Defendants' Second Motion in Limine
Public Court Documents
November 14, 1980

2 pages
Cite this item
-
Mobile, Alabama, Case Files, Bolden v. Mobile Hardbacks and Appendices. Defendants' Second Motion in Limine, 1980. 086404ae-cdcd-ef11-8ee9-6045bddb7cb0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d0993181-a0e2-460c-ab6d-c821f1427a70/defendants-second-motion-in-limine. Accessed September 14, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION WILEY L. BOLDEN, et al., Ww Plaintiffs, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO: 75-297-P CITY OF MOBILE, et al., § Defendants. § DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE Defendants respectfully move the court as follows: l. To withhold any further proceedings in the above-styled cause and to direct Plaintiffs to make a showing to the court of any evidence that they intend to offer for the purpose of proving that the Alabama State Legislature is currently maintaining the City of Mobile's at-large form of government for the purpose of diluting the vote of black citizens; 2. That Plaintiffs be instructed not to produce broad, generalized evidence in he form of conclusory statements; 3. To instruct Plaintiffs to state with specificity the documents, persons, and other forms of evidence by which they intend to prove that the Alabama State Legislature is currently maintaining the City of Mobile's at-large form of government for the purpose of diluting the vote of black citizens; 4. That Plaintiffs be instructed that they may not rely on any evidence that has been excluded pursuant to Defendants' motion in limine previously filed in this court; 5. That Plaintiffs be granted a reasonable time during which discovery as allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be conducted; and, 2 6. Following discovery by Plaintiffs and reasohable notice to the respective parties, a hearing will be conducted by this court to determine whether the evidence presented by Plaintiffs, if. subsequently proved, would meet the evidentiary standard enunciated by the United (24) nesting - States Supreme Court. C. B. ARENDALL, JR. Attorney for Defendants City of Mobile, et al. WILLIAM C. TIDWELL, III Attorney for Defendants City of Mobile, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPECTFULLY REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT. OF COUNSEL: HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & JOHNSTON = Post Office Box 123 Mobile, Alabama 36601 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that I have on this | #T day of November, 1980, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading on counsel for all parties of record by placing same in the United States mail, properly addressed and first class postage prepaid. bil He nr or