Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Order Compelling Full Disclosure of Expert Testimony

    » * 

Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 3 

v. 3 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

- HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. : AT HARTFORD 

Defendants : JANUARY 10, 1992 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR ORDER 
COMPELLING FULL DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY 
  

  

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Plaintiffs, young schoolchildren in the Hartford and West 

Hartford public schools, brought this lawsuit on April 26, 1989 

to vindicate their personal rights to an equal opportunity for a 

free public education, and to enforce the State's affirmative 

duty to provide that opportunity. 

Because defendants’ disclosure of the substance of their 

experts’ testimony has been inadequate and incomplete, plaintiffs 

now seek an order, pursuant to Practice Book §§220 and 231, 

compelling full and adequate disclosure of the anticipated 

substance and basis of testimony of defendants’ experts, in 

response to plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and in 

accordance with Practice Book §220. Although both plaintiffs and   
 



      

defendants are currently anticipating depositions of expert 

witnesses in advance of trial, further written disclosure of 

defendants’ experts’ testimony is required under Connecticut 

discovery rules and is necessary to permit plaintiffs to 

adequately prepare for and assess the need for expert 

depositions. 

In anticipation of trial, the parties have exchanged 

interrogatories seeking, inter alia, disclosure of expert 
  

witnesses pursuant to §220 of the Connecticut Practice Book. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, filed on 

or about September 20, 1990 requested that defendants identify 

expert witnesses expected to testify at trial, and state “the 

subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, the 

substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is 

expected to testify, and...a summary Of the grounds for each 

opinion.’ See Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories at 2. 

(Attached hereto as Exhibit A.) 

After several motions for extension of time to disclose 

expert witnesses, the parties agreed upon a schedule for 

disclosure of experts, which was contained in their "Joint Motion 

for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses Pursuant to 

Practice Book Section 220(D),” dated November 28, 1990 (attached 

hereto as Exhibit B). This Motion required expert disclosure 

beginning on January 15, 1991 and continuing every sixty (60) 

  

  
 



          

days thereafter. Since January 15, 1991, the parties have 

followed the time schedule set out in the November 28, 1890 joint 

motion. 

Defendants first responded to plaintiffs’ expert disclosure 

request with a two-and-a-half page letter, dated January 15, 

1991, listing ten potential expert witnesses. (Attached hereto 

as Exhibit C.) This letter was supplemented by a similar letter 

on March 15, 1991, which listed an additional two expert 

witnesses. (Attached hereto as Exhibit D.) In these initial 

letters, defendants gave incomplete and inadequate descriptions 

of their anticipated expert witnesses. For example, four 

witnesses are described as follows: 

[Witness], DOE Consultant: [Witness] is not expected to 
offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. Instead he 
may provide testimony regarding the development, 
implementation, and analysis of the CMT and CMT results. 

(Description of testimony of Pasquale Forgione, Douglas Rindone, 

William Congero, Peter Behuniak.) Of another witness, a Doctor 

Blliot Williams, it’ is” only stated that he ’'"may provide 

information regarding existing and planned programs promoting 

interdistrict codnisation and improving integration.” Dr. Robert 

Margolin, according to defendants, will testify about “programs 

designed to improve the educational performance of children in 

our urban areas.’ Another witness will address “the state's 

financial contribution to the educational programs in Hartford 

  

 



      

and the suburbs.” Defendants’ descriptions of other witnesses 

were similarly inadequate (See Exhibit D attached.) 

In their March 15, 1991 letter, defendants used three or 

fewer sentences to describe each witness and their expected 

testimony. Defendants failed to disclose the substance of the 

facts and opinions to which any witness might be expected to 

testify, or the grounds for their opinions. Defendants did not 

indicate the addresses, job titles, or specific areas of 

expertise of the witnesses. Indeed, the information provided by 

defendants was so incomplete that it contributed almost nothing 

to plaintiffs’ efforts to plan and prepare for depositions, other 

than to identify defendants’ experts by name. 

In a subsequent letter dated May 17, 1991, (attached hereto 

as Exhibit E) defendants provided additional information 

regarding a Dr. Rossell, who had been identified as a potential 

expert witness in defendants’ March 15 letter. In this May 17 

letter, defendants described Dr. Rossell’s expected testimony in 

a single sentence: "Professor Rossell is expected to testify 

that the State of Connecticut is responding appropriately to the 

educational conditions in the Hartford area by encouraging 

voluntary integration and compensating poor school districts for 

their poverty.” Although defendants listed eight general areas 

of research on which Dr. Rossell will base her testimony, they 

did not provide any concrete details. The bases of her testimony 

  

 



          

were listed, for example, as including research on “the evolution 

of school desegregation,” "measuring the effectiveness of school 

desegregation,” and "metropolitan-based desegregation plans.” 

In a letter dated July 15, 1991 (attached hereto as Exhibit 

F), defendants disclosed an additional expert witness, Dr. David 

Armor. Defendants indicated that “[w]hile Dr. Armor may testify 

on more than one topic, at this time he is expected to testify 

that research has demonstrated 'no significant and consistent 

effects of desegregation on Black achievement’.” The basis of 

Dr. Armor’'s testimony was identified only as "his own original 

studies as well as his scholarly analysis of the research 

concerning the effects of desegregation on Black student 

achievement.” 

The factual issues raised by this lawsuit witl depend 

heavily on the testimony of experts. Counsel on both sides have 

devoted and will continue to devote the bulk of their pre-trial 

efforts to identifying, preparing, and preparing to rebut expert 

testimony. To facilitate this preparation--and in marked 

contrast to defendant's cursory responses--plaintiffs’ disclosure 

of experts {ne tuded outlines of anticipated testimony and, in 

most cases, the primary data or literature relied on by each 

expert (see Plaintiffs Identification of Expert Witnesses 

Pursuant tO. Practice Book §220 and Plaintiffs’ Second 

Identification of Expert Witnesses Pursuant to Practice Book 

  

  

  
 



      

i i 

§220, attached hereto as Exhibit GG). In contrast, defendants 

have not complied with the letter or the spirit of Practice Book 

§220. Thus, plaintiffs request that this Court compel defendants 

to fully disclose expert testimony, pursuant to Practice Book 

§220 and §231.1 

II. DEFENDANTS MUST FULLY DISCLOSE ANTICIPATED EXPERT TESTIMONY 

The rules of discovery are designed to make a “trial less a 

game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic 

issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practical extent.” 

  

United States v. Proctor & Camble, 358 U.S. 677, 682 (1953). 

Accord Guzze v. New Britain General Hosp., 16 Conn. App. 480, 
  

483, 547 A.2d 944, 946 (1988). Defendants’ incomplete responses 

to plaintiffs’ request for disclosure of expert testimony thwart 

the purpose of the expert discovery rule and should not be 

permitted. 

Connecticut Practice Book §220 provides that: 

(A)(1l) A party may through interrogatories require any other 
party to identify each person whom the other party expects 
to call as an, expert witness at trial, to state the subject 
matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to 
state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the 
expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds 
for each opinion. 

  

1 plaintiffs have already made an effort to seek voluntary 
compliance by defendants with their discovery obligations, prior 
to filing the present motion, as set out in the correspondence 
attached hereto as Exhibit H. 

  

  
 



  

  

    

This Practice Book provision requires “full, timely, and open 

disclosure” of expert witnesses, see Perry v. Hospital of St. 
  

Raphael, 17 Conn. App. 121, 123, 550 A.2d 645, 647 (1988), and 

where a party fails to provide adequate responses to expert 

discovery under this rule, the Court is authorized, pursuant to 

Practice Book §231; to "make such order as the ends of justice 

require,” including a motion to compel. See, e.qg., Woodcock v. 
    

gournal Publishing Co., 5 C.S.C.R. .3068 (1990). An order to 
  

compel more detailed disclosure of anticipated expert testimony 

is also authorized by Practice Book §220 itself. See generally 
  

C.G.5. $§52-197. 

The importance of full disclosure of anticipated expert 

testimony is underscored by Connecticut cases holding that 

failure to adequately disclose anticipated expert testimony is 

ample grounds for the trial court to exclude it, pursuant to 

Practice Book §231.2 For example, in a medical malpractice suit, 

the Appellate Court required exclusion of expert testimony 

regarding “the cause” of an injury, where plaintiff had disclosed 

that the proposed; subject of the expert's testimony was the 

"standard of care and departures from the standard of care.” 

Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 2 Conn. App. 103, 104, 476 
  

A.2d 1074 (1984). Based on plaintiffs’ disclosure, defendants 
  

2 At this time, although defendants’ responses are incomplete 
and inadequate, plaintiffs seek only to compel more complete and 
detailed responses, rather that to impose such sanctions on defendants. 

 



      

had limited the scope of their deposition to standard-of-care 

issues. Finding that the consequences of the plaintiffs’ failure 

to fairly disclose should fall on the plaintiff rather than on 

the defendants, the court wrote, “[t]o hold otherwise would 

unfairly deny...the defendants the opportunity to prepare for or 

challenge the proposed testimony concerning causation.” Id. at 

108. See also Perry v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 17 Conn. App. at 
  

122, (testimony excluded where defendants did not disclose facts 

and opinions to which experts would testify or basis of 

testimony); Caccavale v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 14 Conn. App. 
  

