Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice of Computer Data with Certificate of Service

Public Court Documents
March 27, 1998

Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice of Computer Data with Certificate of Service preview

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

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top