Motion for Extension of Time; Objection to Motion to Compel Discovery, Notice and Response to Request for Production of Documents

    Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

AT HARTFORD 

V. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants October 26, 1992 

«
0
0
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

  

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 
  

The parties respectfully request an extension of time of 

one week, to November 3, 1992, to submit their pretrial memoranda and 

list of exhibits pursuant to the Final Pretrial Order. This extension 

of time is necessary due to the large volume of potential exhibits. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/ 

  

  

ofin Whelan Philip D. Tegeler 

rtha Watts Martha Stone 

sistant Attorneys General Connecticut Civil Liberties 

MacKenzie Hall Union Foundation 

110 Sherman Street 32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06106 

Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

    
 



      

ORDER 

For good cause shown, the foregoing Motion is hereby ordered 

GRANTED/DENIED. 

  

Hammer, J. 

DATE: 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

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

postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Martha M. Watts, Assistant 

Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 

77 

06105 this 26 "day of October, 1992 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 

 



  

CV 89-03609775 

MILO SHEFF, et al., : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs, : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

V. : AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al., 

Defendants. : OCTOBER. 26, 1992 

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 
  

  

The defendants hereby object to the plaintiffs' Motion to 

Compel Discovery dated October 5, 1992 as being unwarranted and 

inappropriate in light of Conn. Practice Book $232. Moreover, 

the plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery fails to comply with 

the requirements of Conn. Practice Book $8225 and 228. 

The bulk of the plaintiffs' motion requests the court to 

compel the defendants to produce more recent and/or updated   
versions of certain documents, which the defendants have already 

produced for the plaintiffs. The defendants have been and 

continue to be well aware of their continuing duty to disclose as 

required by $232 of the Conn. Practice Book. In keeping with 

that provision, the defendants have and will continue     
 



  

  

    

consistently to update responses to the plaintiffs' discovery 

requests as circumstances warrant. 

To the extent that the plaintiffs request court-ordered 

compliance with discovery requests to which the defendants have 

duly objected, the plaintiffs' Motion to Compel fails to conform 

to the requirements of Conn. Practice Book $8225 and 228; i.e., 

the plaintiffs never contacted the defendants in an effort to 

resolve their differences regarding such objections, nor have the 

plaintiffs attached the affidavit(s) required by the Practice 

Book. See Conn. Practice Book §§225 and 228. 

Finally, to the extent that the plaintiffs request the court 

to compel production of documents requested at ongoing 

depositions, the defendants have been and will continue to engage 

in good faith efforts to produce documents not otherwise 

protected from disclosure on a timely basis, given the 

significant constraints placed on the defendants by the scope and 

number of the plaintiffs' requests and the demands placed on the 

defendants by the impending trial of this case. 

In summary, the defendants have and will continue to make 

every good faith effort to comply with the plaintiffs' legitimate 

discovery requests. 

    

  
 



  

  
| WHEREFORE, the reasons outlined above, the defendants object 

to and respectfully request the court to deny the plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel Discovery. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL | 
| ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: § A Mili ‘Air 
JohHd R. Whelan 
Assistant Secorndy General 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

-H P60. 7173 

  

  

        

  

“Nghia MS Watts” */, = 
Assistant Attorney ‘General 
110 Sherman Street 

[Hartora, CT 06105 
" Telephone: 566-7173 

  
      
 



  

  

    

CERTIFICATION 
  

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

postage prepaid on October 26, 

record: 

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

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

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

l4th Floor 
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 10036 

MMW0204AC 

dA AA 

Wilfred Rodriguez, 

1992 to the following counsel of 

Esq. 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT "06112 

Wesley W. Horton, 
Moller, 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Julius L. Chamberes, 
Marianne Lado, 
Ronald Ellis, 

Esq LJ 

Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
Educational Fund 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

  

Services 

Esq. 
Horton & Fineberg P.C. 

Esq. 

  

Assistant Attorney 

7) 774 
  

    

 



  

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

| Plaintiffs, : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
I : HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
|v, : AT HARTFORD 

| WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al., : 

Defendants. OCTOBER 26, 1992 

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO THE 

PLAINTIFFS' SIXTH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  

  

The defendants hereby give notice that on the above noted 

date the defendants made copies of the documents requested by the 

plaintiffs by way of their Sixth Request for Production available | 

to the plaintiffs' attorneys with the following exceptions: 

1. Objection was interposed to request 6. 

        
 



  

  

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
| ATTORNEY GENERAL 

| Zz 
/ 

| By: uA n Ll ln pad 
“John R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Telatane: p66- 7173 

pr As 2 2 
Martha MM. Watts “ 
Assistant Attorney General 
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 October 26, 1992 to the following counsel of 

record: 

John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriquez, Esq. University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project School of Law Neignborhood Legal Services 65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & Fineberg P.C. Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street 
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chamberes, Esq. Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 14th Floor Educational Fund 

99 Hudson Street 99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 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 10036 

  

Lt Sat ny i 
Martha M7 Watts, Aaa 
Assistant Attorney General’ 

MMW0203AC 

  

  

 



      

Cv 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al., : SUPERIOR COURT 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al., 

Defendants. OCTOBER 26, 1992 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SIXTH REQUEST 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  

  

Defendants offer the following answers and objections to the 

plaintiffs' Sixth Request for Production of Documents. 

