.006b P.O6 

preserve its racial cores. 

3. The General Assembly had a duty to remove all vestiges of the unconstitutional 12* and 1* 
Districts in the 1992 plan and clearly the evidence fails to establish that this duty was fulfilled. 

4. In order for Thornburg v. Gingles to apply to any district in North Carolina, it must be shown 
that a district can be formed which is geographically compact and in which the majority of the 
voting age population is African American. 

5. Functional compactness may not be substituted for geographic compactness in attempting to 

justify the boundaries of a Congressional district under Thornburg v. Gingles and Shaw v. Reno. 

6. Dr. Peterson’s unprecedented analysis of precinct boundary “segments” is subject to exclusion 
under Daubert because it is neither reliable nor relevant, 

7. In the event the Court concludes that the 1997 redistricting plan is unconstitutional, then 
because of the repeated failure of the General Assembly to prepare a constitutional plan, the 
Court should proceed-with the aid of a special master if it so chooses-to draw a plan that is not 
predominately race based, is not a “vestige” or fruit of the 1992 plan, and will be used as a 
remedial plan for the year 2000 elections. 

8. Plaintiffs have standing because all but one are registered voters in the district that they are 
attacking and plaintiff Linville has standing because he and his precinct were removed from one 
district to another on the basis of race. 

9. The plaintiffs’ motion should be granted to further amend the complaint in order to conform 
with the expected evidence establishing plaintiff Linville’s standing. 

 



    

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM o® Nov 22°99 12:29 No.006 P.O7 

ERETT & EVERETT ® 
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AY LAW 

  

SUITE 300 
R.O. EVERETT (1878-1971) 301 W. MAIN STREET 
ATRIA 3 yen (1293-1992) P.O. BOX 586 

Np dod Durram, NORTH CAROLINA 27702 TEL: (019) 652-5801 
SANDRA GQ. HEARING FAX: (010) 652.5400 

OF COUNSEL 
RORERY 0. HOLLEMAN 

OF COUNSEL : 
CAAIG M. KABATCHNICK 
(AODMITTEQ N.C, D.C.) FAX TRAN SMITT A I 

  
  

DATE/TIME. J[/21/5¢ 

TO: ay \@ Sm, Jes 
  

  

  

Re: [lofesed Stipehdiec ¢ - 133 54ip5. 

FAN NUMBER: Js 0 C77 
  

Number of pages transmitted: Cover page plus pages. 

Description of document: 
  

  

Bis 78. aur 18d ik Pr fs wf Stipe oias 

We Arse iee Ye List ro ad tI, pen 

SW VIE LPR Plente 1 revi ye Hades 

A Diss y PPR AVY biped omnSle. [ets 

EAT Le Alfie Sl pula: as on Wend, as tial: 

From: Tou: po, Herts AP ar HT Zot 8 

  

  

  

  

  

This facsimile containg PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the 
addressee naned above. If you are nol the intended recipient of this facsimile. or the employee or agent 
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of 
this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error plesse notify us immediately by telephone and return the original facsimile to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank youu, 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM HV “eg Nov 22799 12:29 No.006 P.OS 

Third Draft of Plaintiffs’ P { Stipulat] 

Date and Time: November 21, 1999, 1 p.m, 

o
b
 All parties are properly before the court. 

2 The court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. 

3. All parties have been correctly designated. 

4. There is no question as to misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. 

EXHIBIT ISSUES: 

5. Except as noted by an objection, the parties agree that all maps on the exhibit list are 

authentic. 

6. At the request of any party, the Court may take judicial notice of materials offered as an 

exhibit from the 1991, 1992, 1997, 1998 or 1998 Section 5 Preclearance Submission of 

corresponding Congressional districting plan to the Department of Justice. 

7 At the request of any party, the Court may take judicial notice of all materials and data 

contained in the General Assembly’s ArcView program and redistricting program in the 

office of Information Services. 

STANDING/RESIDENCE: (The following stipulations as to standing are subject to a ruling by 

this court as to the defense of claim preclusion) 

8. Plaintiff J. H. (Jake) Froehlich resides in Guilford County and is a properly registered 

voter in Congressional District 12. 

4} Plaintiff R. Q. Everett resides in Rowan County and is a properly registered voter in 

Congressional District 12. 

