Draft Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Order of Compliance

    Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

Vv. 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

oo
 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants JUNE 8, 1992 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE 
  

  

For the most part, plaintiffs do not object to the principle of 

further supplementation of responses to defendants’ First Set of 

Interrogatories, with the caveats, first, that several of plaintiffs’ 

responses are already substantially complete, and second, that certain 

of defendants’ interrogatories are subject to valid objections as to 

content and form. 

Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories can properly be 

characterized as "contention interrogatories." Although such 

interrogatories are not per se improper, responses to such 

interrogatories are generally not held to be due until the completion 

of discovery. See In Re Convergent Technologies Securities 
  

Litigation, 108 F.R.D. 328, 333 (N.D. Cal. 1985); Nestle Foods Corp. 
  

  

y. Aetna, 135 P.R.D. 101 (D.N.J. 1990); Rendrick v, Sullivan, 125 
  

  

F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1989). Plaintiffs’ extensive 42-page answers to 

defendants’ interrogatories were fully responsive when filed in 

 



February 1991. However, now that a final scheduling order has been 

entered by the Court, plaintiffs agree that is appropriate to provide 

more detailed responses to certain interrogatories in advance of the 

date for completion of discovery. 

At the same time, as will be discussed below, plaintiffs still 

maintain their objections to both the form and content of several of 

defendants’ question, and seek to respond accordingly. 

Summary of Issues 
  

For the convenience of the Court, the issues raised by 

defendants’ Motion are set out below: 

Interrogatorvy Issue 
  

1-4 (Affirmative Acts) Plaintiffs have responded fully. 
Defendants insist on separate 
responses to each interrogatory; 
however, plaintiffs’ response 
applies to each interrogatory. 

5-7 (Failure to Act) Plaintiffs have responded fully in 
addition, plaintiffs will provide 
further supplementation by July 15, 
1992. Plaintiffs object to the 
extent that this question seeks to 
obtain information on plaintiffs’ 
proposed remedy. 

8-10 (Remedy) Plaintiffs continue to object to 
defendants’ interrogatories directed 
to remedy. 

11-12 (Minimally Adequate Plaintiffs will provide further 
Education) supplementation by July 15, 1992. 

13-14 (Disparities in Educa- Plaintiffs will provide further 
tional "Inputs" and Supplementation by July 15, 1992. 
"Outputs")  



  

-3 = 

15-16 (Evidence of Benefits Plaintiffs have responded fully, both 
of Integration) in their response to interrogatories 

15-16 and in their disclosure of 

expert witnesses. 

18 (Expert Witnesses) Plaintiffs have responded fully in 
accordance with this Court's 
Pretrial Order. 

19 (Data Compilations) Plaintiffs will provide further 
supplementation by July 15, 1992. 

Plaintiffs will address each of these issues below. 

Affirmative Acts (Interrogatories 1-4)   

By including these interrogatories in their Motion to Compel, 

defendants are seeking to relitigate the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

But this Court has already rejected defendants’ theory of "state 

action.” To the extent that defendants’ interrogatory seeks to 

ascertain plaintiffs’ case with regard to historical actions 

defendants have taken, or failed to take, plaintiffs stand by their 

answers to interrogatories 1-4 and 5-8. Plaintiffs will also 

supplement their responses prior to July 15 with any new information 

that has come to light since February, 1991. 

Failure to Act (Interrogatories 5-8)   

Plaintiffs have provided an extensive list of warnings and 

recommendations received by the state from 1965 to the present that 

indicate defendants continuing failure to act to fulfill their duty 

to provide equal educational opportunity to low income and minority 

schoolchildren in Hartford. Plaintiffs stand by their response to 

 



  

this question, and will also further supplement their response by July 

15, 1992 with any additional documents that have come to light since 

February, 1991. To the extent that defendants are seeking disclosure 

of a proposed remedy, plaintiffs object (see discussion below). 

Proposed Remedy (Interrogatories 8-10) 
  

Remainder of Interrogatories 
  

There is no substantial dispute with respect to the remainder of 

defendants’ interrogatories. 

Plaintiffs will provide further supplementation by July 15, 1992 

to Interrogatories 11, 12, 13, 14, and 19, as requested by defendants. 

If defendants object to plaintiffs’ amended responses at that time, 

they may renew their Motion to Compel. An earlier supplemental 

 



response to these interrogatories, beyond the answers given on 

February 1991, was not required, as these are contention 

interrogatories. 

Plaintiffs have responded fully to Interrogatories 15, 16, and 

19, and plaintiffs believe that there is no outstanding question 

regarding Interrogatories 17 and 20. 

Finally, defendants appear to object to plaintiffs’ use of 

qualifying language such as "plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or 

supplement their responses" (plaintiffs’ amended responses, p. 

Such statements merely restate the law, and since they 

unnecessary, plaintiffs will include only one such statement in their 

amended responses. 

Conclusion   

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request 

that defendants’ motion be denied in accordance with the schedule of 

responses set out herein. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106  



  

Wesley W. Horton 
Kimberly A. Knox 
Moller, Horton, & Rice 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, C7 06105 

John Brittain 
University of Connecticut 

School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, C7 06105 

Helen Hershkoff 
John A. Powell 

Adam S. Cohen 

American Civil Liberties 
Union Foundation 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

  

Martha Stone 

Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

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

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

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

Ruben Franco 
Jenny Rivera 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

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

postage prepaid to John R. Whelan, Assistant Attorney General, 

MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 06105 this day 

of June, 1992 

  

Philip D. Tegeler