Correspondence from Guinier to Hebert Re: Louisiana Congressional Reapportionment (Deposition Subpoenas)

    Gerald Hebert, Esq. 
Civil Rights Division 
United States Department of Justice 
10th & Constitution, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

RE Louisiana Congressional Reapportionment 
(Deposition Subpoenas) 

F.S.182-0501 

Mr, Hebert: 

I write to confirm our conversation of January 7, 1983. You 
advised me that the Department of Justice will oppose enforce- 
ment deposition subpoenas F.S. 82-0501 r On the grounds 

in Gerald Jones' letter to me of January 6, 1983, i.e., 

information such as the reasoning, factual inferences or 
application of legal standards to the Louisiana Congressional 
submission by the Justice Department staff is not discoverable. 
For example, the recommendations and analysis are expurgated in 
the copy of the memorandum of Robert Kwan, which Mr. Jones 
furnished to me on January 6, 1983 in response to plaintiffs June 

2 1982 FOIA request and to our December 13 agreement that I 
to enforce the subpoenas until you provide the portion of 

requested information that the Department will voluntarily 
release. I assume, from,the Department's decision to withhold 

. Kwan's recommendations, that his recommendations are 

“ferent than the final decision of Mr. Reynolds not to object, 
; : Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft, 421 U.S. 168 

275), (memoranda containing recomm £3 or conclusions 

were adopted by the decision maker should be disclosed). 
no recommendations or conclusions of the other staff who 

ewed the submission (i.e., you and Gerald Jones, Section 

", Voting Rights Section) have been provided, I assume as 
that those recommendations and analysis were not reflected 

the final decision. 

  

You have indicated that at this time, however, the Depart- 
ment will not stipulate that the decision of the Assistant 
Attorney General not to object to Act No. 20 of the Louisiana 1¢ 
Legislature was inconsistent wit ne analysis and recommenda- 
tions of the staff who reviewed the submission and had primary 
responsibility for the investigati I will therefore need to 
proceed with depositions. 

  

 UMBUS Cl RCil |  



o ® 
You agreed that it makes sense for me to renotice the 

Ofifions for a date after District Court in Louisiana 
ance to rule on the relevance of further inquiry into 

stances surround ling review of the submission, (See 
ffs Motion lude Evidence, attached) 

* probably renctice them for et] ; 
Janu ary: 24 1983. Ple 

sometime during the week of 
ease advise me if any date that week 

particularl ly inconvenient for you or the other proposed 
nents. 

- 

depo- 

addition, I would the record to ratiect that while 
lave cooperated reat extent with my requests: for 

vou nrovide ee 

RR on 4 - 
iy reques I awa IS : 

tions, and memoranda reflecting 
drawn by the staff from the facts as well as 
of William Bradford Reynolds’ Memorandum: to the File 

Juna 18,1982. i] appreciate your reluctance 

simply providing a self- 

recommendart 

ase the original memorandum, 
serving explanation of its back dating is not satisfactory. 
therefore renew my request for the original of 
= on 

this memorandum, 
as well as for Mr. Kwan's and all other staff ‘analysis 
recommendations and memoranda reflecting inferences avawn by 
the staff from the facts of the investigation. At 
least, li. request a statement that Mr. 
recommendations, analysis and A 

T 
we 

the very 
Kwan's and other staf 

inferences drawn from the facts 
e inconsistent with and are not reflected in the decision of 

the Assistant Attorney General not to object. 

Thank you for your:.cooperation. 

Hnserely) 
7 7 

INCAAAN AAAANL 
PA LV di 4 
Lani Guinier 

Atsomey for Plaintiffs 
Jor Vv. rreen, 

Action No. 82-1192 

  COLUMBUS CI'RC.L