10. Plaintiff Joel K. Bourne resides in Edgecombe County and is a properly registered voter in 

Congressional District 1. 

11, Plaintiff Lois Weaver resides in Edgecombe County and is a properly registered voter in 

Congressional District 1. 

12. Plaintiff Thomas Chandler Muse resides in Edgecombe County and is a properly registered 

voter in Congressional District 1, 

 



    _ EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM a® Nov 2299 12:30 No .006 P.09 

13 Plaintiff Martin Cromartie resides in Edgecombe County and is a properly registered voter 

ps in Congressional District 1. 

14, Plaintiff Jake Froehlich has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional 

District 12. 

15. Plaintiff R. O. Everett has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional 

District 12. 

16. Plaintiff Martin Cromartie has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional 

District 1. 

17. Plaintiff Joel K. Bourne has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional 

District 1. 

18. Plaintiff Lois Weaver has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional 

District 1. | 

19. Plaintiff Thomas Chandler Muse has standing to challenge the constitutionality of 

Congressional District 1. 

20. Plaintiff Ronald Linville resides in Forsyth County in Abbotts Creek #2 precinct in the 

1990 map of precincts in Forsyth County. 

21. Plaintiff Ronald Linville in the 1992 plan was a properly registered voter in Congressional 

District 12. 

92. Plaintiff Ronald Linville was a properly registered voter in Congressional District 5 in the 

1997 plan. 

23. Abbotts Creek #2, which was included in District 12 in the 1992 plan, is now in District 3 

and borders District 12 in the 1997 plan 

24. Ronald Linville is white and based on 1990 census data for total population, Abbotts 

Creek #2 precinct is 95.94% white. 

25. DISTRICT DEMOGRAPHICS: Approximately 22% of the State’s total population is 

African-American. 

26. Approximately 20% of the State’s voting age population is African-American. 

27. District 12 in the 1997 plan is 46.67% African-American in total population and 43.36% 

African-American in voting age population. 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al. = Noy 22799 12:31 No .006 P.10 

28, District 12 in the 1998 Plan is 35.58% African-American in total population and 32.56% 

African-American in voting age population. 

29, In creating the 1997 Plan, the General Assembly split 22 counties. 

30. Six of six counties were split in creating District 12 in the 1997 Plan. 

31. Congressional District 12 in the 1997 plan is the only district among all the NC districts in 

that plan which has no whole, entire county as a part of it. 

32. Of the total population of Congressional District 12 in the 1997 plan, approximately 75% 
percent comes from parts of Mecklenburg, Forsyth and Guilford counties. 

33. Inthe 1997 plan, Forsyth County is split between Districts 5 and 12, in such a manner that 

72.9 percent of the total population assigned to District 12 is African-American, while 

only 11.1 percent of its total population assigned to neighbor District 5 is African~ 

American, 

34. Inthe 1997 plan, Mecklenburg County is split between Districts 9 and 12, in such a 
manner that 51.9 percent of its total population allocated to District 12 is African- 

American, while only 7.2 percent of the total population assigned to adjoining District 9 is 

African-American. 

35. Inthe 1997 plan, Guilford County is split between Districts 6 and 12, in such a manner 

that 51.5 percent of its total population allocated to District 12 is African-American, while 
only 10.2 percent of the total population assigned to adjoining District 6 is African- 
American, 

36. Inthe 1997 plan, of Mecklenburg County's African-American population, 84% was 
placed in District 12 and 16% in the District 9, but of its white population, 27% was 

placed in District 12 and 73% in District 9. 

37. Inthe 1997 plan, of Forsyth County’s African-American population, 65% was placed in 
District 12 and 35% in District 5; but of its white population, 8% was placed in District 12 

and 92% in District 5. 

38. Inthe 1997 plan, of Guilford County’s African-American population, 76% was placed in 
District 12 and 24% in District 6; but of its white population, 25% was placed in District 
12 and 75% in District 6. 

39. Inthe 1997 plan, of Iredell County's African-American population, 63% was placed in 
District 12 and 37% in District 10; but of its white population 37% was placed in District 
12 and 63% in District 10. 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM Nov 22°99 12:31: Mo..006 P.11 

40. Inthe 1997 plan, of Rowan County's African-American population, 66% was placed in 
District 12 and 34% in District 6; but of its white population, 23% was placed in District 

12 and 775 in District 6. 

