Memos with Deposition Schedules, Proposed Agenda, Draft Stipulation Re: Procedure and Order Governing Expert Depositions

    ZEAE" 30H ® » RE, DR LH 

™ he | D AT | © N 

Grand Serest Hin CT 06104 

103/247-9821 fax 203/728-3287 

wl 5 

    
§ 22-97 

DATE 
  

a
 SyeFF PLAN rIFE S| [aw Sots 

  

FROM: _ Phi TEGE Le% 

RE Pifos, T7040 SCHELL E 
  

  

  
  EET 

TOTAL # OF PAGES 4 
i s“r 

ATIAcHEL 13 List OF PUP rSEL 

Pi/ostTTo~  PAYES [ HAVE 

Sgr vz WHE [OA 

VARI OVD 4 ALL LINES 
[L.A] 

A wi 
THe pfEPmAL. ORES 

ee pn? TEs Pes. SA IA 242 

Ay VESPA” 

  

The information ¢o tion is legally privileged 
and/or confidentia tended only for use of the 

individual or enti eader of this communication 

is not the intende or employsze responsible 
to deliver it to the i ou are hersby notified that 
any dissemination, ction of this communication 

is strictly prohibited 

The Cornecricut Civif Libernes Union Foundation n— 
Sin EO   

TIVE ¥F OT ll GR SD = 1 

 



  

  

  

   dnesdhay 

  

FETTER TE    Frada 

  

  

    

  

A 

W * 

3 Limit 4 vm 5 ial £ (Tt F - iy 8 lc FA TR. y 
= ? - 2 Ly 

= fhdh 30 1 a HE : in Fl : fl 4£ & 18 sarees ay 11 12 13 ; 14 ji 3] 16 arse TR 
be cud PR Gi 

Fa - 

8 + 

ww 

-- 

5 = 1 § gy TE i ais ER 

17 18 vinerta fioy iad ig 24 21 22 pl BE fits 
' 4 

ZB | 25 rt Do cen - a ie ~s a 

  

  
Monday 

  

1 

  16 

uesday 

  
RITE RES 

  

  28 

BEFITTING 

Imam 

  29   
  

  
    

  

              
  

        
  

    

HA = m= ST 

7 8 tii He 5 gate AL 5g 

| 

! 
| 

| § 
Fy HEE Sa BEE i ! vemm ified oes 

14 fim om; 15 19 20 

SERGI | 

: . ; 
FE bid # Lia I Lian | 

ZT renin 22 26 | 27 Git 
| 

: | 
BE | 

fad 
| 

f 

: : | ati, 

28 29 ki! 

lien am FEE 
Hine j9% 

mm : APR 2 
Coa = Hv ETF T = BE Sr = 

  

  



   

  

   
FEE” 

  

JoH4 

  

  

      

Friday | 

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

1 

10 ~ | 11 ry 

12 addy 13 rH 14 py . — r pa — pn £ 

Ciara | Ld 18 " 
he spovie sy 

BREWER \: oie) | ARMOA { = = i = = 

C3, 
\wer Fraltos/ 

1% gi Im SB yu —-lla ew 133 -- 

Wit CRAIV E i WitL/t, 4 

26 [TY Im lm igi role Gi Je 

TRENT       
  

  

  

  

      
       

    

  

    

  

    
          

        
  

1watlay ; hursilay treiday | == 

1 nag 

cern 
{ £L. 1 x7 A . 

\ AY 

Bi ¥ Shei Pr : . 

== igi 2 Li ita BJ yo 3} aii Saree pli ri i } 

Ey 

pid c¥ 

9 EES | aig Br | ftely I 13 gad 1 1 is j bil 2 E == Je) I 

{opr pr% I 

\, greets’ o: 
en 

16 EE 17 fmm i8 Eels Ry ig b= 15 : mas a Baan 16 19 20 21 22 £2) 

STEAL! WALSH 

pr 5 borin) 5s id Ll oh i 3 — ; : Fr 1 5 ‘20 Min = ; / 26 27 ™ | 28 mel 20 a 

FO ie MY ET 01 =e EE ‘gD 

 



    
     

    

BA" 398d 

tonday | ahs olay 
4 { From. Leh 

= gi Ww 

24 15 TES (rs 

September 1992 DOWN. 
  

