Notice of Service and Plaintiffs' Fifth Request for Production of Documents

    Cv89-03609775S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. 

Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

AT HARTFORD 

Ve. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants JULY" 15,:1992 

  

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF FIFTH REQUEST 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  

  

Plaintiffs give notice that on July 15, 1992, they served 

Plaintiffs’ Fifth Request for Production of Documents on the 

defendants by service upon their counsel. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

we PL TE 
Philip D. Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Connecticut Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT. 06106 

  

Wesley W. Horton : Wilfred Rodriguez 

Moller, Horton, & Rice Hispanic Advocacy Project 

90 Gillett Street Neighborhood Legal Services 

Hartford, CT 06105 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

Julius L. Chambers John Brittain 

Marianne Engelman Lado University of Connecticut 

Ronald L. Ellis School of Law 

NAACP Legal Defense & 65 Elizabeth Street 

Educational Fund, Inc. Hartford, CT 06105 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

  

 



  

- 0 

Helen Hershkoff Ruben Franco 

John A. Powell Jenny Rivera 

Adam S. Cohen Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

American Civil Liberties and Education Fund 

Union Foundation 99 Hudson Street 

132 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10013 

New York, NY 10036 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that one copy of the foregoing has bedn mailed 

postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Martha M. Watts, Assistant 

Attorneys General, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 

: ne 
06105 this (5 day of July, 1992. 

  

Philip D. Tegeler 

      
 



      

LCv89-0360977S 

  

MILO SHEFF, et al. pe 

Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 
AT HARTFORD 

ve. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al. 

Defendants JULY 15,1992 

  

PLAINTIFFS’ FIFTH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

¢ 
  

You are requested pursuant to §227 of the Connecticut Practice 

Book to produce the following documents for inspection and copying 

within thirty days of service of this Request. Said production shall 

be made at the office of plaintiffs’ counsel, Connecticut Civil 

Liberties Union Foundation, 32 Grand Street, Hartford, Connecticut 

06106. 

1. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 

1. If the documents requested do not exist exactly in the form 

requested, please produce those documents which do exist which most 

closely report the information sought by this particular document 

request. 

2. If any document is withheld under a claim of privilege, 

identify each document for which the privilege is claimed, and the 

particular request for which such document is responsive, by supplying 

the following information: 

a. the date(s) the document was created and/or sent or 

received; 

  

 



      

b. the author(s), including their titles; 

Cc. the addresses, including their titles; 

d. the identity and title of each recipient of a copy of the 

document; 

e. a summary description of the subject and contents of the 

document; 

f. the nature of the privilege claimed; 

the basis on which the privilege is claimed; 4 

the name, title and address of each person who currently 

possesses the original and/or a copy of such document. 

3. If your response to any request is that a particular document 

is not in your possession, custody or control, describe in detail the 

effort you made to obtain and identify who has control of the 

document, as well as the location of the document. 

4. Should you claim that any particular request is beyond the 

scope of permissible discovery, please specify in detail each and 

every ground on which your claim rests. 

5. As used herein: 

a. "Document," "documents," or any other form of these words 

means any written, recorded, typewritten or graphic matter of whatever 

kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and any tangible thing 

which, in whole or in part, conveys information requested which is in 

the possession, custody or control of the defendants whether produced, 

reproduced, or stored on paper, cards, tapes, charts, film, microfilm, 

computer storage devices or any other medium or device. The term 

  

 



      

pe 

includes, but is not limited to: correspondence; memoranda; notes; 

reports; files; books; records; contracts; agreements; telegrams and 

other communications sent or received; charts; graphs; records of 

accounts; worksheets; workpapers; minutes, notes, summaries and other 

written records or recordings of or relating to any conference, 

meeting, visit, interview or telephone conversation; bills, 

statements, invoices and other records of any obligation or 

expenditure; affidavits, deposition transcripts, transcripts of 

testimony; legal pleadings and briefs; statements; interviews and 

records of conversations; microfilm, microfiche; and disks, films, 

tapes and other sources from which information can be obtained or by 

means of which information can be stored. In addition, "document" 

shall mean all non-identical copies of any document, whether the copy 

is non-identical because it is a "draft," because of alterations, 

attachments, blanks, comments, notes, underlining, or because of some 

other reason. A document with handwritten or typewritten notes, 

editing, or other marks is not and shall not be deemed identical to 

one without such notes, marks, etc.; 

b. "Surrounding Communities" means the towns of Avon, 

Bloomfield, Canton, East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, 

Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Manchester, Newington, 

Rocky Hill, Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, West Hartford, 

Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks. 