41. Inthe 1997 plan, of Davidson County’s African-American population, 80% was placed in 
District 12 and 20% in District 6; but of its white population, 49.6% was placed in District 
12 and 50.4% in District 6. 

42. District 12 divides the populations of eight cities (Charlotte, Greensboro, High Point, 
Lexington, Salisbury, Statesville, Thomasville and Winston-Salem) and several towns. 

43. The City of Charlotte is divided in such a manner that 59.47% of the population assigned 
to District 12 is African-American, while only 8.12 percent of the Charlotte population 

assigned to District 9 is African-American. 

44. The City of Greensboro is divided in such a manner that 55,58% of the population 
assigned to District 12 is African-American, while only 10.70 percent of the population 
assigned to District 6 is African-American. 

45. The City of Statesville is divided in such a manner that more than 75% of the population 
assigned to District 12 is African-American, while only 18.88 percent of the population of 
Statesville outside of District 12 is African-American. 

46. The City of Salisbury is split such that more than 41% of the population assigned to 
District 12 is African-American, while only 15.39 percent of the population of Salisbury 
outside of District 12 is African-American. 

47. The City of Thomasville is split such that more than 41% of the population assigned to 
District 12 is African-American, while only 9,55 percent of the population of Thomasville 
outside of District 12 is African-American. 

48, Approximately 90.2% of the African-Americans who reside in District 12 in the 1997 plan 

also were included in District 12 in the 1992 plan. 

49. Approximately 49% of whites who reside in District 12 in the 1997 plan also were 
included in District 12 in the 1992 plan, 

50. Approximately 74.3% of the blacks who were in District 12 in the 1992 plan continue to 
be in District 12 in the 1997 plan, 

51. Approximately x% of the whites who were in District 12 in the 1992 plan continue to be 
in District 12 in the 1997 plan. 

 



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Noy 2299 12:32 No .Q06:P.12 

District 1 in both the 1997 and 1998 plans is 50.27% African-American in total population 
and 46.54% African-American in voting age population, 

Ten of twenty counties were split in creating District 1 in the 1997 Plan. 

The First Congressional District is comprised of ten whole counties and portions of ten 
others. 

Five counties in North Carolina are majority black in total population, namely Edgecombe, 
Bertie, Hertford, Northampton, and Warren. 

All five of these counties are included in whole in the 1997 version of the First District, 

More than half the black population of the 1997 version of the First District comes from 

the ten split counties. 

The ten whole counties included in the 1997 version of the First District as a group have a 
larger total white population than total black population. 

In each of the ten counties that are split between District 1 and an adjacent district, the 
percentage of the population that is African-American is higher inside the district than it is 
outside the district, but within the same county. 

Nine of the 13 cities and towns divided between District 1 and its neighboring districts are 
divided along racial lines. 

The portion of the City of New Bern assigned to District is is 48.27% black, while the 
portion assigned to District 3 is 24.49% black. 

TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL DETAILS: Data on precinct boundaries and 
populations for the most populated counties, which would permit them to be divided in 
redistricting, was placed onto the state’s redistricting computers prior to formulation of 
the 1991 redistricting plan, 

The staff of the General Assembly later added the precinct boundaries and populations of 
counties subject to the Voting Rights Act, including those in northeastern North Carolina, 
into the state’s computer with the expectation that they might be split in the formation of 
districts, thereafter but prior to formulation of the 1991 redistricting plan. [Cohen Nov. 
12, 1993 depo, p.101] 

An equitably populated congressional district in North Carolina, based on 1990 census 
data, would contain about 552,386 persons. 

Registered Democrats are prohibited from voting in Republican primaries and registered 
Republicans are prohibited from voting in Democratic primaries at the present time, and  



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM ae Nov 22°99 12:33 No..O0OG P.13 

during all times relevant to this case. 

The voter support for Democratic candidate Harvey Gantt in the 1990 contest for U. S. 

Senator was highest in Congressional District 12 of any of the twelve congressional 

districts in North Carolina. 

The voter support for Democratic candidate Tony Rand in the 1988 contest for Lt. 
Governor was highest in Congressional District 12 of any of the twelve congressional 
districts in North Carolina. 

