Correspondence from Horton to Court Monitor; from Court Monitor to Whelan Re: Transcripts
Correspondence
March 8, 1993
3 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Correspondence from Horton to Court Monitor; from Court Monitor to Whelan Re: Transcripts, 1993. c2ac1de0-a346-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ec708665-cc29-4e91-8266-886d060f42d3/correspondence-from-horton-to-court-monitor-from-court-monitor-to-whelan-re-transcripts. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
MOLLER, HORTON & RICE, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
S90 GILLETT STREET
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105
WILLIAM R. MOLLER™ TELEPHONE
WESLEY W. HORTON (203) 522-8338
CHARLES M. RICE, JR. TELECOPIER
ALEXANDRA DAVIS (203) 728-0401
ROBERT M. SHIELDS, JR.
SUSAN M. CORMIER
KIMBERLY A. KNOX
KAREN L. MURDOCH March 8, 1993
*ALSO ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. William H. Juall
Court Monitor
SUPERIOR COURT
Court Reporters' Office
101 Lafayette Street
Hartford, Cr 9061006
Re: Sheff v. O'Neill
Dear Bill:
In response to your letter, this is to assure you that the
plaintiffs will abide by the agreement we made before trial.
Very truly yours,
we
Wesley W. Horton
WWH:3t
Court Reporters' Office
101 Lafayette St.
Hartford, CT 06106
John R. Whelan, AAG
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
RE: Sheff v. O'Neill - CV-89 360977 S
Dear Mr. Whelan:
Here is the accounting of the transcripts 1 have done in
this case that you requested:
Transcripts done in segence: 1/85, 1/86,.1/7, 1/14.
Transcripts done out of sequence: 1/8, 1/12, 1/13, 1/285,
2/2,"2/3.
Transcripts to be done: Y/15, 1/20,.1/2%, 1/22, 1/27, 2/11,
2/28, 2/17.
I had informed Judge Hammer before the close of evidence
in this case that I expected to have all my transcripts done
by March 15, 1993. Since Ms. Budihas has also made assurances
that her work will be completed by that date, it appears
that the Court and the parties in this three month long case
will have complete certified transcripts of the proceedings
within about two weeks of the close of evidence. I believe
that this kind of production would be considered more than
expedited by any court in this country. Please note that
under the stringent production requirements imposed on our
department by the state, a reporter who sat in a trial of
this length would be allowed, by my calculation, almost a
year to produce the transcripts.
In any event, pursuant to my telephone conversation of 3/2/33,
with Mr. Whelan, I understand the fee agreement on this trans-
cript to be as follows: All transcripts produced by my self-
imposed deadline of March 15 will be billed at the rate ne-
totiated before trial, which has been in effect to date.
However, if any transcripts are not completed by that date,
which I don't believe will happen, they will be produced
as expedited transcripts but billed at the minimum state
rate. : E ;
Could I implore the parties, if the agreement is not as I
have ' stated it here, or if any party will have ‘a problem
abiding with the agreement as described here, to please inform
me of this immediately, as I have a touchy situation coming
up with the Appellate Court soon, which would be fairly easy
to obviate were it not for the onus of Sheff v. O'Neill.
Sincerely Yours,
“Ne Old pr
William H. Juall
Court Monitor
CC Judge Hammer
Joe Moan, Official Reporter
Wesley Horton, Esq.