Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice of Computer Data with Certificate of Service
Public Court Documents
March 27, 1998

3 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice of Computer Data with Certificate of Service, 1998. b8557e9a-e40e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/e08f00fa-3e61-4b6e-9b21-a903a5dcbcc5/response-to-plaintiffs-request-for-judicial-notice-of-computer-data-with-certificate-of-service. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) MARTIN CROMARTIE, THOMAS ) CHANDLER MUSE, and GLENNES ) DODGE WEEKS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ V. ) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL ) NOTICE OF COMPUTER DATA JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his official ) capacity as Governor of the State of North ) ) ) ) Carolina, et al., Defendants. On March 23. 1998, plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to Rule 201(a) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, asking the Court to take judicial notice of “the data, maps, and all other information compiled by the North Carolina General Assembly in its public access computer.” In general, defendants do not object to the Court’s taking notice of data, maps and other information contained on the State’s public access redistricting computer. However, plaintiffs have failed to present this evidence to the Court in an appropriate manner. See Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence (Court may take judicial notice if requested by a party “and supplied with the necessary information.”)1It is not sufficient, as plaintiffs seek to do, merely to point generally in the direction of the General Assembly and the redistricting computer and ask for judicial notice of all its contents. ~ Furthermore, as pointed out by plaintiffs themselves, the redistricting computer is a public access computer and may contain matters which are not appropriate for judicial notice or are otherwise objectionable. WHEREFORE, defendants object to a broad grant of judicial notice to information and matters not properly supplied to defendants or the Court pursuant to Rule 201. he This the &) day of Manihn . 1998. MICHAEL F. EASLEY ATTORNEY GENERAL PEA Edwin M. Speas, Jr. Senior Deputy Attorney General N.C. State Bar No. 4112 uc 8. fn, fare B. Smiley Special Deputy Attorney General N. C. State Bar No. 7119 1] nama { fenitd/a Norma S. Harrell Special Deputy Attorney General N.C. State Bar No. 6654 N.C. Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, N.C. 27602 (919) 716-6900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Response To Plaintiffs’ Request For Judicial Notice Of Computer Data in the above captioned case upon all parties by depositing these documents in the United States mail, first class mail. postage prepaid addressed as follows: Robinson O. Everett Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg. 301 W. Main Street P.O. Box 586 Durham. NC 27702 Martin B. McGee Williams. Boger. Grady, Davis & Tittle, P.A. Post Office Box 810 Concord. NC 28026-0810 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Anita S. Hodgkiss Ferguson. Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 741 Kenilworth Avenue Charlotte, NC 28204 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANTS FOR INTERVENTION fh Tis the 2), doy of Yhatutds 199%, 9 gie Boll e B. Smiley Special Deputy Attorney General