Correspondence from Whelan to Tegeler with Proposed Order

    B1@° 36d BS:5l 26: 391 AYN 

_ MAR 13 ’S2 84:27PM 
» P.2 

    
MacKnnzie Hall 

110 Sherman Street 

Hurfond, CT 08105 

FAX (808) 528-8380 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

Office of The Anomey General pal; 566-7173 

Sten of oomppgion 

philip Tegeler, E8g. 

connecticut civil Liberties union 

32 Grand Btreet 

Hartford, CT 08106 

RE: Sheff v, O'Neill 
  

pear Phil: 

2nclosed please £ind the order whieh I plan to ask Judge 

gammer to enter in regard ts the depositions of expert witnesses, 

As you will see I have revised my ezrlier draft ko address the 

concerns which you raised during our March 12, 1992 phone 

conversation. I hopé you will £ind these revisions sufficient to 

join me in asking that the court enter this order. 

In accordance with your request I will not file a motion 

asking Judge Hammer to endorse this order until Thursday, March 

19, 1992. 

Thank you for your cornnideration af this matter. 

very truly yours, 

  

    

  

ohn R. Whelan 

AssiBtant Attorney General 

JRW/mu 

ca: Wesley Horton, E8g. 

John Brittain, Esq. 

 



118° 358d 

MAR 13 ‘92 4:37PM » 5.3 

  

NO. Cv-£9-0360877 S 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. 
plaintiffs 

SUPERIOR COURT 

l
e
 

} JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

V. 
1 HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

: AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, ET AL, : , 1992 

Iaefendants 

QRDER 

The parties to the above captioned case having coms before 

the Court seeking an order pursuant toc Practice Book 5220(A)(2) 

regarding the deposition of expert vitnesses and the court having 

considered the arguments of the parties, the Court NOW enters the 

following orders in order to insure the expeditious, efficient, 

and economical conduct of tha depositions of expert witnesses, 

1, No formal process peyond the issuance of a notice of 

deposition shall pe necessary in order to oblige the part) 

identifying an expert witness to produce tha: expert witness fo 

deposition. [Ii either party feels that i¢ is necessary to lssu 

a subpoena duces tecum in conjunction with a notice of depositic 

counsel for tha party identifying the expert will accept servic 

of that subpoena on behalf of the expert witness. 

 



     

218° 394d ® PE:9] 26. 91 ¥BW 

MAR 13 92 24:08PM 
» F.4 

& 

a. With regard to expert witnesses who reside in states 

other than Connecticut, the party who intends to call that 

. witness at trial will determine whether the deposition will be 

taken in Connegctiicut or in the witness's home atate, Any costs 

incurred by thie witnass for rravel, lodging, meals or other 

similar expenses incident to the appearance at the deposition 

shell be the exclusive responsibility of the party who intends to 

call that witness at trial. 

3, Within 90 days after the conclusion of the evidentiary 

phase of trial in this matter the parties may submit $0 eac 

other invoices requesting reimbursement for the expenss 

associated with the time their respective witneas (es) spent { 

attendance at the opposing parties’ deposition plus an amount fa 

preparation time not to exceed the equivalent of two hours at ths 

witness's hourly rats, In .order to be considered valid and 

payable the invoice must he sccompanied py an affidavit By 

counsel for the party whe called the witness at erial attesting 

to the following: 

 



  

c18 38d 

MAR 13 ’92 

® 
BB:391 26: 91 HPW 

24: E8PM 
: » 5.5 

a. That the hourly rate sought by way of the 

invoice ia the hourly rate actually charged 

to the party calling that witness at trial 

for the houra spent in attendance at the 

deposition: : 
b. that the houriy rate charged by that 

vitnefis for attendance at the deposition does 

not differ from the hourly rate charged to 

that party for other pre-trial preparation 

activities in this case, 

valld invoices must be paid by the party te whom the invoice 

is submitted regardless of the outcome of the case. 

4. A party who relieves that the hourly rate calculated 

pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Paragraph 3 is not 

reasonable may 8pp-Y te the court for &n order setting a 

different hour.y rate. gaid application must be accompanied B 

an affidavit and/or other matarial necessary to support the 

applicant's aliaim that the rate established by subparagraphs (a 

and (b) of Paragraph 3 is not reasonable, 

5. Reimbursement £oF the costs associated with the 

attendance of expert witnesses at depositions shall nct be du 

pefore the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of ¢rial nor shal 

 



+168 305d ® PB:31 26. 91 HUW 

MAR 13 ‘92 B4:P8PM # R.8 

ralmpursemant be available for any expert witness who does not 

appear 48 a witness at trial. 

6, The defendants may not seek reimbursement from the 

plaintiffs for the tine spent at a depasition by any individual 

. who is an employee of the State Department of Education at the 

time of their deposition regardless of whether the defendants 

have designated that person 8&8 an expert witness or not, 

80 ORDERED: 
  
  

Honorable Haryy Hammer 

Superior Court