  

= pr 4; g 

3 b <, by d a
 

  
  

8 =En aka aaa 

  

  

13 =114 15 ls all 4 18 
LE 

i oF id g Snr Eis) 
Win: ipa : 
Ai ge DEAL LIVE; / 

. : : : re a a = Ba J 
20 21 22 43 

li
 

hy
 

    
24 25 | 26       

# dra rp. fim — Baim} 

27 sah riastren 28 eon ashen fin
d sh Hashanah 9 30 

N. corvne V2 
(Goren sring) — FREI NL MEE 2 EVILS] 

DERN Lm 

: \ vetovmEy — SXIBY LIT] 
ra i : 

        
  

     

  

thursday 

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  
    

— i) 
106) 
i774 | 

— | 

4 sigh 5 vig 6 vam mp | I Ten Caan cay | a . a ri 10 il 

hw ol wmk wa 

{ 

£ 

11 - 12 coun 13 -—114 cial BY 1 m1 lr isl 
Tiankmghvieg Duy Kail 

18 bait 8, © ion ia _——n in "A Moria ™ 

| fi! 

25 1 26 {az idl J pig = | 30 ig 18 | PCR a 
| i 

: a — }               
  = — a 8 rem rm 5 ps matt 

po Fey 2 LT = BE ee oT Co  



 
 

 
 

i CQ fot 
hy 

it] 

o
w
 

Q
o
 od 

3
 

SE 
LL] 

Li 
8 

4 
 
 

 
 

| it i





FFOUNDAT ION 
ThirtyTwo Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 Fax 203/728-0287 

May 15, 18892 

Mr. Jonn Whelan 

Assistant Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 

110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

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

Dear John, 

Pursuant to the Court’s pretrial order, please be advised 
that plaintiffs have no additional expert withesses to 
disclose at this time. 

Sincerely, 

wy ec 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

PDT/ymc 

CC: All Counsel of Record 

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 
SE 5  



  

MOLLER, HORTON & RICE, P. C. 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OO GILIETT STREET 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105 

WILLIAM R. MOLLER * TELEPHONE 
WESLEY W. HORTON (203) 522-8338 
CHARLES M. RICE, JR. May 15, 1992 TELECOPIER 
ALEXANDRA DAVIS (203) 728-0401 
ROBERT M. SHIELDS, JR. 

SUSAN M. CORMIER 

KIMBERLY A. KNOX 

KAREN L. MURDOCH 

"ALSO ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Re: Sheff v. O'Neill 

I have spoken to Judge Hammer this morning and confirmed that 
the next status conference will be held at the Hartford Superior 
Court on Tuesday, May 19 at 9:00 a.m. I will plan to attend along 
with whoever else wishes to do so. 

Very truly yours, 

Wesley W. Horton 

WWH:3jt 

 



    

FOUNDATION 
ThirtyTwo Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 Fax 203/728-0287 

May 14, 1992 

TRANSMITTED BY FAX 

Mr. John Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street } 
Hartford, CT 06105 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill; expert depositions 
  

Dear John, 

Attached for your review is a draft stipulation and a revised 
order governing depositions of expert witnesses, based on our 
recent agreement. Please review and call me before Tuesday if you 
have any questions or revisions. I will plan on bringing an 
original for signing to the status conference scheduled for Tuesday 
at 9:00. 

In regard to deposition scheduling, as we discussed, let’s 
plan on keeping our Tuesdays and Thursdays free from June 16 to 
July 30, and during the last two weeks in August. I understand 
that you will be away during the first week in August. I have not 
been able to confirm everyone's schedule yet, but I would suggest 
the following initial schedule of depositions: 

June 16 Elliott Williams 
June 18 Ted Sergi 
June 23 John Allison 
July «7 Christoper Collier 
July 14 Christine Rossell 

We will try to bring additional proposed dates on Tuesday. If 
you could give us some advance warning of various experts’ vacation 
schedules, that would be appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Wier 7e22C 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

cc: All Counsel 

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

aa 5 

 



® » 

DRAFT 

  

Cv838-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

v. ; JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

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

Defendants : MAY 14, 1992 

  

STIPULATION REGARDING PROCEDURE FOR TAKING OF EXPERT DEPOSITIONS 
  

The parties agree that the attached Order governing 

depositions of expert witnesses may be entered by the Court, 

pursuant to Practice Book §220(c). 

