Reply from Board of Education Defendants to Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to U.S.C. 292(b) for Appointment of Trial Judge

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF A P P E A L S

FO R  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD B R A D L E Y , et al.,

P la intif fs  -A p p e l la n ts ,

v.

W ILLIAM  G. M ILLIK E N , et al.,

Defendants-  A ppellees , No. 21036

and

D E T R O IT  FE D E R A TIO N  OF TEACHERS,

Def end ant-Inter ve n o r .

R E P L Y  OF BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS TO 
P L A IN T IF F S '  MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U. S. C. 292 (b) 

FO R  A P P O IN T M E N T  OF T R IA L  JUDGE

M i l l e r ,  Canfield ,  P a dd ock  and Stone 
2500 D etro it  Bank <k T ru st  Building 
D etro it ,  M ich igan  48226

T elephone :  963-6420

A T T O R N E Y S  FOR
THE D E TR O IT BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS



IN THE
UNITED STA TE S COURT OF A P P E A L S  

F O R  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

R O N A L D  B R A D L E Y , et al.,

vs.

P la in t i f f s -  A ppellants ,

W ILLIAM  G. M IL L IK E N , et al.,

D efendants-  A p p e l le e s ,

and
No. 2 1 ,0 3 6

D E TR O IT F E D E R A TIO N  OF TE A C H E R S, 
L O C A L  231, A M E R IC A N  F E D E R A T IO N  
OF TE A C H E R S, A F L -C I O ,

Defendant-Inter venor .

ON A P P E A L  FR O M  THE UNITED STA TE S DISTRICT COURT 
FO R  THE E A STERN  DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

R E P L Y  OF BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS TO 
P L A IN T IF F S '  M O TION PURSUANT TO 28 U. S. C. 292 (b) 

F O R  A P P O IN T M E N T  OF T R IA L  JUDGE

C om e now B oard  o f  Education  Defendants through their unders igned  

cou n se l  in rep ly  to P la in t i f fs '  M ot ion  fo r  Appointm ent of  T r ia l  Judge, and 

res p e c t fu l ly  state as f o l low s :



1. P la in t i f fs  m ake this m ot ion  s o le ly  as an attempt to have

Judge Roth r e m o v e d  f r o m  the a b o v e -e n t i t le d  a ct ion  and have a D is t r i c t  Judge 

appointed who might be m o r e  r e c e p t iv e  to the ir  v e r s i o n  of the m e r i t s  o f  the 

c a s e ,  and as such, the M otion  is  a blatant exam ple  o f  ju d g e -s h o p p in g  in 

v io la t ion  of  the p o l i c y  of  the F e d e r a l  R u les  of  C iv i l  P r o c e d u r e .

2. C o n tra ry  to p la in t i f fs1 a s s e r t i o n s ,  Judge Roth at a ll  t im es  has 

acted  ex p ed it iou s ly  in this c a s e ,  and the delay  in the t r ia l  on the m e r i t s  is  

due, in la rg e  part ,  to P la in t i f f s 1 rep eated  p r e l im in a r y  m ot ion s ,  in te r lo c u to ry  

a ppea ls ,  and fa i lu re  to co m p le te  p r e t r ia l  d i s c o v e r y .

3. On N o v e m b e r  4, 1970, the date f i r s t  set for  the t r ia l  on the 

m e r i t s ,  the D is t r i c t  C ourt  heard  te s t im on y  and o r a l  argum ent  on P la in t i f f s1 

M ot ion  to  Im p lem en t  P lan . With the con sent  o f  a ll  p a r t ie s ,  including  P la in t i f fs ,  

the t r ia l  date was r e s e t  fo r  D e c e m b e r  8, 1970. On N o v e m b e r  18, 19, and

25, 1970, the D is t r i c t  C ourt  heard  te s t im o n y  in support of  the s c h o o l  plans 

submitted by  the B oa rd  o f  E ducation  D efendants .  On D e c e m b e r  3, 1970,

Judge Roth granted the B oard  of  E ducation  Defendants M otion  fo r  a Continuance 

until on or  a fter  January 18, 1971 on the grounds e x p r e s s e d  in his ru ling  that:

a. Beginning the t r ia l  on D e c e m b e r  8 would re su lt  in 
f ra gm en ta t ion  of  the p r o ce e d in g s  b e ca u s e  o f  the im pending  ho l idays ;

b .  The D etro it  B oard  of  Education  was in the p r o c e s s  
of d ecen tra l iza t ion ;

c .  It would have been g r o s s ly  unfair to the ten new m e m b e r s  
of  the C entra l  B oard  of  Education  not to a llow  them  to part ic ipa te  in 
the t r ia l  on m e r i t s ;

d. T h ere  was a p o s s ib i l i ty  that the United States Suprem e 
C ourt  would ren d er  a d e c is io n  which  would a f fec t  the tr ia l ;  and

e. The C o u r t ’ s o rd e r  d ire c t in g  the im plem entat ion  of

- 2 -



Plan A  had r e s o lv e d  the m o s t  urgent i s s u e  in the ca s e .

