Letter from Lado to Court RE: Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s First Request for Production

    RICHARD | NTI 
hiacnen ¢ Ha 

IRNEY GENERAL 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford. CT 06103 

FAX (203) 323-5536 

Office of The Attorney General Tel: 566-7173 

State of Connecticut 
June 9, 1992 

The Honorable Harry Hammer 
Superior Court 
Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford 

95 Washington Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill, CV 89-0360977S   

Dear Judge Hammer: 

Enclosed for your consideration are two proposed orders 

which have been prepared and stipulated to by the parties in 

above captioned case. 
The first proposed order is a protective order relating to 

material produced by the plaintiffs in response to Defendants' 

First Request for Production. This protective order is modeled 

after the order which you signed on January 23, 1991 regarding 

data which the defendants turned over to the plaintiffs. 
The second order, which is accompanied by a separate 

stipulation, is the order which the parties have been discussing 

regarding the depositions of expert witnesses. The parties are 

now acting on the assumption that this order 1s acceptable to the 

Court. 
The parties would greatly appreciate your earliest possible 

consideration of these proposed orders. To expedite the process 

of entering these orders we are sending the originals to your 

chambers on the assumption that you will file them with the Clerk 

after they have been executed. We would appreciate receiving 

signed copies of the orders after they have been recorded by the 

Clerk. 
Thank you for your consideration. 

Very truly yours, 

a BLUMENTHAL 

gs t, 

sv: 
JoHR. GA 
Aésistant Attorney General 

JRW/mu fof 
Enclosure i, 
cc: Clerk Of Court } 

All Counsel of Record  



{Hl 
| 
|] 
(| 
¥ 

CV 89-0360977S 

  

| MILO SHEFF, et al. : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

V. 

WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, et al. 

Defendants JUNE 4, 1992 

LX
] 

[X
J 

LX
] 

LX
] 

L
X
 J

 

  

PROTECTIVE ORDER 
  

In accordance with P.B. § 249 (2), the parties hereby 

| agree and stipulate to the following Protective Order: 

These protective orders apply to computer tapes, discs, 

diskettes, other computer records, and survey instruments that 

the plaintiffs may turn over to the defendants in response to 

Defendants’ First Request for Production. 

Defendants’ counsel shall be responsible for seeing that 

every individual, group, or organization given access to or 

use of said computer tapes, discs, diskettes, other computer 

records, and survey instruments is provided with a copy of 

this order. Receipt of a copy of this order shall constitute 

| notice to that individual, group, or organization, that they 

| are subject to the terms and conditions of this order. 

Any individual, group, or organization who violates the  



  terms and conditions of this order shall be subject to such   
penalties, forfeitures, and orders (including contempt of 

1 court) as the Court may deem appropriate. The Court retains 

i jurisdiction to enforce this order for so long as is necessary 

to serve the purposes for which the order is intended. 

It is hereby noted and declared that any computer tapes, 

|| discs, diskettes, other computer records, and survey 

instruments (and all information contained therein) turned 

over to the defendants or their attorneys in response to 

i Defendants’ First Request for Production shall be available 

and be used only for the purposes of the present case. No 

individual, group, or organization shall make any use of the 

computer tapes, discs, diskettes, other computer records, and 

survey instruments, or copies thereof, except for the purposes 

of this litigation. 

Within sixty days after the conclusion of the above 

captioned case including the completion of any appeals, 

remands, or other continuing proceedings (as determined by the 

court) all such computer tapes, discs, diskettes, or other 

 



  

  computer records shall be returned to the plaintiffs’ 

|| attorneys. 

Within that same sixty days after the conclusion of the 

above captioned case any individual, group, or organization in 

| possession of any copy of said computer tapes, discs, 

. diskettes, other computer records, or survey instrument, or 

I any hard copy or print out of material taken or derived from 

the computer tapes, discs, diskettes, other computer records, 

or any survey instruments turned over to the defendants or 

| their attorneys in response to Defendants’ First Request for 

Production, shall destroy those computer tapes, discs, 

diskettes, other computer records, or survey instruments, or 

hard copies or print outs unless the computer tape, disc, 

diskette, other computer record, or survey instrument, or hard 

copy or print out has been formally admitted into evidence 

during the course of proceedings in this case. Defendants’ 

attorneys shall provide the plaintiffs’ attorneys with written 

assurances that the destruction has been completed within 90 

 



  

[| 
|! 

  i 

{ 
| 
[| days of the conclusion of the above captioned case, as 

|, determined by the court. 

