Supplementary Exhibits to Defendants' Motion for Revised Pretrial Order with Certification and Attached Letters

    CV 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, ‘et al., : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs, : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

Vv. : AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A, O'NEILL, et al., 

Defendants. August 31, 13992 

SUPPLEMENTARY EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

FOR REVISED PRETRIAL ORDER 
  

  

The defendants offer the attached exhibits as a supplement 

to their motion for a revised pretrial order. These documents 

demonstrate, in part, the defendants' good faith effort to 

complete discovery in this matter in a timely fashion. The 

documents also demonstrate some of the ways in which the 

defendants' efforts have been frustrated by the plaintiffs. 

WHEREFORE, based on the arguments contained in the 

defendants’ August 28, 1992 motion for revised pretrial order and 

  
 



    

the supplemental exhibits attached hereto, the defendants ask 

that their motion for revision in the pretrial order be granted. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS, 

RICHA a i 

ATTORNE NERAL 

wy 

  

  

JoRAAR. ov 
Assistant Attorney General 
if is No. 085112 

0 Sherman Street 
aE CT «06105 

Telephone. - 566-7173 

/ / TA 
i 4 Vi / i 7 / 

vir 4 ls d f { ie 0 J / ; 7 / 2 y £7 A - 

B74 if f I £ tL ay. 
  

- Mdrtha M. Watts / ET 
/Assistant Attorney General 
Juris No. 406172 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Telephone 566-7173 

     



    

CERTIFICATION 
  

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

postage prepaid on August 31, 1992 to the following counsel of 

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

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton 
Mollier, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 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, 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 

Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense and 
Education Fund 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

Esq. 

John A. Powell 

Helen Hershkoff 

American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

    
de 

/ 

  

  

  

  

  

Joon’ R.” Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 

/ 

  

 



  

6 » % 

MacKenzie Hall 

110 Sherman Street 

Hardord. CT 06103 

    

  

HARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

FAX (203) 523-3536 

Office of The Attorney General Tels 566-7173 

Stale of Copnggicut 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

  

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill 

Dear Phil: 

In order to establish a basis for beginning the depositions 

of the individuals who you have identified as plaintiffs' expert 

witnesses, we would appreciate it if you would provide us with an 

up-to-date list identifying those of your witnesses who have 

completed all of the work they intend to do to prepare and speak 

about the opinions they intend to offer at trial. My point in 

making this request is to be sure that we do not find out during 

the course of the deposition that the expert plans to do 

additional work which would make it necessary for us to continue 

the deposition until that work is completed, and that we do not 

find out at trial that your expert relied on new Or different 

facts and information to substantiate his or. her opinions. 

We are especially concerned that at least some of your 

expert witnesses may be relying on information, including 

information about Hartford and the suburban school districts, 

which we asked you to identify in response to the defendants’ 

first set of interrogatories, but which you have not yet provided 

to us. To the extent that any of your expert witnesses will rely 

on the information sought by way of our interrogatories which you 

have not yet compiled and/or provided to us, it would be a waste 

of time and effort to take their depositions before your experts 

have that information and you provide us with full and final 

responses to our interrogatories. 

It seems to me that the depositions of at least some of your 

expert witnesses will have to be put off until you provide us 

with complete and up-to-date answers to our interrogatories. The 

depositions of witnesses who have no further work to do and who 

will not be relying on information which you will be supplying to 

Elid BG 

 



    

  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
December 11, 1991 
Page 2 

us in supplemental responses to our interrogatories should be 
able to move forward in the near future.   We look forward to hearing from you on this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

RICHARD BHUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

JRW/mu 
cc: All Counsel of Record / 

  
   



  

RE -- TT RE 
FOUNDATION 
Thirty Two Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 fax 203/728-0287 

gs 

  

January 8, 1992 

Mr. John Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill 
  

Dear John, 

Thank you for your letter of December 12, 1991. 

In regard to depositions of plaintiffs’ experts, we believe 

that this issue is best addressed by a comprehensive scheduling 

order issued by the Court, which includes a firm trial date. We 

are now preparing a proposed order for submission to Judge 

Hammer. 

In regard to disclosure of expert testimony generally, as 

stated in our letter of November 1, 1991, we believe defendants’ 

descriptions of anticipated experts are entirely inadequate, and 

that plaintiffs have given far more complete and detailed 

information than defendants. Therefore, until the Court rules on 

a motion to compel full disclosure of expert testimony, 

plaintiffs are not prepared to further expand their disclosure of 

expert testimony. 

Finally, and also in regard to expert disclosure, you 

mentioned in chambers after the oral argument on November 21, 

1991 that the research of one of defendants’ experts would not be 

completed until the summer of 1992. Is this an expert who has 

previously been identified to us? If not, we would appreciate 

notification on January 15, the next date for expert disclosure. 