504, 508 (1988) (testimony excluded where medical malpractice 

plaintiff provided defendant with expert/physician’s report, but 

no other disclosure). 

This Court should also look to federal caselaw in 

interpreting the Connecticut discovery rules. With the exception 

of §220(d), Connecticut Practice Book §220 is virtually identical 

to Rule 26(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, 

federal authority is helpful in understanding the rule's 

applications, see Moller and Horton, Connecticut Practice Rafe ell 
  

  

Annotated at 397 (1989), and under federal law defendants’ 

disclosure of expert testimony would be entirely inadequate. 

Like Connecticut courts, federal courts routinely exclude 

expert testimony where pre-trial disclosure has been inadequate. 

See, e.9., Jefferson vy. Davis, 131 P.R.D. 522 (M.D. Ill. 1990};   

 



      

LeBarron v. Haverhill Cooperative School Dist., 127 FP.R.D. 38 
  

(D.N.H. 1989). In the present case, defendants’ responses are 

less complete than many disclosures federal courts have found 

inadequate. For example, in LeBarron v. Haverhill Cooperative 
  

School District, 127 F.R.D. 38, the plaintiffs had described the 
  

expert and his expected testimony as follows: 

Professor Lawson is a Professor of Education at the 
Department of Education of the University of New 
Hampshire....[his testimony will concern] the 
justification for the Department’s alleged Reduction in 
Force that resulted in the nonrenewal of the Plaintiff. 
He may address other issues presented in the opinion 
and deposition of Nathaniel Ober, and other issues 
which may arise during trial. Professor Lawson's 
testimony will be based on documents provided by the 
parties, responses to discovery, testimony of wit- 
nesses, exhibits introduced at discovery, testimony of 
witnesses, exhibits introduced at trial, and his 
knowledge and experience concerning enrollment, 
determination of teacher levels, and public school 
finance and administration. 

Xd. at 39, Based on this description, the district court 

approved a magistrate’s order excluding expert testimony because 

plaintiff's disclosure did not include the substance or grounds 

of the experts testimony and did not comport with the “spirit” of 

the rules. Id. at 40. 

In Manna Music, Inc. v. Smith, 26 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 595 (M.D. 
  

Pa 1978), the magistrate in a copyright infringement case ordered 

defendants to respond fully to expert witness interrogatories. 

Defendants had responded to the interrogatories by 

initially citing a present employee of the United 
States Copyright Office who they state may testify upon 

    

  
 



  

  

    

the regulations, practices, customs and laws relating 
to the submission of music material for copyrighting 
and, more specifically, “the changing of applications 
made by the plaintiff...” Defendants also noted that 
they may call upon “persons now known to the 
defendants...to testify on all matters pertinent to the 
complaint and answer” which involve the copyright law 
as it pertains to music. Following this response is a 
long list of possible questions which may be addressed 
by defendants’ witnesses, including various defenses 
which may be raised. Finally, defendants listed the 
names, but no job titles or addresses, of 8 expert 
witnesses it “may” call upon to testify on such 
matters. 

Id. at 596, 

See also Jefferson v. Davis, 131 F.R.D. 522, .524 
  

(description of expert testimony as to use of “excessive force 

and improper and negligent tactics in the attempted arrest of the 

decedent,” based on “the investigative reports or other documents 

which have been previously tendered” held inadequate.); Rupp V. 

Yock & Weiderhold, Inc., 52 P.R.,D. ‘111 (N.D.. Oh.,, E.D. 1971) 
  

(ordering plaintiffs to provide name, address, occupation or 

profession and particular specialty of expert witnesses, and to 

state more precisely expected testimony, where plaintiffs had 

indicated only that expert would testify about “machine design, 

electrical eyranithy and human factors engineering.”). 

The question of whether responses to expert interrogatories 

are adequate "must be answered in light of the purpose of the 

  

rule.’ " Jefferson v. Davis, 131 F.R.D. at 526. “[T]lhe ’'primary 

purpose of the Rule is to facilitate effective cross-examination 

and rebuttal of expert testimony,’ [and] [t]he Rule is also 

  

  

 



      

‘intended to make the task of the trier of fact more manageable 

by means of orderly presentation of complex issues of fact.'" 

| Id. at 525: (citations omitted). See also Advisory Committee 
  

Notes to 1970 Amendments to Subdivision 26(b)(4). The need for 

full disclosure is particularly acute where, as here, the outcome 

  

of the case depends on expert testimony. See Manna Music Inc. Vv. 

Smith, 26 Fed. R. Serv. 2d at 597. At the very least, disclosure 

must “afford the questioner notice of the basic arguments the 

responding litigant attempts to press at trial,” Hockley v. Zent, 
  

89 -7.R.D. 26, 30 (M.D. Pa. 1980), or ?sufficient notice of the 

theories under which the respondent plans to proceed.” Id. at 

31. 

Like the inadequate disclosures discussed supra, defendants’ 

responses to plaintiffs’ expert witness intervogatories in this 

action do not provide plaintiffs with an adequate basis for 

either cross-examination or preparation for expert depositions. 

  

See Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, supra. 

III. DEFENDANTS MUST FULLY DISCLOSE THE EXPECTED TESTIMONY OF ALL 
EXPERT WITNESSES, AND CANNOT EVADE DISCLOSURE BY CLAIMING 

THAT DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO TESTIFY AS TO 
THEIR “OPINIONS.” 

Defendants indicated in their March 15 letter that ten of 

their experts are “not expected to offer opinion testimony.” 

Although plaintiffs are skeptical: of this claim, even if 

defendants’ experts do not offer opinions, they will nonetheless 

  

 



  

  

    

1 be testifying as experts and are subject to the disclosure 

requirements of Practice Book §220. 

An expert witness is characterized as an expert not because 

her testimony comes in the form of an opinion, but because she 

has "a special skill or knowledge, beyond the ken of the average 

juror, that, as properly applied, would be helpful to the 

determination of an ultimate issue.” Siladi v. McNamara, 164 
  

Conn. 510, 513, 325 A.2d 277 (1973). See also Perez v. Mt. Sinai 
  

Hospital, 7 Conn, App. 514, 518, 509 A.2d 552, 555 (1986) (expert 
  

is one "’'professionally acquainted with the science or practice 

in question'’). Similarly, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence provides that "a witness qualified as an expert by 

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify 

thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.’ (emphasis 
  

supplied). Whether an expert witness testifies about facts or 

opinions is irrelevant to the determination that she is an 

expert. Indeed, while it is often assumed that experts testify 

only in the form of opinions, 

[t]he assumption is logically unfounded...an expert on 
the stand may give a dissertation or exposition of 
scientific or other principles relevant to the case, 
leaving the: trier of fact to apply them to the 
facts...it seems wise to recognize that opinions are 
not indispensable and to encourage the use of expert 
testimony in non-opinion form when counsel believes the 
trier can itself draw the requisite inference. 

Advisory Committee Notes, Fed. R. Ev. 702. 

 



  

  

  

    

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs respectfully 

request that this Court order defendants to fully disclose the 

substance of their experts’ expected testimony. Specifically, 

plaintiffs request that defendants be required to: (1) provide 

the name, address, occupation and area of expertise of each 

witness; (2) state the specific subject matter on which the 

expert will testify; (3) enumerate the specific separate 

propositions of fact and opinion to which each witness is 

expected to testify; and (4) identify with specificity io 

literature, studies, or ongoing research on which expert 

testimony will rely, as well as any other information that will 

| provide the basis for expert testimony. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

ON THE BRIEF: y 4% Fz 
Risa Evans Philip D. Tegeler 
Law Student Intern Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

  

  

Wesley W. Horton Ron Ellis 
Kimberly A. Knox Julius L. Chambers 
Moller, Horton, & Fineberg Marianne Engelman Lado 
90 Gillett Street NAACP Legal Defense & 
Hartford, CT 06105 Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

John Brittain Wilfred Rodriguez 
University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 

School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 
65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

  

  
 



  

  
Helen Hershkoff Jenny Rivera | 
John A. Powell Ruben Franco 

|| Adam Cohen Puerto Rican Legal Defense 
| American Civil Liberties and Education Fund 

Union Foundation 99 Hudson Street 

132 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10013 
New York, NY 10036 

  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | 

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been 

mailed postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Diane W. Whitney, 

Assistant Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, 

7 
Hartford, €7 06105 this 12 day of January, 1992   

  

Philip D. Tegeler     

  

      
 



  

EXHIBITS   

 



eo 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.

 
90

 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST
RE
ET
 

¢ 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06

10
5 

(2
03
) 

52
2-

83
38

 
« 

JU
RI

S 
NO
. 

38
47

8 
TE

LE
FA

X 
72

8-
04

01
 

  

  

  

Ccv89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT 

VS. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/ 

NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O/NEILL, ET AL : SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

You are requested pursuant to §§220 and 223 of the Connecticut 

Practice Book to respond to the following interrogatories thirty days of 

service of this Request. Service shall be made at the office of 

plaintiffs’ counsel, Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 32 

Grand Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106. 

x. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 

l. If the information requested does not exist exactly in the 

form requested, please provide information which most closely 

corresponds to the information sought by this particular document 

request. 

