Defendants Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories

    Cv 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT 
J.D. HARTFORD/NEW 

Plaintiffs NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

lv. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants DECEMBER % , 1990 

| DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
    

Pursuant to § 228 of the Connecticut Practice Book, the 

‘defendants object to the following interrogatories from the 
| 

plaintiffs dated September 20, 1990: 

3. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, 

what Hartford metropolitan area school districts other than 

Hartford and Bloomfield do you consider to have a significant 

| proportion of minority students. 

| RESPONSE : 

| OBJECTION: This interrogatory is unduly vague in that the 

defendants are unable to ascertain what the plaintiffs mean by 

the term "significant proportion of minority students”. 

  

    
—
 

 



      

Furthermore the defendants are not aware of any generally 

accepted standard for determining what constitutes a "significant 

proportion of minority students." For the plaintiffs information 

the following six school districts (exclusive of Hartford and 

Bloomfield) in the Hartford Metropolitan area are among the 27 

school districts statewide that in 1989-90 had 10% or more 

minority enrollment: East Hartford, East WIndsor, Manchester, New 

Britain, West Hartford and Windsor. 

4. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, what 

Hartford metropolitan area school districts other than Hartford 

and Bloomfield do you consider not to be overwhelmingly white? 

RESPONSE: 

OBJECTION: This interrogatory is unduly vague in that the 

defendants are unable to ascertain what the plaintiffs mean by 

the term "overwhelmingly white". Furthermore the defendants are 

not aware of any generally accepted standard for determining 

whether a district is "overwhelmingly white." Using the broadest 

  
 



    

possible definition of the term STS INANE LY white" the 

defendants would deny that any of the districts in the Hartford 

metropolitan area are "overwhelmingly white" in the sense that 

minorities in those districts have been disadvantaged or 

"overwhelmed" by the white population. 

!5. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, do 

the defendants possess, know of or can identify any study which   
does or does not demonstrate that a high concentration of at-risk 

‘students places a school system at a severe educational 

disadvantage? 

  RESPONSE: 
OBJECTION: The interrogatory is unduly vague in that the 

defendants are unable to ascertain what the plaintiffs mean by 

the term "severe educational disadvantage". In any event the 

defendants are unaware of any study which does or does not 

demonstrate that when the number of "at risk" students in a 

  

  

 



      

school district reaches a certain level, the district is placed 

at "a severe educational disadvantage". 

14. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, are 

there any ways in which Hartford schoolchildren are not receiving 

a minimally adequate education? 

RESPONSE: 

OBJECTION: The interrogatory is unduly vague in that defendants 

cannot ascertain what the plaintiffs mean by the term "minimally 

adequate education". As a matter of law, the defendants deny 

plaintiffs' claim that Hartford school children are not receiving 

a minimally adequate education. 

18. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, 

state the reasons why public school integration in the Hartford 

Metropolitan region by race, ethnicity and economic status would 

not significantly improve the educational achievement of poor and 

minority children, without diminution of the education afforded 

their majority schoolmates. 

  

 



      

RESPONSE: 

OBJECTION: This interrogatory is unduly vague in that the 

defendants cannot ascertain what the plaintiffs mean by the term 

"significantly improve the educational achievement". The 

defendants are of the opinion that improved school integration by 

race, ethnicity, and economic status will have positive social 

benefits and may have a positive impact on educational 

achievement. However, the empirical studies which have been done 

are not sufficiently reliable to conclusively establish that 

integration, by itself, will improve the educational achievement 

of poor and minority children as measured by performance on 

standardized tests. 

19. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, 

state whether such officials agree now that (i), (ii), and (iii) 

exist and state the month and year when they became so aware. 

