Supplement to Defendants' July 28, 1992 Motion for Extension of Time to Take Depositions

    CV 89-03609717S 

MILO SHEFF, et al. - SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs : J.D. HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

: AT HARTFORD : 

V. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants : August 10, 1992 

SUPPLEMENT TO DEFENDANTS' JULY 28, 1992 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS 
  

  

This pleading is offered as a supplement to the defendants’ 

Motion for Extension of Time to take depositions dated July 28, 

1992. The purpose of this supplement is to amend the defendants’ 

request so that the motion now asks for an extension until 

November 15, 1992 instead of October 15, 1892. 

The defendant's need an extension of time until November 15, 

1992 rather than October 15, 1992 because of the plaintiffs’ 

recent disclosure of the twelve new witnesses. Seven of the 

twelve witnesses whom the plaintiffs have just identified are 

named plaintiffs and, at this time, the defendants do not expect 

  

  
  

 



      

to take their depositions. ’/But the other five listed witnesses 

are strangers to this suit and, because each has some 

professional background in education, the defendants intend to 

take their depositions. 

While the five individuals with professional backgrounds 

in education are listed as "non-expert witnesses", the 

description of their testimony which has been provided by the 

plaintiffs' attorneys clearly suggests that they will be called 

upon to offer opinion testimony. Given the description of their 

testimony, the defendants feel obliged to take their depositions. 

An extension of time until November 15, 1992 1s necessary 

to accommodate these additional depositions as well as the 

  

1/ The brief description of the testimony which these 

individuals are expected to offer that has been provided by 

the plaintiffs' attorneys causes the defendants some concern 

in that it appears that these individuals may be asked to 

offer opinions which they are not qualified to offer in a 

court of law. At this point the defendants believe that 

they can rely on the Court to circumscribe the testimony of 

these individuals so as to bar the kind of opinion testimony | 

which the plaintiffs are suggesting these witnesses will 

of fer. If circumstances change and the defendants feel that 

they cannot expect the Court to properly circumscribe the 

testimony of these individuals, the defendants will be 

forced to reconsider their decision not to take depositions 

of these individuals. 

  

  
 



  

  
| scheduling, rescheduling, and continuation of the thirty other 

depositions which have yet to be taken in this case. 

Given that the plaintiffs' attorneys have objected to the 

defendants' original request for extension of time, it 1s assumed 

that they object to this supplement as well. 

If this supplement is treated as an amendment to the 

defendants' July 28, 1992 request for extension of time, this 

represents the defendants' first request for an extension. If 

  this supplement is treated as a separate request for an extension 

of time it represents the defendants' second such request. | 

      
 



  

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the defendants’ 

motion of July 28, 1992 and for the additional reasons set forth | 

herein, the defendants request an extension of time until | 

November 15, 1992 to take the depositions of the plaintiffs’ 

witnesses. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RiHaRD, BLUMENTHAL 
ih i ~ 

BYy | gf el 
Jon R. RIT 
Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Telephone: 566-7173 

Juris No. 112 7 

AA 

  

       
  

Martha M. Watts © & 
J Atto ney Genera 

110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Telephone: 566-7173 
Juris No. 406172 

      
 



  
ORDER   

For good cause shown, the foregoing Motion 1s hereby 

GRANTED DENIED. 

  

By the Court 

CERTIFICATION 
  

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed 

postage prepaid on the 10th day of August, 1992 to the following   
counsel of record: 

John Brittain Wilfred Rodriguez 

University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 

School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 

65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. wesley W. Horton, Esq. 

Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton .& Fineberg, P.C. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 90 Gillett Street 

Union Hartford, CT 06105 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chambers, Esq. 

Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense Ronald Ellis, Esq. 

and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense and 

99 Hudson Street Educational Fund 

l4th Floor 99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 
         



      

John A. Pcwell 

Helen Hershkoff 
American Civil Liberties Union 

132 West 13rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 = 

} 
) 

J 7 A / 

fo ry J: 
Vd 

; ok Fa 7 z 

Yo in Ln 

ar” 

  

John R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 

  
 



  

  

  

  

  

CV. .89-03609717S 

SUPERIOR COURT MILO SHEFF, et al. 

