Little Rock Schools After Integration, 1970s - 10 of 16

Photograph
January 1, 1970 - January 1, 1980

Cite this item

Little Rock Schools After Integration, 1970s - 10 of 16 preview

Little Rock Schools After Integration, 1970s - 10 of 16

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

Text on back: "Greg Lewis, Parkview H.S. Editor of student newspaper, CONSTITUTION.. Little Rock, Ark."

Collection
- Photograph Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- b957a9e9-bb54-ef11-a317-6045bdd88b0e

Cite this item

Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Correspondence from Whelan to Tegeler Re: Deposition Schedule, 1992. c5e98cfc-a146-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/fcc8c34b-b16e-4f1a-95e9-4d8e4baeed55/correspondence-from-whelan-to-tegeler-re-deposition-schedule. Accessed August 19, 2025.

Copied!

    >. 

3 

   : en MacKenzie Hall 
RICITARDY Bi UMENTIIAL 

110 Sh RS ly TTOR EY GENERA SIernan eel 

SRN UREA Hartford. CT 06105 

FAX (203) 5323-35336 

Office of The Attorney General A Pel: 566-7173 
State of Connecticut 

July 2.,°1992 

Philip D. Tegeler, Esq. 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06106 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill 

Dear Phil: 

Thank you. for your letter of June 26, 1992. The deposition 
schedule which you set out in that letter is consistent with my 
records. 

A couple of points need to be in regard to the schedule. 
First, July 30 has been set aside for the deposition of an as yet 
undisclosed plaintiff witness. It is highly unlikely that we 
will be able to prepare to take the deposition of an unknown 
expert witness in the short amount of time that is left between 
now and July 30. A final decision regarding whether we can 
proceed on June 30th will be made after the plaintiffs' provide 
the necessary disclosure regarding this witness. 

Second, you will recall that we have issued a notice of 

deposition and a deposition subpoena for Marvin Dawkins. To date 
you have not suggested any alternative dates for Mr. Dawkins' 
deposition. We continue to await your response in this regard. 

Finally, in regard to your reguest for further information 
regarding the state employees who we have listed as potential 
witnesses, you should know that they we expect to revise our 
disclosure as decisions are made as to who we will call and for 
what purposes. At the moment we are considering deleting 
Forgione, Conjero, and Behuniak since their testimony is likely 
to be duplicative. In regard to Williams, Brewer, Prowda, 
Rindone, Sergi, Breene and Downs our description of their 
testimony will be updated but, at the moment, it is as complete 

as it can be. As I have explained to you, these individuals are 

not what one would normally think of as expert witnesses. The 
testimony they will present will not be based on facts or 
opinions “Macguired iin anticipation of litigation or for trial”. 
They will testify regarding facts known to them by reason of 
their employment and as such they are fact witnesses rather than 

 



  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
July 1,:-1992 
Page 2 

expert witnesses. We have disclosed their names pursuant to the 
outstanding order only because that order requires us to go 
beyond disclosing our experts. We do not expect these 
individuals to offer their personal opinions during their 
testimony, but simply convey to the court the information they 
have which we think is relevant to the issues before the court. 

For these reasons you need to understand that our disclosure 
in regard to these individuals will be different than our 
disclosure in regard to our expert witnesses. The descriptions 
which we have provided you to date identify the specific areas 
within the personal knowledge of these individuals which we may 
cover during their testimony. These disclosures should help you 
focus your deposition, but the disclosures do not limit the scope 
of your deposition nor do they limit the extent to which we may 
ask these people to convey their personal knowledge to the court 
at trial, 

We will, of course, update the description of the 
testimony of these individuals as we discover new areas we wish 
to cover with them and as we make final decisions as to who is 
the best person in DOE or DOH to convey certain information to 
the court. You can be sure that our decision making process in 
this regard will continue up to and even through the date that 
trial begins. 

Very truly yours, 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL / 
ATTORNEY ZEJERNL 7 7 7 

74 /4 

; HA 
~~ { (LA 

    

      

   
/ 

Fi 

4 John R% Whelan 

A N
 

»
 

Asgistant Attorney General 
/ i 

JRW: sad / 

CC: All Counsel of Record / 

 



State of Connecticut 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

MacKENZIE HALL 

110 SHERMAN STREET 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers Esq 
Marianne Lado Esq 
Ronald Ellis Esg 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund & Ed. Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York NY 10013 

miinimmiminmaimarunnnnm

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.

Little Rock Schools After Integration, 1970s - 10 of 16

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in