District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to present petition for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) supplemental response to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring; District Court, motion to quash affidavits; District Court, Joshua intervenors' correction to motion of November 22, 1995; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) supplemental response to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum in support of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees as to the state defendant; District Court, affidavit of M. Samuel Jones III; District Court, order; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, brief in support of Knight, et al.,response to mostion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, brief is support of Knight, et al., intervenors response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for extension of time to file petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and program planning and budget document and addendum to 1995-96 third quarter status report and program planning and budget document  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  AUG 1 ti. 1996 FILED U.S. D!STRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 121996 IN '3'HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'1it',icS W McCORMACK. CLERK Olflce of Desegregation Mormorni"EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: ------;::;;:'r,,'~w WESTERN DIVISION DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-Soo PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT. ET AL. ' '' RECEIVED DEFENDANTS !llJG 1 A 1996 INTERVENORS O,f. . INTERVENOR$ , ice of Desegregat,on Monitormn .f. ii JOSHUA INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO PCSS&~-Su MOTION TO MODIFY DESEGREGATION PLAN WITH RESPECT TO CLASS SIZES Come now the Joshua Intervenors and respectfully oppose the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to modify the desegregation plan regarding compensatory education classes. The reasons given by the school district for its position is that the plan requirement is too modest to yield any tangible results. The District has not demonstrated ~hat it has compiled with the agreement in the first place; and secondly the District is in contempt for de facto modification of the plan. The issue is presented because the teacher organization has filed a grievance regarding the matter and one way for the District to avoid an unfavorable result with respect to the grievance is to have the Court void it. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose this motion and cite as authority the Settlement Agreement herein. Joshua also requests that the District provide a comprehensive report to the Court indicating to which it has complied with the plan provisions. The report should also include a class by class break down, the results achieved on a longitudinal basis, along with the amount of funds expended and/or saved by this effort since the institution of this particular settlement plan provision. Joshua also requests that the District provide a written business case demonstrating the "sufficient information to indicate that the funds spent on reducing class sizes in compensatory schools by 5% can be better utilized in other areas." WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court reject the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to modify the desegregation plan with respect to class size in compensatory education schools after a hearing which is hereby requested. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was forwar~~via United states mail to all counsel of record on this ( ~ day of August, 1996. F)Lxt~[if - AUG 1 4 1996 Office ot Desegregalion Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER FiLr-D US 01s,h;:::T COURT EASTERN OISTf;. ICT ARKANSAS AUG 13 1996 JAMtSyV. M?CORMACK,CLERK By: II  s-::, 'hdw.f o DEP'eLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions for extensions of time upon which the Court now rules. The Little Rock School District's {LRSD) motion [doc.#2711) for an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' (Joshua) motion for implementation of the recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring {ODM), is moot, the response having already been filed. .The Clerk is to remove this motion from the pending motions report. The motion (doc.#2726) of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for an extension of time in which to respond to the various school districts' motion to intervene is granted. response is due on or before August 19, 1996. The ADE's The LRSD's motion [doc.#2732) for an extension of time in - which to file a reply to Joshua's response to LRSD's motion to end 2750 federal court jurisdiction is granted. LRSD's reply is due on or before August 30, 1996. The motion of the parties [doc.#2736] for an extension of time in which to respond to the ADE' s motion to dismiss or, in i;he alternative, for abstention, and for an extension of time in which to respond to the various school districts' motion to intervene is granted. The parties' responses to these motions are due on or before August 23, 1996. 1 The Knight Intervenors' (Knight) motion [doc.#2741] for an extension of time in which to respond to PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes, and Knight's motion [doc.