Correspondence from Kellogg to Judges Politz, Cassibry, and Collins

    LAW OFFICES OF 

QUIGLEY & SCHECKMAN 
631 ST. CHARLES AVENUE 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 

TELEPHONE: 504-524-0016 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY IN ASSOCIATION WITH: 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN R. JAMES KELLOGG 
MARK S. GOLDSTEIN 

RONALD J. PURSELL 

Judge Henry A. Politz 

United States Court of Appeals 

Room 2BO04 

500 Fannin Street 

Shreveport, Louisiana 71101 

Judge Fred J. Cassibry 

United States District Court 

500 Camp Street 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Judge Robert F. Collins 

United States District Court 

500 Camp Street 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: Major v. Treen, Civil Action 182-1192, Division C 
  

Your Honors: 

We have received the April 12 letter of Martin Feldman, 

attorney for the defendants in the above-captioned matter. Mr. 

Feldman asked permission to enter into evidence a copy of the 

Reynold's Internal Memorandum dated June 18, 1982. He proposes 

that it be filed as plaintiff's Exhibit 49K.   

We strenously object to the admission of any evidence at 

this time, some four weeks after conclusion of the trial. 

Plaintiff's 49A through J were introduced by the plaintiffs 

as part of our rebuttal case. Our Exhibit 49 in globo were 

introduced to rebut the letter of preclearance from the United 

States Justice Department which the defendants were successful 

in introducing. The Reynold's Memorandum sought to be intro- 

duced has no probative value whatsoever as rebuttal for the 

letter of preclearance, and therefore we did not introduce it. 

The decision was a deliberate one on our part--the Memo was 

not inadvertently omitted by us. 

We made our intentions explicit before trial that we would  



Judge Politz 

Judge Cassibry 

Judge Collins 

April 20, 1983 
Page 2 

introduce the internal and Justice Department documents which 

eventually became plaintiff's Exhibit 49 in globo. At no time 

did the defendants list the Exhibit now sought to be introduced 

as an-BExhibit. Additionally, the document sought to be intro- 

duced is not under seal and, consequently, is hearsay. 

I know of no procedure authorized by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure or of evidence which authorizes the introduc- 

tion four weeks after trial by the defendants of an Exhibit 

for the plaintiffs. Although your Honors decided to permit 

introduction of the letter of preclearance, there is no just~- 

ification for introduction of a memorandum to the file by the 

person making the preclearance decision. Plaintiffs have not 

had an opportunity, nor would they be permitted, to cross-examine 

Mr. Reynolds concerning his decision. Accordingly, the memor- 

andum sought to be introduced is not only hearsay, but it is 

hearsay of the sort which can not be rebutted, especially four 

weeks after the trial. 

Accordingly, we request that you issue a written decision 

denying Mr. Feldman's belated attempt to bolster his case by 

introducing an unauthenticated document which he would not have 

been permitted to introduce at trial. 

Sincerely, 

R. James Kellogg 

Martin Feldman 

Lani Guinier 

Stanley Halpin 

William P. Quigley 

Steven Scheckman