Harris County District Judge Wood's Support for State Defendants' Motion for Trial Continuance

    PorTER & CLEMENTS 
FIRST REPUBLICBANK CENTER 

700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3500 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-2730 

ATTORNEYS   
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING 5 TELEPHONE (713) 226-0600 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 
TELECOPIER (713) 228-1331 

TELECOPIER (713) 224-4835 

  

EVELYN V. KEYES SELEY 7765048 : 
(713) 226-0611 oowledh JN 7/ 

WOR ML UGX 
“a “gsi 

“© 
“ May 30, 1989 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS   

Clerk, U.8. District Court 

200 BE. Wall St., Suite 316 

Midland, Texas 79702 

Re: No. MOB88~-CA-154; League of United Latin American 
Citizens (LULAC), et al, v, James Mattox, Attorney 
General of Texas, et al. In the United Stat District 7 es 

Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa 

Division 

Dear Sir x)
 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case is Harris 
County District Judge Wood's Support for State Defendants’ Motion 
for Trial Continuance. 

Please verify filing by placing your stamp in the margin of 
the enclosed extra copy and return same to me in the enclosed 
self-addressed stamped envelope. 

By copy of this letter, all counsel are being served a copy 
Of "this filing by "first class United States wail, postage 
prepaid. 

Sincerely yours, 

z 
& aa / / v 

Sn ECA, v Ce ld 

Evelyn Vv. Keyes 

EVK/cdf:em 

Enclosures 

 



    

PorTER & 8 ENTS # 

Clerk, U.S. District Court 
May 30, 1989 
Page 

CC. 

“De 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Ms. Brenda Hall Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
Attorneys at Law 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration & 

Education Project 
201 N."st, Mary's, Suite 221 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Ms. Susan Finkelstein 

Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 NM. St. Mary's, Suite 600 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Julius Levonne Chambers 
Ms. Sherrilyn A. T£fill 
NAACP legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

1s. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Jim Mattox, Attornev General of Texas 
Ms. Mary F. Keller, First Assistant Attorney General 
Ms. Renea Hicks, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
Mr. Javier Guajardo, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
P,. OO. Box 12548 
Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. EGward B. Cloutman, 111 

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

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
777 So. R.L. Thornton Freeway, Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

 



PorTER & CLEMENTS 

Clerk, U.S. District Court 
May 30, 1989 
Page —3~- 

Mr. Ken Oden 

Travis County Attorney 
P. O..:BoOX 1748 

Austin, Texas 78767 

Mr. David R. Richards 

Special Counsel 
600 W. 7th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Mark EH. Dettman 
Attornev at Law 

P. CO. Box 255% 

Midland, 

Mr. Robert H. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum 

1717 Main Stree 

Dallas, Texas 

 



  

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS HLUILAC), ef al., 

Plaintiffs, 

V. NO. MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, Attorney General 
Of the State of Texas, et al., 

V
/
s
 

IY 
W
/
V
 

V
/
V
/
V
 

a 
M/

s 
V/
s 
W
V
 

Defendants. 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE WOOD'S SUPPORT 

FOR STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE 
  

  

Barris County District Judge Sharolvn Wood ("Wood") files 

this her Support "for the State Defendants' Motion for Trial 

Continuance in the above-styled case and would respectfully show 

the Court the following: 

This case was originally brought by LULAC and several named 

black and Hispanic-surnamed individual plaintiffs challenging the 

system of electing state district judges in certain target 

counties in Texas on grounds that the system dilutes the votes of 

blacks and Hispanics 1in the target counties. Defendant- 

Intervenor Wood is cognizant that the Court permitted her 

intervention into this case, along with that of other Plaintiff- 

Intervenors and Defendant-Intervenors, on February 27, 1989 on 

condition that the permitted intervention not delay the trial of 

this cause. For that reason, Defendant Wood considers herself 

estopped from moving for a continuance. However, she strongly 

 



  

Re EA 

supports the State Defendants' Motion for Continuance for the 

reasons set forth in the State Defendants' Motion and for the 

additional reasons set forth below. 

