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 November 19, 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