#2749) for an extension of time in which to respond to amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce the settlement agreement with the state are both granted. Knight's responses to these motions are due on or before August 19, 1996. Also before the Court is the LRSD's motion (doc.#2712] to shorten Joshua's time to respond to discovery with respect to the hearing on Joshua's petition for attorney's fees. In the alternative LRSD asks that the hearing on Joshua's petition be continued from the scheduled hearing date of July 29, 1996. Because the hearing was in fact continued until August 19, 1996, the LRSD's motion is moot and need not be addressed. Accordingly, 1 The Court notes that the Pul:i,ki County Sp.:c1JI Sd1ool Dl>tncl (PCSSD) h~, J!r.:~Jy riled 11, response to both motions. -2- the Clerk is to remove this motion from the pending motions report. R IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of August 1996. -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 1 4 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegrega1,on Monitorins _.. PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PRESENT PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES & COSTS On July 31, 1996, the Court's memorandum and order granting the motion of the PCSSD with respect to the "pooling" issues was entered. Rule B-3 of the United States District Court Rules requires in many instances that the petition for attorneys' fee be filed within 14 days of entry of the order. Counsel for LRSD and the PCSSD have conferred and have agreed to ask that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and further defer any ruling on the issue of attorneys' fees until 30 days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ~ Q<:::::C ~ M. Samuel Jones III76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Sp~chool Di-strict 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August /3, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by facsimile on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. rUEh JonesIII ~ / ' 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 1 4 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS '/: 2 tJ I' #'VJ KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Offi' ce Of D INTERVENORS esegregation Monitormg LRSD'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA' s MOTION FOR ArrTNTERI-M~ - AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR POST-JUDGMENT MONITORING LRSD for its Supplemental Response to Joshua's Motion for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Cost for Post-Judgment - Monitoring states: 1. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are the following exhibits: A. Affidavit of Dr. George C. Cannon; B. Affidavit of James L. ("Skip;') Rutherford; and, C. Joshua Intervenors' Responses to LRSD's Interrogatories. 2. In their affidavits, Cannon and Rutherford confirm that Joshua's $2,000,000.00 fee paid by LRSD as a part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement included compensation for future post-judgment monitoring by Joshua during the life of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. See Exhibits A and B. 3. Attached to Joshua's Responses to LRSD's Interrogatories - are fee requests submitted by counsel for Joshua in other cases. See Exhibit c. Comparison of these fee requests with Joshua's fee request in the present case raises serious questions as to the accuracy and reliability of Joshua's "reconstructed" time records. 4. For example, on August 11, 1995, counsel for Joshua claims to have worked a total of 21 hours. In the present case, counsel claims to have worked 7. 5 hours in "preparation for and hearing before Judge Wright re: budgets." See Activity Statement of John Walker, p. 87. In Davis v. Franks, U.S.D.C. No. 88-4082, counsel represented that he was in Hope, Arkansas on August 11, 1995, and spent 8.0 hours meeting with clients. Finally, counsel stated that on August 11, 1995, he spent 5.5 hours "work[ing) on proposed findings of fact" in Day v. Johnson, U.S.D.C. No. 94-849. See Exhibit C. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees for Post-Judgment Monitoring be denied. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ( 501) 376-2011 BY: 2 istopher Heller ( n c. Fendley, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the fo~lowing ~eop/q.Y deposi~y of sam/)jn the United States mail on this ~ay of --+f41---~~-cxs=----' 19--7,e--. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 h~istopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. 3 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Mr. Chris Heller .. ,. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX(501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 15, 1996 Mr. John C. Fendley Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Chris and Clay: Enclosed please find a copy of the motion which I am filing with respect to the letter that I received from you regarding the hearing on Monday. Also enclosed are subpoenas for Dr. George Cannon and Mr. Skip Rutherford requesting their appearance at the hearing on Monday. JWW:js Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker cc: Honorable Susan Webber Wright Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record Enclosures IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT_ COURT-~--, ... ,.,._,., . :::::., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~ WESTERN DIVISION C=? c__::, 7 .'< LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS MOTION TO QUASH AFFIDAVITS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, do hereby request that the Court quash the affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon. For its motion, Joshua states as follows: 1. The Little Rock School District's affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon are untimely. 2. The Joshua Intervenors are prejudiced by the late filing of the affidavits. Undersigned counsel has not received said affidavits as of this date and is not familiar with the contents thereof. 3. However, Joshua does not oppose the appearance of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon at the hearing on Monday in order that undersigned counsel may question them regarding said affidavits. Attached as Exhibits A and Bare subpoenas for witnesses Skip Rutherford and George Cannon which are served upon counsel for the Little Rock School District on this date for their appearance at the hearing on Monday, August, 19, 1996. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that - the Court quash the affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon or in the alternative require that they appear at the hearing for cross examination. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)~ :?74-3758 J /1 By: {/AL JI tf<UL1c-i___ Certificate of service I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was delivered facsimile to John C. Fendley and Chris Heller, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, 2000 First Commercial Bank Building, Little Rock, AR and by United States mail to all other counsel of record on this 15th day of August, 1996. - .... =AO= =88 =(R=ev= =119='1= S=ub=po=en=a =In =a C=lv=l C=a=se= ============- it h lb(.,f /l Issued by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF-----------------  SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Little Rock School Dist,V, Pul, County Special School Dist, 1 CASE NUMBER: LR-C-82-866 TO: Mr. Skip Rutherford [ii YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date. and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY United States District Court United States Federal court Building 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 COURTROCM Judge Wright OA TE ANO TIME August 19, 1996 9:00 a.:n~ D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place. date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in - e above case. A.CE OF OEPOSmON D YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place. date. and time specified below (list documents or objects): PL..A.CE D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers. directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated. the matters on which the _person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 30(b) (6). - I John W. Walker, P.A., 1723 Broadway 1 Little Rock, AR 72206 (SM Aute 44, l'edII Aut11 of Clvfl ~ooedute. ~1111 C & 0 OIi ,-_ .. , If action 11 pending In district other than dl1trlct of !nuance. 1t1t dl1tr1ct under c111 number. OATE August 15, 1996 --- .... - /(Kh/btl 6 - AO 88 IRev 1 /9" ! Subeoena In a ClvQ Case - - Issued by the - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF - SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Little Rock School Dist V . Pul, Co, Special School Dist, 1 CASE NUMBER: LR .. ~82-866 TO: Dr. George Cannon ~ YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date. and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM United States District Court Judge Wright United States Federal Court Building 3rd Floor 600 West Capitol DATE ANO TME Little Rock, AR 72201 August 19, 1996 9:00 a.m. D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in - above case. E OF DEPOSITION I OM' ANO "'"  YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date. and time specified below (list documents or objects): .. PLACE lo,ne=o,.,,  YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES ' I OMSANO '"' Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors. or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf. and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the _person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b) (6). fl;?S~~~ATTOA~Y ,OA ~ 0A OEFE~ANT) OATE . - - August 15, 1996 -- ,1$8\JINQ ~!R'S NAM, AOOAl!aa ANO F'HONI NUMll!R John W. Walker, P,A., 172} Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206 1 (SN Rule ,a. 11-t "ult1 of Clvtl lllrooedute, llatll 9 l 0 1111 "-If)  : !'l.t 1f action 11 pending In dl1trlct other than dl1trlct of I11uance. ltate dl1trlct under ca  e number. : ' JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVE~ AUG 1 9 1996 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ August 16, 1996 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States Federal Court Building 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: In preparing for the hearing on Monday, August 19, 1996 regarding our fee petition, we determined that we had made several errors in calculation. This material is to correct those errors. You will find enclosed an amended Attachment One to our Motion of November 22, 1995, summarizing our entire claim. The following correction should be made in our Memorandum filed on November 22, 1995: at page 12 - the first full paragraph should read