Memo from Tegeler to Counsel Re: Scheduling Order/Disclosure of Witnesses with Draft Joint Motion

    . 3 4 
. a 

[] 

connecticut civil 4 14 

liberties union foundation 
32 grand street 

hartford, connecticut 06106 

telephone: 247-9823 

  

  

T0: Sheff Counsel 

FROM: Philip Tegeler 

RE: Scheduling Order/Disclosure of Witnesses 

DATE: October 31, 1990 

John Whelan agreed to try and work out a Joint Motion for 

Scheduling Order regarding disclosure of experts. In the 

meantime, we have filed a general motion for extension of time to 

disclose experts, pending a scheduling conference to be held 

after November 9th. 

Attached is a draft of the Joint Motion based on my 

conversation with Whelan. Please direct comments (if any) to me 

by Monday morning so we can get this to Whelan for his review. 

We should plan to discuss timing of other discovery and the 

trial at our November 9th meeting. 

 



° ® DRAFT 
Cvg89-0360977S 

  

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

Vv. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants OCTOBER 30, 1990 

o
H
 

LL
] 

[1
] 

A
a
 

A 
tL 

1]
 

e
e
 

o
e
 

e
e
 

Ll
] 

4
 

»
e
 

  

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DISCLOSE 

EXPERT WITNESSES PURSUANT TO PRACTICE BOOK 

SECTION 220(D) AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

  

  

  

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, 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. 

 



  

Cc. 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. 

d. [Provision permitting plaintiffs to call rebuttal 

witnesses. ] 

e. Plaintiffs shall be subsequently permitted to identify 

rebuttal witnesses responsive to any new area of expert testimony 

identified in defendants’ final disclosure of expert witnesses. 

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. 

y On September 24, 1990, 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 Interrogatories, 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. 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. 

6 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 which these 

experts will testify. 

7 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. 

8. 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. 

 



  

im 

9. The trial in this matter was tentatively scheduled for 

March, 1991. The parties seek to postpone the trial date to 

permit a full development of this important case and are herein 

requesting a scheduling conference with the court to discuss such 

postponement. 

WHEREFORE, the parties request an extension of time as set 

out above to disclose their experts pursuant to Practice Book 

Section 220(D). 

The parties further request a scheduling conference to 

discuss postponement of the trial date and certain discovery 

matters. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton Wilfred Rodriguez 

Moller, Horton, & Fineberg Hispanic Advocacy Project 

90 Gillett Street Neighborhood Legal Services 

Hartford, CT 06105 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

 



Julius L. Chambers (Pro Hac Vice) 

Marianne Lado 

Ron Ellis 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, 

99 Hudson Street 

Hartford, CT 10013 

Inc. 

Helen Hershkoff (Pro Hac Vice) 

John A. Powell (Pro Hac Vice) 

Adam Cohen 

American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

  

John R. Whelan 

Assistant Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

John Brittain 

University of Connecticut 
School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Jenny Rivera (Pro Hac Vice) 

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 

mailed postage prepaid to all counsel of record this 

October, 1990. 

day of 

  

Philip D. Tegeler  



      

cvg9-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

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

Defendants OCTOBER 31, 1990 

20
 

00
 

08
 

06
 

se
 

Se
 

88
 

0
 

ee
 

08
 

00
 

oo
 

  

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

INTERROGATORIES REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT 

WITNESSES AND JOINT REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

  

  

  

Pursuant to Practice Book Sections 228 and 220(D), the 

parties stipulate and request that plaintiffs’ time for 

disclosing expert witnesses pursuant to Practice Book Section 

220(D) and pursuant to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories 

(interrogatory numbers 18 and 19) be extended until such time as 

this Court has had the opportunity to enter a scheduling order 

governing the timing of such disclosure and other discovery 

matters. 

The parties in this case shall submit proposed motions or a 

joint motion for scheduling order within the next fourteen days, 

regarding disclosure of expert witnesses by both sides. 

  
  

  
 



      

The parties further request a scheduling conference after 

November 9, 1990 to determine a schedule for disclosure of 

experts, further discovery and commencement of trial. 