Ca "Surrounding Districts" means the school districts in 

surrounding communities. The terms "surrounding districts" and 

  

 



      

A 

"surrounding communities" as used herein are intended to be used 

interchangeably to elicit all responsive documents. 

d. "DOE" refers to the State Department of Education, the 

State Board of Education, the Commissioner of Education, and all of 

their staff and consultants. 

e. "Inspection and copying" shall mean that for any file of 

documents so identified, plaintiffs seek to review the entire file of 

documents prior to identifying specific documents to be copiled. 

f. "Complete copy" shall mean the entire copy of a document, 

including all pages, cover pages, table of contents, appendices, etc., 

without extraneous marks, highlighting, etc. 

II. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED 

1. All correspondence, reports, and memoranda among the 

Commissioner of Education, the Department of Education, the State 

Board of Education, and the Governor's office from January, 1991 to 

the present, relating to issues of school desegregation. 

2. Inspection and copying of the research file and any drafts, 

correspondence, memoranda, reports, and any other documents used in 

the preparation of "The Issue of Racial Imbalance and Quality 

Education in Connecticut’s Public Schools" (February 5, 1986). 

3. All documents relating to a March 25 "Forum on Diversity" 

sponsored by the Connecticut Recruitment Network for Educational 

Diversity. 

4. All documents relating to the internal Department of 

Education Committee working to study and implement the proposals of 

  
  
 



      

the Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education, as 

reported in the "Highlights from the Monthly Meeting of the State 

Board of Education," June 3-4, 1992. 

5. Inspection and copying of all "Research Bulletins" issued by 

the Connecticut Department of Education, 1950 to the present. (If a 

list is available, please provide prior to inspection and copying.) 

6. A text, transcript, or recording of the speech or sermon 

delivered by Governor Weicker on Sunday, May 31, 1992 at the United 

Church on the Green in New Haven. 

7. Copies of all texts, outlines, transcripts and recordings of 

each speech or address given by Governor Weicker relating to the 

suiijech of school segregation, educational equity, urban education and 

racial integration. 

8. Final reports submitted by all expert witnesses retained by 

defendants. 

9. Copies of all exhibits prepared by defendants’ expert 

witnesses for presentation to the court. 

10. Inspection and copying of the most current set of all 

documents which provide the basis and underlying data for exhibits 

provided in response to request 7, Plaintiffs’ First Request for 

Production. 

11. Inspection and copying of all documents which provide the 

basis and underlying data for Exhibit 19(d) (Plaintiffs’ First Request 

for Production). 

  

 



      

12. District-by-district report on PSAT, SAT, MAT and CAT scores 

for Hartford and the surrounding communities for 1990 to the present. 

13. All documents relating to the "Urban Agenda" and/or "Urban 

Initiative" program. 

14. Documents indicating number of assessors and teachers 

participating in BEST Program from Hartford and surrounding districts. 

15. Final reports documenting 1990-91 and 1991-92 assessment of 

dominant language statistics and limited english proficiency counts 

referred to in plaintiffs’ Fourth Request for Production, Exhibit 

9(a). 

16. Documents relating to a curriculum survey regarding arts and 

library/media referenced in plaintiffs’ Fourth Request for Production, 

Exhibit 9(b). 

17. Any documents which compare the rate of growth on the 

Connecticut Mastery Test of any students in Hartford and students in 

the surrounding school districts (this request is for documents 

generated for the Hartford region only, not including discovery 

Exhibits 16(e) and 16(f), Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, 

or Exhibit 4 (ff), Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production). 

18. A copy of the "Krupa Study" referenced in discovery Exhibit 

2(a) (Third Request for Production) and any other curriculum study done 

by defendants since 1990. 