The 12" District in the 1997 plan contains the second largest number of registered 
Democrats of any of the twelve congressional districts in North Carolina, and the 1* 
District contains the largest number, 

Guilford County Precinct 11 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district. 
The precinct is 17.57% African-American in total population and 17.89% African- 
American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 62.32% of registered voters. 
Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 67.51% of the vote in the 
1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received 61.68% of the vote in 

the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic candidate Lewis took 52.98% of the 

vote in the 1988 Court of Appeals contest, 

Guilford County Precinct 14 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district. 
The precinct is 15.19% African-American in total population and 15.24% African- 
American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 58.14% of the registered voters. 
Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 86.91% of the vote in the 
1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received 65.66% of the vote in 
the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic candidate Lewis took 63.92% of the 

vote in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest. 

Guilford County precinct 17 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district, 
The precinct is 9.09% African-American in total population and 8.64% African-American 
in voting age population, Democrats comprise 61.86% of the registered voters. Within 
this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 65.08% of the vote in the 1990 

senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received 61.68% of the vote in the 
1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic candidate Lewis took 58.19% of the vote 
in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest, 

Forsyth County Brunson Elementary School Precinct is not within District 12 but is 
contiguous to that district. The precinct is 27.83% African-American in total population 
and 25.88% African-American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 65,75% of 
the registered voters. Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 
75.46% of the vote in the 1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand 
received 66.30% of the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic 
candidate Lewis took 65.84% in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest.  



  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM ae = Noy 22°99 12:33 No. Q06 P. 14 

  

73. 

74. 

75. 

76. 

77. 

78. 

79. 

80. 

Forsyth County Hanes Community Center precinct is not within District 12 but is 
contiguous to that district. The precinct is 32.06% African-American in total population 
and 28.80% African-American in voting age population, Democrats comprise 76% of the 
registered voters. Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 75.77% 
of the vote in the 1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received 

71.68% of the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic candidate Lewis 

took 69.18% of the vote in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest. 

Forsyth County Latham Elementary School Precinct is not within District 12 but is 
contiguous to that district. The precinct is 19.82% African-American in total population 
and 17.41% African-American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 65.25% of 
the registered voters, Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 

54.85% of the vote in the 1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand 

received 53.86% of the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor race, and the Democratic candidate 

Lewis took 55.87% of the vote in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals race. 

Mecklenburg County Precinct 10 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district. 
The precinct is 6.9% African-American in total population and 5.42% African-American in 
voting age population. Democrats comprise 63.45% of the registered voters. MISSING 
GANTT data | Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Rand received 73.01% of 
the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and Democratic candidate Lewis received 
55.78% of the vote in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest. 

Mecklenburg County precinct 21 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district, 
The precinct is 10.51% African-American in total population and 7.84% in voting age 
population. Democrats comprise 59.45% of the registered voters. Within this precinct, 
the Democratic candidate Gantt received 60.11 of the vote in the 1990 senatorial contest, 
the Democratic candidate Rand received 52.32% of the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor 
race, and the Democratic candidate Lewis took 48.30% of the vote in the 1988 

Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals race. 

The eastern and western portion of Congressional District 9 are linked by an area along 
the South Carolina border which constitutes the southern portion of Precinct and are not 
linked at any other location. 

Mecklenburg Precinct 77 is split in the proposed 1997 Congressional District plan 
between District 9 at the southern end and District12 at the northern end. 

Precinct 77 is not split in the State Senate plan; it is wholly within District 33. [Source: 
Mecklenburg County Board of Elect ions map] 

Precinct 77 is not split in the State House plan; it is wholly within District 56. [Source: 
Mecklenburg County Board of Elections map] 

 



  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM a0 = Noy 2299 12:34 No .006 P.15 

  

81. 

82. 

83. 

84, 

85. 

86. 

87. 

88, 

89. 

90. 

91. 

Precinct 77 is not split in the Mecklenburg County Commission and School Board 
Districts; it is wholly within District 2, [Source: Mecklenburg County Board of Elections 

map} 

Precinct 77 is not split in the Charlotte City Council districts; it is wholly within District 3. 

[Source: Mecklenburg County Board of Elections map] 

There are a total of 435 Congressional districts in the United States of America, of which 
North Carolina had 12 districts in the 1990s, but only 11 districts in the 1980s, 

At least 95% of African-Americans who are registered to vote in North Carolina are 
registered as Democrats, and of the African Americans who are registered to vote in 
North Carolina and who vote in Republican-Democrat contests, at least 95% usually vote 

for the Democrat candidate. 

