Defendants' Motion for Order of Compliance

    CV 89-0360977S   MILO SHEFF, et al., : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs, : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

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

Defendants. : AUGUST 25, 1992 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE 
  

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §231, the defendants 

hereby seek an order of compliance, requiring the plaintiffs’ 

expert, John Allison, to provide full and final answers which are 

directly responsive to the following questions posed by 

defendants’ counsel at Mr. Allison's deposition on July 23, 1992: 

By Mr. Whelan: 

{1.3 0. ... In your mind would it be appropriate for 

a judge to set particular mastery test goals as a basis 

for determining whether a constitutional mandate is 

satisfied? 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 
NO TESTIMONY REQUIRED            



  

  

  

    

Ms. Stone: I, to that question. I think that 

calls for a legal conclusion of what the judge should 

order as part of the remedy. [Tr. at 5937 

AKKKAKRKKAKRKKKAAKARKRKRKRA AAA KARA Ak AKA A AAA A AA AAA hk Akh hk hhh xk 

By Mr. Whelan: 

[2.1] OQ. Moving on. What kind of racial balance in the 

schools in the Hartford area would you see as being 

within the range of professionally acceptable for the 

Hartford schools and the suburban schools? 

Ms. Stone: I am going to object to that question 

as calling for an answer to the remedy, and to the 

extent that the judge allowed us not rule that we do 

not have to answer that question in the 

interrogatories, it's inappropriate for that witness to 

have to answer that exact same question now, and I 

instruct the witness not to answer that question. 

Mr. Whelan: You understand I will pursue a Motion 

to Compel on that since you have identified this 

witness as a witness on the remedy states -- 

  

A/ References are to the transcript of John Allison's 

deposition dated July 23, 1992. 

-2- 

  

  

 



  

  

    

Ms, ‘Stone: Right, but to the extent hé has 

indicated that we do not have to put on the remedy 

information at the trial and do not have to answer 

those same interrogatory questions for the very same 

reason, any line of questions that get to what this 

witness thinks the action will remedy should be at this 

point in time I would object and instruct him not to 

answer. At a point in time we get to the remedy hate 

and we offer this witness as a witness for purposes of 

remedy, then I think you are entitled to go into these 

questions and we can continue the deposition. 

Mr. Whelan: Is it my understanding you are 

instructing the witness not to indicate -- you will 

instruct the witness not to answer questions relating 

to what should be done to address the alleged 

constitutional violations? 

Ms. Stone: Any questions that are similar to the 

questions for which we got the ruling on the 

interrogatory questions. 

Mr. Whelan: I am not going to measure the 

similarity because I disagree with your interpretation 

of the Court's determination. I need to have a clear 

  

  

 



  

  

    

statement for purposes of shortening the deposition as 

to what you are going to instruct the witness not to 

answer, otherwise I can sit here and go through a whole 

ream of questions and have I -- I do intend to ask this 

witness what particular plans, options, remedies, 

goals, criteria the witness feels the State should at 

this time or should in the past have implemented. 

Those will be questions that will be raised with many 

of your witnesses and particular witnesses like Mr. 

Allison, as you described, people who will be dealing 

with that remedy. If they are not prepared to answer 

those questions and I will continue the deposition 

until they are prepared. If you intend to instruct 

each of your witnesses not to answer those questions we 

need to bring that issue before the Court on a motion 

to compel, so do you want to state without reference to 

the Court's decision because we don't agree on the 

interpretation of what it is you will be instructing 

the witness to answer or have I covered those areas? 

You want to do that now? 

Ms. Stone: Well, I don't think I have anything to 

add to what my statement was previously. It's our 

  
 



  

  

  

    

position that for purposes of this trial it is limited 

to liability issues only, and that any specific 

information about specific remedies that would remedy 

the constitutional violation will not be part of this 

present trial. 

Mr. Whelan: You will instruct the witness -- 

Ms. Stone: I will instruct the witness not to 

answer at the present time, yes. 

Mr. Whelan: -- any questions in that regard? 

Ms. Stone: That's right. 

Mr. Whelan: Well, we are going to be in court on 

that one. 

(Of f-the-record discussion was held.) 

Mr. Whelan: We are making a record for the Court. 

The Witness: Thank you. 

(Reporter read the last question.) 

Mr. Whelan: I am reinstituting that question and 

asking the witness to answer that question. 

Ms. Stone: I am going to instruct the witness not 

to answer for the same reasons I already spelled out 

previously. [Tr. at 61-64] 

By Mr. Whelan: 

  

  

 



  

    

[3.3 Q. Mr. Allison, could you tell us what particular 

criteria and remedies in your opinion need to be used 

in order to address the socioeconomic isolation in the 

Hartford area that's been alleged? 

