Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs-Appellants' Motion for Appointment of a Trial Judge

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No.

RONALD BRADLEY, et al. ,
«

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
Cross-Appellants,

vs.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants 
Cross-Appellees,

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 231 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor 
Appellee,

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,

Defendants-Intervenor

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED 
ON THE ORIGINAL PAPERS AND TO DISPENSE WITH 

PRINTED APPENDIX



Plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants, by their 

undersigned counsel, respectfully pray, pursuant to Rule 
30(f) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, that 
this Court dispense with the requirement of a printed 
appendix and permit the appeals herein to proceed upon the 
original papers. As grounds for this motion, plaintiffs- 
appellees would show as follows:

1. The principal appellants herein (Detroit Board
of Education defendants and State defendants)* filed notices 
of appeal on December 3, 1971, from an order of the district 

court entered on November 4, 1971.
2. Principal appellees (plaintiffs) cross appealed** 

by filing a notice of appeal on December 11, 1971, from the 
same order insofar as said order failed to contemplate 
further faculty desegregation.

3. This is a school desegregation case which has 

been before this Court twice before on preliminary issues.

(433 F.2d 897 and 438 F.2d 945).
4. The trial of this case on the merits consumed 

41 trial days resulting in a transcript of 4,710 pages and 
408 trial exhibits.

*The parties are filing a stipulation pursuant to 
Rule 28(h), F.R.A.P., as to the order of filing briefs.

**Plaintiffs' appeal is protective in nature, as plaintiffs 
do not believe that any appeal is proper at this time. 
Plaintiffs have previously filed a motion to dismiss all 
appeals, and are filing this motion to proceed on the 
original papers in the event the motion to dismiss is 
denied.

2



5. Upon the joint motion of all parties to this 

appeal, the district court entered an order on January 4,
1972, retaining the record in this cause with the District 
Court Clerk in Detroit and ordering the partial record 
transmitted to this Court on January 21, 1971.

6. The post-trial briefs of all parties in the 
Court below resulted in references to the greater portion 
of the transcript in this cause and to most all of the 
exhibits.

7. Defendants-appellants are planning to incorporate 
the entire transcript into the printed appendix, but are
in agreement with plaintiffs-appellees that the appeals 
should proceed on the original record with regard to trial 
exhibits, many of which are large and unwieldy and could 
not be reproduced.

8. Even so, such an appendix (a reprint of the 4710 

page transcript) would result in an enormous cost to the 
defendant state agencies, and should costs of this appeal 
ultimately be assessed against plaintiffs-appellees, the 
cost would be equally enormous.

9. Plaintiffs represent a class of school-age 
children and their parents in the City of Detroit who are 

seeking constitutionally-guaranteed rights to equal educa­
tional opportunities. Substantial expenses have already been 
incurred by plaintiffs in elaborate preparation for trial, two 
preliminary hearings and appeals, and in engagement in the lengthy 
trial on the merits. The costs resulting from printing an 

appendix would be a crushing burden for plaintiffs, who are 

seeking to secure rights public in nature for all, to bear.



10. Plaintiffs have been informed by counsel for 
the Detroit Board of Education defendants that there is a 

substantial possibility of a strike by the unions repre­
senting the employees of Detroit—area job printers, thereby 

further increasing the costs of a printed appendix.
WHEREFORE, because of the substantial expense involved 

and the detrimental effect such expense would have on 

plaintiffs should costs ultimately be assessed against 
them, plaintiffs-appellees respectfully pray that an order 

be entered permitting the ..appeals in this cause to 

proceed upon the original papers.
Respectfully submitted,
RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS

By; Q,
LOUIS R. LUCAS

s WILLIAM E. CALDWELL
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

NATHANIEL R. JONES
General Counsel, N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019



OF COUNSEL:

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
PAUL R. DIMONO 
ROBERT PRESSMAN

Center for Law & Education 
Harvard University 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

E. WINTHER McCROOM 
3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs- 
Appellees, Cross-Appellants

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing motion 
has been served uoon counsel of record by United States mail, 
postage ore-paid, addressed as follows:
George T. Roumell, Jr., Esq. 
Riley and Roumell 
7th Floor, Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Eugene Krasickv, Esq. 
Assistant Attorney General 
Seven Story Office Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Theodore Sachs, Esq. 
1000 Farmer
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Alexander B. Ritchie 
2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

This day of January, 1972.

William E. Caldwell