Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents

    Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. 

Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

AT HARTFORD 

Ve. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants MAY 7, 1990 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  

You are requested pursuant to §227 of the Connecticut 

Practice Book to produce the following documents for inspection 

and copying within thirty days of service of this Request. Said 

production shall be made at the office of plaintiffs’ counsel, 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 32 Grand Street, 

Hartford, Connecticut 06106. 

1. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 

1. If the documents requested do not exist exactly in the 

form requested, please produce those documents which do exist | 

which most closely report the information sought by this 

particular document request. 

2. If any document is withheld under a claim of privilege, ! 

identify each document for which the privilege is claimed, and 

the particular request for which such document is responsive, by 

supplying the following information: 

  
 



      

a. the date(s) the document was created and/or sent or 

received; 

b. the author(s), including their titles; 

c. the addresses, including their titles; 

d. the identity and title of each recipient of a copy 

of the document: 

e. a summary description of the subject and contents of 

the document; 

f. the nature of the privilege claimed; 

g. the basis on which the privilege is claimed; 

h. the name, title and address of each person who 

currently possesses the original and/or a copy of such document. 

3. If your response to any request is that a particular 

document is not in your possession, custody or control, describe 

in detail the effort you made to obtain and identify who has 

control of the document, as well as the location of the document. 

4, Should you claim that any particular request is beyond 

the scope of permissible discovery, please specify in detail each 

and every ground on which your claim rests. 

5. As used herein: 

a. “Document,” “documents,” or any other form of these 

words means any written, recorded, typewritten or graphic matter 

of whatever kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and 

any tangible thing which, in whole or in part, conveys 

information requested which is in the possession, custody or 

  

 



  

  

  

e
s
t
a
 

—
 
S
L
 
S
A
 

      

                

      

    
    
  

control of the defendants whether produced, reproduced, or stored 
On paper, cards, tapes, charts, film, microfilm, computer storage 
devices or any other medium or device. The term includes, but is 
not limited to: correspondence; memoranda; notes; reports; files; 
books; records; contracts; agreements; telegrams and other 
communications sent or received; charts; graphs; records of 
accounts; worksheets; workpapers; minutes, notes, summaries and 
other written records or recordings of or relating ‘to any 
conference, meeting, visit, interview or telephone conversation; 
bills, statements, invoices and other records of any obligation 
Or expenditure; affidavits, transcripts of testimony; legal 
pleadings; statements; interviews and records of conversations; 
microfilm, microfiche; and disks, films, tapes and other sources 
from which information can be obtained or by means of which 
information can be stored. In addition, “document” shall mean 
all non-identical copies of any document, whether the copy is 
non-identical because it is a “drvafe, because of alterations, 
attachments, blanks, comments, notes, underlining, or because of 
some other reason. A document with handwritten or typewritten 
notes, editing, or other marks is not and shall not be deemed 
identical to one without such notes, marks, etc.; 

b. “Surrounding Communities” means the towns of Avon, 
Bloomfield, Canton, East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, 
Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Manchester, 

  
 



  

    

        
  

    

Newington, Rocky Hill, Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, 

West Hartford, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks. 

Cc, "DOE" refers to the State Department of Education, 

the State Board of Education, the Commissioner of Education, and 

all of their staff and consultants. 

6. This Request is directed to all responsive documents in 

defendants’ possession, custody or control, or in the possession, 

custody or control of any of defendants’ officers, employees or 

supervisors, attorneys, accountants, other agents of the 

Department of Education or any affiliated governmental agency, or 

anyone acting for or on defendants’ behalf. 

7 As permitted by the context, and unless otherwise 

specified, each Request for Production relates to, covers, and 

requests information for any and all periods prior to the date of 

production. In addition, this Request for Production of 

Documents is a continuing request for supplementation of 

information up to and including the day of trial. It is 

specifically requested that any additional reports, notes, docu- 

ments, or other writings whatever, from or to any individual or 

institution whose records are hereby requested and regarding the 

matters which are the subject of this Request for Production, be 

provided in a timely manner prior to pre-trial conference or 

trial without further request. 

8. If a document has been produced in response to a prior 

request for production or is produced here in response to a 

 



  

    

    

request with a lower number, it need not be produced again so 

long as the documents are identical in every detail, including 

marginal notations, routing symbols and handwritten markings. 

However, for each document produced, please indicate, by list or 

otherwise, the number of the request to which it is responsive. 

If the document requested in this request for production is 

responsive to more than one request, please list every request to 

which it is responsive. 

II. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED 

1. All documents identifying the DOE staff who worked on 

the proposed regulations on racial imbalance in schools from 

1969-1979, 

2. All documents on the distribution of funds for the 

transportation of children to private schools from 1980 to the 

present and any documents which provide information on the 

receipt or use of such funds in individual school districts 

currently receiving such funds and any documents indicating the 

basis for the amount of the allocation to such districts. 