Respectfully Submitted, 

    

John Whelan Philip D. Tegeler 
Assistant Attorney General Martha Stone 
MacKenzie Hall Connecticut Civil Liberties 
110 Sherman Street Union Foundation 
Hartford, CT 06105 32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 
Attorney for Defendants 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 



  

DRAFT CV89-0360977S be BS £0 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 00

 
00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants : MAY 15, 1992 

  

ORDER GOVERNING DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

In accordance with the Stipulation of the parties dated May __ , 

1992, the Court now enters the following orders pursuant to Practice 

Book §220(C), in order to insure the expeditious conduct of the 

depositions of expert witnesses. 

3 No formal process beyond the issuance of a notice of 

deposition shall be necessary in order to oblige the party identifying 

an expert witness to produce that expert witness for deposition. If 

either party feels that it is necessary to issue a subpoena duces 

tecum in conjunction with a notice of deposition, counsel for the 

party identifying the expert will accept service of that subpoena on 

behalf of the expert witness. 

2. With regard to expert witnesses who reside in states other 

than Connecticut, the party who intends to call that witness at trial 

will determine whether the deposition will be taken in Connecticut or 

in the witness’s home state. Any costs incurred by the witness for 

travel, lodging, meals or other similar expenses incident to the 

 



  

. 4 + 

- 2 im 

DRAFT 

appearance at the deposition shall be the exclusive responsibility of 

the party who intends to call that witness at trial. 

3. The party taking the deposition of an expert under this Order 

shall pay the expert at the hourly rates set out below for all time 

spent in the deposition and for a reascnable amount of preparation 

time, not to exceed 3 hours of preparation: 

Defendants’ Experts 
  

a. Christine Rossell, Ph.D. -- $150 per hour; 

b. David Armor, Ph.D. -- $150 per hour; 

c. G. Donald Ferree -- $90 per hour; 

d. Pasquale Forgione, Ph.D. -- $150 per hour; 

e. Lloyd Calvert -- $110 per hour; 

f. Thomas E. Steahr, Ph.D. -- $110 per hour; 

Plaintiffs’ Experts 
  

a. Dr. Jomills Henry Braddock, II -- $150 per hour; 

b. Dr. Christopher Collier -- $110 per hour; 

c. Dr. Robert L. Crain -- $150 per hour; 

d. Dr. Marvin F. Dawkins-- $130 per hour; 

e. Dr. Mary Kennedy -- $150 per hour; 

f. Dr. William Trent -- $130 per hour; 

g. Dr. Charles V. Willie-- $150 per hour; 

h. Dr. Catherine E. Walsh -- $130 per hour; 

i. Yale Rabin -- $130 per hour; 

j. Ruth Price -- $110 per hour; 

 



  

Di AFT LN = i 

k. John Allison -- $110 per hour; 

l. Hernan LaFontaine -- $110 per hour. 

4. If additional experts are identified in the future, the 

parties shall confer and arrive at comparable rates of payment for 

each such expert. Any dispute resolving deposition rates for future 

experts shall be resolved by the Court. 

5. Reimbursement for the fees and costs associated with the 

attendance of expert witnesses at depositions shall be paid within 

sixty days of submission of an invoice for each expert. 

6. The party listing any person as an expert witness shall 

reimburse the party taking such deposition for any such payments if 

the expert deposed is subsequently not called as a witness at trial. 

7. The defendants may not seek reimbursement from the plaintiffs 

for the time spent in preparation for or at a deposition by any 

individual who is an employee or under contract with the State 

Department of Education at the time of their deposition regardless of 

whether the defendants have designated that person as an expert 

witness or not. 

SO ORDERED: 

  

Honorable Harry Hammer 
Superior Court 

Dated this day of May, 1992. 

 



    

PO UNDAT LON 
ThirtyTwo Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 Fax 203/728-0287 

May 15, 1992 

TRANSMITTED BY FAX 

Mr. John Whelan 

Assistant Attorney General 

MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

RE: Sheff v. O’Neill; Stipulation regarding scope of trial 
  

Dear John, 

I am writing in response to your suggestion of a possible 
stipulation limiting the scope of issues at trial and reserving the 
question of the state’s contribution to underlying patterns of 
segregation in the region. I believe the attached draft covers all 
the concerns we discussed on the phone. As we discussed, such a 
stipulation would save the parties a significant amount of time and 
expense, and would permit the parties to address the question of 
the state’s contribution to residential segregation on remand, in 
the event that the state Supreme Court rules that such proof is 
necessary. Please note that we have inserted a provision, which 

I think gives flexibility to both sides in possible future 
discussions of remedy, that the stipulation is not intended to 
preclude aspects of a desegregation remedy that involve housing 
integration. 