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 

WL Sas 
  

Philip D. Tegeler 
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 

Ron Ellis 
Marianne Lado 

NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

john a. powell 
Helen Hershkoff 
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 

  

   



      

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

BVA 
R. Whelan 

sgistant Attorney General 
1#cKenzie Hall 

10 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

  

1990 Rolo Qlorlior 3, 19 

The motion is granted. 

By the Court, 

, tx rp lt 
  y aun 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

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

mailed postage prepaid to all counsel of record this 37" day of 

October, 1990. 

WO Zeer 
      

Philip D. Tegeler 

        

 



  

CV89-030977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

VV. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

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

Defendants OCTOBER 30, 1990 

  

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS 
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

  

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. 

  

RESPONSE: As set out in the Complaint in this action, Defendants’ 
creation, maintenance, approval, funding and supervision of a 
segregated, unequal, and inadequate educational system in the city 
of Hartford and surrounding communities is an affirmative act 
violative of the State Constitution. 

  

In addition, plaintiffs may present evidence at trial of 
specific actions by defendants that have contributed to this 
unconstitutional system of public education. Plaintiffs do not 
claim that proof of each such action is necessary to establish 
liability in this case, nor do plaintiffs necessarily claim that 
any individual act, taken alone, constituted a violation of the 
state constitution. Instead, plaintiffs will show that these 
actions demonstrate the defendants' active participation in the 
development and maintenance of a segregated, unequal, and 

 



  

2 

inadequate educational system. Such specific actions may include, 
but are not limited to the following: 

a. Past and present implementation of C.G.S. sec.10- 
240, requiring and designating that school district 
boundaries be coterminous with municipal boundaries; 

Xy. Past and present implementation of C.G.S. sec.l1l0- 
184, requiring school-age children to attend public 
school within the school district wherein the child 
resides; 

c. Implementation of C.G.S. sec.10-39, from 1969 through 
1985, prohibiting the creation of regional school 
districts that would have exceeded maximum enrollment 
standards; 

d. Past and present implementation of C.G.S. sec.10- 
281, and implementation of sec.10-280A, in 1978 and 
thereafter, authorizing and/or requiring payment of 
transportation costs by local districts for students 
attending private schools, as well as any and all 
reimbursements of said costs by the state pursuant to 
C.G.S. sec.l10-266n; 

e. Implementation of C.G.S. sec.10-226a et seq, in 1969, 
and thereafter, requiring "racial balance" among 
individual schools within the city of Hartford; 

f. The State Board of Education's delay, from 1969 until 
1981, in the adoption of regulations to implement the 
state racial imbalance law required by C.G.S. sec.226e; 

g. Implementation of the racial imbalance regulations, 
in 1981 and thereafter; 

h. Approval and funding, from 1954 to the present, by 
the State Department of Education and the State Board of 
Education, of new school construction and school 
additions or renovations in Hartford and the surrounding 
communities; 

i. Approval and implementation by the Governor and 
agents of the Governor of housing policies that 
contribute to racial and economic segregation in the 
Hartford region, including but not limited to the 
concentration of low income housing programs and public 
housing for families in the city of Hartford; preferences 
for local residents in suburban housing programs; and 
restrictions on the use of low-income rental subsidies 
outside of urban areas; 

 



  

3 

o Implementation of funding mechanisms for Project 
Concern, from 1966 and thereafter, that led to the 
reduced size of the program in the Hartford region. 

k. Adoption and implementation from 1830 through 1868 
of a system of de jure school segregation. 

1. Establishment and maintenance of an unequal and 
unconstitutional system of educational financing, up to 
1986. 

At the present time, plaintiffs are continuing to investigate 
actions taken by defendants that have contributed to the 
constitutional violations set out in the Complaint. At this time, 
plaintiffs have not completed research as to what information 
defendants had or should have had at particular times which would 
have apprised defendants of the consequences of particular actions. 
Further details in response to this interrogatory will be provided 
in a timely fashion, in advance of trial. 

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 
conditions 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 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. 

