Alexander v. Riga Reply Brief of Cross Appellants

    CV: 85-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al., : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT. OF 
: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

Vv. : AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al., 

Defendants. : SEPTEMBER 29, 1992 

DEFENDANTS' DISCLOSURE OF "NON-EXPERT" WITNESSES 
  

Pursuant to the outstanding pre trial order, the defendants 

are required to provide the plaintiffs with a list of the 

defendants' "non-expert" witnesses on or before September 29, 

1992. The following list contains the names of individuals who 

the defendants have identified as potential witnesses as of this 

date. Because cof the plaintiffs failure to answer the 

defendants' interrogatories in a timely fashion, because the 

defendants have only recently had the opportunity to begin 

deposing the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses and these depositions 

have not been completed, and because the date which the court has 

set for trial has not left the defendants with sufficient time in 

which to complete previously planned trial preparation 

activities, the defendants expect to be continuing their trial 

  

  

 



        

preparation activities up to and even through the date on which 

trial 1s expected to start. Additional witnesses may be 

identified during those trial preparation activities. 

The witnesses listed below all have professional background 

and expertise 1n regard to the areas they are expected to cover 

during their testimony. Although the witnesses have this 

expertise and it may be necessary for the witnesses to rely on 

their expertise for the purposes of conveying the information 

they are expected to present to the court, these witnesses will 

not be asked to express professional opinions developed for or in 

anticipation of this litigation based upon any hypothetical set 

of facts. For this reason, these individuals are being 

identified as "non-expert" witnesses. 

A. The following employees of the State Department of 

Education are expected to be called as witnesses for the 

defendants: 

Dr. Douglas Rindone: Dr. Rindone is expected to 

testify regarding certain analyses of the Connecticut Mastery 

Test Results conducted by the State Department of Education. He 

1S also expected to present comparisons between Hartford and the 

21 school districts which have been identified as suburban school   
 



        

districts for the purpose of this litigation from data in the 

possession of the State Department of Education. Dr. Rindone may 

also discuss ongoing efforts by the State Department Education to 

collect and analyze data for the purposes of monitoring the 

quality of the education being provided in school districts 

around the state. 

2. Dr. Elliott Williams: Dr. Williams is expected to 

provide information regarding various activities undertaken by 

the State Department of Education designed to promote 

interdistrict cooperation, reduce racial and ethnic isolation, an 

improve integration in public schools throughout the state. 

3. Dr. Robert Brewer: Dr. Brewer 1s expected to 

provide information regarding the State's financial contribution 

to the educational efforts of the school districts in Hartford 

and tne 21 districts which have been identified as suburban 

districts for the purpose of this litigation. He 1s also 

expecred to present data comparing Hartford's spending on 

education to spending on education in other districts throughout 

the state. 

  

  
 



  

    

4. Dr. Theodore Sergi: Dr. Sergi 1s expected to 

provide information concerning the State's priority school 

district grant program. 

B. The following Hartford Public School Administrators may 

be subpoenaed by the defendants and asked to testify regarding 

various issues relating to the Hartford public schools including, 

but not limited to, the quality of the programs being offered in 

the Hartford public schools, obstacles faced by the Hartford 

public schools, appropriate measures of the quality of the 

Hartford public schools, specific steps taken to address the 

needs of children in the Hartford public schools, plans for 

enhancement of the Hartford public schools, and other matters 

relating to those schools. 

Dr. Josiha Haig 

Dr. Alice Dickens 

Dr. John Shea 

Dr. Robert Nearine 

Dr. Cynthia Davis-James 

C. The following individuals may be called as witnesses 

for the purposes of providing the court with miscellaneous 

{ 

  

   



      

information if it appears that the information they have will be 

of importance to the court in deciding this matter. 

1 Ms. Suzette Benn, State Health Department: Ms. 

Benn may present certain information regarding the high incidence 

of low birth rate babies, teenage mothers, etc., in Hartford. 

She is also expected to explain the joint initiative undertaken 

by the State Health Department and the State Department of 

Education to develop programs of school-based health care. 

2. Ms. Patricia Downs, State Department of Housing: 

Ms. Downs may present information regarding initiatives 

undertaken by the state to encourage the development of low and 

moderate income housing in the State's more affluent cities and 

towns. 

3, Mr. Alan R. Darling, CADAC: Mr. Darling may 

present evidence regarding the higher prevalence of substance 

abuse problems among residents of urban areas including Hartford. 

4. Mr. Gary Lopez, Department of Public Safety: Mr. 

Lopez may present information regarding the higher prevalence of 

victims and perpetrators of the crimes in urban populations, 

including Hartford. 

  

  

 



  

De. The defendants expect that they may identify additional 

staff from the State Department of Education, additional Hartford 

Public School administrators, administrators and teachers from 

the suburban school districts, and other individuals with 

information that the court may need to consider, including 

individuals who may be needed to testify on sur-rebuttal, up to 

and including the final day on which testimony is to be offered 

in this case. The defendants must reserve this right because 

there 1s no basis on which the defendants can determine or 

identify the particular facts upon which the decision in this 

case might turn at the present time. 

      
 



      

WHEREFORE, the defendants offer the foregoing in the full 

spirit of the court order setting September 29, 1992 as the date 

on which the defendants are required to disclose their 

"non-expert" witnesses. 

By: 

By: 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

ny 
R. Whelan - Juris 085112 

Agsistant Attorney General 
10 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel. 566-7173 

YIN TI] 
af tha s £ Juris 4061) 

  

Afsistant Attorney General 
10 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel. 566-7173 

  

 



      

CERTIFICATION 
  

This 1s to certify that on this 29th day of September, 1992 

a copy of the foregoing was mailed 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 06105 

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

l4th Floor 

New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, 

Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 

American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

Esq. 

Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 

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

Wesley W. Horton, 
Moller, Horton & 

Fineberg, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Esq LJ 

Julius L. Chambers, 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 

Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

hs 

Esq. 

  

Li R. Whelan 
a Attorney General