Correspondence from Stone and Martha to Counsel Re: Draft Materials

    PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

TO: Sheff Lawyers 

FROM: hil ana Yartia 

RE: Draft materials 

DATE: February 24, 1992 

Attached is a proposed agenda for our Thursday conference 

call, and drafts of a letter to Judge Hammer and a supplemental 

disclosure of expert witnesses, beth of which are due soon. 

Please review these materials prior to the Thursday conference 

call. 

P.S. In case you haver't heard, we “ust won on the summary 
judgment motion! 

 



    
PROPOSED AGENDA 

Sheff Lawyers’ Conference Call 
Thursday, February 27, 1992 

11:30 a.n* 
PD Wes Horton's Qffice 

Niu Keousd J 
1. litigation details 

NO . 
-- Review letter to Judge Hammer in response to Whelan 

opposition t¢ pretrial order 

-- Scheduling of status conference NS oie? 

-- Next expert cisclosure due March 15: review draft, 
decide which remaining experts to include; Jet? 

-- Motion to compel further expert disclosure by he al 
whether to pursue; ore oequuslin (¢ 

-- Whelan'’s request that we iclentify experts “ready to be 
deposed” (i.e., substantially completed with thelr 
work): who should Whelan start with? Pe 4,2 een tPF 

; 7 J) 
a 1 3 1 * . / / ) - : / S Meeting to begin Natrielle study: boo fs ts orld 

— Pratiing of 5th set of production requests } Expt lrened 

4 il Dv raf) 

2. Report of remedial sublacniiitas 

-- Report on meeting with John Mannix and other State Board 
H 1 7 - root 7 . 

members 4 [2 p22 Cr 2 - Foe py Gl po. y 4 oD 

-- Report on meeting with three superintendents; 

-- Progress on additional remedial experts 

3. Expert updates (&lavin, Fernandez, Edmund Gordon, William 
Gorden, Oakes, Archambault, Orifield, etc.) 

4. Planning for April 11 CCEE community meetin — FP ottoed Fens 
-- Schedule meeting cf plaintiff-attorney 7 tee 

5. Other business 

-- Edna McConnell Clark Foundation grant proposal 

*note new time: Ron and Marianne need to conclude by 12:30 

 



    

DRAFT 

February 24, 1892 

Honorable Harry Hammer 
Superior Court 
98 Washington Street 
Hartford, OF 06106 

RE: Sheff v, O'Neill, CV839~0360377S8 
  

Dear Judge Hammer, 

We are writing in response to attorney Whelan's letter of 

February 10, 19%2, to request a status conference at the Court's 

convenience, and to reemphasize the need for the prompt entry of 

a pretrial scheduling order in this case. 

The apparent purpose of defendants’ recent letter 1s to 

further delay this litigation. In fact, delay has been a central 

goal of defendants from the outset ¢f this case, beginning with 

defendants’ claim, in a [1990] status conference, that two 

additional years would be needed to respond to a minor aspect of 

plaintiffs’ case, and culminating, nore recently, in defendants!’ 

A , motion for summary judgment, which, as plaintiffs have argued 

LV elsewhere, is largely repetitive of defendants’ unsuccessful 

MVS motion to strike. Plaintiffs believe that there has already been 

go. enough delay in this important case. It is now time to proceed 

Y Nto trial. ” ( 
Y ad Defendants’ claim that plaintiffs’ answers to the first set 

is: of interrogatories was unresponsive is insupportable. Plaintiffs 

have already made extensive disclosure to defendants in response 

to defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, and, quite properly, 

have reserved the right to make further disclosure at a later 

date. Defendants’ interrogatories, which essentially demand a 

detailed statement of plaintiffs’ case, along with all supporting 

evidence, are commonly referred toc as “contention 

interrogatories.” While such interrogatories are not necessarily 

 



  

improper per se, it is commonly held that answers to such 
interrogatories are nct required until shortly before trial, ~~ 
usually as part of a pretrial memorandum. See e.g. Convergent \ 
Technology, 108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985), [Connecticut cases] 
Defendants have no right to, and cite no authority in support of, 
their claim for more detailed information prior té—T ting 
depositions, and they can scarcely claim prejudice based on 
plaintiffs’ reservaticn of the right to submit more detailed 
responses at a later dats. 

Plaintiffs’ compliance with defendants’ First Set of 
Interrogatories should be viewed in the context of plaintiffs’ 
entire 43-page response (attached as Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ 
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 
Judgment), along with plaintiffs’ detailed description of their 
experts (attached to Flaintififs’ Memorandum in Support of 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Compelling Full Disclosure of Expert 
Testimony). The Court should also ricte that, while defendants 
have criticized plaintiffs’ response, they have filed no motion 
to compel further response to their First Set of Interreogatories, 

Likewise, defendants’ request for further delays based on 
plaintiffs’ refusal tc indicate which experts are “completed with 
their research” shoulc not ke taken seriously by this court. 
Counsel for both parties have enjoyed an excellent working 
relationship throughout this case, and can work out the 
scheduling of depositions on their own, once a scheduling order 
has been entered. Plaintiffs’ refusal to provide additional 
written information about plaintiffs’ experts is related directly 
to defendants’ failure to provide descriptions of their experts 
that are sufficiently detailed to assist plaintiffs in preparing 
for depositions. As set out in our recent motion for full 
disclosure of expert testimony, plaintiffs have been far more 
forthcoming than deferdants in their disclosure of experts as 
required by P.B.§220. 

