Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories

    Cv 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT 

J.D. HARTFORD/NEW 
Plaintiffs NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

Ve. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants JULY 13, 1990 

DEFENDANTS ' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

Pursuant to Practice Book § 216 et. seq. the defendants 

submit the following interrogatories to be answered by the 

plaintiffs or on their behalf. The interrogatories are broken 

down into the following categories: I. Past Violations: 

Affirmative Acts, II. Past Violations: Omissions, III. Current or 

Ongoing Violations, IV. Minimally Adequate Education, V. Equal 

Education, VI. Other, VII. Expert Witnesses, and VIII. Data 

Compilations, and IX. Miscellaneous. 

PAST VIOLATIONS: AFFIRMATIVE ACTS 
  

1. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 
  

  
  
 



  

      

    

defendants, their predecessors, or any other state officer, 

agency or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial 

violated the State Constitution. For each such act provide the 

date the act occurred, the person, agency or other body   responsible for the act, and any and all information the 

plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or other body had or 

should have had at that time which would have apprised them of 

the consequences of that act. 

  
2. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 

  

defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency | 

or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial caused the 

condition of racial and ethnic isolation in the Hartford Public 

Schools and/or the identified suburban school districts.’ For 

each such act provide the date the act occurred, the person, 

agency or other body responsible for the act, and any and all 

  

1/ As used herein the term "identified suburban school 
districts" shall refer to those school districts, other than 
Hartford, listed in paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

HE, 

  
 



    

information the plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or 

other body had or should have had at that time which would have 

apprised them of the consequences of that act. 

3. Please identify each and every affirmative act by the 
  

defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency   or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial caused the   condition of socio-economic isolation in the Hartford Public 

H 
| Schools and/or the identified suburban school districts. For each 

such act provide the date the act occurred, the person, agency or 

' other body responsible for the act, and any and all information 

| 
' the plaintiffs will claim that person, agency or other body had 

| or should have had at that time which would have apprised them of 

| the consequences of that act. 1 
H 

! 

i tl 

4. Please identify each any every affirmative act by the 
  

    

      

  
 



  
  

    

defendants, their predecessors or any other state officer, agency 

or other body which the plaintiffs will claim at trial caused the 

concentration of "at risk" children in the Hartford Public 

Schools. For each such act provide the date the act occurred, 

the person, agency or other body responsible for the act, and any 

and all information the plaintiffs will claim that person, agency 

or other body had or should have had at that time which would 

have apprised them of the consequences of that act. 

  
  

 



PAST VIOLATIONS: OMISSIONS 
  

5. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step, or plan 

which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, their 

predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other body 

were required by the State Constitution to take or implement to 

address the condition of racial and ethnic isolation in the 

Hartford Public Schools and the identified suburban school     districts, but which was not in fact taken or implemented. For 

each such act, step, or plan provide the following: 

a) The last possible date upon which that act, step or plan 

| would necessarily have been taken or implemented in order to have   avoided a violation that the Constitution; 

b) The specific details of how such act, step or plan should 

have have been carried out, including (1) the specific methods of | 

accomplishing the objectives of the act, step or plan, (2) an 

estimate of how long it would have taken to carry out the act, 

       



  

  

  
| 

| 

{ 

| 
{ 
| 

i 

  

    

step, or plan, and (3) an estimate of the cost of carrying out 

the act, step or plan; 

c. For Hartford and each of the identified suburban school 

districts, the specific number and percentage of black, Hispanic 

and white students who would, of necessity, have attended school 

outside of the then existing school district in which they 

resided in order for that act, step or plan to successfully 

address the requirements of the Constitution. 

 



  

    

    

6. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step or plan 

which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, their 

predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other body 

were required by the State Constitution to take or implement to 

address the condition of socio-economic isolation in the Hartford | 

Public Schools and the identified suburban school districts, but 

which was not in fact taken or implemented. For each such act, 

step or plan provide the following: 

a) The last possible date upon which that act, step or plan   
would necessarily have been taken or implemented in order to have 

avoided a violation of the Constitution; 

b) The specific details of how such act, step or plan should 

have have been carried out including, (1) the specific methods of 

accomplishing the objectives of the act, step or plan, (2) an 

estimate of how long it would have taken to carry out the act, 

step or plan, and (3) an estimate of the cost of carrying out the 

act, step or plan; 

  
 



  

    

  

  

c) For Hartford and each of the identified suburban school 

districts, the specific number and percentage of poor, middle, 

and/or upper class students who would, of necessity, have 

attended school outside of the then existing school district in 

which they resided in order for that act, step, or plan to 

successfully address the requirements of the Constitution; 

d) The specific criteria which should have been used to identify 

those students who would, of necessity, have attended school 

outside the then existing school district in which they resided, 

so that the concentration of students from poor families in 

Hartford Public Schools would be low enough to satisfy the 

requirements of the Constitution. 