Like the State Defendants, Defendant Wood finds it extremely 

difficult to be ready for trial and to adequately present her 

defense under the existing schedule for this complex and extreme- 

ly important case. Her concerns are essentially of two types: 

(A) continuing uncertainties over the scope of the case and 

(B) the rudimentary status of discovery six weeks before the 

scheduled trial of the case and two weeks before the scheduled 

discovery cut-off date. 

A. THE RUDIMENTARY STATUS OF DISCOVERY 

Although Defendant Wood commenced discovery immediately 

after being allowed to intervene in this case and sent interroga- 

tories and requests: for production’ “to all plaintiffs and 

plaintiff-intervenors, as they then stood, to date these attempts 

at discovery have produced no useful answers to interrogatories 

and no documents. Defendant Wood has filed a Motion to Compel 

Discovery from the Houston Lawyers' Association, plaintiff- 

intervenors in this case, which is still pending before the 

Court, 

At the request of the Court, Defendant Vood and the 

attorneys for the Houston Lawyers' Association have attempted to 

reconcile their differences over discovery in order that docu- 

ments and useful answers to interrogatories may be obtained as 

expeditiously as possible. Defendant Wood has also sought 

 



  

documents from her fellow co-defendants and has obtained the 

documents in their possession. However, to date, Defendant Wood 

has not been able to obtain census information either from her 

co-8efendants or from the plaintiffs. This: information ‘is 

important to. building a ‘case in a voting rights action. in 

addition, the plaintiffs have still not informed Defendant Wood 

which specific judicial races they intend to concentrate on, 

where they perceive pockets of minority concentration to lie, or 

where they would draw the boundaries of the new minority/majority 

single member district judge election districts they would have 

the Court establish. They have not indicated on which Texas 

House and Senate reports and debates they would rely. They have 

not specified any factual instances of racial discrimination in 

Harris County that have affected them personally. 

Moreover, two weeks before discovery cutoff, neither 

et
e Plaintiffs nor Defendants have been able to obtain expert 

testimony from the other side. Counsel for the Houston Lawyers’ 

Association has indicated today to counsel for Defendant Wood 

that the report of the Plaintiffs' experts is still not ready. 

Counsel for the Houston Lawyers' Association also indicated today 

that the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Engstrom, will be out of the 

country for virtually the entire month of June and cannot 

therefore be deposed during that time, even if his reports were 

ready to use at his deposition. Counsel for Judge Wood has 

further been informed today that counsel for the State Defendants 

has attempted to set up depositions of the plaintiffs' experts 

 



  

J * 

and was informed by lead counsel for the plaintiffs that these 

experts have not yet finished compiling their information. 

Similarly, counsel for Judge Wood has only today designated her 

experts to counsel for the Houston Lawyers' Association. Counsel 

for both Judge Wood and the State are continuing to supply 

documents to their own experts; and the reports upon which 

defendants will rely to defend against the plaintiffs' claims in 

the sixteen counties which are the subject of this suit have yet 

to be made. 

B.: UNCERTAINTIES ‘OVER THE SCOPE OF THE CASE 

1. The Plaintiffs Continue to Add Target Counties. 
  

New issues have recently been introduced by the Plaintiffs’ 

Second Amended Complaint, filed on May 11, 1989 which for the 

first time added Bexar County as a defendant and added a number 

cf new individual plaintiffs. Since vote dilution cases, such as 

this one, are highly fact-intensive, these new additions to the 

case represent unexplored factual avenues which neither Judge 

Wood nor the other defendants can adequately probe in the six 

weeks remaining before trial. 

2's Issues Presented by the Legislative Black Caucus’ 
Intervention Are Unresolved. 
  

