Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_68-cv-02709/USCOURTS-almd-2_68-cv-02709-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

TIMOTHY D. POPE, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al., )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

EUGENE CRUM, JR., et al., )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 2:68cv2709-T

TOMMY G. FLOWERS, et al., ) (WO)

)

Defendants. )

)

ALABAMA STATE CONFERENCE )

OF NAACP BRANCHES, )

)

Amicus Curiae. )

ORDER

So as to provide a framework for discovery and

disposition of all pending matters, it is ORDERED as

follows:

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 724 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 6
2

(1) The court’s order of March 29, 2005 (Doc. No. 718)

is vacated.

(2) The Reynolds and Crum plaintiff-intervenors’ motion

to strike (Doc. No. 702) is denied on the merits.

(3) The Reynolds and Crum plaintiff-intervenors’

alternative motion for additional discovery and

expert reports (Doc. No. 702) is granted to the

extent that the Reynolds and Crum plaintiffintervenors may re-depose the state defendants’

expert witnesses limited to the issues raised in

the state defendants’ response report and in their

motion in limine.

(4) United States Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody is

to resolve all disputes regarding the depositions,

including where and when they should be taken.

It is further ORDERED as follows:

(1) The court’s order of March 30, 2005 (Doc. No. 721)

is vacated.

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 724 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 6
3

(2) The Reynolds and Crum plaintiff-intervenors are

allowed until May 27, 2005, to respond to the

defendants’ motion in limine (Doc. No. 707).

(3) Plaintiff United States of America, the state

defendants, and plaintiff-intervenor Timothy Pope

are allowed until May 27, 2005, to respond to the

Reynolds and Crum plaintiff-intervenors’ motion in

limine (Doc. No. 719).

(4) The court will decide after May 27, 2005, whether

the motions in limine should be set for oral

argument or an evidentiary hearing.

It is further ORDERED that the parties are referred to

Magistrate Judge Coody to see if a plan can be developed for

more extensive, but still quite limited, discovery by the

Reynolds and Crum plaintiff-intervenors. The court does not

intend in any way for this case to explode into a vehicle

for litigating each and every race-discrimination claim that

an African-American may have against the State of Alabama.

The court also intends that any such plan must allow for

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 724 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 6
4

such additional discovery to be completed within three

months from today.

It is further ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiff United States of America and the state

defendants’ joint motion to terminate the no-bypass

rule (Doc. No. 634) and plaintiff-intervenor

Timothy Pope’s motion to modify injunction as to

the no-bypass rule (Doc. No. 659) are set for final

and summary disposition, without oral argument,

pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure on September 19, 2005. After that date,

the court will decide if oral argument is

necessary.

(2) The parties are allowed until August 1, 2005, to

complete all discovery.

(3) By August 15, 2005, the parties are jointly to

develop and submit to the court a record of the

evidence (depositions, stipulations, affidavits,

etc.) that they intend the court to rely upon.

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 724 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 6
5

(4) Plaintiff United States of America, the state

defendants, and plaintiff-intervenor Pope are

allowed until August 29, 2005, to file their

briefs.

(5) The Reynolds and Crum plaintiff-intervenors are

allowed until September 12, 2005, to file their

brief.

(6) Plaintiff United States of America, the state

defendants, and plaintiff-intervenor Pope are

allowed until September 19, 2005, to file their

replies. 

(7) In their briefs, the parties should address whether

the motions at issue can be resolve pursuant to

Rule 56. If the court cannot resolve the motions

pursuant to Rule 56, the motions will be set for an

evidentiary hearing as to all disputed material

facts.

(8) When the parties refer to evidence in their briefs,

they must cite the specific document and page

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 724 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 6
number where the evidence can be found in the joint

evidentiary record.

DONE, this the 29th day of April, 2005.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 724 Filed 04/29/05 Page 6 of 6