The countywide election and voter registration data entered into the computer with repect 

to Davie County was prorated to each Minor Civil Division, 

In the state redistricting computer, each of the seven townships of Davie County thus 
shows nearly identical percentages of support for Mr. Gantt. 

In the state redistricting computer, each of the seven townships of Davie County thus 
shows nearly identical percentages of support for Mr. Rand. 

In the state redistricting computer, each of the seven townships of Davie County thus 
shows nearly identical percentages of support for Mr. Lewis. 

In the state redistricting computer, each of the seven townships of Davie County thus 
shows nearly identical percentages of Democratic party voter registration. 

As a result of this proration, the data used by Dr. David Peterson in his report indicated 
that in each of several Minor Civil Divisions of Davie County the number of African- 
Americans registered to vote exceeded the number of voting age African-Americans 
residing in the respective Minor Civil Division, 

In January of 1989, North Carolina had eleven Congressional districts. Of these the 
second district (including Durham) had the largest percentage of African-American 
residents, 40.1 percent, based on 1980 census data. It was followed by the First District 

(in the northeastern part of the state and abutting the Atlantic Ocean) which had 35.2 
percent African-American residents; the Third District (including Goldsboro) and the 
Seventh District (including Fayetteville) each had 27.3 percent African-American 
residents; the Ninth District (including Charlotte) had a 23.3 percent African-American 

population; the Sixth District (including Greensboro) had 20.7 percent African-American 
population; the Eight District (including Salisbury) with 20.1 percent African-American 

population and the Fourth District (including Raleigh) with 19.9%. [Sources: Black 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL: eo 0 682-5469 Noy '22'99 12:35 ‘No. 006 P .16 

Elected Officials, A National Roster at p. 323 (1989, 18" ed), and Attachment C-27-3 of 
the 1991 Section 5 submission) 

92. More than 55% percent of the registered Democrats in District 12 in the 1997 plan are 

African-Americans [NCEC data from 1997 submission] 

93. More than 50% percent of the registered Democrats in District 1 in the 1997 plan are 
African-Americans [NCEC data from 1997 submission] 

94, More than 55% of those eligible to participate in the Democratic primary in District 12 in 

the 1997 plan are African-Americans. 

95. More than 50% of those eligible to participate in the Democratic primary in District 1 in 
the 1997 plan are African-Americans. 

96. According to the verbatim transcript of floor debate on HB 586 (Committee Substitute) 
Congressional Redistricting Bill Senate Chamber, dated March 27, 1999, Senator Cooper 
stated: “[W]hen the Court struck the 12" District it was because the 12" District was a 
majority Minority and it said that you cannot use race as the predominate factor in 
drawing districts. Well, guess what! The 12" District, under this plan, is not Majority 
Minority. Therefore it is my opinion and the opinion of many lawyers that the test 
outlined in Shaw v, Hunt will not even be triggered because it is not a Majority Minority 
district and you won't even look at the shape of the district in considering whether it is 
constitutional” [97C-28F-4F(2) at 5-6] 

97. According to the House Floor transcript of March 26, 1997, Representative McMahan 
stated that one of the three reasons why he believed that District 12 would stand a Court 
test was that it was: “[n]Jot a Majority Minority District now so shape does not create - 

that was the basis the Court used to say this was unconstitutional not an argument now.” 
[97C-28F-4F(1) at 2] 

98, Representative McMahan, in describing District 12, told his colleagues in the House of 
Representatives that: “As far as District 12 - I believe, again, that Congressman Mel Watt 
is very comfortable and anyone else that might choose as a minority to run in that distirct 
should be very, very comfortable - when there is 46.5% of the people in that District are 
also minorities - that they could win.” N.C, Section 5 Submission 1997 Congressional 
Redistricting Plan, Vol. 5, Attachment 97 C-28F(1) at 16. 

