docket no. x07 hhd-cv-14-5037565-s connecticut …ccjef.org/wp-content/uploads/ccjef-v-rell... ·...

1

DOCKET NO. X07 HHD-CV-14-5037565-S CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR : SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICE IN EDUCATION : FUNDING, INC., et al. : COMPLEX LITIGATION Plaintiffs : DOCKET v. : AT HARTFORD : M. RODI RELL, et al. : Defendants : FEBRUARY 7, 2014

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR MOTION TO PRECLUDE Pursuant to Practice Book (hereinafter “P. B.”) §13-14, the defendants respectfully

request this court to order the school districts of Windham, Waterford, Norwich, New London,

New Britain, Hartford, Danbury, Bridgeport, and Plainfield (hereafter “the districts”), to comply

with discovery requirements by producing teacher evaluations.

Since issuing their requests for production, defendants have agreed to: (1) limit the time

period from 2010 to the present, and (2) accept the teacher evaluations in redacted form

containing no personally identifying information. Despite these concessions, the districts have

failed to produce the requested materials.

I. FACTS

The defendants issued subpoenas to the referenced districts on various dates in January

2012 which, inter alia, requested teacher evaluations from 2002 to the present.1 See Ex. A,

1 The specific request is: “Copy of any and all documents reflecting the evaluation of the performance of the teachers of the … School District, including, the results of such evaluations, from 2002 to the present and the supporting documents thereto.” Supporting documents include but are not limited to teacher observations conducted by administrators and/or faculty.

2

Subpoena Duces Tecum, issued to School District of Norwich, dated January 19, 2012.2 The

districts filed objections asserting that the requests were overly broad, vague, burdensome, not

limited in time, irrelevant, and an invasion of teachers’ privacy pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §

10-151c. See Docket No. X07-HHD-CV05-4050526-S, Doc. ## 150.00 - #150.70.3 In

response to the objections, the defendants agreed to limit the request to the time period of 2010

to the present and to accept the evaluations in a redacted form with no personally identifying

information. See Attachment 4 to Exhibit B attached hereto, Affidavit of Assistant Attorney

General Eleanor M. Mullen. The defendants further pointed out the more than adequate

resources of the plaintiffs’ legal team to assist the districts in the redaction of the evaluations to

thereby alleviate the burden on the districts in responding to the discovery request. See

Attachment 5 to Ex. B. By email dated January 28, 2013 the districts’ counsel, Hunter Smith,

indicated that the districts would not produce the requested materials. See Attachment 6 to Ex.

B.

The subpoenas were directed to the school districts in which the plaintiff students reside

as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint and also to the school districts of the

superintendents/experts listed in the plaintiffs’ initial disclosure. (Docket No. X07-HHD-CV05-

4050526-S, Doc. #135.00). The subpoenas were issued to those districts as third parties. By

consent of the defendants, the school districts were represented by plaintiffs’ counsel for the

limited purpose of responding to discovery.4 Since the issuance of the subpoenas, the plaintiffs

filed their Corrected Third Amended Complaint listing those same districts in addition to other

2 To avoid unnecessary duplication, only one subpoena has been attached. 3 Plainfield did not file an objection. However, their counsel indicated Plainfield would not be producing responsive materials. See Attachment 6 to Exhibit A. 4 Plaintiffs’ counsel, David Rosen, initially filed his appearance on March 6, 2012 on behalf of all the districts listed above except for the district of Plainfield. On December 17, 2012 plaintiffs’ counsel, Hunter Smith, entered his appearance on behalf of all the districts listed above, including the district of Plainfield.

3

districts as containing members of the plaintiff organization, Connecticut Coalition for Justice in

Education Funding (hereinafter “CCJEF”) in Paragraph 47 thereof. See Docket No. X07-HHD-

CV05-4050526-S, Doc. #163.00. Additionally, plaintiffs allege that various named plaintiffs

attend school in the districts.