2. As used herein: 

a. "surrounding Communities" means the towns of Avon, 

Bloomfield, danton. Hast Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, 

Ellington, Farmington. Glastonbury, Granby, Manchester, Newington, 

Rocky Hill, simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, West 

Hartford, Wethersfield, Windsor and Windsor Locks.   
 



  

eo 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI
NE
BE
RG
, 

P. 
C.

 

90
 
GI
LL
ET
T 

ST
RE
ET
 

e 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06

10
5 

e 
(2

03
) 

52
2-

83
38

 
¢ 

JU
RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47

8 
TE

LE
FA

X 
72

8-
04

01
 

  

  

nsuburban schools!" or "suburban students! means schools in 

the Hartford area except Hartford. The defendants may respond to 

interrogatories about suburban schools with any available data 

about any combination of towns in the Hartford area that does not 

include Hartford. The identity of the towns should be given in 

any such answer. 

11. INTERROGATORIES 

1. Identify (by name and title) each person other than counsel 

who assisted in the preparation of defendants’ responses to plaintiffs’ 

First and Second Sets of Production Requests. Please provide a separate 

response for each separately numbered item. 

2. Please identify each person whom defendants expect to call as 

an expert witness at trial, and state the subject matter on which the 

expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions 

to which the expert is expected to testify, and provide a summary of the 

grounds for each opinion. 

  

 



  

®* 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.

 
90
 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST

RE
ET

 
e 

H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06

10
5 

e 
(2

03
) 

52
2-
83
38
 

e 
JU

RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47

8 
e 

TE
LE

FA
X 

72
8-
04
01
 

    

  

3. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, what 

Hartford metropolitan area school districts other than Hartford and 

Bloomfield do you consider to have a significant proportion of minority 

students? 

4. Concerning your answer to Pargraph 33 of the Complaint, what 

Hartford metropolitan area school districts other than Hartford and 

Bloomfield do you consider not to be overwhelmingly white? 

5. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, do 

the defendants possess, know of or can identify any study which does or 

does not demonstrate that a high concentration of at-risk students 

places a school system at a severe educational disadvantage? 

  

  

 



eo 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.

 
90
 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST

RE
ET

 
* 

H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06
10
5 

e 
(2

03
) 

52
2-
83
38
 

ee 
JU

RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47
8 

ee 
TE

LE
FA

X 
72

8-
04

01
 

  

      

6. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, what 

is the percentage of limited English proficiency students for each 

school system listed for 1987-88, and what is the source of your answer? 

7. Are the defendants aware of other "indicia" for identifying 

at-risk students in addition to the indicia listed in paragraph 37? 

8. As 

the Hartford 

an education 

the suburban 

to the denial of paragraph 38, list all the ways in which 

school district has been able to provide its children with 

substantially equal to that received by schoolchildren in 

districts. 

9. Please identify any measure of education performance which 

shows that schoolchildren in the Hartford school district perform the 

same or better than schoolchildren in the suburban districts. 

  
  

  

 



eo 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

o 
vg 

Q 
oo) 
oN 
~~ 

x 
<C 
Ue 

uw 

— 

uw 
po 

L J 

(eo) 
™~ 

hb 
x 

mM 

o 
2 

0 
[o =f 

—- 
be 

» 

x 
™ 
™ 

. OD 

Jp 
« ON 

& 5 

Wg 
ES 
bi 
Ww 

Zo 
Me 

wn 
35 
So 
Us 
&- 

[eB ®) 

2d 
§3 
35 Fe) 

<< 
2 

L J 

[— 
Ww 

|§%) 

1 49 
p— 
wn 

— 
[— 
(V1 
wl 

= 
QQ 

oo 
N 

  

    

10. Concerning your answer to the first sentence of Paragraph 40 

of the Complaint, what is or are the principal measures of students 

achievement in Connecticut? 

11. What is the purpose of the student mastery test? 

12. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, what 

does a "mastery benchmark!" indicate? 

13. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, in 

1988, what percentage of all suburban sixth graders scored at or above 

the "mastery benchmark" for reading, what percentage of Hartford 

schoolchildren met the standard, what percentage of all suburban sixth 

graders exceed the refisdial benchmark on the test of reading skills, and 

what percentage of Hartford schoolchildren meet this test?    



  

* 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.

 
90
 
GI
LL
ET
T 

ST
RE

ET
 

* 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06

10
5 

e 
(2

03
) 

52
2-
83
38
 

e 
JU

RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47

8 
ee 

TE
LE

FA
X 

72
8-

04
01

 

  

  

    

14. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, are 

there any ways in which Hartford schoolchildren are not receiving a 

minimally adequate education? 

15. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, what 

is the percentage of students in Hartford schools and suburban schools 

who remain in school to receive a high school diploma versus the 

percentage of students who drop out, the percentage of high school 

graduates who enter four-year colleges, the percentage of graduates who 

enter any program of higher education, and the percentage of graduates 

who obtain full-time employment within nine months of completing 

schooling? 

l6. If disparities are indicated in your answer to the above 

interrogatory, what are the reasons for the disparities?   
| 
| 

i - Sc ” > ve ; = ACCT SC WINE Le WE Ey ATT SATAN IL Wm ARCA eS Nad 0 TPE 4 PL OR AT TONS a SVAN SITS TE RO Il er, TT OT, TM TT SRA SR ARS NER Pg 7 SUA SATIRE I rnd) OKT ETSY LIA TENS . i eC 

 



  

17. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, have 

the defendants conducted any studies or are they aware of any studies 

which measure whether suburban students have a statistically higher rate 

of success in obtaining employment with many Hartford-area businesses. 

  18. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, 

state the reasons why public school integration in the Hartford 

eo 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

Metropolitan region by race, ethnicity and economic status would not 

significantly improve the educational achievement of poor and minority 

children, without diminution of the education afforded their majority 

schoolmates. 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.

 
90
 
GI
LL
ET
T 

ST
RE
ET
 

* 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06
10
5 

e 
(2

03
) 

52
2-
83
38
 

¢ 
JU

RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47

8 
e 

TE
LE

FA
X 

72
8-

04
01

 

19. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, 

state whether such officials agree now that (i), (ii) and (iii) exist 

and state the month and year when they became so aware. 

    i 

ho, ro 4 rn gt TG 8 ORG EL FYI TI FS TON YS Sn 1p MSL TR a SSA TTS ST CY, Cae 0A ope) Pe WT VN JIMS ST (UTE SAAT LAT AT, ) STL 0 SE Rn UT WIT Sf 78 TYAS TTY PRR ATR, DES OL LYE STRSTR NR    



  

20. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, what 

actions did you or your predecessors take in response to the 1965 report 

to the United states Civil Rights Commission, and when was such action 

taken?   

TE
LE
FA
X 

72
8-
04
01
 

x 

33 
- J 21. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, 
nZ 

£5 state any inaccuracies in plaintiffs’ statement regarding conclusions of 
om 

> 

. 3 the report. 
> 

63 
a3 

ac 

Zo. 

8 
$8 
£5 22. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, 
LN 

: 2 

&o state any ways in which the defendants or their predecessors acted to 
oc 

£3 
implement the request. 

90
 
GI
LL
ET
T 

ST
RE
ET
 

        
rn. WE al Pe. TU Pay § 2 we Ao are gr avs Gena ” - ov og EWTN POPE gS ~~ 7 RABY "sD SN PANY FIT Pf Pg A NSE AG PE FAT EN YS Sp TC EE OR Mr aON PAPA TP nd Ca Cond > “Cin 

 



    

23. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, what 

efforts did you or your predecessors make during 1970-82 to remedy the 

racial isolation already previously identified by you? 

24. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, are 

there any ways in which the isolation of poor and minority 

schoolchildren in the City of Hartford has had an adverse impact on the 

e 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

educational opportunities of these children? 

25. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, what 

steps have the defendants taken to address the inequities listed? 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.
 

90
 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST

RE
ET

 
e 

H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06
10
5 

* 
(2
03
) 

52
2-
83
38
 

¢ 
JU

RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47

8 
e 

TE
LE

FA
X 

72
8-

04
01

 

26. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, what 

actions have been taken in regard to affect meaningful racial and 

economic integration of housing within school zones and school districts     
in the Hartford metropolitan region?     

oT PR TW Sn NTI Tr a TL TA Sa IT Me LT Ty A (TR J TED 5, WR eM Se SAI NYA SAPP NS § Se NT AT PET NS PRT A Oem I LT ES A FORT SRST RY SRI NS TS TAGE 

 



    
  

27. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 72 of the Complaint, 

identify all compensatory or remedial services funded by the State which 

mitigate the adverse effect of educational inequities? 

  

TE
LE

FA
X 

72
8-

04
01

 

2 2 28. Please list each planned interdistrict program to promote 

ID 
2 racial or economic integration of students in the Hartford region; the 
Nn 

i) 
2c school year that each program is anticipated to commence; and the number 
0 

=e 

Ld of students from each district to be participating in each. 

it: 
95 
&Q 
0 ~ 

Be 

25 
CE 
Es 29. Please list each planned interdistrict program to promote 
2d 

. XC 

of racial or economic integration of student in the Hartford region, the 
ox 

=z 
school year that each program is anticipated to commence; and the number 

of students from each district to be participating in each. 