Ms. Stone: I am going to object to that question 

on form first because I don't understand the question, 

and I would continue the objection if it's asking for 

what specific remedies he would see to address the 

issue in Hartford. I would instruct him not to answer 

if that's what your question 1s. 

Mr. Whelan: That's my question and I understand 

you instruct him not to answer that question. [Tr. at 

64-65] 

By Mr. Whelan: 

[4.] Q. Mr. Allison, could you tell us what specific 

remedies you see as necessary 1n order to address the 

concentration of at-risk children in the Hartford 

public schools? 

Ms. Stone: Again I would instruct the witness not 

to answer that question on the same grounds as 

previously mentioned. [Tr. at 65] 

By Mr. Whelan:   

  
  

 



  

  
  

    

[5.] Q. Mr. Allison, have you considered possible 

plans and remedies for the conditions in the Hartford 

area which are the subject of this complaint 1in 

accordance with the description of your testimony that 

says you will participate in testimony regarding 

proposed remedies in this case? Have you considered 

any of those the options? 

Ms. Stone: Object on the same grounds. 

Mr. Whelan: Instruct the witness not to answer? 

Ms. Stone: Right. Id. 

AKAXKKKKAKXAKKKAKKAAKRKXKA AXA A AR KA AAR AA AAA Ahk Akh Ak Xk hkhkhk kkk hk hkxk 

[6.] Q. My next question was going to be what should 

be part of the mandate? And I will pose that question. 

Ms. Stone: I would object on the same grounds. 

Mr. Whelan: Are you going to instruct him not to 

answer? 

Ms. Stone: Yes. [Tr. at 67-68] 

By Mr. Whelan: 

[7.] Q. Specifically talking about mandatory versus 

voluntary plans to correct racial imbalance. Do you 

have an opinion as to which is necessary in the 

  

  
 



      

Hartford area and which would be the -- whether 1t's a 

mandatory plan is necessary and whether the mandatory 

or voluntary plan would be more effective? 1 know I 

gave you two questions. 

Ms. Stone: I am going to object to both questions 

on the same grounds. 

Mr. Whelan: Instruct the witness -- 

Ms. Stone: Any questions that have to do with 

specific remedies if they are found to be in 

constitutional violation in this case I am going to 

instruct him not to answer it. {Tr. at 68) 

AA KKKAKRAKKAKRKKA RK KAKA KAA KX KA AKRNAKR AANA ANA A AX AR AA AAA Ak Xk xk 

[8.} Q. . . . There is another different context that I 

am getting at, the context that you are talking on the 

issue, I am also getting into the different context and 

that's mandatory versus voluntary in terms of student 

assignment. Which do you think 1s more productive or 

which do you think is better, mandatory student 

assignment plan designed to achieve better racial 

balance or a student assignment plan which relies on 

voluntary choices by people? 

  
 



  

  

    

Ms, Stone: The question goes to what should 

happen in part 1f the plaintiff should win and I would 

object and Lnstruit him not answer. If the question is 

more general in terms of what his opinion 1s on 

different options, I am not going to instruct him not 

to answer the question. [Tr. at 70] 

AKKAKA AA KAKKEKKKKAK KEAN KRXK ARR AA AANA NAKA AA KAKA AKA AAA AKA RkAkhk kkk k kk 

[9.] OQ. Now, the racial imbalance law uses numerical 

measure for racial imbalance. In your opinion is the 

use of numerical measures to bring about racial balance 

an appropriate way to address the educational needs and 

educational programming for children in Connecticut? 

Ms. Stone: Object if it calls for a specific 

recommendation relating to the issue in Hartford is 

plaintiffs were to succeed on the liability facts of 

this case. If you are asking him in general terms then 

I don't object. I will instruct the witness not to 

answer as to specific remedies and in a specific case. 

fr. at 76] 

KKKKKXKAAKKKAKRNKRKKA RANA RNA Akh hkhhkkhkkhkkkhkkhkkhkkhkkkhkkhkkhkhkhkhkhkkkkhkkkhkhkkk 

By Mr. Whelan: 

  

  

 



  

      

    

[10.]Q. My question wasn't whether using specific 

numerical criteria in our racial imbalance law is 

constitutional or not under the Federal Constitution. 

My question is whether that's educationally sound or 

professionally sound from an educator's standpoint? 

And I am referring to specific numerical criteria that 

are used by the State racial imbalance laws. 