II. ARGUMENT

The districts argue that the teacher evaluations are “irrelevant.” In paragraphs 63e and 64

of the Corrected Third Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs have directly put at issue the quality of

teachers throughout, apparently, the State, claiming that the “State” has failed to provide suitable

educational opportunities by failing to provide various inputs, one of which, according to the

plaintiffs, is “highly qualified teachers.”5 Plaintiffs also allege in paragraph 67 that a school in

New Britain “lack[s] … quality teaching.” These claims are repeated for all four counts of the

complaint.

Defendants are entitled to seek evidence relevant to defending against these allegations

and teacher evaluations are directly relevant to plaintiffs’ claims. See Practice Book §13-2.

Indeed, in determining whether the State has provided quality teaching, it is difficult to envision

a more important item than teacher evaluations.

The districts have also previously argued that the discovery requests amount to an

invasion of teachers’ privacy pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151c, and that that statute

requires the written consent of the teachers for the release of any performance and evaluation

records. They further assert the statutory rights of the teachers have not been waived by virtue of

the plaintiffs’ claims regarding lack of teacher quality in the complaint, that the districts may not

waive the personal rights of teachers and they are not aware of any teachers who have waived

5 The same claim appears in Paragraphs 49e and 50 of the Second Amended Complaint. Docket No. X07-HHD-CV05-4050526-S, Doc. #135.00.

4

their right to privacy in their evaluations. They also point to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128f as

prohibiting an employer’s disclosure of individually identifiable information contained in

personnel files without the employee’s authorization. Finally, the districts argue that the request

is overly burdensome.

First, the districts’ reliance upon Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151c is misplaced. That statute

merely exempts teacher performance and evaluation records from the provisions of the Freedom

of Information Act (hereinafter “FOIA”) that require disclosure and is not applicable to requests

made pursuant to a subpoena for purposes of litigation. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-213(b)(1), see

also Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department v. Freedom of Information Commission, 252

Conn. 377, 396, 746 A. 2d 1264 (2000) (Connecticut FOIA does not affect or limit discovery

rights; FOIA is irrelevant to determination of whether documents are discoverable in litigation).

The Districts’ reliance upon Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128f is also misplaced as that statute

does not apply to public employers. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-128a(4), see also Hartford v.

FOIC, 201 Conn. 421. 430-31 (1986). Most importantly, though, even if that statute were

applicable, the defendants have agreed to accept the teacher evaluations in redacted form without

any personally identifying information.

With respect to the districts’ protestations about the burdensome nature of the request,

such protests should be directed at the plaintiffs who have placed the quality of the districts’

teachers at issue by alleging in their complaint that “highly qualified teachers … have not been

made available to all students or are not of adequate quality.” Docket No. X07-HHD-CV05-

4050526-S, Doc. #163.00 ¶¶ 63(3) and 64. The defendants have a clear right to seek directly

relevant evidence addressing these allegations.

5

In sum, the districts have not provided any authority establishing a statutory or

constitutional right of teachers to shield their redacted evaluations from discovery in civil

litigation and defendants are entitled to this relevant information. Therefore, the defendants

request that the school districts be ordered to comply with the rules of discovery by responding

to the request for production of redacted teacher evaluations for the period from 2010 to the

present, including the results of such evaluations of teacher performance and the supporting

documents thereto such as teacher observations conducted by administrators and/or faculty.

Defendants further request that the school districts be ordered to comply within ten (10) days of

the date of granting of this motion or that the plaintiffs suffer the preclusion of their claim

regarding the defendants’ failure to provide highly qualified teachers.

6

DEFENDANTS GEORGE JEPSEN ATTORNEY GENERAL Joseph Rubin Associate Attorney General Beth Z. Margulies Assistant Attorney General

BY: /s/ Eleanor M. Mullen_________ Eleanor M. Mullen (ct414110) Assistant Attorney General Juris No. 414110 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel: (860) 808-5318 Fax: (860) 808-5347 [email protected] s/ Darren P. Cunningham________

Darren P. Cunningham (ct421685) Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel: (860) 808-5318 Fax: (860) 808-5347 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

7

I hereby certify that the foregoing Memorandum In Support Of Defendants’ Motion To

Compel And/Or Motion to Preclude was filed electronically and a copy mailed on this 7th day of

February 2014 to the following:

Helen V. Cantwell, Esq. Rebecca Jenkin, Esq. Megan K. Bannigan, Esq. David B. Noland, Esq. Dustin N. Nofziger, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton LP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 [email protected] (via email as well) David N. Rosen, Esq. David Hunter Smith, Esq. David Rosen & Associates, P.C. 400 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 Michael D. Weisman, Esq. Davis, Malm & D’Agostine One Boston Place Boston, MA 02108

/s/ Eleanor M. Mullen_______ Eleanor M. Mullen (ct414110) Assistant Attorney General Juris No. 414110 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel: (860) 808-5318 Fax: (860) 808-5347 [email protected]



Exhibit A

DOCKET NO. HHD-CV05-405-526-S (X07)

CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING, INC., et al.

Plaintiffs

v.

M. JODI RELL, et al. Defendants

SUPERIOR COURT

COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET

AT HARTFORD

JANUARY 19, 2012

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

TO: Betsy Barrett, City Clerk City of Norwich City Hall, Room 215 100 Broadway Norwich, CT 06360-4431

GREETING:

BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby

commanded to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the documents in the

possession of the Norwich School District referenced in Schedule A attached hereto or permit

their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:

Place: Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm St., Hartford, CT 060106

Date and Time: February 21, 2012, 9 a.m.

1

Exhibit A

BY:

M. JODI RELL

GEORGE JEPSEN ATTORNEY GENERAL

t~m.m~ Eleanor M. Mullen Assistant Attorney General Juris No. 414110 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel.: (860) 808-5340 Fax: (860) 808-5383 E-mail: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Subpoena Duces Tecum was mailed, first

class postage prepaid, on this 19th day of January, 2012 to:

Raymond H. Brescia, Esq. P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520

David N. Rosen, Esq. 400 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511

Michael D. Weisman, Esq. Davis, Malm & D' Agostine One Boston Place Boston, MA 02108

Eleanor M. Mullen Assistant Attorney General

2

Exhibit A

SCHEDULE A

As used herein, the term "document" means the original as well as any copy, regardless of origin or location, of any typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material including, but not limited to, any book, pamphlet, periodical, letter, email, memorandum, telegram, report, record, study, note, draft, chart, paper, graph, index, tape, disc, data sheet, diary, calendar or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, to which you have or have had access or control. A document is deemed to be in your "control" if you have the right or the ability to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or public or private entity having actual possession thereof.

1. Copies of any and all documents concerning the Norwich School District's annual budgets and expenditures, including school-level budgets and preliminary budgets, expenditures and revenues from all sources (other than the budgets submitted to the Connecticut Department of Education), indicating revenues and expenditures by source and purpose along with mid-year adjustments from 2002 to the present.

2. Copies of any and all studies regarding the school funding system in the State of Connecticut from 2002 to the present.

3. Copies of any and all consolidated grant applications submitted by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, involving grants not administered by the State Department of Education.

4. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the amount offunds paid directly or indirectly by the Norwich School District to the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Educational Funding, Inc. ("CCJEF") for each of the years from 2002 to the present.

5. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the amount of funds paid directly or indirectly by the Norwich School District to support the civil action entitled Connecticut Coalition For Justice In Education Funding, Inc., et al. v. M. Rodi Rell, et al., Docket No. HHDCVOS-405-526-S (X07) from 2005 to the present.

6. Copies of any and all documents reflecting any and all donations and grants (cash or in kind) exceeding $1 000 received from non-government organizations from 2002 to the present for the Norwich School District, including the list of donors and purposes of grants and excluding the value of classroom and extracurricular activities volunteers.

7. Copies of any and all mission statements for the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present.

1

Exhibit A

8. Copies of the employment contracts of the Norwich School District's Superintendent from 2002 to the present. .

9. Copies of collective bargaining agreements from 2002 to the present, including documents related to binding arbitration cases to which the Norwich School District was a party.

10. Copies of any and all surveys related to school/district climate or community relations/satisfaction issued by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present.

11. Copies of any and all Norwich School District newsletters, brochures, bulletins, or other documents provided to parents and taxpayers (not including communications regarding individual students) from 2002 to the present.