We would also appreciate a summary of the nature of the research 

being conducted. 

Sincerely, 

Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 

PDT,MS/dmt Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
CC: All Counsel of Record re 

= |) 
CT hid C 

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

 



LALA 
FOUNDATION 
ThirtyTwo Grand Street. Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 - Fax 203: 728-0287 

TRANSMITTED BY FAX July 22, 1992 

Mr. John Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill; Scheduling of Additional Depositions 

Dear John, 

I am writing to arrange scheduling for the remaining expert 
depositions in the Sheff case. 

The current schedule, based on our recent conversations, is 
as follows: 

Current Schedul 

July 23 
August 4 

John Allison 
Douglas Rindone 

[August 6] 
August 25 
August 27 
August 28 
September 
September 
September 
September 

. September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 

(Armor Exhibits Due] 
William Trent 
Robert Crain 
Mary Kennedy 
Patricia Downs 
Ruth Price 
David Armor 
Thomas Steahr 
Yale Rabin 
Lloyd Calvert 
Jomills Braddock 
Hernan LaFontaine 

Donald Feree 
Christine Rossell 

Additional Witnesses 

The remaining identified plaintiffs’ experts to be deposed 
by you include plaintiff experts Charles Willie, Gary Natriello, 
and William Gordon. You have indicated that you do not intend to 
depose Mary Carroll and we likewise assume you would not be 
deposing school principals. Please let us know if this is 
incorrect. 

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 
dl Eild D  



Remaining witnesses to be deposed by plaintiffs include 
former commissioner Tirozzi, 3-4 State Board of Education members 
(who could be deposed on one day), the expert you indicated you 
would identify this week, and the new commissioner. We also 
should schedule deposition dates for your listed experts Thomas 
Breen, Peter Prowda, William Congero, and Peter Behuniak, unless 
you inform us that any of these witnesses will not be called at 
trial. Plaintiffs may alsc seek to depose other witnesses, 
including any defendants’ experts not yet named, but at the 
present time this is the schedule as we anticipate it. 

Based on the foregoing, an additional ten (10) days will 
need to be scheduled between now and September 15. We are 
available on the following days to complete these depositions. 

Avajlable Deposition Dates 

July 30 (defendants’ witnesses) 
August 5 (defendants’ witnesses) 
August 7 (defendants’ witnesses) 
August 13-21 (during your vacation, if other counsel are 

available). 
August 24 
August 26 (afternoon) 
August 31 
September 7 
September 11 

We are also available to attend these depositions from 
September 16-30 if this is the only time you have available. By 
doing so we would not wish to further amend the scheduling order 
or delay the trial in any way. We have ample time to complete 
these depositions prior toc September 15, and we hope you will 
fully explore your own availability and availability of other 
counsel with appearances in this case in order to expedite the 
completion of discovery. 

Please give me a call to work out the scheduling for these 
upcoming depositions. 

Sincerely, 

V7 724 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

PDT/dmt  



    oil oZ 
: as ®t Thad 

Q < 

  

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
MavBenat fu 

ATTORNEY sd ENERAL 

1 10-<herman Street 

{lardord, CT 06103 

FAX (20:5) 32:5. 38.4 

Office of The Attorney General 

State of Connecticut Tel; 566-7173 

July 27,1992 

CORRECTED COPY 
  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32'Grand Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 

RE: Sheff v. O'Neill 
  

Dear Phil: 

Thank you for your letter of July 22, 1992 regarding the 

scheduling of depositions. It is clear from the number of 

depositions which we have already scheduled and the number of 

depositions which remain to be scheduled that there is no way the 

parties can meet the September 15, 1992 deadline for completion 

of depositions. It also should be clear to you that the 

extremely vigorous schedule we have set for ourselves during the 

first two weeks in September in an effort to meet that deadline 

cannot be sustained. 

For the purposes of scheduling depositions which are yet to 

be taken we will return to the Tuesday/Thursday schedule which we 

started off working on. Dedicating two days each week to the 

task of finishing up depositions which need to be taken in this 

matter represents an appropriate commitment to the expeditious 

closure of pretrial proceedings in this matter given the 

multitude of other demands presented by this case and by other 

matters pressing upon this office, 

Since the court has not yet set a firm date for trial in 

this matter it 1s pure speculation to suggest that this 

deposition schedule will delay the start of the trial. In any 

event the plaintiffs’ need for additional time to complete 

depositions they wish to take is no less obvious than the 

defendants' need, so any delay in the start of the trial which 

may be occasioned by the deposition schedule is a reality for 

which both sides must accept responsibility. 