 



7. Please identify each and every affirmative act, step or plan 

which the plaintiffs will claim at trial the defendants, their 

predecessors, or any other state officer, agency or other body   were required by the State Constitution to take or implement to 

address the conditions created by the concentration of "at risk" 

4 children in the Hartford Public Schools but which were not in 

fact taken or implemented. For each such act, step, or plan   | provide the following: 

a) The last possible date upon which that act, step or plan 

| would necessarily have been taken or implemented in order to have 

avoided a violation of the constitution; 

b) The specific details of how such act, step or plan should 

have have been carried out, including (l)the specific methods of 

accomplishing the objective of the act, step or plan, (2) an 

i estimate as to how long it would have taken to carry out the act, 

step or plan, and (3) an estimate of the cost of carrying out the 

act, step or plan; 

c) The specific number and percentage of "at risk" Hartford 

  

   



    

    

students who would, of necessity, have attended school outside of 

the existing school district in which they resided in order for 

that act, step or plan to successfully address the requirements 

of the Constitution. 

d) The specific criteria which should have been used in order to 

identify those students who would, of necessity, have attended 

school outside the then existing school district in which they 

resided so that the concentration of "at risk" students in 

Hartford Public Schools would be low enough to statisfy the 

requirements of the Constitution. 

| 

 



  

  
  

  

  

  

111. 

CURRENT OR ONGOING VIOLATIONS 
  

8. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, for Hartford and each of 

the identified suburban school districts please specify the 

number and percentage of black, Hispanic and white students who | 

must, of a necessity, attend school in a location outside of the 

existing school district in which they reside in order to address 

the condition of racial and ethnic isolation which now exists in 

accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. 

-ll- 

 



  

  

  

    

9. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, for Hartford and each of 

the identified suburban school districts please specify the 

number and percentage of poor, middle and/or upper class students 

who must, of necessity, attend school outside of the existing 

school district in which they reside in order to address the 

condition of socio-economic isolation which exists in Hartford 

and the identified suburban school districts in accordance with 

the requirements of the Constitution. 
| 

Also identify the specific 

criteria which must be used to identify the pool of poor Hart ford | 

students from which those students who 

attend schools outside of the existing 

reside must be chosen so as to address 

socio-economic isolation in accordance 

the Constitution. 

17 

would be required to 

district in which they 

the condition of 

with the requirements of 

 



  

  

  

  

  

10. Using the 1987-88 data as a base, identify the number and 

percentage of "at risk" children in the Hartford Public Schools 

who must, of necessity, attend school at a location outside the 

existing Hartford School District lines in order to address the 

concentration of "at risk" children in the Hartford Public 

Schools in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. 

Also identify the specific criteria which must be used to 

identify the pool of Hartford students from which those who would 

be required to attend schools in the suburban school districts 

must be chosen so as to address the concentration of "at risk" 

children in the Hartford Public Schools. 

13 

 



  

  
  

  

  

MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION 
  

11. Please identify each and every statistic the plaintiffs’ 

will rely on at trial to support any claim they intend to make 

that the educational "inputs" (i.e. resources, staff, facilities, 

curriculum, etc.) in the Hartford Public Schools are so deficient 

that the children in Hartford are being denied a "minimally 

adequate education". For each such fact specify the source(s) 

and/or name and address of the person(s) that will be called upon 

to attest to that statistic at trial. 

 



  

  

  

12. Please identify each and every statistic, other than the 

results of the Mastery Test, which the plantiffs' will rely on at 

trial to support any claim they intend to make that children in 

Hartford are being denied a "minimally adequate education" 

because of the educational "outputs" for Hartford. For each such | 

fact specify the source(s) and/or name and address of the 

person(s) that will be called upon to attest to that statistic at 

trial. 