  

[Please see response to Interrogatory 1. In addition, as 
stated in the response to Interrogatory 1, plaintiffs are 
continuing to investigate actions taken by defendants that have 
contributed to the constitutional violations set out in the 
Complaint. At this time, plaintiffs have not completed research 
as to what information defendants had or should have had at 
particular times which would have apprised defendants of the 
consequences of particular actions. Further details in response 
to this interrogatory will be provided in a timely fashion, in 
advance of trial.] 

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 

  

  

'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. 

 



4 

condition of socio-economic 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 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 the act. 

[Please see response to Interrogatory 1. In addition, as 
stated in the response to Interrogatory 1, plaintiffs are 
continuing to investigate actions taken by defendants that have 
contributed to the constitutional violations set out in the 
Complaint. At this time, plaintiffs have not completed research 
as to what information defendants had or should have had at 
particular times which would have apprised defendants of the 
consequences of particular actions. Further details in response 
to this interrogatory will be provided in a timely fashion, in 
advance of trial.] 

4. 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 cause 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 that 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. 

  

[Please see response to Interrogatory 1. In addition, as 
stated in the response to Interrogatory 1, plaintiffs are 
continuing to investigate actions taken by defendants that have 
contributed to the constitutional violations set out in the 
Complaint. At this time, plaintiffs have not completed research 
as to what information defendants had or should have had at 
particular times which would have apprised defendants of the 
consequences of particular actions. Further details in response 
to this interrogatory will be provided in a timely fashion, in 
advance of trial.] 

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: 

RESPONSE: As set out in the Complaint, defendants' failure to act 
in the face of defendants' awareness of the educational necessity 
for racial, ethnic, and economic integration in the public schools, 
defendants' recognition of the lasting harm inflicted on poor and 
minority students concentrated in urban school districts, and 
defendants' knowledge of the array of legal tools available to 
defendants to remedy the problem, is violative of the State 
Constitution. Plaintiffs challenge defendants' failure to provide 
plaintiffs with the equal educational opportunities to which the 
defendants were obligated to ensure. 

  

Since at least 1965, when the United States Civil Rights 
Commission reported to Connecticut's Commissioner of Education, 
defendants have had knowledge of the increasing racial, ethnic, 
and economic segregation in the Hartford metropolitan area and the 
power and authority to remedy this school segregation. Not only 
did defendants fail to take comprehensive or effective steps to 
ameliorate the increasing segregation in and among the region's 
schools, but defendants also failed to provide equal access to 
educational resources to students in the schools in the Hartford 
metropolitan area. Such resources include, but are not limited to, 
number and qualification of staff; facilities; materials, books, 
and supplies; and curriculum offerings. 

Specifically, plaintiffs may present evidence at trial of the 
many reports and recommendations presented to Defendants which 
documented the widespread existence of racial, ethnic, and economic 
segregation and isolation among the school districts and which 
proposed or endorsed remedial efforts to eliminate such 
segregation. Plaintiffs will not necessarily claim that if 
implemented, the specific programs and policies offered in such 
reports and recommendations would have been sufficient to address 
the constitutional violation. Neither will plaintiffs necessarily 
claim that any one particular recommendations was required by the 
State Constitution. These reports and recommendations may include 
but are not limited to the following: 

a. United States Civil Rights Commission, Report to 
Connecticut's Commissioner of Education (1965); 

b. Center for Field Studies, Harvard Graduate School of 
Education, Schools for Hartford (Cambridge, Mass.: 
Harvard University, 1965); 
  

c. "Equality and Quality in the Public Schools," Report 
of a Conference Sponsored Jointly by the Connecticut 
Commission on Civil Rights and the Connecticut State 
Board of Education," (1966). 

d. Request by the Connecticut Civil Rights Commission 

 



  

6 

to the Governor (request that the Governor take a stand 
against de facto segregation and publish a statement on 
the drawbacks of de facto segregation in the schools) 
(1966) . 

e. Committee of Greater Hartford School Superintendents, 
Proposal to Establish a Metropolitan Effort Toward 
Regional Opportunity (METRO) (1966) ; 

