Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents

    Cv 89-0360977S \ 
‘ 

ol 

MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT 
J.D. HARTFORD/NEW 

Plaintiffs : NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

Vv. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants JANUARY 28, 1991 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 
OF DOCUMENTS 
  

  

For their response to the plaintiffs’ Third Request for 

Production of Documents dated November 28, 1990 the defendants 

offer the following: 

No. 1. Inspection and copying of all documents in the possession 

of the state or its attorneys in the case of Lumpkin v. Meskill, 
  

Civ. No. ‘13, 716:{U.S. District Court, Connecticut}. 

ANSWER: That portion of the State's file in the Lumpkin v.   

Meskill case which can be located is available in the Office of 

Attorney General for inspection and copying at a date and time 

which is convenient to the parties. A copy of the portions of 

  

 



      

the file requested by the plaintiffs after reviewing the file is 

enclosed as Exhibit 1(a). A 

No 2. Inspection and copying of all correspondence, reports, and 

memoranda among the Commissioner of Education, the Department of 

Education, and the State Board of Education from January, 1987 to 

the present, relating to issues of school desegregation. 

ANSWER: The files and records of the State Department of 

Education's Division of Education and Support Service and Bureau 

of School and Program Development, not other wise privileged, 

will be open for inspection at a mutually convenient date and 

time. During that inspection plaintiffs' representative may 

identify documents which the plaintiffs would like to have 

copied. Depending on the number of documents identified the 

defendants will either provide plaintiffs with a copy of those 

documents or make those documents available for copying by the 

plaintiffs. All arrangements to inspect files and records must 

be made through Acting Deputy Commissioner Robert Margolin. 

No. 3. Inspection and copying of the research file and any 

drafts, correspondence, memoranda, reports, and any other 

documents used in the preparation of "A Report on Racial/Ethnic 

  

 



  

  

    

Equity and Desegregation in Connecticut's Public Schools" 

(January , 1988), and "Quality and Integrated Education: Options 

for Connecticut" (April, 1989). 

ANSWER: The files and records of the State Department of 

Education's Division of Education and Support Service and Bureau 

of School and Program Development, not otherwise privileged, will 

be open for inspection at a mutually convenient date and time. 

During that inspection plaintiffs' representative may identify 

documents which the plaintiffs would like to have copied. 

Depending on the number of documents identified the defendants 

will either provide plaintiffs with a copy of those documents or 

make those documents available for copying by the plaintiffs. 

All arrangements to inspect files and records must be made 

through Acting Deputy Commissioner Robert Margolin. 

No. 4. Computer tapes, disks, diskettes or other computer 

records containing the following individual student data for 

Hartford and surrounding districts: mastery test scores, 

free/reduced school lunch status, AFDC status (if available), 

school district, name of school, grade, classroom, age, sex, 

race, ethnicity, special education status, single parent 

  
 



  

household, language spoken at home, and number of persons in 

household. Please provide such records organized on an annual 

basis, beginning with the year 1986, to the present. 

ANSWER: Within two weeks after the plaintiffs provide the 

defendants with blank tapes the defendants will provide the 

plaintiff with the data tapes for the CMT, provided that the 

Court has approved the Protective Order which the parties have 

agreed to. 

No. 5. Computer tapes, disks, diskettes or other computer 

records containing all data compiled from the 1984-85 curriculum 

survey (copy of survey attached hereto as Exhibit A). 

ANSWER: Within two weeks after the plaintiffs provide the 

defendants with blank tapes the defendants will provide plaintiff 

with a copy of the data tape for the 1984-85 curriculum survey, 

|| provided that the Court has approved the Protective Order which 

the parties have agreed to. 

No. 6. Computer tapes, disks, diskettes or other computer 

records including all data compiled from ED-001 forms submitted 

by Hartford and surrounding districts, as well as any other       
 



      

recorded data regarding school expenditures by local districts. 

Please provide such records organized on an annual basis, 

beginning with the year 1986, to the present. 

ANSWER: Within two weeks after the plaintiffs provide the 

defendants with blank tapes the defendants will provide the 

plaintiff with copies of the data tapes containing the material 

found on the ED001 forms, provided that the Court has signed the 

Protective Order which the parties have agreed to. 

No. 7. Computer tapes, disks, diskettes or other computer 

records containing all staff data prepared for the most recent 

"School Staff Report.” 

ANSWER: Within two weeks after the plaintiffs provide the 

defendants with blank tapes the defendants will provide the 

plaintiff with a copy of the data tape of the staff data used to 

prepare the most recent "School Staff Report", provided that the 

Court has signed the Protective Order which the parties have 

agreed to. 

No. 8. A complete listing or inventory of the specific types of 

data maintained by defendants on computer tapes or other computer 

  

 



  

device, and a layout or outline identifying the records and files 

Ld Ld hd J 

in which such data is contained. i 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 8(a) and (b) enclosed. 

No. 9. Printouts and diskette copies of all programs and 

database commands used to analyze and/or process data contained 

in DOE computer tapes, disks, diskettes; and a listing of the 

computer language used for each program.     
ANSWER: For each of the computer tapes provided in response to   Requests No. 4, 5, 6, and 7 the defendants are providing the 

| plaintiff with the file layout for that tape, provided that the   
Court has signed the Protective Order which the parties have 

agreed to.   
| No. 10. Any descriptions of the "Educational Reference Group" | 

| (ERG) classification, any summaries of data for Hartford and 

other districts including in Hartford's ERG, and any documents 

indicating the ERG into which each of the surrounding districts 

have been identified. 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 10(a)-(c). 

      
 



  

No. 11. A list of research projects undertaken by DOE directly 

or under contract beginning on January 1, 1987 ito the present. 

OBJECTION AND ANSWER: The present request for production is 

overly broad and unduly burdensome. In the Department of 

Education there are approximately 250 individuals each of whom 

may be involved in individual and in group research projects, 

most of which would have no bearing whatsoever on this case. The   Department does not maintain a centralized system of recording 

all individual and/or group research projects. Significant 

research projects being conducted by the Department of Education 

are published. A list of the Defendant's publications since   
| January 1, 1987 is being prepared for the plaintiff's. Copies of 

the minutes of the State Board of Education reflecting the 

reports presented to the Board since January 1, 1987 are being 

gathered for plaintiffs review. By providing this material the 

Department is responding in a reasonable fashion to this unduly 

broad and burdensome request for production. 

      
 



  

    

    

By 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 
H 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

ATTORYEY GENERAL 

  

  

Jéhn R. wy en 
Assistant Attorney General 

//110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
a 566-3696 

2 an Wi ff boas 
  
Diane W. Whitney & 
Assistant Attorney Gengra 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Telephone: 566-3696 

  

 



        

CERTIFICATION 
  

i 

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

postage prepaid on January 28, 1991 to the following counsel or 

record: 

John Brittain 

University of Connecticut 
School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton 
Mollier, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Jenny Rivera, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
14th Floor 
New York, NY 10013 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

  

 



    

    

Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell 

Helen Hershkoff 

American Civil Liberties Union 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

John /R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General