1. All documents and reports created for the two year 

"pilot program" conducted by Katherine Oleksiw regarding dropout 

rates, retention rates, etc. for priority school districts. 

ANSWER: See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First 

Request for Production, Exhibits 4(a),(b),(c), and (d) and 

Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Fifth Request for Production, 

item 19, 

    
 



  

  

      

2. All documents and reports and data collected for the 

"statewide survey" regarding dropout rates, retention rates, 

etc., as referred to by Peter Prowda in his deposition. 

ANSWER: See response to 1, above. 

3 A copy of the paper or study conducted by Barbara 

Beaudin on teacher turnover, as described by Peter Prowda in his 

deposition. 

ANSWER: Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Fifth Request 

for Production, exhibits 5(a) and 20 (a), (b). 

4. Any enrollment projections done for Hartford and 

surrounding districts, 1985 to present. 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 4(a) - (o). 

5. A complete set of district-level strategic school 

profiles for each school district in Connecticut.   
  
 



      

ANSWER: See responses to 8, below. With respect to 

districts not encompassed by the phrase "Hartford and the 

surrounding districts," the files and records of the State 

Department of Education's Division of Teaching and Learning 

relating to district-level strategic school profiles, not 

otherwise privileged, will be open for inspection at a mutually 

convenient date and time. During that inspection, plaintiffs’ 

representative may identify documents which the plaintiffs would 

like to have copied. Depending on the number of documents 

identified, the defendants will either provide plaintiffs with a 

copy of those documents or make those documents available for 

copying by the plaintiffs. All arrangements must be made through 

counsel for the defendants. 

6. A copy of the computer disk or tape containing the 

entire database for the strategic school profiles. 

ANSWER: The requested item is not available at this time. 

In any event, the defendants object to this request as it is 

inconsistent with the Protective Order dated January 23, 1991. 

According to that order, 

No print out or hard copy of any 

material taken or derived from any computer 

-3-   
 



  

  

      

tapes, discs, diskettes, or other computer 

records turned over to the plaintiffs or 

their attorneys during the course of this 
litigation may be admitted into evidence 

unless plaintiffs' attorneys provide 

defendants with all information necessary to 

allow the defendants to duplicate the 

analysis, search, sort, etc. by which the 

material was generated and this information | 

is provided within sufficient time before 

trial to allow the defendants to duplicate, 

examine, and analyze the procedures used to 

generate the print out or hard copy. 

There is no way that the plaintiffs can comply with this aspect 

of the Protective Order if they were provided with the requested 

disk or tape at this late stage. 

7. A complete set of strategic school profiles for each 

school in Hartford, Farmington, West Hartford and Glastonbury. 

ANSWER: See response to 8, below. 

8. ED 165 reports for each school and district in Hartford 

and the surrounding communities (if not included in strategic 

school profiles).   ANSWER: See exhibits 8(a) - 8(kkkkkkk). Responsive 

documents relating to the East Windsor Public Schools are not yet   
 



      
4
 

available from the Department of Education. The defendants will 

provide those documents to the plaintiffs as soon as they become 

available. 

9. "Budget Briefs" (Commissioner's Recommendations to the 

State Board of Education), 1987 to present. 

ANSWER: The files and records of the State Department of 

Education's Division of Finance and Administrative Services 

relating to "Budget Briefs" and "Budget Proposals" not otherwise 

privileged, will be open for inspection at a mutually convenient 

date and time. During that inspection, plaintiffs’ 

representative may identify documents which the plaintiffs would 

like to have copied. Depending on the number of documents 

identified the defendants will either provide plaintiffs with a 

copy of those documents or make those documents available for 

copying by the plaintiffs. All arrangements to inspect files and 

records must be made through counsel for the defendants. 

10. State Board of Education "Budget Proposals," 1987 to 

the present. 

H 

  
 



  

  

    

ANSWER: See response to 9, above. 

11. Challenge for Excellence: Connecticut's Comprehensive 

Plan for Elementary, Secondary, Vocational, Career and Adult 

Education: A Policy Plan 1991-1995. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 11. 

12. "A Guide To Curriculum Development in Foreign 

Languages." 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 12, 

13. "Meeting the Challenge -- Condition of Education in 

Connecticut 1986" (reprint -- December 1987). 

ANSWER: See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First Set 

of Interrogatories, exhibit 27(a) and Defendants’ Response to 

Plaintiffs' Fifth Request for Production, items 59 and 63. 

  
 



  

  
14. Vocational-technical schools budget request 1991-1992 

(Commissioner's Recommendations to the State Board of Education 

-- June 1990 and August 90). 

ANSWER: See response to 9 and 10, above. 

15. "Unacceptable Trends in Kindergarten" (1988). 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 15. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Lad PN Girt span’ 
‘John R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street / 

Hartford, CT 06105 
LL 566-7173 p 

gy yi 

  

/ 
/ 0. 1h     

  

“Mar thd ‘M. Watts 
ack i AE | 
(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 October 26, 1992 to the following counsel of 

record: 

John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 

University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 

School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 

65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 

Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & Fineberg P. c. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street 
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chamberes, Esq. 

Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund Ronald Ellis, Esq. 

and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

14th Floor Educational Fund 

99 Hudson Street 99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 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 10036 

    

  Sid WELL 
fasistant Attorney General 

MMW0202AC