Ms. Stone: 1 am going to object. 1 don't 

understand the question. [Tr. at 77] 

AKXKKKA KAKA AKANKKAKKKRAKAKAKKRAKR KAR AKE AAA AAA KAA AKA AA AA AAA A AA hkA hhh k Ak khkkkhkkk 

[11.]Q. Is the use of those numerical criteria on an 

interdistrict basis something which you would 

recommend? 

Ms. Stone: Again I object if you are asking him 

specifically if he would recommend it for purposes of 

what the remedy should be in this case and instruct him 

not to answer the question. [Tr. at 78] 

PEER E ER EER ES ESTEE SER EE EES ESSE SELES EEE EEE EEE EERE EERE SEES EEE 

[12.]0. So the individual -- if it's volunteer 

individual's choice at the individual level, and then 

-10- 

  

  

 



  

  

    

financial incentives provided by the State for that 

individual choice? 

A. As I understand this case -- 

Ms. Stone: Object to the question 1f you are 

asking him what he would recommend for a specific 

remedy in this particular case and instruct him not to 

answer that question. If it's a more general question 

about different options then I will not instruct him 

not: to answer. [Tre at 80] 

EE IE EE I EI I I TE ITITIIIIIT 

[13.]Q. Then do you believe that voluntary measures 

can be effective to bring about integration? 

Ms. Stone: Object if it calls for what his 

opinion is as to the remedy for this particular case 

and instruct him not answer. [Tr. at .81] 

AKKKAKAKXKKAKR KKK KRKXKKAKAK KAKA RANA AANA AKA AK AkAk kh hk khkhkkkhkhkkk 

[14.]Q. So what kinds of changes in the numbers would 

you have expected to see if you were to reach the 

conclusion that there was a significant effect on the 

racial, ethnic, and economic isolation? 

-11- 

  

  
 



  

  

  

    

Ms. Stone: Object on the same grounds that that 

calls for a conclusion as to what the specific remedies 

should be in this case and direct him not to answer. 

Mr. Whelan: She directed you not to answer so I 

have to reserve for a later time. [Tr. at 84] 

AAkKKAKAKKAKRKAAAAKRKAKN Ak hh AA AKA Ak AAA R AAA Xk hk hk kh hhh khkhkkhkkhk 

[15.]Q0. Would you be in favor of regionalizing 

Hartford with surrounding school districts? 

Ms. Stone: Object and instruct the witness not to 

answer on the basis that it calls for a conclusion 

regarding the remedy in this case. [Tr. at 89] 

AXA KAKA KKAKRA KAKA KR AA AKA AA KRAKR AR KA AAA AAR AAA AAA hk Ahhh k kkk 

[16.]Q. How else if the political will isn't there to 

follow through on these things, how would you change 

that situation? 

Ms. Stone: Object on the same grounds and direct 

the witness not to answer as to specific remedies 1in 

this case. 

-12- 

  

  

 



  

  

Mr. Whelan: Is there any part of that question 

which the witness can answer? I am not sure of the 

scope of your objection. If you want -- 

Ms. Stone: 1 am not sure of the scope of your 

question. I am not sure of the question. 

Mr. Whelan: Let's read the question back and find 

out if there is anything that 1f you want tot tell the 

witness he can answer to some limited extent or you 

want to tell him if he wants to answer at all. 

(Reporter read the last question.) 

Mr. Whelan: That is other than mandates. 

Ms. Stone: I would object if what you are asking 

him as to what changes he would see beneficial in this 

particular case is a specific remedy to this 

litigation. 

Mr. Whelan: Without giving up the original 

question which I claim I will rephrase the question. 

By Mr. Whelan: 

[17.]Q. In general you seem to be suggesting that 

there are ways other than mandates from higher 

authorities to overcome or get around a lack of 

political will. What other ways in general aside from 

-13-       
 



  

  

    

mandates would you see for accomplishing that? [Tr. at 

91-92] 

AEE AKKXAAKKKEAKA AKA AA KAA AA ARR IAA KA AAA AAA AAA AAA Ak kkk kk kk 

[18.]Q. Assuming the political will remains the same 

in the Hartford area, what specific legislative 

mandates do you think are necessary in order to achieve 

the goals of racial and ethnic and socioeconomic 

integration to improve the quality of education to the 

point where it needs to be in the Hartford area? 

Ms. Stone: I would object and instruct the 

witness not to answer the question. 

Mr. Whelan: It's on the record now. 

By Mr. Whelan: 

[19.]1Q. Also in the "Education Week" article it 

characterizes a statement you made and it says, "Mr. 

