Defendants' First Supplemental Disclosure of "Non-Expert" Witnesses; Objections to Questions Posed to Mannix

    o
e
 

    NO. CV-89-0360977S 
{ 
{ 

  

MILO SHEFF, ET AL., SUPERIOR COURT 

Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

9
0
 

©9
0 

0
0
 

8
°
 

0
0
 

0
0
 

o
o
 

WILLIAM A, O'NEILL, ET AL. JANUARY 13, 1993 

DEFENDANTS' FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL 
DISCLOSURE OF "NON-EXPERT" WITNESSES 
  

Pursuant to Part D of the Defendants' Disclosure of 

"Non-Expert" Witnesses dated September 29, 1992, the defendants 

hereby give notice they intend to call the following additional 

witness: 

1, John W. Lemega, Board Chairperson, West Hartford Board 

of Education, 28 South Main Street, West Hartford, CT 06107-2447: 

Mr. Lemega is expected to offer testimony regarding recent 

reductions in state financial assistance to the West Hartford 

Public Schools, recent cuts in services and programs in the West 

Hartford Public Schools, outstanding problems in the area of 

physical plant, and other information relative to the operations, 

problems and needs of the West Hartford Public Schools. 

  

  

  
 



    

At the present time the defendants are continuing their 

investigation of various claims and assertions made by the 

plaintiffs in recent months. The defendants reserve the 

opportunity to disclose additional witnesses as the need for 

those witnesses becomes apparent. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

hy) 
Whelan - Juris 085112 

   
   
  

  

    
2igran: Attorney General 
10 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel. 566-7173 

  

  

  
 



  

  
CERTIFICATION 
  

This is to certify that on this 13th day of January, 1993 a 

copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following counsel of 

record: | 

John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 
University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 
School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 
65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & 
Connecticut Civil Fineberg, P.C. 
Liberties Union - 90 Gillett Street = 
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06105 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chambers, Esq. 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
99 Hudson Street Education Fund, Inc. 
14th Floor 99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 
Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

  

MMWO361AC 

        
 



  

  

    

NO. CV 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. : SUPERIOR COURT 

: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
Vv. : HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

: AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL. : JANUARY 13, 1993 

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS POSED TO JOHN F. MANNIX 
  

On October 26, 1992 the plaintiffs took the deposition of 

John F. Mannix. After discussions with the court, a complete 

copy of the deposition transcript has been admitted into evidence 

as plaintiffs' exhibit 495. In light of the fact that the ™ 

deposition was not taken for the purposes of preserving testimony 

and the fact that all objections, except as to form, were 

reserved at the time of the deposition, the defendants have been 

afforded the opportunity to present objections to questions posed 

during the course of the deposition for a ruling by the court. 

The defendants offer the following objections to questions 

posed to John F. Mannix at the deposition which took place on 

October 26, 1992: 

  

 



    

1. Page 9, Line 22, "Q; Now, during the time when you were | 

in the legislature, did you personally reach a conclusion about 

whether the children in the state, all the children in the state 

were receiving an equal educational opportunity to a free public 

education?" 

OBJECTION: To the extent that the question asks the wilness | 

to offer an opinion as to whether children in the state are 

receiving an "equal educational opportunity" as that term is 

defined in the law, the question calls for a legal conclusion and 

it is not permissible. 

SUSTAINED OVERRULED EXCEPTION NOTED 

2- Page 10, Line 15, "Q; Well, why did you conclude that 

children were not getting an equal educational opportunity in the 

1970s?" 

OBJECTION: Same objection as to number 1 above. 

SUSTAINED OVERRULED EXCEPTION NOTED 

3. Page 11, Line 10, "Q; Now, did there come a time when 

you have concluded that there's other components than finance to 

equal educational opportunity?”    



    

i SUSTAINED OVERRULED EXCEPTION NOTED 

  

OBJECTION: Same objection as to number 1 above. 

4 Page 11, Line 19, "Q; Let me ask in a different way. 

Do you at this point, are you of the opinion that there is a 

component to equal educational opportunity in addition to money?" | 

OBJECTION: Same objection as to number 1 above. 

SUSTAINED OVERRULED EXCEPTION NOTED   
5. Page 17, Line 4, "Q; Do you have an opinion in wh&ther 

it [the CMT] is one--obviously its not the only measure, but its 

one fair measure of how one district is doing as opposed to how 

another district is doing?" 

OBJECTION: The question calls for an expert opinion but no | 

foundation has been established that the witness has the kind of 

expertise in tests and measurement which would allow him to 

express an expert opinion in the area. 

  
SUSTAINED OVERRULED EXCEPTION NOTED 

  
 



  

  

    

6. Page 17, Line 17, "Q; Now, is what you are saying about | 

the mastery test, is this just your personal opinion, or is this 

a consensus of the Board as a whole?" 

OBJECTION: The question asks the witness to speculate about | 

the opinions of a majority of the members of the Board in regard 

to an issue which requires specialized expertise. Insofar as 

the question calls for speculation on the part of the witness 

about the position of the Board without reference to a particular 

vote taken by the Board the question is impermissable. 

Furthermore, to the extent that the question seeks to elicit 

testimony regarding the opinions of one or more individuals on 

the Board who have not been qualified as experts through direct 

testimony, the question seeks to elicit testimony which is not 

admissible. 

SUSTAINED OVERRULED EXCEPTION NOTED 

2 Page 33, Line 9, "Q; Do you have an opinion today, as 

opposed to the 1970s, which was the other opinion I asked you, as | 

to whether the students in the large, urban school districts are 

receiving equal educational opportunity for a free public 

education today?" 

    
 



  

  OBJECTION: Same objection as to number 1 above. 

| SUSTAINED OVERRULED EXCEPTION NOTED 

The foregoing objections are submitted with the 

understanding that, in the case of any objection which is 

sustained by the court, the court will disregard the answer to 

the question. Furthermore, the list is provided with the 

understanding that an exception will be noted to any objection 

listed above which is not sustained by the court. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

/ / vd 

nYR. Whelan - Juris 085112 
sistant Attorney General 

10 Sherman Street 

\| /Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel. 566-7173 

  

  

   

        

  

   

7 Juris 486172 
- 

Artha M. Watts 
sistant Attorney General 

   
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel. 566-7173 

      
 



  

ORDER 

The Court having reviewed the above-noted objections, rules 

as is indicated by the check mark under each objection and notes | 

an exception taken by the defendants to any objections which have 

not been sustained. 

  

HONORABLE HARRY HAMMER 
SUPERIOR COURT 

      
 



  

    

CERTIFICATION 
  

This is to certify that on this the day of January 13, 1993 | 

a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following counsel of 

record: 

John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 

University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 

School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 

65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & 
Connecticut Civil Fineberg, P.C. 
Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street 
32 Grand Street “Hartford, CT “06103 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chambers, Esq.s 

Sandra DelValle, Esg Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Ronald Ellis, Esq. 

and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

99 Hudson Street Education Fund, Inc. 
14th Floor 99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 
Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

  

Ay, : 

7 Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 

JRW0348AC =