  

At the present time, six weeks before the scheduled trial of 

this cause of action, a number of issues regarding the scope of 

the inquiry remain to be resolved. Despite the efforts of Judge 

Wood and the other parties to meet the abbreviated discovery 

deadlines imposed by the Court, Defendant Wood received from the 

Legislative Black Caucus (the "Caucus"), Plaintiff-Intervenor in 

 



  

KL ® 

this case, a response +o her Motion to Strike +he Caucus 

Intervention less than a week ago. That response took the form 

Of a motion by the Caucus to "strike its own intervention. At 

this point, Defendant Wood still does not know whether she will 

be required to defend against the Legislative Black Caucus’ 

claims at all, since the standing issues raised by Defendant Wood 

in her own Motion to Strike have yet to be resolved. 

In addition, as Defendant Wood pointed out in her Motion to 

Dismiss the Claims of the Caucus and to Strike Its Intervention, 

the Caucus' Amended Complaint introduces into this case a massive 

expansion of the issues raised by the Plaintiffs and the other wn
 

Plaintiff-Intervenors. The pleadings of the Legislative Black 

Caucus challenge all judicial races at all levels in Texas on 

behalf of all black voters in Texas, while the Plaintiffs and the 

other Plaintiff-Intervenors confine their vote dilution claims to 

district judge races in targeted counties. Thus, not only does 

Defendant Wood not know whether the Court will allow the Caucus 

to remain in this case, but also, if the Caucus does remain, 

Defendant Wood does not know whether she will need to prepare a 

defense against its broad claims. 

C. LACK OF HARM FROM A CONTINUANCE 

Under the circumstances, it is obvious that, despite the 

best efforts of all parties to comply with the deadlines set by 

the Court, neither side is capable of adequately defining the 

issues and completing discovery by the June 15 discovery cut-off 

 



2 J 

deadline set by the Court. Moreover, not only doc defendants 

desire a continuance in order to present the Court with an 

adequate record for its ruling in this case, but counsel for the 

Houston Lawyers' Association has also indicated verbally to 

counsel for Judge Wood that the plaintiff-intervenors are not 

ready for trial and do not oppose a continuance. 

For the foregoing reasons, as well as for all of the other 

reasons set forth in the State Defendants' Moti for. Trial 

Defendant-Intervenor Judge Wood trongly supports 

the State Defendants' Motion for Continuance and urges the Court 

to grant that motion. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

& iil py 

C le 4 
Pi 

£ velo 
I 4 7 

J. Eugene Clements / 
700 Louisiana, Suite 
Houston, Texas 77002- 

(713) 226-0600 

££ 
A 

  

A 7 SRE TT 

ne EL AA 

%y rebar. 
By: / ¢ Le), 

Darrell Smith 
Attorney at Law 

10999 Interstate Hwy. 10, #905 
San Antonio, Texas 78230 
(512) 641-9944 

  

ATTORNEYS FOR HARRIS COUNTY 

DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD  



  

[ & 

OF COUNSEL: 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

John E. O'Neill 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, Texas 77002-273 

(713) 226-0600 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 

440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 228-5105 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy “of the 
foregoing Harris County District Judge Wood's Support for State 
Defendants' Motion for Trial Continuance has been served on all 
counsel Of record by first class United States mail, postage 
prepaid on this day of May, 1989, as follows: 

ir. William L. Garrett 
1s. Brenda Hall Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
Attorneys at Law 

8 
~~ 

Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration & 

Education Project 
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 221 
gan Antonio, Texas 78205 

Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 BX. St, Mary's, Suite 600 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Julius Levonne Chambers 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 

16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 

Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

 



# » 

  

Mr. Jim Mattox, Attorney General of Texas 

Ms. Mary F. Keller, First Assistant Attorney Genera 
Ms. Renea Hicks, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
lr. Javier Guajardo, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
P. OO. Box 12548 
Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Cloutman, III . B. 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C. 

3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
777 So. R.L. Thornton Freeway 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Ty 3 

P . 0 [J B J > 1 

Austin, Texas 

Austin, 

Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

  

/ 4 / 
aii A20y 

< 4 hr Vit / 4 f 

FAR ya f ” { EN TE / , 174 

( in $n 4) pA Vv { AL, pad 
3 7 

Evelyn V. Keyes 

WO002/15/cdf:em