Correspondence from Tegeler to Judge Hammer

1 page

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Impact area
- Education
Topic
- School Desegregation
Matter
- Sheff v. O'Neill
Case
- Sheff v. O'Neill
U.S. state
- Connecticut
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 17fa29b7-a246-f011-877a-002248226c06

Cite this item

Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Correspondence from Tegeler to Judge Hammer, 1992. 17fa29b7-a246-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/10c7b3ec-66d9-492a-aaa8-c6d0bbfb9a3e/correspondence-from-tegeler-to-judge-hammer. Accessed November 02, 2025.

Copied!

    FOUNDATION 
ThirtyTwo Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 Fax 203/728-0287 

July 23, 1992 

Honorable Harry Hammer 
P.O. Box 325 
Rockville, CT 06066 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill, Cv89-0360977S 
  

Dear Judge Hammer, 

We are writing in response to Defendants’ Motion for 
Extension of Time in which to Pursue Discovery, dated July 14, 
1992. 

We object to defendants’ Motion on the grounds that it is 
being interposed primarily for purposes of delay. It is 
plaintiffs’ position that defendants should be required to file 
final written discovery now, in accordance with the pretrial 
order, and if further information comes to light as a result of 
plaintiffs’ amended interrogatory responses, defendants should 
then seek permission to file supplemental discovery at that time. 

The pretrial order entered by the court on April 10 is 
realistic and workable. One of its goals is to force completion 
of discovery so that trial may commence in a timely manner. 
Plaintiffs will be ready for trial in October. Defendants have 
enjoyed more than three years to prepare their defense. 
Plaintiffs urge this Court to be wary of granting extensions of 
time that may be later used by defendants as a basis for arguing 
that trial should be delayed. At a minimum, we would request 
that any extension of time for written discovery should not 
affect the date for commencement of trial. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

yz dd 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PDT/dmt 

CC: All Counsel 

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 
BR NT

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Correspondence from Tegeler to Judge Hammer

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in