Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories

Public Court Documents
January 30, 1991

Cite this item

Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories preview

4 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Impact area
- Education
Topic
- School Desegregation
Matter
- Sheff v. O'Neill
Case
- Sheff v. O'Neill
U.S. state
- Connecticut
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 1c808fc5-a346-f011-8779-7c1e5267c7b6

Cite this item

Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, 1991. 1c808fc5-a346-f011-8779-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/dedbaa63-eefd-476d-aee9-421a8adcffd0/plaintiffs-second-motion-for-extension-of-time-to-respond-to-defendants-first-set-of-interrogatories. Accessed November 02, 2025.

Copied!

    Cv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs 

v. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. AT HARTFORD 

Defendants JANUARY 30, 1991 

00
 

O6
0 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

0
 

09
0 

0
 

00
 

oo
 

  

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 
TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

  

Plaintiffs respectfully request an extension of time until 

February 19, 1991 in which to respond to Defendants’ First Set of 

Interrogatories. In support of this motion, plaintiffs state the 

following: 

1. Plaintiffs served their responses to Defendants’ First 

Set of Interrogatories on October 31, 1990. 

2. After consultation with defendants, and in an effort to 

resolve potential discovery disputes, plaintiffs agreed to 

respond in more detail to certain interrogatories or to amend 

certain interrogatory responses to clarify the issues in dispute. 

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED 
TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED       
 



      

3. On December 3, 1990, the parties filed a Joint Motion 

for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses Pursuant to 

Practice Book Section 220 (D), requiring initial identification 

of experts to take place on January 15, 1991. Without waiving 

any claims plaintiffs may have to seek a more complete response, 

both parties have complied with the deadline set out in said 

Joint Motion. 

4, On December 10, 1990, plaintiffs filed a Motion for 

Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ First Set of 

Interrogatories, requesting until January 30, 1991 to respond 

more fully to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. The 

present motion would seek to extend the January 30 deadline for 

an additional 20 days. 

5. The plaintiffs have been working diligently to respond to 

Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, and need additional 

time to complete their response and to coordinate the work of 

several attorneys. The present motion is also needed, in part, 

to make an initial evaluation of discovery materials, including 

certain computer tapes, provided by defendants on January 24. 

6. This is plaintiffs’ second motion for extension of time 

to respond to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatcries. 

7. Defendants have been contacted and have no objection to 

the granting of this Motion. 

  

 



      
Wesley W. Horton 
Moller, Horton, & Fineberg 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Lado 
Ron Ellis 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

Helen Hershkoff 
John A. Powell 
Adam Cohen 
American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/</ 
  

Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

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

John Brittain 
University of Connecticut 

School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Jenny Rivera 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

  
 



      

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | 
  

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

mailed postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Diane W. Whitney, 

Assistant Attorney Generals, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, 

Hartford, eT 06105 this 30th day of January, 1991. 

sf 
  

Philip D. Tegeler

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in