Allison who distrusts the ability of courts to impose 

educationally sound desegregation remedies." What's 

the basis for your distrust of the ability of the 

courts to impose educationally sound desegregation 

remedies? 

Ms. Stone: Object. [Tr. at 92-93] 

-14- 

  

  
 



  

  

    

AKA AKA KAKRKAKKAKAKK KAKA AKA A A AAR KNRA ANA A KAKA AR A RA A Xk Ak Ahk kk Ahhh kkk %k 

[20.]Q. In an article that appeared in the "Hartford 

Courant" you were quoted in the following fashion: 

Isolation is not the most productive way to educate 

kids in the Year 2000 and beyond. Should Sheff versus 

O'Neill favor the plaintiff I don't think you want a 

judge or the State to determine the remedy. Do you 

have questions about the State's ability to mandate or 

implement an appropriate remedy to address the 

question, the issues regarding racial and ethnic 

isolation and problems of quality education in the 

Hartford area? 

Ms. Stone: Object. Can you identify the date of 

what you are taking that question from? Show the 

witness. 

Mr. Whelan: I will show the witness. If I can 

hold it to keep my scratches off there I will show the 

witness. 

Ms. Stone: Do you have a date on that? I don't 

know. 

The Witness: This is West Hartford. I wish I 

knew the date. 

-15- 

  

    
 



  

Mr. Whelan: I can find out. 

The Witness: Well, let me show you what you used   for the wording. 

Ms. Stone: I would also object and instruct the 

witness not to answer on the same ground as previously 

mentioned. 

[21.]Mr. Whelan: So you are going to instruct the 

witness not to give his opinion as to whether or not 

the State can direct an appropriate remedy for the 

racial and economic isolation and problems with quality 

education in the Hartford area? 

Ms. Stone: Because the question goes to what 

should be the specific remedies and who should carry 

out those specific remedies in particular case. 

By Mr. Whelan: 

Q. I will ask it in a broader basis. I am 

claiming that question on the specific basis and on the 

broader basis. Is the State in your opinion able to or 

-- I am sorry. Let's do it that way. 

[22.]Is the State by Legislation, in your opinion, able 

to effectively mandate or otherwise require that the 

steps be taken to address on a statewide basis the 

-16-       
 



  

  
concentration of racial and ethnic minorities in our   
urban areas as opposed to our suburban areas and the 

other issues that go along with that? 

| Ms. Stone: Object to the form of the question. I 

don't understand the question. 

Mr. Whelan: Well, I will claim the question. 

Ms. Stone: If you don't understand the question. 

The Witness: I really don't. I am sorry. 

By Mr. Whelan: 

[23.)0. ‘In this quote‘you say, "I don't think you want 

the judge or the State to determine the remedy." 

Specifically you are referring to the remedy in Sheff 

versus O'Neill. As I understand it you have been 

instructed not to comment on that, so my question then 

goes -- because I am limited to the broader extent I am 

asking you why you think the State would not be able to 

-- you would not want the State to determine a remedy 

in a situation, any situation where there is a 

concentration of racial minorities in weiin areas and 

all that carries with it? 

-17-       
 



      

Ms. Stone: Object to the form of the question. I 

am not sure that that made it any clearer as to what 

your question is. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

(Reporter read the last question.) 

Ms. Stone: If you can't answer the question you 

are allowed to say you can't answer the question. 

A. I can't answer the question. [Tr. at 94-96] 

The plaintiffs' objection to these questions at this late 

stage of discovery are wholly unfounded, thereby thwarting the 

defendants' ability to explore the plaintiffs' theory of 

liability and present a factually thorough case to the court. 

-18- 

  

  
 



  

  

    

WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request (1) that the 

court grant this motion for order of compliance, (2) that a date 

certain be set to continue Mr. Allison's deposition at which time | 

Mr. Allison will be allowed by counsel for plaintiffs to respond 

fully and directly to the above inquiries, and (3) that Mr. 

Allison and each prospective expert witness be ordered to respond 

fully and directly to inquiries of a nature similar to those 

listed above. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: 

Assistant Attorney General 
Juris No. 085112 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-7173 

  

   BY: ll { 

Martha/M. Watts 
ssistant Atforney General 

Juris No. 406172 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-7173 

-19- 

  

  

  
 



  

ORDER         The foregoing Defendant's Motion for Order of Compliance is | 

hereby: GRANTED/DENIED 

| BY THE COURT | 

  

Clerk of the Court | 

CERTIFICATION 
  

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

postage prepaid on August , 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 

-20-       
 



  

  

    

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

0034AC 

    Assistant Attorney General 

/ 

-21-