£. Legislative Commission on Human Rights and 
Opportunities, Plan for the Creation and Funding of 
Educational Parks (Hartford, December, 1968); 

g. Task Force, Regional Advisory Committee for the 
Capitol Region, "The Suburbs and the Poverty Problems of 
Greater Hartford," (Hartford, September 30, 1968); 

h. Irving L. Allen and J. David Colfax, Urban Problems 
and Public Opinion in Four Cities (Urban Research Report 
No. 14, Community Structure Series No. 3; Storrs, Conn.: 
University of Connecticut, 1968); 

  

  

i. Walter R. Boland, et al., De Facto School Segregation 
and The Student: A Study of the Schools in Connecticut's 
Five Major Cities (Urban Research Report No. 15, 
Community Structure Series No. 4; Storrs, Conn. :. 

University of Connecticut, 1968); 

  

  

  

x. Educational Resources and Development Center, The 
School of Education and Continuing Education Service, 
University of Connecticut, A Study of Urban School Needs 
in the Five Largest Cities of Connecticut (Storrs, Conn.: 
University of Connecticut, 1969); 

  

  

l. Edward A. Lehan, Executive Secretary to the Hartford 
City Manager, Report on Racial Composition of Hartford 
Schools to the State Board of Education (Hartford, 1969); 

m. Joint Committee of the Hartford Board of Education 
and the Human Relations Commission, Hartford, Report, 
(July, 1969); 

n. City of Hartford, "Community Development Action Plan: 
Education 1971-1975," (Sept. 1, 1970); 

o. Hartford Board of Education, "Recommended Revision 
in School Building Program," (May 18, 1970); 

p. Local Government: Schools and Property, "The Report 
of the Governor's Commission on Tax Reforms, Submitted 
to Governor Thomas J. Meskill Pursuant to Executive Order 
13 of 1972," (Hartford, Connecticut, December 18, 1972): 

 



  

0 Commission to Study School Finance and Equal 
Educational Opportunity, Financing Connecticut Schools: 
Final Report of the Commission (Hartford, Conn., January, 
  

  

1975) ; 

r. "State Board of Education Policy Statement on Equal 
Educational Opportunity," Connecticut State Board of 
Education, (Hartford, October 27, 1986); 

s. "Report on Racial/Ethnic Equity and Desegregation in 
Connecticut's Public Schools," Connecticut State 
Department of Education (1988); and 

t. "Quality and Integrated Education: Options for 
Connecticut," Connecticut State Department of Education 
(1989). 

In addition, plaintiffs' evidence at trial may include but 
will not be limited to defendants' failure to eliminate 
exclusionary zoning and housing policies; defendants' failure to 
promote integrated housing in the Hartford region; and defendants’ 
failure to establish a constitutional system of educational 
financing up to and including 1986. At this time, plaintiffs are 
still investigating the variety of proposals offered over time to 
address the problems of segregation and isolation and the possible 
methods of accomplishing those objectives. 

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; 

[Please see response to Interrogatory 5. Plaintiffs have not 
determined and are, at least at this time, unable to estimate the 
last possible date upon which individual actions, steps, or plans 
would necessarily have had to have been implemented in order to 
have avoided violation of the State Constitution, nor do plaintiffs 
concede the relevance of such an inquiry.] 

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

[Please see response to Interrogatory 5. As stated therein, 

plaintiffs challenge defendants' failure to provide plaintiffs with 
the equal educational opportunities to which the defendants were 
obligated to ensure. At this time, plaintiffs are still 
investigating the variety of proposals offered over time to address 

 



8 

the problems of segregation and isolation and the possible methods 
of accomplishing those objectives. Plaintiffs are currently unable 
to specify which methods would have cured the constitutional 
violation at particular moments in time, how long such methods 
would have taken to implement, or the cost of implementation. 
Furthermore, plaintiffs need not specify such information in order 
to prevail on the claims of constitutional violation set forth in 
the Complaint.] 

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. 

Plaintiffs have not investigated this question and, at this 
time, do not know the specific number and percentage of African 
American, Latino, and white students who would, of necessity, have 
attended school outside of the then existing school district in 
which they resided in order to address constitutional requirements. 