3. All documents concerning efforts by school districts to 

enter into cooperative arrangements with other school districts 

which could lead to greater interdistrict racial, ethnic and 

cultural diversity from April 1, 1989 to the present, including 

but not limited to documents on the financial incentives to 

encourage districts to join such arrangements, transportation   

 



  

    

    

  
    

grants for intercommunity programs and competitive grants for the 

establishment of interdistrict cooperative programs. 

4. All documents which list or describe the programs 

described in defendants’ August 21, 1989 Memorandum in Support of 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (PP. 41 et seq.), including programs 

created and funded by the State to address the needs of "at risk’ 

students poor performing and otherwise disadvantaged children 

from January, 1988 to the present, including but not limited to: 

compensatory education grants, bilingual education grants, 

special education grants, free lunch program grants, 

“intercommunity” programs, priority school district grants for 

districts facing comparatively more difficult educational 

challenges and school breakfast program grants. 

5. All documents which describe or relate to grants for 

extended day kindergarten and summer school in Hartford and the 

surrounding communities from April, 1989 to the present. 

6. All documents which describe or relate to grants to or 

designation of remedial, priority school districts in the State 

from January, 1988 to the present. 

7. All documents for Hartford and the surrounding 

communities related to funding substantial increases in teachers’ 

salaries and offering money to improve the teacher-pupil ratio in 

such districts. 

8. All documents for Hartford and the surrounding 

communities explaining the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) formula 

  

  
 



  

and the school districts receiving funds ip accordance With the 

9. a11 documents indicating the por budget Options for 

1990-199; which a) agency heads Within pop Submitteq to the 

| Commissioner, and b) the Commissioner Submitted to OPM, 10. Anz documents Concerning School Construction and 

| €Xpansion, including but not limited to: 

| ED-040; 

i c oO
 

—
 

[=
 

Q 0]
 

0 =
 

0] Oo [a
 

® bo
 | 

H
N
 oO fe
 

[-
 

= [ = c
t
 

'o
 HN Oo 

J,
 0) Q ct
 

[ 0 fo
 

0]
 

12. a1 documents from 1985 to the Present indicating 

teacher Supply and demand, including drafts or final reports, 
13. ‘A131 documents relating to any “Report On Schools and 

  
A
 
—
—
—
—
—
—
 

—
—
—
 

 



15.721} documents for Hartford ang the Surrounding 

  

Communities op the teacher shortage Survey, Form ED 156, from January, 1988 to the present. 

| Session per Year for districts and schools in districts in i Connecticut from 1984-1989, 
| 172. Al} documents relating to Vocational Statistical reports for 1988-1990, 

18. All documents which include Or relate to any ‘grand 

  

| follow-up” Or any other analysis of data Collected on race, family income, gender, language ang mastery test performance from 

19. = aN} documents which include the mastery test Scores for 

20. a1 documents, including Correspondence, among the Governor, pog and/or the Office of Policy and Management op school desegregation from January, 1988 to the present. 21. All documents, including minutes, tapes, transcripts or notes of DOE hearings held in four towns on April 17, 18, 24, 25, 1978 on the Racial Imbalance Regulations, 

  

M
h
"
 
P
O
O
 

—
—
—
—
—
 

ry 
pp
 
a
v
.
 
T
y
 

——
—"
 

§ 
§ 
i 
i i 
i



      

~~ ® 

22. All documents, including minutes, tapes, transcripts or 

notes of DOE hearings on new regulations held September 18 and 

27,1879, 

23. All documents, including any memorandum by the Attorney 

General on the legal sufficiency of the Racial Imbalance Act and 

the Racial Imbalance Regulations as mentioned by Commissioner 

Shedd in testimony before the Education Committee on February 21, 

1980. 

24. All documents, including a letter dated September 24, 

1979 from Senator Gunther to Commissioner Shedd explaining that 

the State Board of Education could not develop new regulations 

after the Regulations Review Committee had rejected the first 

set. 

25. All documents, including drafts of legislation which 

were incorporated in SB 415 in 1969-1970. 

26. All documents, including opinions by the Attorney 

General in 1967, 1968 or 1969 on the authority of the State Board 

of Education to require local boards of education to take action 

to correct racial imbalance. 

27. All documents, including policy statements concerning 

educational quality adopted by the State Board of Education in 

December, 1966, amended in June, 1967, and revised in 1968. 

28. All documents, including a survey and results prepared 

by Commissioners Sanders and Dr. Ross, a DOE staff member, that 

  
 



» : 
“ 

  

- 10 < 

DOE submitted op May 1, 194g to the Subcommittee On Education of 

Respectfully Submitted, 

BY: 

John (C. Brittain 
University of Connecticut School of raw 
65 Elizabeth Street Hartford, oT 06105 

 
—
—
 

Philip p, Tegeler Martha Stone 
| 

Connecticut Civil Libertjes 

| 

Union Foundation 32 Grand Street 
Hartford, oT 06106 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
—o—=xfidh OF SERVICE 

mailed Postage Prepaid to John R. Whelan and Diane wy, Whitney, 
Assistant Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, 
Hartford, cp 06105 this 7th day of May, 1990. 

Bm RS Adil 
John (C. Brittain