  90
 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST
RE
ET
 

-10-       
a a Rr SE A So VI Sp A P13 LG Dy AT 2 ng AINSI LT J AN TN 7 PIA TANGY Enid rh PANY IY FLT TTB Th, <2 NW ERNE ANA A 34 TS TT TC SN XR TNE TET FT DN RAR OT SI SITY a -y gor = Fo aint i a gga op PAY I SF STR TA a XEN, X42 DE 3 Ai RY A 

 



  

e 
TE

LE
FA

X 
72
8-
04
01
 

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

JU
RI

S 
NO
. 

38
47

8 
(2

03
) 

52
2-

83
38

 
M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.

 
e 

H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06
10
5 

90
 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST

RE
ET

 

= PL OTT MS, <a gy yey 

  

  

30. Please list each current housing program administered by the 

State of Connecticut which promotes racial or economic integration of 

students in the Hartford Region, and the number of housing units created 

by each such program in the city of Hartford and in the surrounding 

communities. 

31. Please list all Commissioners of Education for the State of 

Connecticut from 1954 to the present, and the dates which each 

Commissioner served. 

32. Please list all Chairmen of the Connecticut State Board of 

Education from 1954 to the present, and the dates which each Chairperson 

served. 

=11l=- 

  
  

WLP OTN BL 9 CCINT SAT INN IN Py RN 4/5 Se Ebert Te uF WUT TT ATE Jem SE NY 3 TI IN RL VIS ed TEAC ES TVR LN ST ANTONIN TE, FEIT EN Sr NANT I LINE ATTY TE ERY



* 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

S30 ATID BOB AAAI $0 TITS, TRAST TI SA PCAN SPAS TT $a WNBA We A TG LNT RET SU COR, 7 PT NITY Sm Tr pr EADY, ie ZI HS IS STII RTWB 3 SPA ER Ye LP ET RS EA TEN APN § STS Dm 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
F
I
N
E
B
E
R
G
,
 

P.
 

C.
 

90
 
GI
LL
ET
T 

ST
RE
ET
 

« 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06

10
5 

e 
(2

03
) 

52
2-

83
38

 
* 

JU
RI
S 

NO
. 

38
47
8 

  

      

33. If you do not admit Request for Admissions No. 1, what was 

the percentage of blacks, Hispanics and children in families below the 

United States Department of Agriculture’s official '"poverty line" in 

Connecticut in 1986 and in the Hartford school district in 1987-88? 

34. If you do not admit Request for Admissions No. 2, what are 

the proper percentages for that Region? 

PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL 

  

By Ly 

MARTHA STONE Ww EY W. HORTON 

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION MOLLER, HORTON & 

FOUNDATION FINEBERG, P.C. 

32 Grand Street 90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 Hartford, CT 06105 

(203)247-9823 Sk (203)522-8338 

Juris No. 61506 Juris No. 38478 

PHILIP D. TEGELER , WILFRED RODRIGUEZ 

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION HISPANIC ADVOCACY PROJECT 

FOUNDATION Neighborhood Legal Services 
32 Grand Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06106 Hartford, CT 08102 

(203)247-9823 (203)278-6850 

Juris No. 102537 Juris No. 302827 

-]12=- 

  

 



  

MARIANNE LADO JOHN BRITTAIN | 

RONALD ELLIS UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 

NAACP Legal Defense & SCHOOL OF LAW 
Educational Fund, Inc. 65 Elizabeth Street | 

99 Hudson Street Hartford, CT 06105 | 
New York, NY 10013 (203) 241-4664 | 

(212)219-1900 Juris No. 101153 
Pro Hac Vice | 

HELEN HERSHKOFF 

ADAM S. COHEN JENNY RIVERA 

JOHN A. POWELL PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND EDUCATION FUND 

FOUNDATION 99 Hudson Street 

132 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10013 

New York, NY 10036   
(212)944-9800 

Pro Hac Vice 

e 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

Attorneys For Plaintiffs 

  

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
F
I
N
E
B
E
R
G
,
 

P.
 

C.
 

90
 
GI
LL
ET
T 

ST
RE

ET
 

ee 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06

10
5 

e 
(2

03
) 

52
2-
83
38
 

 
J
U
R
I
S
 

NO
. 

38
47

8 

  
  

-13~     
TIIRAASS Th 4 CTU, CVE ar £4 INL AT Se, SA STRAT BE TN TITS TL RTA NIE VaR TN 1 ATS HN SG OF fe OAT RY Tg ZOD OR STIR I EA 4 Pn A et RE (TL NLS STR AY A RA TS I TREE rie Ter ry Th pL Cabar dad TC 3 SG ET BE, THN TLS SRI PITT IN Re A ITY A A A TLL TTL RET 378 A le RN - NE 

 



  

  

CERTIFICATION 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to all 

counsel of record on September 20, 1990. 

Wha HA —— 
Weslelf W. Horton 

  
  

eo 
TE
LE
FA
X 

72
8-

04
01

 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

JU
RI

S 
NO
. 

38
47

8 
(2
03
) 

52
2-
83
38
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
FI

NE
BE

RG
, 

P. 
C.

 
@®
 

e 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
06

10
5 

90
 
GI

LL
ET

T 
ST
RE
ET
 

    ade i ire SS iit ke FN re VR SP Lp MS Pde TY Fg SY A SS RES FN TT PAS UY YTS ION TR A, STW PTI A CUS TT 

 



      

Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

XY. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants NOVEMBER 28, 1990 

  

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DISCLOSE 
EXPERT WITNESSES PURSUANT TO PRACTICE BOOK SECTION 220(D) 
  

  

The parties respectfully request an extension of time to 

disclose the experts expected to testify at trial pursuant to 

Practice Book Section 220(D) as follows: 

a. On January 15, 1990, all parties shall simultaneously 

disclose the initial list of persons whom each party expects to 

call as an expert witness at trial (including any employees or 

consultants of defendants or plaintiffs), shall state the subject 

matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and shall 

state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert 

is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each 

opinion. | 

b. Every sixty days thereafter, all parties shall exchange 

a list of any additional expert witnesses identified in the prior 

sixty-day period. 

NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED/NO TESTIMONY REQUIRED 

  
 



      

C. Plaintiffs shall make final disclosure of such expert 

witnesses 120 days prior to the final trial date, and defendants 

shall make final disclosure of such expert witnesses sixty days 

thereafter. 

In support of this joint motion, the parties state the 

following: . 

1. On July 13, 1990, the defendants submitted 

interrogatories to the defendants which requested a list of 

expert witnesses which the plaintiffs intend to offer. 

2. On September 24, 1950, the plaintiffs submitted 

interrogatories to the defendants which requested a list of 

expert witnesses which the defendants intend to offer. 

3 On September 6, 1990, plaintiffs submitted a Joint 

Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's First 

Set of 1Interrogatories, which included a stipulation that 

disclosure of experts be delayed until October 31, 1990. 

4. On October 9, 1990, defendants also submitted a Motion 

for Extension to Disclose Experts Pursuant to Practice Book 

Section 220(D). 

5....0n October 31, 1990, this Court granted a Joint Motion 

for Extension of Time to Respond to Interrogatories Regarding 

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses, pending formulation of the 

present motion. 

  
 



    

6. Because of the extremely complex and comprehensive 

nature of this case, at the present time, neither party has 

completed the process of identifying expert witnesses for trial, 

nor have the identified experts completed all of their research 

and analysis. 

3° The present case presents a broad challenge to the 

defendants’ practices in regard to the system of public education 

in the Hartford region. Because of the wide range of possible 

issues upon which the plaintiffs might want to offer expert 

testimony, the defendants will not know the entire scope of 

expert testimony they might need to seek until plaintiffs have 

identified their experts and the subject matter on hwiiich these 

experts will testify. 

8. The present motion would permit plaintiffs’ experts to 

substantially complete their research prior to being subjected to 

depositions by defendants. The present motion would also permit 

defendants to wait until such research is completed to conduct 

depositions, thus alleviating the need for duplicating 

depositions of the ,same witness. 

S. The parties, by this motion, do not waive any rights 

they may have to object to depositions or other discovery of 

experts, or to move for payment for such depositions or other 

discovery pursuant to Practice Book Section 220.    



  

WHEREFORE, the parties request an extension of time as set 

out above to disclose their experts pursuant to Practice Book 

    

Section 220(D). 

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 4g 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 
Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton 
Moller, Horton, & Fineberg 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Lado 
Ron Ellis 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

Helen Hershkoff 
John A. Powell 
Adam Cohen 
American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

John Brittain 
University of Connecticut 

School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Jenny Rivera 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

  
 



      

By: 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

CLARINE NARDI RIDDLE 
ATTO Y GENERAL 

JoHn~R. Whelan 
crane Attorney General 

Y10 Sherman Street 
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Telephone: 566-3696 

  

ORDER 

For good cause shown the foregoing motion is hereby: 

GRANTED/DENIED 

BY THE ‘COURT 
  

  
 



      

CERTIFICATION 
  

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, 

postage prepaid on December JF, 1990 to the following counsel or 

record: 

John Brittain 
University of Connecticut 
School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton 
Mollier, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Jenny Rivera, Esq. : 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
14th Floor 
New York, NY 10013 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Ronald Ellis, Esq. 