4. At the p r e t r ia l  c o n fe re n ce  held in ch a m b ers  on the a fternoon  of
/•*

D e c e m b e r  3, Judge Roth indicated that the tr ia l  on the m e r it s  would be 

scheduled  in late M a rch  or A p r i l ,  1971. His act ion  could w e l l  have been 

based  on a num ber of  fa c to r s  in addition to the C o u rt 's  schedule ,  including:

a. The p r o s p e c t  o f  another appeal  by Pla intif fs  to the 
Sixth C ircu it  (the notice  of A ppea l  was f i led  with the D is t r i c t  Court 
on D e c e m b e r  3) with the attendant demands on the t im e of cou n se l  
and the p o s s ib i l i ty  that a d ec is ion ,  which  could a f fec t  further 
p r o c e d u r e s  in the ca se ,  might not be is su ed  by the Sixth until 
F eb ru a ry  or M arch ,  1971;

b. The need fo r  further p r e t r ia l  d i s c o v e r y ,  c o n fe r e n c e s ,  
s tatem ents ,  and a hearing  to determ in e  the valid ity  and definit ion  
o f  the c la s s  re p re se n te d  by P la in t i f fs ,  and an opportunity, c o n s i s ­
tent with due p r o c e s s ,  to give n ot ice  to the m e m b e r s  of that 
c la s s ;

c .  The fact  that a d e c is io n  on the m e r it s  ren d ered  in 
A p r i l ,  should it be favora b le  to pla intiffs ,  would leave  adequate 
t im e  fo r  Defendants to im p lem en t  any o rd e r  which  might be issued  
by  the D is t r i c t  Court  by  Septem ber ,  1971.

5. In January, 1971, the D is t r i c t  Court  set a hear ing  to determ in e  

the valid ity  and scop e  o f  the c la s s  r e p re se n te d  by  Pla intiffs  for  F e b ru a ry  8, 

1971. At the req u es t  of  the State Defendants, that hearing  was re s ch ed u led  

fo r  F e b ru a ry  11, 1971. A t  that hear ing  Judge Roth ruled on the definit ion
t

of  the c la s s  re p re se n te d  by P la int i f fs ,  m ade p r o v is io n  for  not ice  on 

F e b ru a ry  16, 1971 to the m e m b e r s  of  that c la s s ,  set a deadline o f  M a rch  9, 

1971 fo r  said m e m b e r s  to intervene or except  th e m s e lv e s  f r o m  the act ion ,  

scheduled  a hear ing  on any such m otions  to intervene or ex cep t  fo r  M a rch  18,

- 3 -



scheduling  another p r e t r ia l  c o n f e r e n c e  fo r  M a rc h  22 and scheduled  the 

t r ia l  to beg in  on A p r i l  6, 1971 with exhibits  to be m arked  on A p r i l  5.

6. Many of  the i s s u e s ,  facts, and leg a l  author it ies  w hich  w i l l  be 

re levant  to the t r ia l  on the m e r i t s  have a lread y  been  p laced  b e fo r e  Judge 

Roth; another Judge would re q u ire  additional t im e  to b e c o m e  fa m i l ia r  with 

m a tters  a lrea d y  known by  Judge Roth and could  w e l l  delay  the t r ia l  until 

a fter  A p r i l  6.

W H E R E F O R E , the B oard  of  Education  Defendants r e s p e c t fu l ly  subm it 

that P la in t i f fs  have fa i led  to  es tab l ish  any grounds w hich  ju st i fy  their  M otion  

and re q u e s t  that P la in t i f f s 1 M otion  fo r  A ppointm ent o f  T r ia l  Judge be a ltogether  

denied .

R e s p e c t fu l ly  submitted,

"NAillp'-r C. a -n f i  1 r! P a  rlrl rx-lr a nrl S ir in p

C a r l  H. von Ende

A ttorn ey s  fo r  The D etro it  B oard  of 
Education

2500 D etro it  Bank & T ru st  Building 
D etro it ,  M ich igan  48226 
T e lephone  - 963-6420

4 -



C E R T IF IC A T E  OF SERVICE

This  is  to c e r t i fy  that a cop y  o f  the f o re g o in g  R ep ly  to P la in t i f f -  

A p p e l la n ts r M otion  Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 292 (b) f o r  Appointm ent of  

T r ia l  Judge has been s e r v e d  on cou n se l  f o r  the P la in t i f f -A p p e l le e s ,

Lou is  R. L ucas ,  W il l iam  E. Caldwell ,  525 C o m m e r c e  T it le  Building, 

M em phis ,  T e n n e s s e e  38103; E. Winther M c C r o o m ,  3245 W oodburn 

Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45207; Nathaniel Jones, 1790 B roadw ay, New 

Y ork ,  N. Y. ; Jack G reen b erg ,  Jam es M. Nabrit  III, N orm an  J. Chachkin,

10 Colum bus C ir c le ,  New Y ork ,  N. Y. 10019; B ru ce  M i l le r ,  L u c i le  Watts, 

3426 C ad illac  T o w e r ,  D etro it ,  M ich igan  48226; J. H aro ld  Flannery ,

Paul Dimond, 38 K ir land Street, C am bridge ,  M a ss ;  C ounsel  f o r  D e fen dants - 

A p p e l le e s ,  Eugene K ra s ick y ,  The Seven Story  O f f ice  Building, 525 West 

Ottawa Street, Lansing, M ich igan  48926, and C ounsel  f o r  Intervening 

Defendant, T h e o d o re  Sachs, 3610 C ad illac  T o w e r ,  D etro it ,  M ich igan  48226, 

by  United States Mail,  pos tage  prepaid ,  this 12th day o f  F e b ru a ry ,  1971.