Defendants' Response to Plaintiff-Intervenor HLA's Motion for Leave of Court to File in Excess of Ten Requests for Admission

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

JIM PIATTOX 

ATTORNEY GENERAL Ausgust 21 1989 
’ 

John D. Neil 

Deputy U. S. District Clerk 
P. O. Box 10708 

Midland, Texas 79702 

Re: LULAC Council #4434, et al. v. Mattox, et al., 

No. MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Mr. Neil: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced cause are the 
original and one copy of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff-Intervenor 
Houston Lawyers Association's Motion for Leave of Court to File in 
Excess of Ten Requests for Admission. 

Sincerely, 

Ticks TN es 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

CC: Counsel of record 

512/463-2100 SUPREME COURT BUILDING AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2348 

 



  

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

VS. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Intervenors Houston Lawyers Association's Motion For Leave To File 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

Plaintiffs, 

Civil Action No. 

MO-88-CA-154 

Defendants. CO
N 

LO
N 

CO
P 

LO
B 

LO
N 

OP
 

CO
P 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR 
HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF 

COURT TO FILE IN EXCESS OF TEN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

State Defendants submit the following response to 

In Excess Of Ten Requests For Admissions: 

operation of Local Rule 300-6(f), which limits parties to ten requests 

for admissions. The Houston Lawyers Association concedes that the 

plain reading of the local rule limits parties to ten requests unless 

the parties make a showing of good cause to lift the limit. Defendants’ 

Response to Plaintiffs’ First Motion Concerning Admissions at 2-3. In 

Plaintiff-Intervenors seek leave of this Court to suspend the 

pertinent part, Local Rule 300-6(f) states: 

Requests for admissions . . . will be limited to 
ten requests, which shall in like manner 

include all separate paragraphs and sub-parts 

contained within a numbered request. The 

Court may permit further . . . requests to be 
filed upon a showing of good cause. 

  

Plaintiff-



  

Thus, the only remaining issue to confront is whether Plaintiff- 

Intervenors can show good cause why the limit of ten requests 

should not apply. As supported below, and considering the particular 

situations in this case, Plaintiff-Intervenors cannot meet this burden. 

GOOD CAUSE TO LIFT THE LIMIT IS NOT PRESENT 
  

The Houston Lawyers Association claims that due to the 

complexity of this lawsuit and the corresponding need to narrow the 

issues involved, there exists good cause for permitting more than ten 

requests for admissions. By filing this motion, the Houston Lawyers 

Association admits that they are not entitled to request more than 

ten admissions without a show of good cause. Although the case at 

hand is admittedly fact-intensive, allowing the additional requests 

will not simplify or narrow the issues for litigation. As explained 

below, the duplicative nature of the Plaintiff-Intervenors' requests 

render the task of answering them an exercise in futility. 

Increasing the number of allowable requests will not facilitate 

productive discovery, as the Plaintiff-Intervenors claim. In fact, 

considering the requests involved, the exact opposite will occur. The 

requests, some inquiring into legal issues, are either too vast to prove 

helpful in narrowing the issues for litigation or so self-evident that a 

reading of bedrock Voting Rights Act case law renders the requests 

moot. Houston Lawyers Association's Requests Nos. 14 and 17 are 

questions of law, determinable by reference to the applicable case 

law, and are therefore not appropriate for admissions requests. 

Furthermore, Requests Nos 11, 12, and 13, concerning demographic 

data on Harris County, would be better handled through stipulations. 

In addition, the State Defendants have already responded to fifty- 

oe 

 



  

one requests submitted by the Plaintiffs, many of which cover 

identical legal issues that substantively overlap Plaintiff-Intervenors' 

requests. For example, Houston Lawyers Association's Requests 

No.15, No.16, and No.18 pertain to the educational disparity between 

Whites and Blacks in Texas history. The State Defendants have 

already responded to Plaintiff's Requests Nos 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, and 

47, which also deal with the educational disadvantage of minorities 

in Texas. There is no good cause for placing an additional 

unreasonable pre-trial burden on one party in a lawsuit already 

burdened with voluminous discovery. 

Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that 

requests for admissions in complex cases should be framed in a 

manner in which the "issues [are] clearly defined so that the whole 

case might be kept within manageable proportions" and to "eliminate 

the necessity of proving essentially undisputed and peripheral issues 

of fact." Syracuse Broadcasting Corp. v. Newhouse, 271 F.2d 910, 915, 

917 (2d Cir. 1959). But Plaintiff-Intervenors' additional requests will 

not clarify or simplify this case when the legal and factual issues 

they address overlap substantially with available responses to 

Plaintiffs’ requests. 

CONCLUSION 
  

The local rules limitation on admissions requests is aimed 

precisely at the situation presented here. The Plaintiff-Intervenors' 

motion should be denied, and the parties encouraged to explore other 

possibilities, particularly stipulations, to narrow the issues in this 

case. 

 



Ld p 

v 

  

DATED: August 21, 1989 

Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 

First Assistant Attorney 
General 

lei Lele 

RENEA HICKS 4 
Special Assistant Attorney 
General 

  

JIM TODD 

Division Chief, General 

Litigation 

Assistant Attorney General 

RAFAEL QUINTANILLA 

Special Assistant Attorney 

General 

JAVIER GUAJARDO 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE 
DEFENDANTS 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 21st day of August, 1989, I sent a copy of 
the foregoing Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff-Intervenors Houston 
Lawyers Association's First Motion Concerning Admissions by first 
class United States mail, postage prepaid, to each of the following: 
William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 8300 Douglas, Suite 

800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Rolando Rios, Law Offices of Rolando Rios, 

201 N. St. Mary's Suite 521, San Antonio, Texas 78205; Sherrilyn A. 

Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson 

Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10013; Gabrielle K. McDonald, 

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, Texas 78701: Edward B. 

Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C., 3301 Elm 

Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene Clements, Porter & 
Clements 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 77002-2730: 

Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum Place, 1717 

Main Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 

A alo e
S
 

(— a 2 

    No a, . 

Renea Hicks