Letter to Judge Boyle from Smiley RE: Pretrial Order

Correspondence
October 19, 1999

Letter to Judge Boyle from Smiley RE: Pretrial Order preview

5 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Letter to Judge Boyle from Smiley RE: Pretrial Order, 1999. 1b6b7d23-f80e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/e0b0bbd5-19df-4005-b7cc-74062258b5dd/letter-to-judge-boyle-from-smiley-re-pretrial-order. Accessed July 16, 2025.

    Copied!

    State of North Carolina 
MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice 

ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Tiare B. Smiley 

RALEIGH Special Litigation 
37602-0620 (919) 716-6900 

FAX: (919) 716-6763 

October 19, 1999 

The Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL 

United States District Court 

306 East Main St. 

Elizabeth City, NC 27907 

  

Re: Cromartie v. Hunt Pretrial Order 

Dear Judge Boyle: 

Counsel for the parties have met and begun making arrangements to prepare a pretrial order 

for the trial of this case. We are cooperatively trying to work out a reasonable schedule which will 

allow us to exchange materials and produce a final pretrial order in the compressed time frame we 

are working under in this case. We are taking the liberty of jointly proposing what the parties agree 

is a workable arrangement under the circumstances of this case, and present it here for your 

consideration. 

First, we would propose filing a final pretrial order midday on Friday, October 29, 1999, with 

the trial scheduled to commence on Monday, November 1, 1999. Counsel have come to agreement 

on a series of interim dates that will allow time to prepare and exchange the various materials which 

make up the final pretrial order in order to meet the proposed filing deadline. 

Second, we would propose roughly following the format of the pretrial order in Shaw. In that 

case, the parties were not required to present proposed findings of fact until after the trial. 

Arrangements are already being made to have daily transcripts, which will allow the parties to prepare 

their proposals in a reasonable time frame. 

Third, with regard to exhibits, we propose assigning exhibit numbers as follows: 

1 to 99 Deposition Exhibits (There are about 85 deposition exhibits in total.) 

100 to 199 Maps and Stipulated Statistical or Other Exhibits 

200 to 299 Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 

300 to 399 Defendants’ Exhibits 

400 to 499 Defendant-Intervenors’ Exhibits 

Finally, the parties would appreciate the flexibility of not having to designate deposition 

 



  

The Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge 

October 19, 1999 

Page 2 

testimony until after the trial when the proposed findings of fact are due. The parties would be 

allowed three days in which to file any objections to deposition designations. The parties anticipate 

that allowing this leeway will limit unnecessary over designation of deposition testimony. 

We hope the proposals outlined above provide an acceptable plan of action and address any 

concerns the Court might have. 

Sincerely, 

le RE 
~—="""Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

TBS/fa 

cel Todd Cox 

Adam Stein 

Robinson O. Everett 

 



    

MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice 

ATTORNEY GRNERAL P.O. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Tiare B. Smiley 
RALEIGH Special Litigation 

FAX: (919) 716-6763 

October 19, 1999 

The Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL 

United States District Court 
306 East Main St. 

Elizabeth City, NC 27907 

Re: Cromartie v. unt Pretrial Order 

Dear Judge Boyle: 

Counsel for the parties have met and begun making arrangements to prepare a pretrial order 
for the trial of this case. We are cooperatively trying to work out a reasonable schedule which will 
allow us to exchange materials and produce a final pretrial order in the compressed tune frame we 

are working under in this case. We are taking the liberty of jointly proposing what the parties agree 

is a workable arrangement under the circumstances of this case, and present it here for your 

consideration. 

First, we would propose filing a final pretrial order midday on Friday, October 29, 1999, with 
the trial scheduled to commence on Monday, November 1, 1999. Counsel have come to agreement 

on a series of interim dates that will allow time to prepare and exchange the various materials which 

make up the final pretrial order in order to meet the proposed filing deadline. 

Second, we would propose roughly following the format of the pretrial order in Shaw. In that 
case, the parties were not required to present proposed findings of fact until after the trial. 

Arrangements are already being made to have daily transcripts, which will allow the parties to prepare 
their proposals in a reasonable time frame. 

Third, with regard to exhibits, we propose assigning exhibit numbers as follows: 

1 to 99 Deposition Exhibits (There are about 85 deposition exhibits in total.) 

100 to 199 Maps and Stipulated Statistical or Other Exhibits 
200 to 299 Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 

300 to 399 Defendants’ Exhibits 

400 to 499 Defendant-Intervenors’ Exhibits 

Finally, the parties would appreciate the flexibility of not having to designate deposition 

Z0'4d 85:51 66. 61 330 $92991.616: XE 1 THIA4S 90. ON 

 



  

The Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge 
October 19. 19990 

Page 2 

testimony until after the trial when the proposed findings of fact are due. The parties would be 
allowed three days in which to file any objections to deposition designations. The parties anticipate 
that allowing this leeway will limit unnecessary over designation of deposition testimony. 

We hope the proposals outlined above provide an acceptable plan of action and address any 
concerns the Court might have. 

Sincerely, 
\ 

hi PD 
(de /), 

Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

TBS/fa 

ce: Todd Cox 

Adam Stein 

Robinson OQ. Everett 

¢0°d 6G:G1 6b. 61 330 $929914616: XB S 115) WI03d4S od ON 

 



    

MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice : 

ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Tiare B. Smiley 
Special Litigation 

RALEIGH EAs as (919) 716-6800 
27002-0020 FAX: 919) 716-6763 

TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL SHEET 

TO: The Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge 

Fax #: (252) 338-2471 

Todd Cox 

Fax #: (202) 682-1312 

Adam Stein 

Fax #: (919) 967-4953 

Robinson O. Everett 

Fax #: (919) 682-5469 

FROM: Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorney General 

TELEPHONE NUMBER: (919) 716-6900 

DATE: October 19, 1999 

SUBJECT: Attachment 

NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET: 3 

CONFIRM RECEIPT OF DOCUMENTI(S) IF MARKED HERE: 

COMMENTS: 

CONFIDENTIALL 

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILEMESSAGE IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR 

ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED 

RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR 

COPY OF THIS TELECOPY IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS 

TELECOPY IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURNTHE 

ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL 

SERVICE. THANK YOU. 

€3 
10°d 85:51 66. 61 330 ¢929914616: XE 117 W133d45 ag ON

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