99. Representative McMahan informed the House floor as follows: “I am confident that we 
have done our best - our dead level best - to draw two districts that are fair racially and do 
have one of them the majority of the population and other one over 46%, and that’s the 
very best we could do on both sides, and we looked at this very, very closely - obviously - 
and the very best we could do and yet create Districts that we felt would be acceptable to 
the Department of Justice and to the Court.” N.C. Section 5 Submission 1997 
Congressional Redistricting Plan, Vol. 5, Attachment 97C - 28F(1) at 23. 

vt, 

 



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Nov 22°99 12:36 No .006 P.17" 

“Dispersion compactness” measures the geographic dispersion of a district. To calculate 

this a circle is circumscribed around a district. The reported coefficient is the proportion 
of the area of the circumscribed circle which is also included in the district. This measure 
ranges from 1.0 (most compact) to 0.0 (least compact). 

“Perimeter compactness” is based upon the calculation of the district’s perimeter. The 
reported coefficient is the proportion of the arca in the district relative to a circle with the 
same perimeter. This measure ranges from 1.0 (most compact) to 0.0 (least compact). 

The average dispersion compactness indicator for all districts in the 1997 plan is 0.354, 
and the average perimeter compactness indicator is 0,192, 

The Twelfth District under the 1997 plan has a dispersion indicator of 0.109 and a 
perimeter compactness indicator of 0.041. These indicators are the lowest among the 
North Carolina districts. 

The First District under the 1997 plan has a dispersion compactness indicator of 0.317 and 
a perimeter compactness indicator of 0,107. The perimeter compactness indicator for the 
First District is the second lowest among the North Carolina districts. 

If the 1992 districts in other states had remained unchanged, District 12 in the 1997 Plan 
would rank as the 430" least compact district on the dispersion measure and it would rank 
423 on the perimeter measure. Because of the changes to other congressional districts as 
a result of Shaw type litigation, District 12 in the 1997 plan now would rank 430 or 431 

according to the dispersion measure and 432 or 433 according to the perimeter measure. 

Statewide, more than 50 precincts to be used in the 2000 cycle of elections will be split if 
the 1997 plan is used for that election cycle. 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Beaufort County: 
1* and 4" Wards in Washington City; 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Craven County: 2™, 
3" 4" and 5 Wards in New Bern and Trent Woods; Craven (from the map: Glenburnie 
Park, H.1. McDonalds, West New Bern, Trent Woods, George Street, Vanceboro); 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Davidson County: 
(from the map, Thomasville 2, Welcome, North Davidson, Reedy Creek, Midway, Ward 

4, Ward 6, Ward 1, Lexington 4, Boone),  



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Nov 22°99 12:36 No.006 P.18 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 

between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Forsyth County: 

206, 033, 081, 083, 305, 082, 063, 013, 507, 043, 505, 042, 902, Precinct 506 at 

Covenant Presbyterian Church; 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 

between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Guilford County: 
High Point 19, Greensboro 24C; 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Iredell County: 
from?, Davidson #1, Coddle Creek #2, and Statesville #1;(from map: Coddle Creek #2, 
Fallstown, Statesville 2, 3, 4 6, 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Lenoir: Moseley 

Hall, Institute, Falling Creek; 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Mecklenburg 
County: Charlotte 58, 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Person County: 
Roxboro 1, Roxboro 1A, and Flat River, 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Pitt County: (from 
map Precincts 2.00A, 1.01, 15.12A, 15.04)(from election results, Greenville 12 and 

Ayden), 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Rowan County: 
(from registrar, East Spencer and South Ward) (from the map: Mount Ulla and Spencer 

and Steele) 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used; Washington: 
Skinnersville: 

The following precincts slated to be used for the 2000 primary elections will be split 
between two different congressional districts, if the 1997 plan is used: Wayne: Precincts 1, 
2, 6,10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22 sources: 1998 primary election returns for Districts 1 
and 12, reflecting votes in two districts for each precinct, maps of 1999 precincts with 
1997 external boundary superimposed]  



  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM oY “Gi Noy. 22°99 12:37 NOo..OO6 P.19 

  

120. 

121. 

122, 

123. 

124. 

125. 

126. 

127. 

128, 

Based on April 8, 1998 voter registration data, of the 1263 registered voters in East 
Spencer Precinct #18 in Rowan County, five of them were registered in the 6™ 

Congressional District and all the rest were in the 12" Congressional District under the 
1997 Congressional District plan. 

Based on April 8, 1998 voter registration data, of the 2111 registered voters in Salisbury 

South Ward Precinct #36 in Rowan County, six of them were registered in the 6™ 
Congressional District and all the rest were in the 12% Congressional District under the 
1997 Congressional District plan. 

