MIDDLEBROOK v. SCHOOL DIST. OF COUNTY OF KNOX
805 F.Supp. 534 (1991)
LaKenya MIDDLEBROOK, an infant by her next friend Harold MIDDLEBROOK, et al., Plaintiffs,
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the COUNTY OF KNOX, TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV 3-91-0461.
United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, At Knoxville.
August 24, 1991.
William Gordon Ball, and Herbert Moncier, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiffs.
Richard T. Beeler, Knox County Law Director, and John E. Owings, Deputy Law Director, Knoxville, Tenn., and Alfred A. Lindseth, Alexa R. Ross, Southerland, Asbill & Breenan, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants.
JORDAN, District Judge.
This civil action is before the Court for consideration of the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 [doc. 3]. The plaintiffs, representatives of black students enrolled in the Knox County, Tennessee school system, and of disabled1 students enrolled in the same school system, seek to enjoin the defendants, the School District of the County of Knox, the members of its school board, and the superintendent of this school system2, from going forward with the implementation of a plan for the desegregation of this school system. For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court has concluded that it must deny this motion for a preliminary injunction.I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The plaintiffs filed their complaint and their motion for a preliminary injunction on August 9, 1991. On the same day, they filed a motion [doc. 2] asking the Court to order an expedited discovery schedule. This litigation has proceeded in a state of emergency from its inception, because the
desegregation plan under attack will begin to be enforced in the 1991-1992 school year, scheduled to begin on Monday, August 26, 1991.
On August 9, the Court set the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for a hearing on August 15 [doc. 4]. On August 12, with the agreement of counsel for both sides3, the Court continued this hearing to August 21, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery [doc. 5].
At the request of the Court, the defendants filed their memorandum of law [doc. 20], on August 19. The plaintiffs filed theirs on August 20 [doc. 24]. The parties exchanged and filed witness lists, and this action proceeded to the hearing on the plaintiffs' motion as scheduled on August 21.