  
 



      

NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell 

Helen Hershkoff 

American Civil Liberties Union 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

yi     
’ 

4 L 

  

5 ya 

J R. Whelan 
istant Attorney General 

Y 

  
 



  

CLARINE NARDI RIDDLE 
ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL 

    

: State of Connectient 

  

8.00: C 

  

566-7140 Office of The Attorney General 

MacKENZIE HALL 

January 15, 1991 110 SHERMAN STREET 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105 

TELEPHONE (203) 566-3696 

TELECOPIER (203) 523-5536 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill/ Disclosure of Expert Witnesses 
  

Dear Phil: 

Although it is not clear from my files that Judge Hammer has 
signed our joint motion for extension of time to disclose expert 
witnesses dated November 28, 1990, I am writing this letter to 
comply with the requirement of an initial disclosure of witnesses 
on Januvary 15, 1990, 

It is important for you to know that we have not yet made any 
final decisions with regard to our witnesses. For this reason we 
are providing you with expert and the Department of Education 
consultants who we view as possible witnesses. Those individuals 
are as. follows: 

  

# 

l. Dr. Christine H. Rossell, Boston University: Expert Witness: 

If Dr. Rossell is called to testify the subject matter on which 
she would be expected to testify is the comparative advantages of 
voluntary and mandatory methods of promoting integration. The 
substance of the facts and opinions to which she will testify is 
uncertain at this time. 

2. Dr. Donald Ferree, University of Connecticut: Expert Witness: 
The subject matter on which Dr. Ferree may be expected to testify 
is in the area of public opinion relating to issues of promoting 
integration in schools. Beyond the conclusions which are 
contained in his report to the Governor's Commission on Quality 
and Integrated Education, the substance of the facts and opinions 
to which he might testify is not yet certain. 

3. Dr. Pasquale Forgione, DOE Consultant: Dr. Forgione is not 
expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 
Instead he may provide testimony regarding the development, 
implementation, and analysis of the CMT and CMT results. 

 



Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
January 15, 1991 

Page 2 

4, Dr. Douglas Rindone, DOE Consultant: Dr. Rindone is not 
expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 
Instead Dr. Rindone may provide testimony regarding the 
development, implementation, an analysis of the CMT and CMT 
results. 

5. Dr. Elliot williams, DOE Consultant: Dr. Williams is not 
expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 
Instead Dr. Williams may provide information regarding existing 
and planned programs promoting interdistrict cooperation and 
improving integration. 

8. Dr. Robert Margolin, DOE Consultant: Dr. Margolin is not 
expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 
Instead Dr. Margolin may provide testimony relating to various 
programs designed to improve the educational performance of 
children in our urban areas. 

7. Dr. Robert Brewer, DOE Consultant: Dr. Brewer is not 
expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 
Instead Dr. Brewer may offer testimony regarding the state's 
financial contribution to the educational programs in Hartford 
and the suburbs. 

8. Dr. Peter Prowda, DOE Consultant: Dr. Prowda is not expected 

offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. Instead Dr. Prowda 
may ofifer testimony regarding facts or circumstances as they 
relate to the schools in Hartford and the suburbs including the 
rate of absenteeism. ; 

9. Dr. Theodore Sergi, DOE Consultant: Dr. Sergi is not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 
Instead Dr. Sergi may offer testimony regarding one or more 
programs designed to improve the educational performance of 
students in urban (priority) school districts. 

10. Mr. Lloyd Calvert, Independent Consultant: At this time it 
is not known whether Mr. Calvert will testify on behalf of the 
defendants or, if he did, what capacity he might testify in or 

what he might testify about. 

 



  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
January 15, 1991 

Page 3 

In compliance with the order regarding disclosure of expert 
witnesses we will supplement and update this list on March 15, 

1991, 

Very truly yours, 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
1 GENERA / 

gy. 
elan 

Assistant Attorney General 

       
I%5/mu 

cd All Counsel of Record 
Bernard F. McGovern, Jr. 

Diane W. Whitney 
Mark Stapleton 
Lloyd Calvert 

 



RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

  

     
EXHIBIT D 

  

State of Connecticut 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

566-7140 
2 Office of The Attorney General 

MacKENZIE HALL 

110 SHERMAN STREET 
Match 15,9199] HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105 

TELECOPIER (203) 523-5536 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06108 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill/ Disclosure of Expert Witnesses 
  

Dear Phil: 

Pursuant to the outstanding order regarding disclosure of expert 
witnesses and educational consultants who are expected to testify 
we are providing you with the following information. Once again 
we must emphasize that we are not yet able to identify any 
witnesses, expert or otherwise, who we will call at trial. The 
list below contains the names of individuals who we view as 
potential witnesses based upon what we suspect the plaintiffs may 
offer to prove their case. As you know, you have not fully 
responded to our first set of interrogatories in numerous 
respects. In your responses to our questions you repeatedly 
represent that you are doing more work and will provide complete 
answers in what you deem to be a "timely fashion" Prior to trial, 
Without complete answers to our interrogatories we cannot begin 
to finalize our position, never mind identify the witnesses we 
will need to support our position. To comply with the spirit of 
the order which has been entered we are providing you with this 
list of potential witnesses and potential areas in which they 
might be expected to testify. We probably could have represented 
to you that we have not identified any witnesses, since this is 
the actual state of our case preparation. 

1. Dr. Christine H. 'Rossell, Boston University: Expert Witness: 
If Dr. Rossell is called to testify the subject matter on which 
she would be expected to testify is the comparative advantages of 
voluntary and mandatory methods of promoting integration. The 
substance of the facts and opinions to which she will testify is 
uncertain at this time. Some insight into her approach can be 
found in her book entitled "The Carrot or the Stick", Temple 
University Press, Philadelphia, 1990. 

2. Dr. Donald Ferree, University of Connecticut: Expert Witness: 
The subject matter on which Dr. Ferree may be expected to testify 
1s in the area of public opinion relating to issues of promoting 

 



  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
March 15, 1991 
Page 2 

integration in schools. Beyond the conclusions which are 

contained in his report to the Governor's Commission on Quality 

and Integrated Education, the substance of the facts and opinions 

to which he might testify is not yet certain. 

3. Dr. Pasquale Forgione, DOE Consultant: Dr. Forgione 1s not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 

Instead he may provide testimony regarding the development, 

implementation, and analysis of the CMT and CMT results. 

4. Dr. Douglas Rindone, DOE Consultant: Dr. Rindone is not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 

Instead Dr. Rindone may provide testimony regarding the 

development, implementation, an analysis of the CMT and CMT 

results. 

5. Dr. William Congero, DOE Consultant: Dr. Congero 1s not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 

Instead Dr. Congero may provide testimony regarding the 

development, implementation, an analysis of the CMT and CMT / 

results. 

6. Dr. Peter Behuniak, DOE Consultant: Dr. Behuniak is not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 

Instead Dr. Behuniak may provide testimony regarding the 

development, implementation, an analysis of the CMT and CMT 

results. 

7. “pr. Blliot Williams, DOE Consultant: Dr, Williams is not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 

Instead Dr. Williams may provide information regarding existing 

and planned programs promoting interdistrict cooperation and 

improving integration. pi 

8. Dr. Robert Margolin, DOE Consultant: Dr. Margolin 1s not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 

Instead Dr. Margolin may provide testimony relating to various 

programs designed to improve the educational performance of 

children in our urban areas. 

9. Dr. Robert Brewer, DOE Consultant: Dr. Brewer 1s not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 

Instead Dr. Brewer may offer testimony regarding the state's 

financial contribution to the educational programs in Hartford 

and the suburbs. 

10. Dr. Peter Prowda, DOE Consultant: Dr. Prowda 1s not 

expected offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. Instead 

Dr. Prowda may offer testimony regarding facts or circumstances 

 



  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
March 135, 1991 
Page 3 

10. Dr. Peter Prowda, DOE Consultant: Dr. Prowda is not 

expected offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. Instead 

Dr. Prowda may offer testimony regarding facts or circumstances 

as they relate to the schools in Hartford and the suburbs 

including the rate of absenteeism. 

11. Dr. Theodore Sergi, DOE Consultant: Dr. Sergl is not 

expected to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness. 

Instead Dr. Sergi may offer testimony regarding one Or more 

programs designed to improve the educational performance of 

students in urban (priority) school districts. 

12. Mr. Lloyd Calvert, Independent Consultant: At this time 1t 

is not known whether Mr. Calvert will testify on behalf of the 

defendants or, if he did, what capacity he might testify in ot 

what he might testify about. 

In compliance with the order regarding disclosure of expert 

witnesses we will supplement and update this list on May 15, 

1991. 

Very truly yours, 

BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

N/A 
Jg R. Whelan 
Ag lstant Attorney General 

    

JRW/mu 
cc: All Counsel of Record 

Bernard F. McGovern, Jr. 