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 
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  



  

9 

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. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Interrogatory 5, 5(a)-(c). 
Plaintiffs have not, at this point, alleged that one specific 
criterion or indicator must be used to identify students who 
"would, of necessity" be transferred to another school district. 
As stated in the Complaint, rates of family participation in the 
federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program is widely 
accepted as a measure closely correlated with family poverty. 
Participation in the federal school lunch program is also an index 
of poverty status. 

  

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" 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 
been carried out including (1) the specific methods of 
accomplishing the objective of the act, step or plan, (2) an 
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 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 satisfy the requirements of the 
Constitution. 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Interrogatory 5, 5(a)-(c). As 
  

set out in the Complaint in this action, all children, including 
those deemed at risk of lower educational achievement, have the 

 



  

10 

capacity to learn if given a suitable education. Yet, the Hartford 
public schools operate at a severe educational disadvantage in 
addressing the educational needs of all students, due in part to 
the sheer proportion of students who bear the burdens and 
challenges of living in poverty. The increased need for special 
programs, such as compensatory education, stretches Hartford school 
resources even further. As also stated in the Complaint, the 
demographic characteristics of the students in the Hartford public 
schools differ sharply from students in the suburban schools by a 
number of relevant measures, such as poverty status, whether a 
child has limited English proficiency, and whether a child is from 
a single-parent family. Plaintiffs have not, at this point, 
alleged that one specific criterion or indicator must be used to 
identify students who "would, of necessity" be transferred to 
another school district. 

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. 

[Please see plaintiffs' objection to Interrogatory 8, 
Plaintiffs' Objections To Interrogatories, Filed September 20, 
1990. ] 

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 Hartford 
students from which those students who would be required to attend 
schools outside of the existing district in which they reside must 
be chosen so as to address the condition of socio-economic 
isolation in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. 

[Please see plaintiffs' objection to Interrogatory 9, 
Plaintiffs' Objections To Interrogatories, Filed September 20, 
1990. ] 

 



  

il 

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. 

[Please see plaintiffs' objection to Interrogatory 10, 
Plaintiffs' Objections To Interrogatories, Filed September 20, 
1990. ] 

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. 

[Please see response to Interrogatory 13.] 

12. Please identify each and every statistic, other than the 
results of the Mastery Test, which the plaintiffs 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. 

[Please see response to Interrogatory 14.] 

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 

 



oe » 

12 

name and address of the person(s) that will be called upon to 
attest to the accuracy of that statistical comparison at trial. 

RESPONSE: As of the date of this response, plaintiffs are compiling 
data and information on disparities and inequities in "educational 
inputs" and resources among Hartford and the surrounding districts. 
This data may include, but may not be limited to comparisons in the 
following areas: 

  

a. Facilities -- data may include, but may not be 
limited to comparisons of the condition and size of 
school buildings, the condition and size of school 
grounds, overcrowding and school capacity, maintenance, 
the availability of specific instructional facilities and 
physical education facilities, and special function areas 
(e.g. types of counselling, libraries); 

b. Equipment and Supplies; 

c. Personnel -- data may include, but may not be limited 
to comparisons of student teacher ratios, teaching staff 
characteristics, and non-teacher staff number and 

characteristics; | 

a. Curriculum =-- data may include, but may not be 
limited to comparisons of course offerings, textbooks and 
course levels, and special programs; 

e. Extracurricular Opportunities; and 

f. School experience =-- data may include, but may not 
be limited to comparisons of counselling services, 
disciplinary rates, absentee rates, retention rates, 
tardy rates, and the concentration of poverty. 

At the present time, plaintiffs' investigation and analysis 
of these categories has not been completed. The data and 
information concerning disparity in "inputs" upon which plaintiffs 
rely is equally available to defendants. Nevertheless, plaintiffs 
will disclose such information in a timely manner prior to trial. 

14. Please identify each and every category of educational 
"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  



  

13 

statistical comparison at trial. 