RESPONSE: 

  
 



    

OBJECTION: Subparts "i", "ii" and "iii" of paragraph 15 of the 

Complaint are so vague and general that the defendants cannot 

respond to this interrogatory. To the extent that section "i" 

alleges or implies that a violation of the law has or is 

occurring, that section is denied. To the extent that section 

"ii" suggests that the State of Connecticut has created and 

maintained racially and economically isolated residential 

communities in the Hartford region, it is wrong. To the extent 

that section "iii" suggests the State ought to continue its 

efforts to improve our state educational system, the defendants 

agree. The defendants believe that the minimum requirements of 

the law are only a beginning point and that, as a State, we 

should consistently be looking for ways in which our educational 

system can be changed for the better. 

20. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, 

what actions did you or your predecessors take in response to the 

1965 report to the United States Civil Rights Commission, and 

when was such action taken? 

  
  

 



      

RESPONSE: 

OBJECTION: To the extent that the plaintiffs are asking the 

defendants to detail each and every step they and their 

predecessors have taken to address any aspect of the problems 

which were identified by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the 

request is unduly burdensome in that it would require the 

scrutiny of the daily activities of dozens and maybe even 

hundreds of individuals going back as far as 25 years. Suffice 

it to say that since 1965 the General Assembly has supported and 

amended state statutes regarding the provision of education in 

Connecticut in many ways which were designed, inter alia, to 

address racial isolation and the needs of poor and at risk 

children. The defendants and their predecessors have carried out 

the programs and policies adopted by the General Assembly. The 

development of the law regarding education in Connecticut since 

1965 is as easily accessible to the plaintiffs through 

appropriate legal research as it is to the defendants. 

  

 



      

22. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, 

state any ways in which the defendants or their predecessors 

acted to implement the request? 

OBJECTION: To the extent that this interrogatory asks the 

defendants to describe what they did to obtain the authority to 

"direct full integration of local schools", the interrogatory is 

unduly vague in that the defendants cannot ascertain what 

plaintiffs mean by "full integration of local schools". In any 

event, defendants could not implement a recommendation that 

legislation be adopted because only the General Assembly can 

adopt legislation. The General Assembly did not adopt the 

recommended legislation. The presently named defendants have not 

proposed similar legislation. It cannot be determined at this 

time what, if anything, the defendants' predecessors did in 

regard to this recommendation that legislation be adopted. 

26. Concerning your answer to Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, 

what actions have been taken in regard to affect meaningful 

  

 



      

racial and economic integration of housing within school zones 

and school districts in the Hartford metropolitan region? 

RESPONSE: 

OBJECTION: The interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and 

regards matters which are irrelevant and/or collateral to the 

issues presented in the present case. The interrogatory is vague 

in that it does not specify whose "actions" should be listed. 

It is unduly burdensome in that it would require, at a minimum, 

that the defendants reconstruct a complete history of the State's 

efforts in these areas going back in time indefinitely. It is 

irrelevant in that the present case deals only with the State's 

obligations under the constitutional provisions and laws relating 

to education, not with issues regarding integration of housing. 

In the alternative, defendants would answer by saying that state 

laws prohibiting discrimination in housing have been enforced and 

state and federal programs promoting home ownership for first 

time home buyers and promoting and supporting the availability of 

low cost housing have been implemented. 

  

  
 



    

30. Please list each current housing program administered by the 

State of Connecticut which promotes racial or economic 

integration of students in the Hartford region, and the number of 

housing units created by each such program in the city of 

Hartford and in the surrouding communities. 

RESPONSE: 

OBJECTION: Same grounds as stated in response to interrogatory 

26. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

CLARINE NARDI RIDDLE 
ATTO 

. iil 

Jolin R. ya 
Afaistant Attorney General 
/Y10 Sherman Street 
‘Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-3696 

By: Wine OE 
Diane W. Whitney 
Assistant Attorney G ral 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-3696 

   

  

  

-]   
  

 



      

CERTIFICATION   

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

postage prepaid on December 3 , 1990 to the following counsel or 

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 
Martha Stone 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton 
Mollier, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Jenny Rivera, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
14th Floor 
New York, NY 10013 

~11- 

  

 



      

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

John A. Powell 

Helen Hershkoff 

American Civil Liberties Union 

132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

   (WN / 

John/R. Whelan 
Assistant Attorney General 

  

1D