Diane W. Whitney 
Mark Stapleton ~ 
Lloyd Calvert 

 



9... E fu 

MacKenzie Fall 

110 Sherman Street 

Hardord. CT 06103 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FAX (203) 523-3536 

Office of The Attorney General 

State of Connecticut 
Tel: 3566-7173 

May 17, 1991 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
CCLU 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

RE: Sheff. v. O'Neill: Disclosed Experts 
  

Dear Phil: 

I apologize for the brief delay in getting this additional 
disclosure of experts report to you. We have been in the process 
of confirming arrangements with Dr. Christine Rossell and 
developing a description of the substance of her expected 
testimony. This process has taken somewhat longer than expected. 
We are now prepared to confirm that Dr. Rossell will be one of 
our expert witnesses. Our description of her expected testimony 
is enclosed. 

As of this time we do not have any additional expert 
witnesses to identify nor have we made any further decisions 
about who on the staff of the Department of Education might be 
called to testify at trial. Our work is progressing but, as you 
know, people who we are considering as expert witnesses have a 
great deal of work to do before any decision can be made as to 
whether they will appear as witnesses. 

Very truly yours, 

hyeilian: Attorney General 

JRW/mu 
Enclosure 

cc: All Counsel of Record  



  

  

( Christine Rossell, Ph.D. 

Dr. Rossell is Professor of Political Science at Boston 

University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 

Professor Rossell is expected to testify that the State of 

Connecticut 1s responding appropriately to the educational 

conditions in the Hartford area by encouraging voluntary 

integration and compensating poor school districts «for their 

poverty. 

Professor Rosse2ll will base her testimony on her scholarly 

research of the following at least: 

1. The evolution of school desegregation; 

{ 2. national school desegregation trends; 

3. measuring the effectiveness of school desegregation; 

4. The relative merit of voluntary and mandatory school 

desegregation plans; 

5. white flight as a function of desegregation; 

6. the effectiveness of specific approaches to desegregation; 

ie., freedom of choice, RaSoblEy<En-ninsr ity transfer, controlled 

choice, magnet schools, etc.; 

7. netropolitan~based desegregation plans; 

8. State of Connecticut policies and programs to encourage 

voluntary desegregation and to aid poor districts though 

compensatory funding-general and categorical. 

 



  

RICHARD BLUMENTIIAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

      

Office of The Attorney General 

State of Connecticut 
July 15, 1991 

Tel: 

Philip Tegeler, Esg. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill, Disclosure of Experts 
  

Dear Phil: 

Pursuant to the Court's order regarding disclosure of 
experts, enclosed please find information regarding Dr. David 

®... F 

MacKenzie Hall 

110 Sherman Strect 

Hartford, CT 06103 

FAX (203) 323-5536 

3566-7173 

Armor. We expect to be amending this description of Dr. Armor's 
testimony in the future since he has not yet completed his study 
Of the Connecticut situation. 

Very truly yours, 

BLUMENTHAL 
ENERAL 

  

Assistant Attorney General 
JRW/mu 
CC: All Counsel of Record 

 



  

w a 

  

David Armor, Ph.D. 
  

Dr. Armor 1s currently Visiting Professor, Rutgers 
University; Consultant, American Institutes for Research; and 

President, National Policy Analysts. 

Dr. Armor is principal investigator for a grant to write a 
treatise on race, education and the courts; co-principal 

investigator on a national study of magnet schools; and an 
associate investigator on a project that is conducting case 

studies of school districts with school choice policies. 

While Dr. Armor may testify on more than one topic, at this 
time he is expected to testify that research has demonstrated "no 
significant and consistent effects of desegregation, on Black 
achievement". 

Dr. Armor will base his testimony on his own original 
studies as well as his scholarly analysis of the research 
concerning the effects of desegregation on Black student 

achievement. 

 



s _ TN G 

  

Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al, SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

vs. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. AT HARTFORD 

Defendants JANUARY 15, 1991 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
PURSUANT TO PRACTICE BOOK $220 (D) 
  

  

Pursuant to Practice Book §220(D), as modified by this 

Court's Order of October 31, 1990 and the parties’ Joint Motion 

for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses filed December 

3, 1990, the plaintiffs herein disclose their initial list of 

expert witnesses anticipated to testify at trial, in response to 

Defendants’. First Set .of Interrogatories. In. addition, 

plaintiffs have identified other possible witnesses who may 

testify at the trial in this action, but whose analyses are not 

sufficiently complete to respond to defendants’ interrogatory or 

to confirm whether plaintiffs expect to call such witnesses. As 

set out in the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 

Disclose Expert Witnesses filed December 3, 1990, such additional 

expert witnesses may be identified in sixty days or thereafter. 

 



  

Interrogatory 18. Please specify the name and address of   

each and every person the plaintiffs expect to call as an expert 

witness at trial. For each such person please provide the 

following: 

a. The date on which that person is expected to complete 

the review, analysis, or consideration necessary to formulate the 

opinions which that person will be called upon to offer at trial; 

b. The subject matter upon which that person is expected to 

testify; and 

c, The substance of the facts and opinions to which that 

person is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for 

each opinion. 

RESPONSE: Experts whom the plaintiffs expect to call &t trial   

are listed below, pursuant to Practice Book Section 220(D), as 

modified by the Court: 

Dr. Jomills Henry Braddock, II, Center for Social 
Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 
North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218. Dr. 
Braddock is expected to testify to (1) the adverse 
educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, 
and economic segregation; (2) the adverse effects of 
racial, ethnic, and economic segregation on the 
educational process within schools. Specifically, Dr. 
Braddock is expected to testify that school segregation 
tends to perpetuate segregation in adult life, that 
school desegregation helps to transcend systemic 
reinforcement of inequality of opportunity, and that 
segregation affects the educational process within 
schools. In his testimony, the materials on which Dr. 
Braddock is expected to rely include his published 
works, as well as research currently being conducted on 
the educational and long-term effects of racial, 
ethnic, and economic segregation by pr. Marvin Pp. 

  

 



Dawkins and Dr. william Trent. (See descriptions 
below.) Dr. Braddock is expected to base his testimony 
on (1) Braddock, “The Perpetuation of Segregation 
Across Levels of Education: A Behavioral Assessment of 
the Contact-Hypothesis,” 53 Sociology of Education 178- 
186 (1980); (2) Braddock, Crain, McPartland, “A Long- 
Term View of School Desegregation: Some Recent Studies 
of Graduates as Adults.” Phi Delta Kappan 259-264 
(1984); (3) Braddock, “Segregated High School 
Experiences and Black Students’ College and Major Field 
Choices,” Paper Presented at the National Conference on 
School Desegregation, University of Chicago (1987); (4) 
Braddock, McPartland, “How Minorities Continue to be 
Excluded from Equal Employment Opportunities: Research 
on Labor Market and Institutional Barriers,” 43 Journal 
of Social Jssuss 5-39 (1987); and (5) Braddock, 
McPartland, “Soclial-Psychological Processes that 
Perpetuate Racial Segregation: The Relationship 
Between School and Employment Desegregation,” 19 
Journal of Black Studies 267-289 (1989). Dr. Braddock 
is expected to complete his review by April 1, 1991. 

  

  

  

  

Christopher Collier, Connecticut State Historian, -876 
Orange Center Road, Orange, Connecticut, 06477. 
Professor Collier is expected to testify regarding (1) 
the historical lack of autonomy of Connecticut towns 
and school districts and the history of state control 
over local education; (2) the historical development of 
the system of town-by-town school districts including 
legislation passed in 1856, 1866, and 1909; (3) the 
existence and prevalence of school districts and 
student attendance patterns crossing town lines prior 
to 1909 legislation mandating consolidation; (4) the 
existence of de jure school segregation in Connecticut 
from 1830 thrdugh 1868; (5) the origins and historical 
interpretation of the equal protection and education 
clauses of the 1965 Constitution; (6) a historical 
overview of the options for school desegregation 
presented to the state but not acted upon, 1954 to 
1980. In his testimony, the materials upon which 
Professor Collier may rely will include numerous 
historical sources, including primarily but not limited 
to Helen Martin Walker, Development of State Support 
and Control of Education in Connecticut (State Board of 
Education, Connecticut Bulletin #4, Series 1925-16); 
Keith W. Atkinson, The Legal Pattern of Public 
Education in Connecticut (Unpublished Doctoral 

  

  

  

  

   



  

-idiim 

Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1950); Annual 
Reports of the Superintendent of the Common Schools, 
1838-1955; Jodziewicz, Dual Localism in 17th Century 
Connecticut, Relations Between the General Court and 
the Towns, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, William 
& Mary, 1974); Bruce C. Daniels, The Connecticut Town: 
Growth and Development, 1635-1790, Middletown 
Connecticut, Wesleyan University; Trumbull, Public 
Records of the Colony of Connecticut; Public Records of 
the State of Connecticut; Proceedings of the 
Constitutional Convention of 1965; as well as the 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

documents listed in response to defendants’ 
interrogatory 5, Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants‘ 
First Set of Interrogatories (October 30, 1590), and 
the sources referenced in plaintiff’s supplemental 
submission to Judge Hammer dated February 23, 1990. 
Additional historical documents upon which Professor - 
Collier relies will be identified upon request at or 
before the time of his deposition. Professor Collier 
is expected to complete his review by March 1, 1991. 