RESPONSE: As of the date of this response, plaintiffs are compiling 
data and information on disparities and inequities in "educational 
outputs" and other measures of achievement or educational quality 
among Hartford and the surrounding districts, including but not 
limited to the following areas of comparison: dropout rates and 
percentage of students receiving a diploma; PSAT and SAT scores; 
college attendance; employment outcomes; and career and life 
outcomes. ; 

  

At the present time, plaintiffs' investigation and analysis 
of these categories has not been completed. Plaintiffs are also 
exploring other social, economic and psychological measures. 
Plaintiffs have not yet identified who will present analyses of 
such data at trial, other than those experts listed in plaintiffs’ 
response to Interrogatories 18 and 19. Plaintiffs will disclose 
such information in a timely manner prior to trial. 

FJ 

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. 

RESPONSE: As set out in the complaint, racial and economic 
isolation in the schools adversely affects both educational 
attainment and the life chances of children. At the present time, 
plaintiffs' investigation and analysis of the precise nature of 
this impact is incomplete. The studies, documents, information, 
and persons upon whom the plaintiffs will rely at trial may 
include, but are not limited to information listed in the response 
to Interrogatory 19 and the following: 

  

Crain, R.L., and Braddock, J.H., McPartland, J.M., "TA 
Long Term View of School Desegregation: Some Recent 
Studies of Graduates as Adults," 66 Phi Delta Kappan 

  

259-264 (1984); 

Crain, R.L., and Hawes, J.A., Miller, R.L., Peichert, 
J.R., "Finding Niches: Desegregated Students Sixteen 
Years Later," R-3243-NIE, Rand (January, 1985); 

Crain, R.L., and Strauss, J., "School Desegregation and 
Black Occupational Attainments: Results from a Long- 
term Experiment," Reprinted from CSOS Report No. 359 

(1985) ; 

 



  

14 

levine, D.U., Keeny, J., Rukuk, C., O'Hara Fort, B., 
Mares, K.R., Stephenson, R.S., "Concentrated Poverty and 
Reading Achievement in Seven Big Cities," 11 Urban 
Review 63 (1979). 

"Poverty, Achievement and the Distribution of 
Compensatory Education Services," National Assessment of 
Chapter “1, Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Ed. (1986); 

"Report on Negative Factors Affecting the Learning 
Process," Hartford Board of Education (1987); 

Connecticut State Department of Education (various 
reports, past and present, including but not limited to 
reports on racial, ethnic, and economic segregation, 
racial balance, school resources, and educational 
outcomes) . 

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 standardized tests. 

[Please see response to Interrogatory 15.] 

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

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs' data was derived from the Connecticut State 
Department of Education report of the 1988 Mastery Test Scores. 
Plaintiffs will provide the precise mathematical formula used to 
compute the ratios in a timely fashion. 

  

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 

 



  

15 

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. 

[Plaintiffs have requested an extension of time to disclose 
expert witnesses, by motion dated October 31, 1990.] 

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; 

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. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs may offer into evidence compilations and   

 



16 

analyses including but not limited to analyses of data on the 
educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, and economic 
segregation. . In addition, plaintiffs may offer into evidence 
compilations and analyses on other elements of plaintiffs' case, 
including the disparity in resources between Hartford and the 
suburban schools. Plaintiffs are still planning research and 
compiling and analyzing data drawn from the following sources and 
will provide more detailed information in such research when it is 
available. Such information will be provided in a timely fashion, 
in advance of trial. 

The data sets which form the basis for the analyses of the 
educational and long-term effects of racial, ethnic, and economic 
segregation include, but will not be limited to the following: 

(1) The National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Force 
Behavior -- Youth Cohort, an annual survey sponsored by 
the U.S. Departments of Labor and Defense of 12,686 young 
persons throughout the United States. Data available and 
used in this research begins in 1979 and extends through 
1987. 

(2) The National Survey of Black Americans, a national 
survey of 2,107 African Americans who are 18 years of age 
or older. The survey was designed and conducted by the 
survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research at. 
the University of Michigan. Data was collected between 
1979 and 1980. 

(3) The High School and Beyond Study, a national 
longitudinal probability sample of more than 58,000 1980 
high school sophomores and seniors. Surveys were 
conducted in 1980, 1982, 1984, and 1986. 

