◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 101 were dangerous to the law-abiding citizens of the com- munity. Also, this case concerns itseif ‘vith the Black Panther Party as it existed and functioned in 1969 and what its subsequent direction or conduct nay have been is immaterial. Turning then to my views on the disposition of the various components of this case, as I nave already in- dicated, I concur in the relatively limited portions of Judge Swygert’s opinion in which the ‘udgment of the district court was affirmed. Judge Swygert’s opinion directs that sanctions should be imposed, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), against the federal defendants and counsel representing them at the first trial for repeatedly disobeying court orders to produce documentary material. I do not agree with the premise. This was a trial in which the judge told the jury on the first day that it would iast many weeks, “possibly as much as three months,” bu: which in fact continued some six times that long. Tne district judge was on a day-by-day basis aware of tre extreme dif- ficulties of complying with the every-rook-and-cranny discovery demands of the plaintiffs, was in an excellent position to gauge the good faith of the cefense efforts to comply with those orders, and also knew that these government files were not at the beck and call of former employees, were monumental in nature. contained much information not pertinent to the present lawsuit but which involved national security and which in any event was duplicative of that which had aiready been fur- nished. I cannot believe that this respeczed trial judge, who for the most part patiently continued presiding over a trial that was stretching beyona the wildest preliminary estimates, would have, :r the words of Judge Swygert, “repeatedly exonerated the federal defendants,” if in his position to observe there had been reason to support Judge Swygert’s bas‘s for sanctions that the federal defendants, other than Neal and their counsel “deliberately impeded discovery and actively obstructed .the judicial process.” It flies in the face of reason to think that the judge would x+t have reacted promptly to any defense obstructionis: tactics which