Letter from Court to Lord RE Motions To Vacate Intervention Restrictions

    T H O M A S  G.  L O N G  
R O C K W E L L  T.  G U S T  
A .  H A L L I A R D  W I L L I A M S  
V I C T O R  W.  K L E I N  
T .  G O R D O N  S C U P H O L M  
A L F R E D  W.  M A S S N I C K  
M A R T I N  L . B U T Z E L  
P H I L I P  T . V A N  Z I L E . H  
A D D I S O N  D.  C O N N O R  
G E O R G E  E .  B R A N D ,  J R .  
J A M E S  D.  R I T C H I E  
J O H N  J .  K U H N  
W I L L I A M  M S A X T O N  
H A R O L D  A .  R U E M E N A P P  
L E S L I E  W.  F L E M I N  G 
E L E A N O R  S .  P A Y N E  
W I L L I A M  L .  P O W E R S  
R O B E R T  J .  B A T T I S T A  
J O H N  P .  W I L L I A M S  
R O B E R T  M.  K L E I N  
X H A F E R  O R H A N  
L A W R E N C E  R .  V A N  T I L  
J O H N  B . W E A V E  R 
G E O R G E  H . Z I N N . J R .
J O H N  H.  D U D L E Y ,  J R .
R O B E R T  M . V E R C R U Y S S E  
R I C H A R D  E . R A S S E L  
R E U B E N  M. W A T E R M A N ,  J R .  
G E O R G E  J .  L U B E R D A  
J O N  H . W.  C L A R K  
E D W A R D  M.  K R O N K  
C H E S T E R  E . K A S l B O R S K I  , J R .

B U T L , L O N G ,  G U S T ,  K L E I N  S  V A N  T I L E
1 0 8 1  F I R S T  N A T I O N A L  B U I L D I N G  

D E T R O I T ,  M I C H I G A N  - 4 8 2 2 6

( 3 1 3 )  9 6 3 - 8 1 4 2

January 11, 1973

L E O  M. B U T Z E L  

1 8 7 4 - 1 9 6 1

F R A N K  D.  E A M A N  

1 8 7 7 - 1 9 6 2

F R E D  J .  K E N N E D Y  

1 8 9 1 - 1 9 6 9

D A VI D  W.  K E N D A L L  

O F  C O U N S E L

C A B L E  A D D R E S  S 

S T A R Z E L

R ober t  J. Lord ,  Esqu ire  
A t to rn ey  A t  Law 
8388 D ix ie  H ighway 
F a i r  Haven, M ich igan 48023

Re; B rad ley  v M il l iken

D ea r  M r. Lord ;

W e  have re ce iv ed  your Motions To Vacate Intervention Res tr ic t ions ,
F o r  A  Class Defense Order, F o r  A Conditional D ism is sa l  Of Complaint 
F o r  Fa i lu re  To  Comply With Mandatory Requ irem ent of F R C F  19 (c)
And T o  Vacate N ovem ber  5, 1972 Order In Part .

Insofar as the Res tr ic t ions  On Interventions is concerned, we fe e l  the 
same are  e f fe c t iv e ly  rem oved  as to any school d is tr ic ts  who are ,  or 
m ay becom e, parties to the l it igat ion by virtue of the Court of Appeals 
determ ination  that such school d is tr ic ts  a re  "n e c e s s a r y "  parties 
under Rule 19, F R C P .

The clients whom you represen t  w e re  granted p e rm iss iv e  intervention 
and apart f r o m  our personal attitude against the imposit ion of restr ic t ions  
on such in tervenors ,  we are  of the opinion that the D is t r ic t  Court c lea r ly  
has the power and authority to so c ircu m scr ib e  the participation of 
p e rm is s iv e  in tervenors . A lso ,  based upon exper ience in the course of 
hearings conducted a fte r  intervention was allowed, it does not appear that 
such res tr ic t ions  materially impeded your e fforts  on behalf of your clients. 
T o  our reco l lec t ion ,  you o f fe red  no w itnesses and did not take advantage 
of the opportunity to c ross -exam in e  any w itnesses.



4 4
R ober t  J. Lord , Esquire  
January 11, 1973 
Page  Two

We take no position on the motion to rem ove  the res tr ic t ions  on in te r ­
vention with respec t  to p e rm iss iv e  in tervenors.

With respec t  to your motion fo r  a determination that the individual 
de fendants- in tervenors be dec lared  the representat ives  of a class 
denoted as a l l  school children and parents in Wayne, Oakland and 
Macomb Counties, it is our intent to oppose the same.

The various school d is tr ic ts  who are ,  or may become, parties to the 
l it igation, se rve  the interests of the parents and children within their 
re spec t ive  d is tr ic ts .  Indeed, the sole purpose fo r  their ex istence is to 
s e rve  the educational needs and promote and protect the interests of the 
communities which they se rve .  The interests of parents and children 
in a ffected school d is tr ic ts  within Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties 
are ,  in our opinion, fa i r l y  and e f fe c t iv e ly  represented by the school 
d is tr ic ts .

With respect  to the parts of your motion re la t ive  to the d ism issa l  of 
the Complaint and vacation of the Court ’ s order of Novem ber 5, 1971 
(which is e rroneously  denoted Novem ber 5, 1972, in the title of your 
motion), we are  re se rv ing  judgment pending assignment of a new D is t r ic t  
Judge and a determination of the intended scope of further hearings.

V e r y  tru ly your.s

44/ljd

cc: United States D is t r ic t  Court,
Eastern D is t r ic t  of Michigan 
Southern D iv is ion

A l l  Counsel Of R ecord