    7 SA ff 
/ py) ( 

NTA 
    

. For Plaintiffs 6k Defendants 
Marianne Engelman Lado il Whelan 
: : Assistant BLozney General 

7 

  

  

A110 Sherman Stree 
V'aAartford, CT 06105 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
CCLUPF 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

The foregoing stipulation is approved and ordered accordingly 

this day of June, 1992. 
  

  

Hon. Harry Hammer 

 



  

        

    

CERTIFICATION 
  

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

postage prepaid to the following counsel of record on 

June 9, 1992: 

John Brittain, Esq. 
University of Connecticut 
School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

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

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Mollier, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, €T 06105 

Ruben Franco, Esq. 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund 

99 Hudson Street 
14th Floor 
New York, NY 10013 

  

  
  

 



  

  

  

  

  
  

Julius L. Chambers, Esq 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

John ‘A. “Powell, Esq. 
Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 

American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10636 7 

fod of ir J 
] ’ / / 

| 7/, 5 // Ye PIA rd 

i 4 ly | ff. & ZF ral 

Y/ & 4 4 be L 

JohA R. Whelan > 
Assistant Attorney General 

  

/ 
/ / 

  

      

 



Cv89-0360977S 

  

_ MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

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

Defendants : JUNE 4, 1992 

  

STIPULATION REGARDING PROCEDURE FOR TAKING OF EXPERT DEPOSITIONS 
  

As represented to this Court at a status conference held on May 

19, 1992, the parties stipulate and agree that the attached Order 

Governing Depositions of Expert Witnesses may be entered by the Court, 
| 

pursuant to Practice Book §220(c). 

Respectfully Submitted, 

WF Zaz< 
Philip D. Tegeler 

A6gistant Attorney General Martha Stone 
cKenzie Hall Connecticut Civil Liberties 

10 Sherman Street Union Foundation 
Hartford, CT 06105 32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

  
  

Attorney for Defendants 
Attorney for Plaintiffs   

       



  

Cv89-0360977S 

  

> MILO SHEFF, et al. : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

Vv. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

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

Defendants : 

  

ORDER GOVERNING DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES 
  

In accordance with the Stipulation of the parties dated June 4, 

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

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

depositions of expert witnesses. 

1. 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 

      
 



  

    

    

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 agreed to by the parties for 

all time spent in the deposition and for a reasonable amount of 

preparation time, not to exceed 3 hours of preparation. 

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 associated with the attendance of 

expert witnesses at depositions shall be paid within sixty days of 

submission of an invoice for each expert. 

5. 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. 

The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. shall be the 

guarantor with respect to any amounts plaintiffs may owe to defendants 

under this paragraph, and the State Department of Education shall be 

the guarantor with respect to any amounts defendants may owe under 

this paragraph. Such obligations under this paragraph shall not 

exceed $2,500 per deposition. 

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 a regular employee of the State Department of 

Education or the State Department of Housing 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 June, 1992.       

    
 



      

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has been mailed 

pl ¢ ley 
postage prepaid by cese+fted mail to: 

Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton 
Moller, Horton, & Rice 
90 Gillett Street 
Bartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Engelman Lado 
Ronald L. Ellis 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

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

Ruben Franco 
Jenny Rivera 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

this 544 day of June, 1992. 

Helen Hershkoff 

John A. Powell 

Adam S. Cohen 

American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

132 West. 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

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 

YL bl 
  

i 
i y i 

/ 

i i Whelan 4, AY, Ga 

  
  

 



oul, K » Lhe lan 
tate of Connecticut 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
i 

MacKENIE HALL 
110 SHERMAN STREET 

HARTFORD. CANRECTIC . ER crow wes 

2 
ee 

TN 

Ld 

Julius L. Chambers 

Marianne Lado, Esq. 

Ronald Ellis, Esqg. 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Streel 

New York, NY 10013