Defendants' Disclosure of Expert Witnesses with Certification

    SEP 11 ’S2 ®: ATTY GEN 3RD SHERMAN  S P.2 4 2/4 

  

MacKenzie Hall 

110 Sherman Street 

Havtford, CT 06105 

FAX (203) 523-3336 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

Office of The Attorney General 

State of Connecticut Tel: 566-7173 

September 11, 1992 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 

Martha Stone, Esq. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

RE: SHEFF v. O'NEILL 
  

Dear Phil & Martha: 

Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1982. Please be 

assured that the defendants do not intend to contact any expert 

witnesses whom you have specially retained for the purposes of 

this litigation. The defendants will, however, continue their 

meetings and discussions with individuals employed by the 

Hartford Board of Education who have knowledge of facts and 

information which may be important to this case. 

The fact that the plaintiffs have chosen to designate 

several employees of the Hartford Board of Education as "expert 

vitnesses" does not remove the fact that these individuals are 

public officials who have personal knowledge of facts which may 

be important to this case. This knowledge was developed in their 

role as public officials and not by reason of any work they have 

done for the plaintiffs in regard to this case. Your gratuitous 

designation of some of the individuals we have been talking with 

as "expert witnesses" for the plaintiffs does not circumscribe 

the ability of the defendants to continue their ongoing 

discussions and their investigation of facts which may be 

relevant to the case. 

You have made no suggestion that any of these individuals 

have been specially retained by you to perform work relevant to 

your trial presentation. In any event any inquiry we might make 

of these individuals will relate only to work they have done or 

are doing in their capacity as employees of the Hartford Board of 

Education, not any work they may be doing on their own as 

employees or agents of the plaintiffs or their attorneys. - 

 



§”. SEP 11 ‘92 $ SeAM ATTY GEN 3RD SHERMAN » P.3/4 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 

Martha Stone, Es{g. 

September 11, 1992 

Page 2 

It would be a truly amazing precendent if you were 

successful in convincing a court or other body that a plaintiff 

can preclude a defendant from interviewing witnesses who have 

direct knowledge of facts which are relevant to the case by 

simply suggesting that this person might also be asked by the 

plaintiff to express SOme opinion during the plaintiff's 

examination of the witness. One can imagine the mad dash to 

designate as many individuals as possible as expert witnesses so 

as to gain a monopoly on access to those witnesses. 

We will continue to meet with the Hartford school 

administrators as we have been doing throughout this case and, 

indeed, long before you labelled those individuals as "expert" 

witnesses. They are not your clients nor are they your "expert 

witnesses" in the traditional litigation sense, We will be happy 

to meet with Judge Hammer at a mutually convenient time so that 

he can be made aware of this latest effort on your part to waste 

our energy and resources and interfere with our case preparation. 

With regard to Dr. Robert Margolin we appreciate your candor 

in advising us that Mr. Horton was incorrect when he represented 

to Judge Hammer that you had not engaged in substantive 

conversations with Dr. Margolin. After giving further thought to 

this revelation and speaking with Dr. Margolin himself, we feel 

that we must insist that Dr. Margolin be treated as any other 

employee of the State Department of Bducation who has been 

involved in the defendants' pretrial preparations. In other 

words, we insist that you not discuss this case with Dr. Margolin 

in any context other than a duly noticed deposition,   
Unlike most former employees of the State Department of 

education, Dr. Margolin has been directly involved with the : 

defendants' case preparation activities, This fact has been known 

to you. Former state employees who have not been directly 

involved in the defendants' case preparation activities may be 

interviewed without giving us notice or opportunity to be 

present, but Dr. Margolin's case is quite different. 

Wwe understand that when you spoke with Dr. Margolin he 

expressed some reservations about answering questions which you 

might pose without first clearing the matter with us. Even 

though he is not a lawyer, Dr. Margolin recognized the problem 

which your ex parte contact presented because of his involvement 

in our case preparation activities. Dr. Margolin said that you 

assured him that you would be contacting me or someone from my 

of fice about whether the conversation should be continued. It 

should not.  



  

SEP 11 ‘92 % S6AM ATTY GEN 3RD SHERMAN : » P.4/4 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 

Martha Stone, Esq. 

September 11, 1992 
Page 3 

If there has been a violation of the Rules of Professional 

conduct in this case, I would suggest it is in the form of your 

ex parte contact with a former agent of my client whom you knew 

was directly involved in the defendants' pretrial activities and 

your continuation of discussions with that person after the 

person expressed appropriate concerns about the communication. 

1f you wish to schedule Dr. Margolin's deposition the date 

and time which you have previously suggested for that deposition 

is acceptable to the defendants although, as you know, the 

deposition can last no longer than an hour given Dr. Margolin's 

schedule. 

We sincerely hope that you will abandon your efforts to 

interfere with the defendants’ case preparation activities, We 

all have enough work to do before trial without this 

    

    

gamesmanship. 

Very truly yours, 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

ATTORNEY |GENERAL 

BY n R. Whelan 

Ag int Attorney General 

JRW:aC 

cc: Bernard F. McGovern, Jr., Asst. Atty. General 

Martha M. watts, Asst. Atty. General 

Robert Margolin 

Wesley Horton, Esq.