18. A report on dropouts, 1987-1989, prepared by Catherine 

Oleksiw, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), Plaintiffs’ Third Request for 

Production and any dropout reports prepared since 1991. 

  

 



      

~ 

20. A report on teacher supply and demand and interdistrict 

mobility prepared by Barbara Beaudin, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), 

Plaintiffs’ Third Request for Production. 

21. 'A report entitled, "NELS 88 -- Achievement" by Judith 

Thompson, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), Plaintiffs’ Third Request for 

Production. 

22. A report on "Indicators of Success" prepared by Judith 

Thompson, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), Plaintiffs’ Third Request for 

Production. 

23. A report entitled, "NELS 88 -- Demographics’ by Judith 

Thompson, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), Plaintiffs’ Third Request for 

Production. 

24. A report or reports by William Gauthier regarding 

"instructionally effective schools: a model and a process" (circa 

1983). 

25. Copy of a DOE report entitled "Statement of Activities" for 

the years 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1991-92. 

26. Any studies and staff analyses forming the basis for the 

following three vegotis, (and any studies and staff analyses 

undertaken in preparation for the following three reports): 

a. "Report on Three Perspectives on the Education 

Achievement of Connecticut Students" (September 7, 
1988). 

b. "Overview of the January 17, 1988 Presentations on 

Selected High Performance/Growth Schools Report" 
(January 17, 1989). 

c. "Special Connecticut Mastery Test Research Report: 
Students at Risk Academically" (May 2, 1990). 

  
  

  
 



  

27. A copy of a report of the Department of Education, entitled 

"Research-Based School Improvement Practices." 

28. Most recent PIP and MIP description for the following DOE 

employees: 

a. Douglas Rindone 

b. William Congero 

c. Peter Behuniak 

d. Elliot Williams } 

e. Robert Brewer 

f. Peter Prowda 

g. Theodore Sergi 

h. Thomas Breen   
29. A copy of the "Bilingual Program Data Analysis" described on 

page 10 of Exhibit 9(b) (Fourth Request for Production of Documents). 

30. Copy of any "assessment plan" referred to at page 5 of 

Exhibit 13(a) (Fourth Request for Production of Documents). 

31. Federal grant proposals for bilingual programs from 1989 to | 

present. | 

32. Annual reports since 1989 prepared by DOE regarding delivery 

of bilingual services to student populations in Hartford and 

surrounding communities. 

33. Any assessments of the Hartford bilingual program not 

previously requested or produced. 

34. Connecticut Public School Expenditures Report, 1991-92.     
 



      

35. Any truancy reports filed with DOE from Hartford and 

surrounding communities from 1991 to present. 

36. DOE budget and budget options for 1993-94. 

37. A copy of the grant proposal and description of grant 

awarded to DOE by the National Science Foundation. 

38. Strategic School Profiles for Hartford and surrounding 

communities. 

39. Any studies showing numbers of gifted and talented students 

identified in Hartford and surrounding communities. 

40. Any studies showing numbers students enrolled in advanced 

placement courses in Hartford and surrounding communities. 

41. A study of course and curriculum offerings in 15 high school 

districts (1977) (if different from item 18, above). 

42. A guide to school staff and instructional materials prepared 

by Thomas Breen (1981). 

43. A study of course offerings prepared by Peter Prowda (1982). 

44. A study of advance placement courses by TOC prepared by 

David Cleaver (1983). 

45. A study of high school course offerings, wealth, and school 

size prepared by Ted Sergi (1983). 

46. A study of advanced placement and honors courses prepared by 

David Cleaver (1985). 

47. A study of advanced placement courses and graduation 

requirements prepared by Jim Wade (1986). 

  

  

  

 



      

“10 - 

48. Any documents prepared from 1989 ! the present analyzing 

staff/student ratios for Hartford and the surrounding districts. 

49. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present analyzing 

the mean staff salary for Hartford and the surrounding districts, not 

already provided to plaintiffs. 

50. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present analyzing 

the staff cost per pupil in Hartford and the surrounding districts. 

51. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present analyzing 

the "breadth of programs" in Hartford and the surrounding districts. 

52. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present analyzing 

the educational attainment of parents in Hartford and the surrounding 

districts. 

53. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present analyzing 

student turnover in Hartford and the surrounding districts including 

annual net change and percent change in number of students. 

54. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present analyzing 

school construction spending in Hartford and the surrounding districts 

including but not limited to any cumulations of school construction 

grants for the last 5, 10, and 15 year period. 

55. A report showing the Aid for Dependent Children (ADC) counts 

for Hartford and the surrounding towns from 1979-80 thru 1988-89 

inclusive, and any subsequent counts that may be available. 

56. A copy of the most recent SEMIS report or equivalent report. 

57. Any curriculum survey prepared pursuant to a "curriculum 

survey outline, framework for equity analysis," January 12, 1987.   
 



      

11 - 

58. A copy of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 

Connecticut eighth graders (1988). 

59. A copy of a longitudinal study conducted in 1990 that 

examined achievement of Connecticut students judged to be at risk, 

referenced on p. 21 of "Meeting the Challenge" report (1990-91) 

(Exhibit 27(a), Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories). 

60. A copy of the NAEP Trial State Assessment Program (reading 

and mathematics assessments), statewide and for Hartford and 

surrounding communities. 

61. Copy of reports of CCL Assessment Project. 

62. A copy of the results on Advanced Placement tests and Test 

of Standard Written English for Hartford and surrounding communities 

from 1990 to present. 

63. Updates to "Meeting the Challenge" report, 1990-91 (Exhibit 

27(a), Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories). 

64. Documents relating to Hartford Partnership of the Urban 

Initiative program. 

MISSING/INCOMPLETE DOCUMENTS 
  

65. A complete copy of Volumes I and II of a report entitled 

"The Condition of Public Elementary and Secondary Education in 

Connecticut, Fiscal Year 1979-80." 

66. A complete copy of "A Plan for Promoting Equal Educational 

Opportunity in Connecticut," State Board of Education, January 1979. 

  
| | 
| 

| 

| 
| 

  
 



      

- 12 = 

67. A complete copy of a "State Board of Education Policy 

Statement on Equal Education Opportunity," included in circular letter 

C-15, October 27, 1986. 

68. A complete copy of each document identified in response to 

Interrogatory 2 in plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories (July 15, 

1992). 

69. A copy of a report entitled "Highlights of the 1969-70 Study 

of the Distribution of Minority Group Pupils and Staff in the Public 

Schools of Connecticut," dated on or about March 31, 1370. 

70. A complete copy of the "Interim Report” of the Advisory 

Committee to study the state’s racial imbalance law and regulations, 

dated May 7, 1985. 

71. A complete copy of an "Interim Report" by the Racial Equity 

Committee of the state Department of Education dated on or about May 

5, 1987. 

72. A complete copy of the "State Board of Education’s Policy 

Statement of Equal Educational Opportunity adopted May 6, 1989". as 

referenced in a memo from Joan Martin to the Governor's Commission 

dated March 1, 1990. 

73. A 1971 report entitled "A Brief History of the Public School 

Building Aid Program in Connecticut from 1945 to the Present.” 

74. A complete copy of a document or "critical issues paper" 

prepared for the State Board of Education by Edythe Gaines between 

1975-1985, entitled "Advancing Equal Educational Opportunity and 

  

 



      

Py 

Access to Quality Integrated Education in the Public Schools of the 

State of Connecticut." 

75. A complete copy of the 1985 report entitled: "Connecticut's 

Challenge: An Agenda for Educational Equity and Excellence." 

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

Julius L. Chambers 
Marianne Engelman Lado 
Ronald L. Ellis 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

Helen Hershkoff 
John A. Powell 
Adam S. Cohen 

American Civil Liberties 
Union Foundation 

132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

Respectfully Submitted, 

yA < 
  

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 

Ruben Franco 
Jenny Rivera 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

and Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

  

 



      

- 14 - 

Pp 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

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

postage prepaid to John R. Whelan and Martha M. Watts, Assistant 

Attorneys General, MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 

isi’ IST. 06105 this day of July, 19392. 

WL. Ferre 
  

Philip D. Tegeler