as follows: The Joshua Intervenors seek, for the substantive work on the case through October 28, 1995, an award for 2,016 hours of attorney time and 3,444.4 hours of paralegal time, as well as reimbursement of the amount actually paid to six persons who worked on the Joshua monitoring reports. See motion, Attachment One. This includes: [attorneys] John w. Walker, (1761.0 hours), Wiley Branton, Jr. (79.8 hrs), Austin Porter (175.2 hrs.); and paralegals Joy c. Springer (3079.1 hrs.) and Opal Sims (365.3 hrs.) Intervenors submission, viewed in the light of the record in this case, establishes that a claim is made for time "reasonably expended on this litigation." at page 19 - in the first paragraph, the lodestar total for the work, other than for pursuing the fee award, should be for $740,375.81 for personnel and $17,636.00 for litigation costs. at page 20 - the request for work on the fee petition should be $35,075.00 for the work of four persons. -.... Affidavit of Joy c. Springer - (November 21, 1995) - at page 16, para. 20, the number of hours claimed for work on the fee petition should be 90 hours rather than 73 as indicated in her fee petition. We are seeing to it that opposing counsel receive this information ort Friday, August 16, 1996. Sincerely, Bob Pressman for John W. Walker BP:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Of Record Enclosure CORRECTED ATTACHMENT ONE TO JOSHUA FEE PETITON (August 16 1 1995) ,,_.,M.., -l ATTACHMENT1ONE SUMMARY OF AWARD SOUGHT A. Substantive Work On Case Number Individual Year(s) of Hours Rate Atty. John W. Walker 1990 6.85 $250.00 1991 562.4 same as above 1992 308.5 same as above 1993 329.2 same as above 1994 218.2 same as above 1995 335.85 same as above Sub-Total 1,761.00 $440,250.00 Atty. Wiley A. Branton, Jr 1990 1991 9.3 1395.00 1992 64.0 9600.00 1993 6.5 975.00 1994 1995 Sub-Total 79.8 $11,970.00 1 Atty. Mark Burnette [Time Waived] Atty. Austin Porter Jr. 1991-1995 175.2 $130.00 Sub-Total 175.2 $22,ns.oo Joy Charles Springer (Paralegal) 1990 27.5 $50.00 1991 849.0 same as above 1992 681 .9 same as above 1993 548.9 same as above 1994 505.0 same as above 1995 466.8 same as above Sub-Total 3,079.1 $153,955.00 Opal Sims (Paralegal) 1991 365.3 $40.00 Sub-Total 365.3 $14,612.00 2 Other Paralegal Costs: (Reimbursement of amounts paid for work on Joshua Monitoring Reports). Amount Individual Year(s) Paid Kirke Herman 1991 $16,675.00 1992 $8,400.00 1993 $12,732.00 1994 $4,587.00 Evelyn Jackson 1991 $2,700.00 Debbie Parker 1992 $26,225.81 LaRhonda Pondexter 1991 $5,218.00 1992 $6,875.00 Clementine Rouse 1991 $2,200.00 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $2,000.00 Delores Sykes 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $3,600.00 1994 $3,600.00 Sub-Total $96,812.81 Sub-Total Substantive IVork on Case (Personnel) $740,375.81 3 B. Work on this Motion Individual Number of Hours Rate Amount Atty. John W. Walker 37.0 $250.00 $ 9,250.00 Robert Pressman 120.0 $175.00 $21,000.00 Joy C. Springer 90.0 $ 50.00 $ 3,650.00 Austin Porter Jr. 2.5 $130.00 $ 325.00 Sub-Total 249.5 $35,075.00 C. Litigation Expenses Description Amount ~ Reimbursement provided to Joy C. Springer for mileage costs anc $ 4,742.00 other monitoring expenses; see J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Reimbursement to Kirke Herman for monitoring costs; see $ 100.00 J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Cost of copying docket in clerk's office; see J. Springer Aff., $ 60.00 para. 21 Witness fees for LASO budget Hearing and other costs; see $ 294.00 J.Springer Aff., para. 21 Copying and fax charges; see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 9,250.00 4 Postage charges, see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 3,190.00 Sub-Total 17,636.00 GRAND TOTAL $793,086.81 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF L' 1-; .l- " -- - - I  ..J r I -. -;',( .. - . ' v -- vs. ...---NO. LR-C-82-866 -,.,..~ ,1 i.',_::,_ ,  --~ 1~ -cC,l_':_P RECEIVED'"" "~ - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS AUG l 9 1996 LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. Office of Desegre9ation Mom1onr19 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR AN INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES On or about August 9, 1996, the Joshua Intervenors filed a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an award of Attorney's Fees and Costs. Included in such document were brief excerpts from six (6) cases deemed relevant by Joshua, an affidavit of Joy Springer, a report on discipline; and an affidavit supporting Mr. Walker's request that any fee award in his favor be set at $250.00 per hour. As an initial matter, as set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that the "fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates." NLRSD submits that, based upon both the Joshua Intervenor's failure to adequately identify those time entries which apply specifically to NLRSD, and the failure to keep contemporaneous time records, Joshua has failed to satisfy the standard set forth in Hensley and an interim award is inappropriate. The prejudice created by such lack of accurate, contemporaneous time records is evidenced in the Little Rock School District's Supplemental Response on this issue filed August 14, 1996. Such Response notes that on a particular day, August 11,  1995, counsel for Joshua claims, in