(4) The National Longitudinal Survey of Employers, a 
national probability sample of 4,087 employers. Surveys 
were conducted in the 1970's. 

Plaintiffs have requested an extension of time to disclose 
expert witnesses and to disclose those experts who are 
participating in the development of the analyses of these data 
bases and/or are examining the results of such analyses. 

Due to the early stage in the plaintiffs' investigation, 
plaintiffs are currently unable to specify the kind of hardware 
used to produce each analysis, the specific software package used, 
the complete list of specific data elements used; and specific 
methods of analysis. Plaintiffs will provide such information in 
a timely fashion as it becomes available to the plaintiffs, in 
advance of trial.  



  

  

17 

PLAINTIFFS, MILO SHEFF, ET AL 

MARIANNE ENGELMAN LADO PHILIP D. TEGELER 

RONALD ELLIS CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES 

NAACP Legal Defense & UNION FOUNDATION 
Educational Fund, Inc. 32 Grand Street 

99 Hudson Street Hartford, CT 06106 
New York, NY 10013 (203) 247-9823 

(212) 219-1900 Juris No. 102537 

Pro Hac Vice 

MARTHA STONE WESLEY W. HORTON 

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES MOLLER, HORTON & 

UNION FOUNDATION FINEBERG, P.C. 

32 Grand Street 90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 247-9823 (203) 522-8338 
Juris No. 61506 Juris No. 38478 

WILFRED RODRIGUEZ JOHN BRITTAIN 

HISPANIC ADVOCACY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 

Neighborhood Legal Services SCHOOL OF LAW : 
1229 Albany Avenue 65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06102 Hartford, CT 06105 
(203) 278-6850 (203) 241-4664 

Juris No. 302827 Juris No. 101153 

ADAM S. COHEN JENNY RIVERA 

HELEN HERSHKOFF PUERTO RICAN LEGAL 

JOHN A. POWELL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 99 Hudson Street 
UNION FOUNDATION New York, NY 10013 

132 West 43rd Street (212) 219-3360 

New York, NY 10036 Pro Hac Vice 
(212) 944-9800 
Pro Hac Vice 

 



18 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been 
5? 

mailed postage prepaid to all counsel of record this = day of 

October, 1990. 

  
WY 
Philip D. Tegeler 

 



  

  

      

: i RM 

Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

LL
] 

o
e
 

\&
4 

LL
] 

Plaintiffs 

Vv, 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

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

Defendants OCTOBER 31, 1990 

o
n
 

L
L
 

L 
1)
 

  

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES     

  

plaintiffs hereby give notice pursuant to Practice Book 

Section 224 that they have responded to defendants’ First Set of 

Interrogatories in the following way: 

1. plaintiffs have objected to interrogatories 8, 9, and 

10, by objection filed September 20, 1990. 

2. Plaintiffs have answered interrogatories 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 

6, 7, 31,142,313, 14,15, 16,17, and 19, 

3. Plaintiffs and defendants have made a joint motion for 

extension of time in regard to disclosure of expert witnesses 

requested in interrogatories 18 and 19. 

  

          

 



  

— 

Respectfully Submitted, 

BY: WJ TEER 
Philip D. Tegeler 

Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

  

  Wesley W. Horton Wilfred Rodriguez 

Moller, Horton, & Fineberg Hispanic Advocacy Project 

90 Gillett Street Neighborhood Legal Services 

Hartford, CT 06105 1229 Albany Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06112 | 

Julius L. Chambers John Brittain | 

Ron Ellis University of Connecticut 

Marianne Lado School of Law 

NAACP Legal Defense & 65 Elizabeth Street 

Educational Fund, Inc. Hartford, CT 06105 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

john a. powell Jenny Rivera 

Helen Hershkoff Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

Adam Cohen and Education Fund 

American Civil Liberties 99 Hudson Street 

Union Foundation New York, NY 10013 

132 West 43rd Street 

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, 

, 

Hartford, CT 06105 this 3° day of October, 1990. 

WD Ze 
  

  

Philip D. Tegeler