Br. Robert L. Crain, Professor of Sociclogy and 
  

Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, .525 
West 120th Street, Box 211, New York, New York, 10027. 

Pr. Crain is expected to testify to the adverse 
educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, 
and economic segregation in the Hartford metropolitan 
area. Specifically, Dr. Crain is expected to testify 
that the effects of Project Concern participation for 
students in the Hartford metropolitan area have been to 
reduce the likelihood of (1) dropping out of high 
school, (2) early teenage pregnancy, and (3) 
unfavorable interactions with the police. Dr. Crain is 
expected to testify, further, that the effects of 
Project Concern participation for students in the 
Hartford metropolitan area have been to increase (1) 
college retention, (2) the probability of working in 
private sector professional and managerial jobs, (3) 
the probability of interracial contact, and (4) 
favorable attitudes toward whites. In his testimony, 
Dr. Crain is expected to base his testimony on his 
published works and his analyses of Project Concern. 
Specifically, Dr. Crain is expected to rely on (1) 
Crain, Strauss, "School Desegregation and Black 
Occupational Attainments: Results from a Long-Term 
Experiment,” Center for Social Organization of Schools, 
Report No. 353 (1985); (2) Crain, Hawes, Miller, and 

 



    

Peichert, "Finding Niches: Desegregated Students 
Sixteen Years Later,” Unpublished Manuscript, Institute 
for Urban and Minority Education, Teachers College 
(revised 1990); and (3) Gable, Thompson, Iwanicki, “The 
Effects of Voluntary Desegregation on Occupational 
Outcomes,” The Vocational Guidance Quarterly 230-239 
(1983). Dr. Crain is expected to complete his review 
by April 1, 1881. 

  

Dr. Marvin P. Dawkins, 17627 N.W. 62nd Place, North, 
Hialeah, Florida, 33015, Dr. Dawkins is expected to 
testify to the adverse educational and long-term 
effects of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation on 
African Americans. Specifically, ‘Dr. : Dawkins is 
expected to testify that African Americans who have 
attended segregated schools have a lower probability of ° 
attending predominantly white «colleges and 
universities, maintaining interracial contacts, and 
working in desegregated settings. Dr. Dawkins is 
expected to base his testimony on (1) his analysis of 
data from the National Survey of Black Americans, a 
nationally representative survey of African Americans 
conducted over a period of seven months between 1979 
and 1980 at the Survey Research Center, Institute for 
Social Research, University of Michigan, and funded by 
the Center for the Study of Minority Group Mental 
Health, at the National Institute of Mental Health; (2) 
Dawkins, "Black Students’ Occupational Expectations: A 
National Study of the Impact of School Desegregation,” 
18 Urban Education 98-113 (1983); - (3) Braddock, 
Dawkins, “Predicting Black Academic Achievement in 
Higher Education,” 50 Journal of Neqro Education 319- 
327 (1981); (4) Braddock, Dawkins, “Long-Term Effects 
of School Deésegregation on Southern Blacks,” 4 
Sociological Spectrum 365-381 (1984); and (5) Dawkins, 
"Persistence of Plans for Professional Careers Among 
Blacks in Early Adulthood,” 58 Journal of Negro 
Education 220-231 (1989). Dr. Dawkins is expected to 
complete his analysis by March 15, 1991. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

Dr. Mary Kennedy, Director, National Center for   

Research on Teacher Evaluation, Michigan State 
University, 513 Ardson Road, East Lansing, Michigan, 
48823. Dr. Kennedy will testify about the relationship 
of family poverty and high concentrations of poverty to 
educational outcomes. Specifically, Dr. Kennedy will 

 



    

testify that two of the most important measures of 
poverty which have a strong relationship to educational 
outcomes are intensity of family poverty (measured by 
number of years of sustained poverty of the child and 
his family), and attendance at a school with a high 
concentration of poor children. Her conclusions show 

that: (1) Students are increasingly likely to fall 
behind grade levels as their families experience longer 
spells of poverty; (2) Achievement scores of all 
students - not just poor students - decline as the 
proportion of poor students in a school increases; (3) 
The relationship between school poverty concentration 
and school achievement averages is even stronger than 
the relationship between family poverty status and 
student achievement. In fact, non-poor students who 
attend schools with a high concentration of poor 
students are more likely to fall behind than are poor 
students who attend a school with a small proportion of 
poor students; and (4) Increases in the proportion of 
poor children in a school are associated with decreases 
in average starting achievement and even occasionally 
with decreases in learning rates over time. Dx. 
Kennedy's opinions are based on her research and that 
of others as contained in reports, including, but not 
limited to Kennedy, M.M., Jung, R.K., and Orland, M.E. 

  

  

(1986), Poverty, Achievement and the Distribution of 
Compensatory Education Services, U.S. Department of 
Education, 19886, Dr. Kennedy is expected to complete 
her review by May 1, 1991. 

Dr. William Trent, EPS, 368 Education Building, 
University of ‘Illinois, 1310 South Sixth Street, 
Champagne, Illinois, 61820. Dr. Trent is expected to 
testify to the adverse educational and long-term 
effects of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation on 
Latinos, African Americans, and white Americans. 
Specifically Dr. Trent is expected to testify that 
economic school segregation has adverse long-term 
outcomes for Latinos, African Americans, and white 
Americans, that desegregation has beneficial results on 
the aspirations and expectations of Latino students and 
on their likelihood of working in interracial 
environments, and that white Americans who have 
experienced desegregated schools are more likely to 
work with and to have positive attitudes toward African 
American co-workers. Dr. Trent is expected to base his 
testimony on his published work and his analysis of 

  

 



  

data from (1) the National Longitudinal Survey of Labor 
Force Behavior -- Youth Cohort, an annual survey 

sponsored by the United States Departments of Labor and 
Defense of 12,686 young persons throughout the United 
States, with data available for 1979-1987; (2) the High 
School and Beyond Study, a national longitudinal 
probability sample of more than 58,000 1980 high school 
sophomores and seniors, conducted in 1980, 1982, 1984, 
and 1986; and (3) the National Longitudinal Survey of 
Employers, a national probability sample of 4,087 
employers, conducted in the 1970's. Dr. Trent is 
expected to complete his analysis by April 1, 1991. 

In addition to the: areas of testimony set out above, 

plaintiffs’ experts are also expected to interpret and comment on 

the testimony and research of other experts, including both 

plaintiffs’ and defendants’ experts. With respect to documents 

listed herein, plaintiffs have included some of the primary 

sources upon which these experts base their opinions, but have 

not provided a comprehensive list of all documents reviewed or 

relied on. If any other additional areas of testimony are 

identified for the foregoing experts or other documents upon 

which they primarily rely are identified, plaintiffs will 

identify such testimony and documents in a timely fashion, 

pursuant to the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 

Disclose Expert Witnesses filed December 3, 1990. 

 



  

Wesley W. Horton 
Moller, Horton, & Fineberg 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Lado 

Ron Ellis 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

Helen Hershkoff 
John A. Powell 
Adam Cohen 

American Civil Liberties 
Union Foundation 

132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

BY: 

Respectfully Submitted, 

BST te WR as 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

John Brittain 
University of Connecticut 

School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Jenny Rivera 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

 



  

      

            

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been 

  

    

  

SR Lle8R and 
pr = APS 

RE i 

  

       110 Sherman Street, rns 06105 this 

  

CT 15th day of 

JPL cree 
January, 1991. 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 

  

       

 



      

-—- tt 

    
    

CV89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs : 

Ve. : JUDICIAY, DISTRICT OF 

: HARTFORD/NEW ERITAIN: 
WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. : AT HARTFORD 

Defendants $y March 18, 1991 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
PURSUANT TO PRACTICE BOOK §220 (D) 
  

  

Pursuant to Practice Book §220(D), as modified by this 

Court's Order of October 31, 1990 and the parties’ Joint Motion 

for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses filed December 

3, 1990, the plaintiffs herein disclose their second list of 

expert witnesses anticipated to testify at trial, in response to 

Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. In addition, 

plaintiffs have identified other possible witnesses who may 

testify at the trial in this action, but whose analyses are not 

sufficiently complete to respond to defendants’ interrogatory or 

to confirm whether plaintiffs expect to call such witnesses. As 

set out in the parties!’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 

Disclose Expert Witnesses filed December 3, 1990, such additional 

expert witnesses may be identified in sixty days or thereafter. 

i 

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
 

  

  
 



  

  

    

    

  

Interrogatory 18. Please specify the name and address of 
each and every person the plaintiffs expect to call as an expert 
witness at trial. For each such person please provide the 
following: 

a. The date on which that person is expected to complete 
the review, analysis, or consideration necessary to formulate the 
opinions which that person will be called upon to offer at trial: 

b.: The subject matter upon which that person is expected to 
testify; and 

c. The substance of the facts and opinions to which that 
person is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for 
each opinion. 

