TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 5 I. Legislative Defendants Must Provide the Information Requested in the Second Set of Interrogatories ............................................................................................................. 5 II. In the Alternative, or if Legislative Defendants Do Not Provide The Home Addresses By March 1, the Court Should Bar Legislative Defendants From Defending the 2017 Plans on the Basis of Any Incumbency Theory................................. 7 III. The Court Should Award Fees and Expenses and Other Appropriate Relief ..................... 8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................................. 11 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Cloer v. Smith , 132 N.C. App. 569, 512 S.E.2d 779 (1999)............................................................................ 7 F. E. Davis Plumbing Co. v. Ingleside W. Assocs. , 37 N.C. App. 149, 245 S.E.2d 555 (1978) ......................................................................... 5, 7 Graham v. Rogers , 121 N.C. App. 460, 466 S.E.2d 290 (1996)........................................................................ 8, 9 Nat’l Fin. Partners Corp. v. Ray , 2014 WL 5148197 (N.C. Sup. Ct. Oct. 13, 2014) .................................................................. 5 Window World of Baton Rouge, LLC v. Window World, Inc. , 2018 WL 6722590 (N.C. Sup. Ct. Dec. 19, 2018) .................................................................. 5 Other Authorities N.C. R. C.P. 33 ........................................................................................................................... 5 N.C. R. C.P. 37 ................................................................................................................... 1, 5, 7 N.C. R. C.P. 37(a)(2)................................................................................................................... 5 N.C. R. C.P. 37(a)(3)................................................................................................................... 5 N.C. R. C.P. 37(a)(4)................................................................................................................... 8 Cambridge Dictionary (“home address”) ..................................................................................... 5 iii INTRODUCTION Pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Plaintiffs move to compel a response to their Second Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories requests basic information—the names and “home addresses” of incumbent legislators at the time of the creation of the challenged plans. Plaintiffs served Interrogatories seeking this information on January 16, but Legislative Defendants have refused to provide it. In their responses, Legislative Defendants instead directed Plaintiffs to a public website that listed “Preferred Mailing Addresses” for the relevant incumbents, which include P.O. Boxes for many incumbents. Plaintiffs endeavored to resolve this deficiency without court intervention. But at the meet and confer, Legislative Defendants offered shifting explanations for their refusal to respond to the interrogatories, suggesting that they do not understand the phrase “home addresses” to mean home addresses instead of P.O. boxes, and then stating that they would need to “look into” and “check on how much work that would be” to provide actual home addresses. It was clear that Legislative Defendants’ counsel had not made any attempt to obtain this information from their clients before filing the interrogatory responses. Since the meet and confer, Legislative Defendants have not provided any date by which they will provide this basic information. The incumbents’ home addresses are critical for Plaintiffs’ experts, for purposes of evaluating whether a hypothetical effort to avoid pairing incumbents could explain the challenged plans. Given the impending deadlines for Plaintiffs’ expert reports (on March 22), Plaintiffs request that the Court order Legislative Defendants to respond to this motion by February 26 and to provide the home addresses by March 1. If Legislative Defendants do not provide this information by March 1, Legislative Defendants should be prohibited from offering any evidence or argument that any aspect of the 2017 Plans can be explained by an effort to protect incumbents. BACKGROUND On January 16, 2019, Plaintiffs Common Cause, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and 38 individual North Carolina voters served their Second Set of Interrogatories on Legislative Defendants. 1 See Ex. A. Interrogatory #1 asked Legislative Defendants to: • “Identify the names and home addresses of each incumbent in the General Assembly at the time of the creation of the 2011 Plans in 2011.” Ex. A at 4. Ex. A at 4 (emphasis added). This information is relevant because some of the districts in the 2017 Plans have remained unchanged since 2011. Interrogatory #2 asked for the same information for the 2017 redistricting: • “Identify the names and home addresses of each incumbent in the General Assembly at the time of the creation of the 2017 Plans in 2017.” Id. (emphasis added) Plaintiffs sought legislators’ “home addresses” because one of the adopted criteria for the 2017 Plans was to avoid pairing incumbent legislators into the same district. Plaintiffs anticipate that Legislative Defendants may contend that incumbency protection rather than partisan gerrymandering explains the contours of the 2017 Plans. Plaintiffs thus need incumbents’ home addresses at the time of each redistricting for, among other things, their experts’ analyses. Legislative Defendants responded to the Interrogatories on the due date, February 15, 2019. They did not provide legislators’ home addresses, as requested. Instead, in their answer to Interrogatory #2, Legislative Defendants provided a link to a document on the General Assembly’s website that shows the “Preferred Mailing Address” of each member of the state House for the 2017-2018 Session. Ex. B (emphasis added). For many members, the Preferred Mailing Address is a P.O. Box, not their home address. In their answer to Interrogatory #1, 1 Legislative Defendants are the Speaker of the House Timothy K. Moore, President Pro Tempore of the Senate Philip E. Berger, Senior Chairman of the House Select Committee on Redistricting David R. Lewis, and Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting Ralph E. Hise, Jr. 2 Legislative Defendants provided a link to an analogous page for the state House members during the 2011-2012 Session. Ex. C. For many members, the document indicates with asterisks that the address listed is the “Preferred Mailing Address” rather than their home address. See id. Legislative Defendants provided no addresses at all for members of the state Senate, even though both Interrogatories requested the home address of “each incumbent in the General Assembly.” Ex. A. at 4. Plaintiffs nonetheless found webpages on the General Assembly’s website providing addresses for Senators. Like the webpages to which Legislative Defendants provided links for the House, these webpages similarly list the “Preferred Mailing Address” rather than the home address for Senators. Exs. D, E. Immediately after Legislative Defendants provided their responses, on February 15, Plaintiffs emailed Legislative Defendants noting that the linked documents had P.O. Boxes for many members rather than home addresses. Ex. F (2/15/19 e-mail from Jones to Strach). At a meet and confer on February 18, Legislative Defendants asserted that their responses were responsive. After Plaintiffs explained that the interrogatories asked for home addresses, counsel for Legislative Defendants stated that he had not even asked his clients for this information: “I have to think through and look at what kind of effort it would take to go around and ask people.” In other words, by February 18—three days after responses were due—counsel had not made even a basic effort to obtain the relevant home addresses. Counsel said he would “have to check how much work that would be.” Plaintiffs emphasized the time-sensitivity of the requests given that Plaintiffs’ expert reports are due March 22. Plaintiffs further noted that, if the mapmakers had in fact considered incumbency protection in drawing districts in 2011 and 2017, Legislative Defendants must have provided the mapmakers with the incumbents’ home addresses, and 3 therefore must possess these records. Legislative Defendants promised to e-mail Plaintiffs by close of business on February 18 with an update. Legislative Defendants did not do so. Instead, on February 19, Legislative Defendants e- mailed Plaintiffs asserting that Legislative Defendants had “provided exactly what was requested” in the Interrogatories. Ex. F (2/19/19 e-mail from Strach to Jones). Legislative Defendants

Load more

Table of Contents