Correspondence from Guinier to Baker

    x.

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS
JAMES E, FERGUSON. II

MELVIN L. WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS
KARL AOKINS

JAMES C. FULLER, JR.
YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W, GRESHAM

RONALD L. GIBSON
GILOA F. GLAZER

LESLIE J, WINNER

JOHN T. NOCKLEBY'

. OF O. C. BAR ONLY

cHAMBERS, FERGUsoN, wATT, wALLAS, ADKTNS dFullen, p.n
ATTORNEYS AT LA\^/

SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZ,A

95I SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 2A2O2
TELEPHONE (704) 375-A46,1

January 1L, L982

Mr. Napolean B. Williams
NAACP Legal Defense and

Educational Fr:nd, Inc.
10 Coh:mbus Circl-e - Suite 2O3O
New York, New York 100L9

Re: Gingles v. Edmisten

Dear Napolean:

I am encLosing a
to the defendant'

copy of the Court's Order with reference
s motion to quash in the above matter.

JLC:md
Enclo sure
cc: Mr. James

SincereLy yours,

,k#e chambers

Nabritt , ITT-w/ enc.



RALPH GINGLES, et aI.
Pla

vs.

RUFUS EDMTSTEhI , Et AI

Def

lenging the aPportio

the United States Con

the court for a rulin

the alternative for a

tiffs noticed the de

Rauch, the Chairman o

Legislative Redistric

the North Carolina Se

Defendants have move

testimony sought is i
quashing the subpoe

that the transcriPts

Plaintiffs opPose th

cally to the motiott

in this litigation.

claj-ms, plaintif fs

conceived or mgintai

Mobile v. Bolden, 44

testimony is sought,

the adoptiotr'of the

procedural sequence,

tionment decision, a

legislature, are alI

invidious discrimina

,

FIIJEI)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR RN DISTRICT OF'NORTH
RALEIGH DIVISIO}J

lr. RICH LEONARD, u-ERh
U, S. DISTRICT COURT

E. D!ST. NO. CAR.

ntiffs NO. 8I-803-CrV-5

t

ndants

ORDER

This action brou t by black citizens of North Carolina chal-

nt of the North Carolina General Assembly and

ressional districts in North Carolina is before

on defendants I motion to quash subpoenae or in

protective order. On December 3, 198I, plain-

itions of and subpoenaed Senator l*larshall

the North Carolina Senaters Committee on

i.g, and Senator Helen Marvin, the Chairman of

aters Conrnittee on Congressional Redistricting.

to quash the subpoenae on the grounds that the

relevant and privileged. In lieu of an order

, defendants seek a protective oider.directing

e sealed and opened only upon court order.

motion to quash but have not responded specifi-

a protective order.

The testimony s t is plainly material to questions presented

In order to prevail on at least one of their

t show that the reapportionment plans were

d with a purPose to discriminate- City of

U.S. 55 (1980). The matters concerning whrch

including the sequence of events leading up to

portionment plans, departures from the normal

the criteria considered important in the aPPor-

contemporary statements by members of the

relevant to the determination of whether an
;

ory purpose t^ras a motivating factor in the

IN TH
THE E CARoLTNA IJAN 5 1982



decision. Village of

Development Corporati

without addressing a

the depositions, the

not prohibit their de

litigation and are in

statements during Ie

Eastland, 387 U. S. 82

of decision in this

is "governed by the

preted by the courts

experience. " F. R. Evi

provisi.on establishes

the federal common l

(1980). It is clear

not prevent the testi

supra; Jordan v. Hu

Herbert v. Lando, 441

For these reaso

effort "to insure le

supra, 445 U. S. at 37

on legislative debate

protective order and

sealed upon filing wi

)

5, 1982.January

i,f ,

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing

n, 429 U.S. 252, 267-268 (L977). In general,

particular question which might be asked during

tters sought are material and relevant.

The "legislative privilege" asserted on the Senators I behalf does

itions here. They are not parties to this

no way being made personally to answer for their

slative debate. Compare, 9:9:, Dombrows-ki v.

(1967). Because federal law supplies the rule

s€r the question of the privilege of a witness

inciples of the common larv as they may be inter-

f the United States in the light of reason and

. 50I. No federal statute 'or consb.itutional

such a privilege for state legislators, nor does

. See United States v. Gil1ock, 445 U.S. 360

hat principles of federalism and comity also do

ny sought here. See United States v. Gillgsk,

eson,323 F.2d 597 (4tfr Cir. 1963). Cf.,

u. s. rs3 (1979) .

, the motion to quash must be denied. In an

lative independence," United States v. G:ll9cE,

, and to minimize any possible chilling effect

the court will grant defendants' motion for a

irect that the transcripts of the depositions be

h the court.

ORDERED.

F. T. DUPREE,
UNTTED STATDS DISTRICT .]UDGE

L : :H,::: :".""f "Ji ?# H-il:r'
-"1. 

ni.rt Leonard' Cl:t.k^-..*
ij.,# sut* District court

Page 2

Carolina