Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Gervaise Hatfield <br />Page 2 <br />September 26, 1983 <br /> <br />matter for trial before they and the Court have had an opportunity <br />to dispose of this matter without a time-consuming and expensive <br />trial. <br /> <br /> A further reason that it would be inappropriate to advance <br />this matter for trial before the end of the year is that discovery <br />has not yet been completed. Along with the note of issue and letter <br />requesting advancement of the trial, defendants received today a <br />supplement to plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories. <br />The supplementary answer lists twenty-nine individuals who may be <br />called as witnesses by plaintiffs. In addition, the answer <br />indicates that there may be additional, unidentified individuals <br />called as witnesses. Defendants should be afforded an opportunity <br />to engage in any necessary follow-up discovery regarding these <br />recently-disclosed witnesses before this matter must be tried. <br />Moreover, the statutory formula at issue was significantly amended <br />during the 1983 session of the legislature. Because most of the <br />discovery in this case was done prior to the changes in the law, <br />additional dicovery may be necessary to assess the impact of these <br />changes on the case. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> Finally, plaintiffs have not suggested any "extraordinary <br />and compelling reasons" that require advancement of the trial. See <br />Special Rule 7(d). Other than the passage of time and the amendment <br />of the formula, there has been no change in the status of the case <br />or plaintiffs' situation since plaintiffs requested the striking of <br />this case from the calendar in April, 1982. There is no more urgent <br />need to have this matter tried before the 1984 legislative session <br />than there was to have it tried before the 1983 legislative session. <br />Moreover, to suggest that a trial and even a determination by the <br />district court before the 1984 session would resolve the <br />constitutional issues raised here ignores the inevitability of <br />appeals and the fact that this litigation is likely to continue for <br />some time to come. <br /> <br /> For these reasons, defendants respectfully request that <br />plaintiffs' request for advancement of this case on the trial <br />calendar be denied. If you have any questions about this matter, I <br />would be happy to respond. Thank you. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />RSS:fw <br />cc~ Richard F. Rosow <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />RICHARD S. SLOWES <br />Assistant Attorney General <br /> <br />Telephone: (612) 296-7537 <br /> <br /> <br />