Correspondence from Whelan to Tegeler Re: Deposition Schedule
Correspondence
July 2, 1992
4 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Correspondence from Whelan to Tegeler Re: Deposition Schedule, 1992. c5e98cfc-a146-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/fcc8c34b-b16e-4f1a-95e9-4d8e4baeed55/correspondence-from-whelan-to-tegeler-re-deposition-schedule. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
>.
3
: en MacKenzie Hall
RICITARDY Bi UMENTIIAL
110 Sh RS ly TTOR EY GENERA SIernan eel
SRN UREA Hartford. CT 06105
FAX (203) 5323-35336
Office of The Attorney General A Pel: 566-7173
State of Connecticut
July 2.,°1992
Philip D. Tegeler, Esq.
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union
32 Grand Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
RE: Sheff v. O'Neill
Dear Phil:
Thank you. for your letter of June 26, 1992. The deposition
schedule which you set out in that letter is consistent with my
records.
A couple of points need to be in regard to the schedule.
First, July 30 has been set aside for the deposition of an as yet
undisclosed plaintiff witness. It is highly unlikely that we
will be able to prepare to take the deposition of an unknown
expert witness in the short amount of time that is left between
now and July 30. A final decision regarding whether we can
proceed on June 30th will be made after the plaintiffs' provide
the necessary disclosure regarding this witness.
Second, you will recall that we have issued a notice of
deposition and a deposition subpoena for Marvin Dawkins. To date
you have not suggested any alternative dates for Mr. Dawkins'
deposition. We continue to await your response in this regard.
Finally, in regard to your reguest for further information
regarding the state employees who we have listed as potential
witnesses, you should know that they we expect to revise our
disclosure as decisions are made as to who we will call and for
what purposes. At the moment we are considering deleting
Forgione, Conjero, and Behuniak since their testimony is likely
to be duplicative. In regard to Williams, Brewer, Prowda,
Rindone, Sergi, Breene and Downs our description of their
testimony will be updated but, at the moment, it is as complete
as it can be. As I have explained to you, these individuals are
not what one would normally think of as expert witnesses. The
testimony they will present will not be based on facts or
opinions “Macguired iin anticipation of litigation or for trial”.
They will testify regarding facts known to them by reason of
their employment and as such they are fact witnesses rather than
Philip Tegeler, Esq.
July 1,:-1992
Page 2
expert witnesses. We have disclosed their names pursuant to the
outstanding order only because that order requires us to go
beyond disclosing our experts. We do not expect these
individuals to offer their personal opinions during their
testimony, but simply convey to the court the information they
have which we think is relevant to the issues before the court.
For these reasons you need to understand that our disclosure
in regard to these individuals will be different than our
disclosure in regard to our expert witnesses. The descriptions
which we have provided you to date identify the specific areas
within the personal knowledge of these individuals which we may
cover during their testimony. These disclosures should help you
focus your deposition, but the disclosures do not limit the scope
of your deposition nor do they limit the extent to which we may
ask these people to convey their personal knowledge to the court
at trial,
We will, of course, update the description of the
testimony of these individuals as we discover new areas we wish
to cover with them and as we make final decisions as to who is
the best person in DOE or DOH to convey certain information to
the court. You can be sure that our decision making process in
this regard will continue up to and even through the date that
trial begins.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL /
ATTORNEY ZEJERNL 7 7 7
74 /4
; HA
~~ { (LA
/
Fi
4 John R% Whelan
A N
»
Asgistant Attorney General
/ i
JRW: sad /
CC: All Counsel of Record /
State of Connecticut
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MacKENZIE HALL
110 SHERMAN STREET
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105
Julius L. Chambers Esq
Marianne Lado Esq
Ronald Ellis Esg
NAACP Legal Defense Fund & Ed. Fund
99 Hudson Street
New York NY 10013
miinimmiminmaimarunnnnm