In their recent letter to the Court, defendants provide no 
convincing reason to further delay consideration of this case, 
and they offer no alternative scheduling order. Thus, plaintiffs 
respectfully request that their proposed pretrial order dated 
February 3, 1992, be entered by this Court as soon as lis 
feasible. 

 



  

Wesley W. Horton 
Mollsr, Horton, & Fineberg 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Lado 

( Ron EIlis) 
"NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

Helen Hershkoff 
John A. Powell 
Adam Cohen 
American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

  

Respectfully Submitted, 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
22 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

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 
Tuerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
¢S Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

 



  

* * 

Cve9=-0360877S 
DRAFT 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

v. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

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

Defendants February yo 1882 

3%
 

4%
 

bu
 

85
 

HA
 

AS
 

AN
 

RE
F 

SN
 

BF
 

wb
 

PW
 

  

PLAINTIFFS! THIRD IDENTIFICATION QF EXPERT WITNESSES 
PURSUZNT TO PRACTICE BOCK $220 (D) 
  
  

  

Pursuant to Practice Book §220(D), as modified by this 

Court’s Order of Octoher 31, 1990 and the parties’ Joint Motion 

for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses filed December 

3, 1990, the plaintiffs herein disclose their third list of 

expert witnesses anticipated to testify at trial, in response to 

Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. As set out in the 

parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert 

witnesses filed December 3, 1980, any additional expert witnesses 

shall be identified in sixty days or thereafter. 

Interrogatory 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 1s expected to complets 

 



  

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 
testify; and 

c. The substance of the facts and opinions to which that 
person is expected to testify and 2 summary of the grounds for 
each opinion. 

RESPONSE: Experts whom the plaintiifs expect to call at trial 

are listed below, pursuant to Pract..ce Book Section 220(D): 

Garv Natriello, Associate Professor, Teachers College, Columbia 
University, New York, NY 10027. Professor Natriello is an- 
ticipated to testify regarding levels of need and disparities in 
school resources aval.able to students and faculty in the 
Hartford area. Specifically, Mr. Natriello is expected to 
describe the basic neads of Hartford students, the resources 
available in the Hartford Public Schools t¢ meet these needs, the 
degree of unmet need in relation te available resources, and the 
comparative disadvantage of the Hartford District in comparison 
with other school districts in the region and in the state. In 
his testimony, the documents upon wailich Professor Natriello is 
expected to rely include, but are not limited to virtually all 
documents provided to plaintiffs by defendants in discovery, and 
documents and affidavits appended to defendants’ motion for 
summary judgment, as well zs data and documents publicly avail- 
able from the Hartford Public Schools. Mr. Natriello will also 
rely on interview with other educational experts, Hartford area 
school personnel, and direct classroom observation. Professor 
Natriello is expected to complete his research by September 1, 
19982, and he would be available for a deposition prior to that 
tims. 

John Allison, Capitcl Region Education Council, Windsor, CT. Mr. 
Allison is expected to testify in detail regarding the matters 
set out in his affidavit dated September 13, 1931, attached as 
Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ 
Motion for Summary Judgment (September 20, 1951). In general, 
Mr. Allison will testify regarding the state's failure to act 
effectively toc remedy the increasing racial and economic iscla- 
tion of the Hartford schools; the limited scope of the state's 

 



  

~— 

recent efforts to promote integratisn; and the inadequacy of 
purely voluntary measures to effectuate desegregation. Mr. 
Allison is also expected to participate in testimony regarding a 
proposed remedy in this case at the appropriate stage in the 
proceedings. 

Hernan Lafontaine, . _ Beacon 8t., Hartford, CT (06105. Mr. 
LaFontaine is expected to testify in detail regarding the matters 
get out in his affidavit dated September 18, 1951, attached as 
Exhibit B to Plaintifis’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ 
Youion Lor Summary Judgment (September 20, 1881). In general, 

son MF. Alli is expected to testify, based in part on his own 
observations as superintendent, regarding the detrimental effects 
of racial and economin isclation ef students in the Hartford 
Public Schools, the inadequacy ¢f current state funding to 
address the special needs of the Hartford schools, and the need 
for greater racial and economic integration in the Hartford 
schools, Mr. LaFontaine may alse paxticipate in testimony 
regarding a proposed remedy in this case at the appropriate stage 
in the proceedings. 

In addition to the areas of testimony set out above, 

plaintiffs’ experts are also expected to interpret and comment on 

the testimony and research of other experts, including both 

piaintiffs’ and defendants' experts. With respect to decuments 

listed herein, plaintiffs have included some of the primary 

sources upon which these experts base their opinions, but have 

not provided a comprehensive list of all documents reviewed or 

relied on, If any other additional areas of testimony are 

identified for the foregoing experts or cther documents upon 

which they primarily rely are identified, plaintiffs will 

identify such testimony and documents in a timely fashien, 

 



    

pursuant to the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 

Disclose Expert Witnesses filed Decsmber 3, 1980. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

  

    

   

BY: 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stons 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton Wilfred Rodriguez 
Moller, Horton, & Finsberg Hispanic Advocacy Project 
90 Gillett Street Neighborhood Legal Services 
Hartford, CT 06105 1229 Albany Avenue 

7 Hartford, CF 06112 gomselonsan 
Julius L, Chambers John Brittain 
Marianne” 2 University of Connecticut 
Ron Ellis Logald L School of Law 

4 NAACP Legal Defense & 65 Elizabeth Street 
"Educational Fund, Inc. Hartford, OT 06105 

89 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

ft pln fopeene Helen Hershkoff Jenny Riveia 
A John A. Powell 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