three separate fee petitions, to have worked a total of 21 hours in two separate cities. Clearly, the significant period of time relevant to the fee petition, five years, renders Joshua's failure to maintain adequate records fatal to its petition as the attendant prejudice to the Districts is overwhelming. See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir. 1995), holding that an "applicant [for fees] should maintain billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identify distinct claims. Individual Student Disciplinary Actions. Perhaps the most inappropriate basis for the recovery of attorneys fees from the NLRSD is Joshua's request for compensation for the representation of various African-American students in personal disciplinary disputes. Quite simply, neither the Plan nor relevant case law contemplates Joshua providing counsel, at the District's expense, for each African-American student who faces disciplinary action. The purpose of the Court's activities and the scope of its jurisdiction is to enforce the implementation of NLRSD 's Plan with respect to the class as a whole. Nothing in that Plan suggests black students may not be disciplined nor that each would be represented by counsel at District expense. Rather, the Plan describes a process that will be followed, and, unless it is alleged that this process is not being followed in a particular case, it is not related to the issue of Plan implementation and falls outside the scope of this Court's interest. We would note that the Court has already reached the same conclusion with respect to teacher disputes, and the sa"m e reasoning applies here. Each disciplinary proceeding in unique and specific to the individual student. If Joshua contends that the NLRSD is failing to comply with the terms of the Plan as they relate to student discipline, the appropriate action is to file a motion stating such in this Court. Adopting Joshua's position would result in legal representation for all african american students at District expense for any event which occurs at or is related to school. Clearly, such eventuality is not contemplated by the provisions of the Plan or the relevant case law. Hourly Rate. The Supreme Court has clearly articulated that the goal of the reasonable fee provision "to attract competent counsel, ... not produce windfalls to attorneys .. 886, 897, 104 s.ct. 1541 (1984). II Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. In the present matter, it is beyond dispute that an award of Two Hundred Dollars per hour is more than adequate to attract experienced counsel. It is apparent, based upon a review of the Fee Survey cited by Joshua, that an award of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per hour would not result in a "relegation of the present matter to "those lawyers with belowmarket billing." Casey v. City of Cabool, Mo., 12 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1993). In fact, the great majority of those polled in such survey reported top hourly fees of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) - per hour or less. As the Supreme Court held in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96, 896 n. 11 (1984), "the requested rates [ should be] in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 41M CaAMf24/ Stephen w. Jones,1#78083 Allen Carney 0#94122 - - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 16th day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206  Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACEELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-=-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVf:.rl AUG 1 9 1996 Office of Desegrega:ion Moniicnng -  _...,._,. ___ ........ - - - -~ - --- - .. ._,,.,.. - PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AS TO THE STATE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") for its motion states: 1. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was returned to the clerk of this Court by letter dated July 18, 1996. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court on two of the three issues presented on appeal. By previous order, the District Court had extended the time for the bringing of this fee petition until 30 days after return of the appellate court mandate. 2. The PCSSD, and others, are clearly the prevailing parties and are entitled to pursue an attorney's fee and an award of costs pursuant to Ark.- Code Ann. S 16-22-308 and 28 u.s.c.  19-20. 3. A memorandum detailing the law controlling this petition and the factors for the Court to consider in fashioning a fee and cost award is submitted with this motion. 4. Also attached to this motion as exhibit A is the affidavit of M. Samuel Jones, III detailing the time devoted to - these claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs, all as provided by law. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on August /l , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John w. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C.:82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Rec AUG 1 9 1996 PLAINTI~F DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OfflceotD INTERVENORS - ...... _ - 8SeQre9aJJon Monitorm~ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT O.F! .THE PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AS- TO THE STATE DEFENDANT The PCSSD fully participated in these c