Defendants' Objection to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery with Certification

    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. : 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 $8225 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, 

to and respectfully request the court to deny the plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel Discovery. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

WIA atl 
  

Yelk “Whelan & 
Assistant Attorn General 

110 Sherman 0 

Hartford, CT 06105 

566-7173 

= py 

  

~ 

  

tha M/ Watts” / = ow 
Es Attorney ‘General 

10 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-7173 

the defendants object | 

  
 



      

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. 
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 

(Martha MJ Watts” J 

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

Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Moller, Horton & Fineberg P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Julius L. Chamberes, Esq. 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
Educational Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

  

LA 
  

Assistant Attorney