The names of voters in each precinct who cast a ballot are a public record in North 
Carolina. 

Mecklenburg County contains 93% of the ideal population for a North Carolina 
congressional district as required in order for the State to comply with one-person, one- 
vote requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Under the redistricting plan enacted by the General Assembly in 1998, the first district is 
the same as it was in the 1997 plan. The Twelfth District under that plan was changed by 
the removal of Guilford County, the inclusion of all of Rowan County, as well as other 
changes. As a result of these changes, the percentage of African-Americans in the Twelfth 
District has been reduced from 47% to 35%. 

The incumbent congressmen elected under the 1998 plan and their current voting 
residences in 1999 are: District One, Eva Clayton, River Precinct, Warren County, 
District Two, Bob Ethridge, Lillington Precinct, Harnett County; District Three, Walter 
Jones, Farmville West Precinct, Pitt County; District Four, David Price, Weaver Dairy 
Precinct, Orange County; District 5, Richard Burr, Whitaker Elementary School Precinct, 
Forsyth County; District 6, J. Howard Coble, Greesnboro 43 Precinct, Guilford County; 

District 7, Mike McIntyre, Lumberton #8 Precinct, Robeson County; District 8, Robin 
Hayes, Cabarrus County; District 9, Sue Myrick, Precinct 140, Mecklenburg County; 
District 10, Thomas “Cass” Ballenger, Viewmont #1 Precinct, Catawba County; District 
11, Charles Taylor, Transylvania County; District 12, Mel Watt, Charlotte Precinct 11, 
Mecklenburg County. 

ELECTTON RESULTS: Congressman Watt was re-elected in District 12 under the 1998 
Plan with 55.9% percent of the vote, with 82,305 votes to 62,070 for Republican “Scott” 

Keadle and 2713 for Libertarian Michael Smith. 

Congressman Clayton was re-elected in District 1 in the 1998 Plan with 62.2% of the 
vote. 

Congressman Clayton defeated State Representative Linwood Mercer, a white candidate, 

in the 1998 Democratic primary election with 63.9% of the vote. 

 



    

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Noy 22°’94 12:38 No .006 P.20 

129. In her first campaign in 1992 for the Democratic nomination in the First Congressional 
District, Mrs. Eva Clayton targeted black voters by direct mail, and conducted drives to 

get out the vote over black radio. [Clayton thesis p.172] 

130. No racial appeals were used against Ms, Clayton in the 1992 Democrat primary. [Id., 

p.193] 

131. In 1982, candidate “Mickey” Michaux received 46.35% of the second primary vote in the 

2" Congressional District. 29.19% of the registered voters in the district at that time were 

African-Americans.. 

132. In 1984, black candidate Kenneth Spaulding received 47.88% of the second primary vote 
in the 2™ Congressional District. 37.2% of the registered voters in the district at that time 

were black. 

133. In the 1997 plan, the boundary of Congressional District 12 in Guilford County does not 
substantially correspond to the boundary lines of state house or senate districts in the 
county. 

 



   

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL: Ny } 682-5469 Nov 22°99 12:38 No. 006 P.21 

EVERETT & EVERETT 
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 

  

SUITE 300 
"RO. EVERETT (1878-1971) 301 W. MAIN STREET 

THRINE R, EVERETT (1893-1992) 
ROBINSON O, EVERETT D £2: BOY 506 2 
DAWN T. BATTISTE UrRHAM, NORTH CaroLina 27702 FAX: (919) 682-5460 SANDRA G. HERRING 

OF COUNSEL 
ROBERT D. HOLLEMAN 

OF COUNSEL November 22, 1999 CRAIG M. KABATCHNICK 
(ADMITTED N.C., D.C.) 

Ms. Tiare Smiley Via Fax to 716-6763 
North Carolina Dept. of Justice 
P. O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 

Dear Tiare: 

Attached are a first installment of designations from the depositions. Will Defendants and 
Defendant-Intervenors be making joint objections to these, and if so, can we continue to dispense 
with faxing these materials to Mr. Stein and Mr. Cox? Please send your objections to any portion 
of these as soon as possible for inclusion in the Pre-Trial Order. 