Plaintiffs 
AT HARTFORD 

V. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants : August 10, 1992 

SUPPLEMENT TO DEFENDANTS' JULY 28, 1982 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS 
  

  

This pleading is offered as a supplement to the defendants’ 

Motion for Extension of Time to take depositions dated July 28, 

1992. The purpose of this supplement is to amend the defendants’ 

request so that the motion now asks for an extension until 

November 15, 1992 instead of October 15, 1992. 

The defendant's need an extension of time until November 15, 

1992 rather than October 15, 1992 because of the plaintiffs’ 

recent disclosure of the twelve new witnesses. Seven of the 

twelve witnesses whom the plaintiffs have just identified are 

named plaintiffs and, at this time, the defendants do not expect 

J.D. HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

  

  

 



  

    
1/ But the other five listed witnesses | to take their depositions. 

are strangers to this suit and, because each has some 

professional background in education, the defendants intend to   | take their depositions. 

While the five individuals with professional backgrounds 

in education are listed as "non-expert witnesses", the 

description of their testimony which has been provided by the 

plaintiffs' attorneys clearly suggests that they will be called 

upon to offer opinion testimony. Given the description of their 

testimony, the defendants feel obliged to take their depositions. 

An extension of time until November 15, 1992 1s necessary 

to accommodate these additional depositions as well as the   
  

1/ The brief description of the testimony which these 

individuals are expected to offer that has been provided by 

the plaintiffs' attorneys causes the defendants some concern 

in that it appears that these individuals may be asked to 

offer opinions which they are not qualified to offer in a 

court of law. At this point the defendants believe that 

they can rely on the Court to circumscribe the testimony of 

these individuals so as to bar the kind of opinion testimony | 

which the plaintiffs are suggesting these witnesses will 

offer. If circumstances change and the defendants feel that | 

they cannot expect the Court to properly circumscribe the | 

testimony of these individuals, the defendants will be 

forced to reconsider their decision not to take depositions 

of these individuals. 

        
 



  

    

scheduling, rescheduling, and continuation of the thirty other 

depositions which have yet to be taken in this case. 

Given that the plaintiffs' attorneys have objected to the 

defendants' original request for extension of time, 1t 1s assumed 

that they object to this supplement as well. 

If this supplement 1s treated as an amendment to the 

defendants' July 28, 1992 request for extension of time, this 

represents the defendants' first request for an extension. If 

this supplement is treated as a separate request for an extension 

of time it represents the defendants' second such request. 

  
  

 



  

  
| WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the defendants’ 

motion of ‘July 28, 1992 and for the additional reasons set forth | 

herein, the defendants request an extension of time until | 

November 15, 1992 to take the depositions of the plaintiffs’ 

witnesses. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

Reta BLUMENTHAL 
ATTO |    

BYy. Lo Ao 
Jon R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Telephone: 566-7173 
1.2 

    

     

  

   
    

  

a M. Wattyg 

ssistant Attofney Genera 
Tin Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Telephone: 566-7173 
Juris No. 406172 

  

  

      
 



  

  

ORDER   
H For a good cause shown, the foregoing Motion 1s hereby 

GRANTED /DENIED. 

  

By the Court 

CERTIFICATION 
  | 

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed | 

postage prepaid on the 10th day of August, 1992 to the following 

counsel of record: 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

John Brittain Wilfred Rodriguez 
University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 
School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 
65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT. 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 90 Gillett Street 
Union Hartford, CT 06105 

  

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chambers, Esq. 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense and 

99 Hudson Street Educational Fund 
l4th Floor 99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

    
 



  

    

  

  
  

{ 
1 

|| John A. Powell 
|| Helen Hershkoff 
| American Civil Liberties Union 

| 132 West 43rd Street 

l/l New York, NY 10036 So 

{ of 2 ) 

H / } / iy 

A / / / i / ha 

J ' 7 / Yi 4 ET” # 

John R. Whelan 

Assistant Attorney General 

| 

| | 
| 

| 

| 

|