In your letter you suggest that the defendants schedule 

additional depositions between now and September 15. You suggest 

August 5 and 7, dates I am scheduled to pe on trial in Federal 

Court in Bridgeport, and August 13-21, dates which I have told 

you I would not be available because of my vacation schedule. 

E+E   
 



  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
July 27, :1982 
Page 2 

Although we have offered to make two of our witnesses (Rossell 
and Sergi) available on August 6 you have declined because of 
conflicts with your schedule. 

Please rest assured that we will continue to operate in good 
faith to schedule the depositions which need to be taken at the 
earliest possible convenience to all concerned. In that 
scheduling process due consideration will be given to the 
availability, readiness, and background of the other two AAGs 
working with me. But given the other demands under which we here 

must operate we cannot agree to a deposition schedule which will 

impair our ability to prepare our defense in this and the 
numerous other cases we are handling. 

You need to mindful of the fact that the defendants' effort 
to get the plaintiffs to agree to a schedule for the depositions 

of the plaintiffs' experts began with a letter dated December 12, 

1991. At that time you declined our invitation to begin 
scheduling the depositions. The defendants issued notices of 

deposition on April 16, 1992 and only then did the plaintiffs 
begin to seriously consider the scheduling of depositions. 

Despite the efforts undertaken at that time the first deposition 
of one of your witnesses did not begin until June 23, 1992. 
Along the way there have been numerous changes in the deposition 

schedule, all with ample justification, and most at your request. 

The statement in your July 22, 1992 letter that "We have 

ample time to complete the depositions prior to September 15", 

the suggestion in your letter that the defendants conduct 

depositions on dates in August when you knew. I would not be 

available on those dates, and the general tone of your letter 

suggests that you are attempting to create a record which will be 

used at some point in the future to unduly shorten the time 

available to the defendants to prepare a response to the 

plaintiffs' case. The reason we are writing this letter 1s to be 

sure that the record accurately reflects the good faith with 

which both parties have been pursuing completion of all necessary 

depositions. 

In the very near future you will be receiving deposition 

notices for the new expert witnesses which you recently 
identified. Those deposition notices will be accompanied by a 

request for extension of the deadline for completing depositions. 

 



  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
July 27,1992 
Page 3 

Based on our conversation last week I will note your objection to 
the request. 

Very truly yours, 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

      . Whelan 
Agsistant Attorney General 
    

JRW:sad 
cc: Martha M. Watts, AAG 

Paul Pernerewski, AAG 

 



“ bore 11 @ 
Sa UY 5 /TA fa 

  

RICHARD: BE ITM ENTIUNL 

- ATTORNEY GENERAL 

MacKkenzio all 

110 Sherman Strodt 

Hardord. CT 06105 

  

Office of The Attorney General Fax: (203) 566-5291 
State of Connecticut 

TELEFAX COMMUNICATION 

TO: 7 Tele ; Ld Slang iC Ll 

FAX NO. 7a ¥ 02 7 7 [& Jit ov iA Lidl 

PROM hp Lhe br AL 

  

  

  

  

  

  

TEL: CHE-71°27 

DATZ: ~v{ 249 a 

NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS): 4 
  

    

0 | y | 
coments: __ Af INI Ar d00ky Tn ptt _b, Mes) Tudse Noel. 

il [ Gk +hat my “trial chido b/ fos Aes 7 5 Yz7: Aas 7s Zz. cancelley 
  

    

    
  an I a i a R= -— 

_frodvee LC. halk; by, / / Ee Or (torre lt UA On +4 SH o wp LL 

Ba [oil pu li by A, 
AA AA A SI SI et 

  

  
  

  
-— 

IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT 

AT (203) 566-7173. 
  

  

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this 

facsimile message is legally privileged and confidential 

information intended only for the use of the individual or entity 

named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are 

hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution (other than 

delivery to the addressee) or copy of this telecopy is strictly 

prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error, please 

immediately notify us by telephone and return the original 

message to us at the address above. Thank you. 

PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW FAX NO. 

EAM F 

 



    

FOUNDATION 
Thirty Twa Grand Street. Hartford. CT 06106 

203/247-9823 Fax 203/728-0287 

TRANSMITTED BY FAX August 3, 1992 

Mr. John Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 
MacKenzie Hall 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

RE: Sheff v. Q’Neill 

Dear John, 

I received your FAX indicating that your trial was canceled at the last minute and that you wanted Charles Willie or Catherine Walsh for August 5 or 7. Because of the short notice involved, we are not able to produce them that quickly. They will need to be scheduled at a later date. 

Sincerely, 

Mor tha Homa 

Martha Stone 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

MS/dmt 

let