 



  

  

  

| 
| 
| 

  

    
  

EQUAL EDUCATION 
  

13. Please identify each and every category of educational 

"inputs" which the plaintiffs will rely on at trial in their 

effort to establish that the educational "inputs" in Hartford are 

not equal to the educational "inputs" of the suburban school 

districts. For each such category identify each and every 

statistical comparison between Hartford and any or all of the 

suburban school districts which the plaintiffs will rely on to 

show the alleged inequality. For each such comparison identify 

the source(s) and/or name and address of the person(s) that will 

be called upon to attest to the accuracy of that statistical 

comparison at trial. 

-16~= 

 



  

    
  

  

  

14. Please identify each and every category of eductional 

"outputs" other than the Mastery Test, which the plaintiffs will 

rely on at trial in their effort to establish that the 

educational "outputs" in Hartford are not equal to the 

educational "outputs" of the suburban school districts. For each 

such category identify each and every statistical comparison 

between Hartford and any one or all of the suburban school 

districts which the plaintiffs will rely on to show the alleged 

inequality. For each such comparison identify the source(s) 

and/or name and address of the person(s) that will be called upon 

to attest to the accuracy of that statistical comparison at 

trial. 

“17 

 



  

  

      

| 
| 

| 
| 

  
  

  

  

V1. 

OTHER 

15. Please identify each and every study, other document, or 

information or person the plaintiffs will rely upon or call upon 

at trial to support the claim that better integration will 

improve the performance of urban black, Hispanic and/or 

socio-economically disadvantaged children on standardized tests 

such as the Mastery Test. 

16. Please identify each and every study, other document, or 

information or person the plaintiffs will rely upon or call upon 

at trial to support the claim that better integration will 

improve the performance of urban black, Hispanic and/or 

socio-economically disadvantaged children on any basis other than 

standarized tests. 

«1B 

 



17. Please describe the precise mathmetical formula used by the   plaintiffs to compute the ratios set forth in paragraph 42 of the] 

complaint. 

  

   



  
    

  

EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

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. 

 



  

  

  

  

  

Vill. 

DATA COMPILATIONS 
  

19. In the event the plaintiffs intend to offer into evidence at 

trial any data compilations or analyses which have been produced 

by the plaintiffs or on the plaintiffs' behalf by any mechanical 

or electronic means please describe the nature and results of 

each such compilation and/or analysis and provide the following 

additional information. 

a) The specific kind of hardware used to produce each 

compilation and/or analysis; 

b) The specific software package or programming language 

which was used to produce each compilation and/or analysis; 

C) A complete list of all specific data elements used to 

produce each compilation and/or analysis; 

d) The specific methods of analyses and/or questions used 

to create the data base for each compilation and/or analysis; 

wD lw 

 



  

  

  

  

  

e) A complete list of the specific questions, tests, 

measures, or other means of analysis applied to the data base to 

produce each compilation and/or analysis; 

f) Any and all other information the defendants would need 

to duplicate the compilation or analysis; 

g) The name, address, educational background and role of 

each and every person who participated in the development of 

the data base and/or program used to analyze the data for 

each compilation and/or analysis; and 

h) The name and address of each and every person expected 

to testify at trial who examined the results of the compilation 

or analysis and who reached any conclusions in whole or in part 

from those results regarding the defendants' compliance with the 

law and, for each such person, provide a complete list of the 

conclusions that person reached. 

- 

 



  

  

    

  
1X. 

MISCELLANEOUS 
  

20. For each of the above listed interrogatories please provide 

the name and address of each person who assisted in the 

preparation of the answer to that interrogatory and describe the 

nature of the assistance which that person provided. 

The plaintiffs are hereby put on notice that the defendants 

will insist on compliance with P.B. §232 in regard to the 

foregoing interrogatories and will assert the plaintiffs' failure 

to comply with that section as grounds for excluding from 

evidence any facts or information requested by these 

interrogatories but not disclosed in a timely fashion. 

 



  

  

  

  

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

CLARINE NARDI RIDDLE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL / 

LM 
  

in, 

Joh R. Whelan 
Ksgistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 

rtford, Connecticut 06105 
Telephone: 566-3696 

  

Susan T. Pearlman 
Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Telephone: 566-3696 

  

: / : : : om VW hd er [O10 
Didne W. Whitney “ // 
Assistant Attorney @General 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Telephone: 566-3696 

 



CERTIFICATION 
  

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed,   
postage prepaid on July 13, 1990 to the followiing 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 Teggler 
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 

Julius L. Chambers 
John Charles Boger 
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 

(WLS Hed 
  

Johny R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General