  

RESPONSE: Experts whom the plaintiffs expect to call at trial 

are listed below, pursuant to Practice Book Section 220(D), as 

modified by the Court: 

Charles V. Willie, Ph.D., Harvard University, Graduate 
School of Education, Monroe C. Gutman Library, Cambridge, MA 
02138. Dr. Willie is expected to testify about the 
restructuring of educational attendance patterns and/or 
districts to eliminate racial isolation and to enhance the 
quality of education, especially for nonwhite school 
children concentrated in racially and economically impacted 
areas. Dr. Willie is expected to analyze the effects of 
segregated education upon the learning ability of white and 
nonwhite school children. He is also expected to propose 
educational plans to insure educational and racial equity. 

  

Dr. Catherine E. Walsh, University of Massachusetts, 250 
Stuart Street, Boston, MA 02116. Dr. Walsh is expected to 
testify regarding the linguistic and sociocultural issues 
involved in the racial and economic isolation of Puerto 
Rican and other Latino students. Dr. Walsh is expected to 
testify about the structure, instructional orientation, 
content and physical location of bilingual education. She 
is expected to generally testify regarding curriculum 
restructuring, school-based management, educational grouping 
of Puerto Rican students to promote integration while 
providing for the students’ needs, and the relationship 
between language and literacy development and academic 

  

  

  
 



  

  

  
  

    

a 

f 

achievement for Puerto Rican students. Dr. Walsh is also 
expected to testify as to remedial plans in the remedial 
portion of this case. Dr. Walsh's testimony will be based 
upon her review of the available surveys and theoretical 
works regarding the functioning of bilingual programs and 
segregated and desegregated school systems, and on her own 
experience and her investigations into the functioning of 
the schools, school systems and bilingual programs of the 
Greater Hartford Area and other places and on the results of 
investigations made by other expert witnesses in this case. 

Yale Rabin, 9 Farrar Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. 
Professor Rabin is expected to testify regarding 
actions of state and local officials that have 
contributed to the development of segregated housing 
patterns in the Hartford region. Specifically, 
Professor Rabin is expected to testify as to the 
state’s role in the location of subsidized low income 
family housing in the Hartford area; the current and 
historical racial consequences of those decisions; the 
effects of state transportation policies, including 
highway construction, on residential segregation: the 
effects of the state's failure to adequately monitor 
and enforce affirmative marketing requirements; the’ 
effects of state administration and regulation of 
rental assistance programs; and the state's en- 
couragement of local barriers to the development of 
affordable housing, including municipal veto laws, 
residency preferences, and exclusionary zoning. 
Professor Rabin is also expected to present historical 
analysis of the development of racial and economic 
segregation in the Hartford region, and to summarize 
the studies and reports presented to the state during 
the past 40 years indicating the growth of racial and 
economic segregation, the role of government action in 
contributing to segregation, and the opportunities open 
to the state to remedy the problem. In his testimony, 
the materials upon which Professor Rabin is expected to 
rely include his published work, U.S. Census data; 
published and unpublished reports by state agencies, 
including but not limited to the Department of Housing 
and its predecessors, the Office of Policy and 
Management, the Commission on Human Rights and 
Opportunities, the Department of Transportation, the 
Connecticut General Assembly, and reports or testimony 
regarding housing, land use and transportation 
submitted to the state by private organizations. 

  

  

  

  

  
 



      

Professor Rabin is expected to complete his review by 
June 1, 1991. 

Ruth Price, 196 Glengarry Road, Fairfield, CT 06430. 
Ms. Price is expected to testify regarding actions of 
state and local officials that have contributed to the 
development of segregated housing patterns in the 
Hartford region. Specifically, Ms. Price is expected . 
to testify as to the state’s role in the location of - 
subsidized low income family housing in the Hartford 
area and the types of subsidized housing located in 
each town; the income and racial characteristics of 
residents in such housing; the history of state 
transportation policies, including highway 
construction, as they affect the residential 
segregation; the state’s failure to adequately monitor 
and enforce affirmative marketing requirements; the 
state’s administration and regulation of rental assis- 
tance programs; and the state’s encouragement of local 
barriers to the development of affordable housing, 
including municipal veto laws, residency preferences, 
and exclusionary zoning. Ms. Price will also review 
and summarize the studies and reports prepared by or 
presented to the state during the past 40 years 
indicating the growth of racial and economic 
segregation, the role of government action in 
contributing to segregation, and the opportunities open 
to the state to remedy the problem. In her testimony, 
Ms. Price is expected to rely on United States census 
data and published and unpublished reports by state 
agencies, including but not limited to the Department 
of Housing and its predecessors, the Office of Policy 
and Management, the Commission on Human Rights and 
Opportunities, the Department of Transportation, the 
Connecticut General Assembly, and reports or testimony 
regarding housing, land use and transportation sub- 
mitted to the state by private organizations. Ms. 
Price is expected to complete her review by June 1, 
19381, 

  

In addition to the areas of testimony set out above, 

plaintiffs’ experts are also expected to interpret and comment on 

the testimony and research of other experts, including both 

  

  
 



  

  

      

plaintiffs’ and defendants’ experts. 

  

listed herein, plaintiffs have included some of the primary 

sources upon which these experts base their opinions, but have 

not provided a comprehensive list of all documents reviewed or 

relied on. If any other additional areas of testimony are . 

identified for the foregoing experts or other documents upon 

which they primarily rely are identified, plaintiffs will 

identify such testimony and documents in a timely fashion, 

pursuant to the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 

Disclose Expert Witnesses filed December 3, 1990. 

Wesley W. Horton 
Moller, Horton, & Fineberg 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Lado 
Ron Ellis 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

Respectfully Submitted, 

o JP 7 
  

Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 
Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

John Brittain 
University of Connecticut 

School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

With respect to documents 

  

  
 



    

  

      

Helen Hershkoff 

John A. Powell 

Adam Cohen 

  

Jenny Rivera 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
American Civil Liberties 99 Hudson Street 

Union Foundation New York, NY 10013 
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 1003 6 

CERTIFICATE Or SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been 

mailed postage prepaid by certified mail to John R. Whelan and 

Diane W. Whitney, Assistant Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 

110 Sherman Street, 

1981. 

Hartford, CT 06105 this /4’’ day of March, 

  

J. werk 
Philip D. Tegeler 

  

  
 



    
       @® i 

" EXHIBIT H 

recs CCLUR connecticut civil AN 4 
liberties union foundation 

32 grand street 

hartford, connecticut 06106 

telephone: 247-9823 

     
  

November 1, 1991 

Mr. John Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill; Disclosure of Expert Witnesses; Request 
for Further Elaboration 
  

Dear John, 

Pursuant to the outstanding order and agreement regarding 
disclosure of expert witnesses in the Sheff case, our records 
indicate that you have identified 13 persons anticipated to 
testify as expert witnesses at trial. At least eight of these 
witnesses are current Department of Education employees. . 

On March 11, 1991, we wrote to you to indicate inter alia, 
that your list of expert witnesses was non-responsive in that it 
does not “state the subject matter on which the expert is 
expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to 
which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the 
grounds for each opinion,” as requested in Plaintiffs’ First Set 
of Interrogatories, Interrogatory 2. 

  

Since March 11th, you have provided a small but insufficient 
amount of additional elaboration on two witnesses, but for the 
remainder of your listed experts almost none of the requested 
information is provided. In contrast, plaintiffs’ description of 
their anticipated experts’ testimony has been far more 
responsive, including an outline of anticipated testimony, and 
the bases for that testimony, including, in most cases, the 
primary data or literature relied on by each expert. 

At this late stage of the litigation, we do not believe it 
is fair for defendants to continue to plead lack of preparation 
and refuse to provide detailed statements of their experts’ 
anticipated testimony. Defendants’ unresponsiveness makes it 
particularly difficult for plaintiffs to adequately plan and 
prepare for depositions in this case. 

 



  

ZL Sw— 

For the foregoing reasons, we request that defendants 
provide a full and complete statement of each anticipated 
experts’ testimony, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ First Set of 
Interrogatories and Practice Book §220, no later than November 
22, 1991. After that time, we will seek further orders from the 

court pursuant to Practice Book §220(D) and §231. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

y 4 a 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

PDT/dmt 

CC: All Counsel 

 



MacKenzie Hall 

110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FAX (203) 523-5336 

Office of The Attornev General 

State of Connecticut 
November 7, 1991 

Tel: 566-7173 

Philip Tegeler, Esdg. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CP 06106 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill - Selection of expert witnesses   

Dear Phil: 

Thank you for your letter of November 1, 199]. 

Please be assured that the defendants are working as 
diligently as possible to locate, prepare, and identify the 
expert witnesses they intend to use at trial. We will continue, 
to update you regarding our progress in accordance with the 
Court's order. 

Since it appears from the plaintiffs' correspondence 
regarding the plaintiffs' expert witnesses and phone 
conversations that we have had that the plaintiffs have not yet 
completed their case preparation, it should be no surprise to you 
that the defendants have not completed their work. : 

Whereas the plaintiffs' preparations for this case began a 
year or more before this case was filed, as you might expect, the 
defendants preparations did not begin until after the suit was 
filed. Undoubtedly it will take the defendants longer than the 
plaintiffs to prepare for trial. 

I trust this responds to your letter of November 1, 1991. 

Very truly yours, 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

John R. Whelan 
istant Attorney General 

JRW: jm 

COs All counsel of record.