We look forward to hearing from you. 

Sincerely, 

/ 7 yi 2 

774% 1 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

    

all counsel O O 

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

wa 5 

 



  

DRAFT STIPULATION 

For the purposes of trial in this action, the plaintiffs will 
make no claim that the state caused or contributed in a 
significant way to any pattern of residential racial or 
economic segregation in the Hartford metropolitan area, and 
defendants will make no claim that the state did not cause or 
contribute to such residential segregation. In the event that 
the Connecticut Supreme Court (or the Connecticut Appellate 
Court) determines that liability in this action turns upon the 
degree to which the state contributed to such patterns of 
residential segregation, the parties agree that this issue 
will be treated as a disputed and unresolved issue of fact 
upon which the court may issue a remand. All other claims may 
be raised at trial, including but not limited to plaintiffs’ 
claims regarding the state’s actions and involvement in the 
area of education, and the state’s alleged failure to act to 
remedy segregated educational conditions. The foregoing 
stipulation is not intended to preclude such housing-related 
remedies as may be appropriate in this case. The foregoing 
stipulation is also without prejudice to bringing any claim 
regarding housing segregation in another action. 

 



-—r 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1 
1 

Ig 

fps 
[is | 

~~ 
wr 

: 
v 

prot 

— 
E
E
 
a
 

P
a
a
r
 
Y
N
 

I
 

—
 

  
    

  
  

  

       

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

  

  

i 
i 

mh 

J 
i 

I 
i 

X 
io 

i 
| 

[1] 

J 
i 

: 
i 

4
 

[
4
]
 

h 
w
l
}
 

ry, 
A 

2 
k 
—
 

=
 

—
 

Ip 
a
 

*Y 
on 

od 

[| 
—
—
 

] 
4 

F
a
 

ee 
E
R
E
 

L
e
U
 
S
R
E
 
I
 

I» 
p 

Re 
bo 

pr. 
: 

5 
| 

3 
' 

Win 
¥ 

B
N
 

| 
- 

¥ 
hn 

oy, 

i 
Wilh 

% 
a
 
A
 

S
O
 

P
E
R
 

+
1
 

f
o
.
 

Thy Ll 
iy 

3 

[ 
anal 

- 
B- 

hy 
3 

a; 
o—        

U
p
 

A
O
R
:
 

hin, 

w
u
 
3
 3 
3 

: 
Wt 

3 

,
 
i
 

fh 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
  

  
  

    
  

  
 
 

  
  

  

  

  

  
 
 

 
 

  
  

  
  

 
 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

  

    
  

  

 
 

    
  

  
  

  

 
     

  

 § 
In 

—
 

; 
¥ 

| 

i 
} 

| 
| 

} 
3 

u 
] 

| 
; 

| 
i 

= 
I~ 

: 
J 

! 

E
p
 

- 
ip 

ee 
} 

E
E
 

EE 
i 
A
E
 

eA: 
—
 

A
p
a
 

aR 
iS 

I
E
 

S
E
E
 
L
E
E
 

T
 

EL 
| 

o 
¢ 

| 
all 

1 

: 
ad 

- 
i 

‘ 
1 

i 
gy, 

oY 
[| 

1 

=
 

h
f
 

Ahk 

a 
w
i
 

3
 

>
,
 

= 
; 

ba 

i 
L 

f 
| 

l
y
 

! 

ay, 

pasion 
: 

] 
i
.
.
.
 

5
 

“ 
i 

& 
| 

= 
» 

o 
a 

> 
— 

REPRE 
RHE 

E
t
 

=
 

I 
-
 

i
n
 

! 
i 

u
t
d
 

i 
! 

|
 

: 
| 

| 
a
 

1 
1 

: 
i 

Hi 

=
 

] 
0 

be 
| 

| 
Eo 

£. 
= 

po 
| 

i 
J 

h 
; 

J 

| 
: 

IS i 

0, 
1 

A 
-