We will expect to use the NC block population and Eastern and Central NC black population 
maps. They were exhibits admitted in the Shaw trial, 

We do not expect to use the highlighting on exhibits 237-242 and 254-258, which made the 
county outline and congressional district boundary more clear. 

The new population density map from the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis 
has arrived, highlighting congressional districts 1 and 12 rather than overlaying river basins. 

The copy of the NCEC data dated March 25, 1997 for “97 House/Senate plan” has county names 
cut off. Do you have a better copy? Also, on the second page of these data, noted as page 3 of 
the fax, entries for Orange county, for example, have been shrunk. Also, there are a series of 
maps for various scenarios and plans. Are your copies in color? If so, we want to obtain them in 
color. 

Yours Very Truly, 

Doug Markham 

  

TEL: (911) 682-5691



    

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM a = Noy 22°99 12:39 No .006 P.22 

he R. O. Everett: 
Page 5, lines 5 to 11 
Page 15, line 15 to Page 19, line 6 

Page 21, lines 5-10 

Page 50, line 25 to Page 52, line 25 
Page 58, lines 8-25 
Page 63, line 11 to Page 67, line 19 
Page 72, lines 2 to 25 

Page 76, line 13 to Page 77, line 13 

J. H. Froelich: 

Page 4, line 17 to Page 5, line 3 
Page 7, line 14 to Page 8, line 21 
Page 14, line 9 to Page 18, line 18 
Page 34, line 23 to Page 37, line 21 
Page 41, line 23 to Page 72, line 14 

Page 76, line 11 to line 20 
Page 77, line 1-19 
Page 78, line 15 to Page 79, line 3 
Page 80, line 22 to Page 81, line 2 
Page 87, line 17 to Page 88, line 11 

PROFFERS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION: 

Gerry Cohen: 

Pope v. Blue Deposition: 

66:1-10 
97.19-98:4 
09:19-101:23 

Shaw v. Hunt Deposition: 
27:11-29:11 
75:1-77:10 
81:1-82:9 
101:2-25 

117:1-121:25 
121:8-128:21 

7 132:20-134:25 

 



   EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL Mung 

162:6-163:10 

171;1-10 

175:9-.23 

177:1-179:9 

180:6-15 

188:5-25 

190:14-191:3 

193:1-22 

197:7-21 

230:5-17 

285.6-286.9 

303:11-22 

328:21-6 

338:17-19 

340: 18-21 

Cromartie v. Hunt 

34:14-22 

65:7-68.25 

77:20-.78:4 

85:19-86:9 

89:13-19 

96: 14-21 

99:25-.100:2 

101:1-5 

105:1-114:5 

116:15-117:1 

119:13-120:5 

121:14-130:3 
131:9-132:5 

143:13-25 

146:1-147:7 

148:24-149:14 

151;1-25 

153:22-156:9 

161:22-162:5 

167:9-21 

169:13-170:25 

172:5-8 

173:17-22 

195:14-196.3 

205:1-8 

238:19-239:2 

242:13.18 

254:1-258:25 

Nov 22°99 12439 No .006:P.23 

 



FVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL : 948-682-5469 

278:2-20 

291:10-299:8 

Dr. David Peterson: 

Page 4, line 10 to Page 4, line 22. 

Page 5, line 20 to Page 6, line 10 . 

Page 6, line 16 to Page 7, line 20. 

Page 8, line 3 to Page 8, line 14. 
Page 9, line 11 to Page 12, line 18. 
Page 13, line 6 to Page 14, line 21. 

Page 15, line 1 to Page 18, line 8. 

Page 18, line 12 to Page 37, line 10. 
Page 37, line 24 to Page 41, line 2. 
Page 41, line 16 to Page 44, line 17. 
Page 44, line 22 to Page 52, line 18. 
Page 53, line 17 to Page 53, line 23. 
Page 54, line 5 to Page 66, line 10. 
Page 69, line 19 to Page 72, line 24. 
Page 77, line 9 to Page 77, line 11. 
Page 80, line 15 to Page 83, line 2. 

Page 83, line 16 to Page 85, line 22. 
Page 86, line 13 to Page 88, line 10. 
Page 90, line 24 to Page 92, line 8. 
Page 92, line 22 to Page 93, line 18. 
Page 96, line 10 to Page 97, line 13. 

Page 103, line 10 to Page 104, line 14. 

Noy 22'9% 12:40 No .006 P.24