12. Copies of any and all documents relating to any preschool services that the Norwich School District provides, whether directly or indirectly, from 2002 to the present.

13. Copies of any and all documents, including but not limited to plans, proposals, or studies, prepared by or for the Norwich School District relating to improving the quality of education in the District from 2002 to the present.

14. Copies of any and all documents relating to the plans, programs, and proposals to improve the delivery of education services prepared by or for the Norwich School District, from 2002 to the present.

15. Copies of any and all documents concerning studies or evaluation of the factors or programs influencing student achievement in the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present.

16. Copies of any and all documents concerning comparison of resources and expenditures in the Norwich School District with the resources and expenditures of other school districts in the State of Connecticut.

17. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the number of qualified applicants for each teacher vacancy filled in the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present.

18. Copies of any staff handbooks which indicate the bases for evaluations of teachers from 2002 to the present.

19. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the evaluation of the performance of the teachers of the Norwich School District, including, the results of such evaluations, from 2002 to the present and the supporting documents thereto.

20. Copies of any and all notes, completed forms, or any other information recorded at exit interviews ofteachers and administrators who left the employment of the Norwich School District for any reason from 2002 to the present.

2

Exhibit A

21. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the years of experience and educational attainment of each and every teacher in the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present.

22. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the professional development courses taken by teachers in the Norwich School District, including the number of teachers enrolled therein.

23. Copies of any and all documents concerning presentations given by the Superintendent, Chief Financial Officer, and/or school board members of the Norwich School District regarding the District budget and finances from 2002 to the present.

24. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the number of teachers and administrators disciplined and or terminated from 2002 to the present, including the precise nature of the reason for discipline or termination. All names and any other personal identifying information should be redacted.

25. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the number and age of computers used by students, designated by school, including each and every elementary, middle and high school in the Norwich School District.

26. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the number of print books and non-print books per student as well as periodicals books maintained by the library in each and every elementary, middle and high school, in the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, designated by school.

27. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the age of textbooks in each and every area of the curriculum utilized by the Norwich School District, including but not limited to math, science, social studies, and language arts

28. Copies of any and all documents reflecting class sizes in the Norwich School'District from 2002 to the present, designated by school.

29. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the number of hours of instruction provided by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, designated by school.

3 0. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the number of kindergarten students in the Norwich School District who have attended preschool, nursery school, or Head Start from 2002 to the present, designated by school.

31. Copies of any and all documents concerning programs, services, or resources for children at risk of academic failure offered by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the

3

Exhibit A

present, including but not limited to pull-out remedial instruction, in-class tutorials and after school programming, and enrollment data, designated by school.

32. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the math performance of students in the Norwich School District, designated by grade level and school from 2002 to the present.

3 3. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the language arts performance of students in the Norwich School District, designated by grade level and school from 2002 to the present.

34. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the number of students enrolled in Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate classes, honors classes and dual courses for which students may receive college credit, designated by course and school from 2002 to the present.

35. Copies of any and all documents reflecting the number of counselors and the number of students per counselor from 2002 to the present, designated by school in the Norwich School District.

36. Copies of any and all documents concerning the physical condition of school facilities in the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, including designated specialty areas such as cafeterias, outdoor athletic facilities, education technology, or office/administrative space.

3 7. Copies of any and all documents concerning the physical condition of the plumbing/lavatory systems in school facilities in the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present.

38. Copies of any and all documents concerning the physical condition and adequacy of internal communications systems in the school facilities in the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present.

3 9. Copies of any documents concerning the physical condition and adequacy of the technology infrastructure of the school facilities within the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present.

40. Copies of any and all documents concerning programs, services, or resources for students with disabilities other than individual education plans, implemented or adopted by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, including enrollment data, designated by school.

41. Copies of any and all documents concerning programs, services, or resources for English Language Learners students implemented or adopted by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, including enrollment data, designated by school.

42. Copies of any and all documents concerning programs, services, or resources for students

4

Exhibit A

of low income families, implemented or adopted by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, including enrollment data and nature of the programs, designated by school.

43. Copies of any and all documents concerning programs, services, or resources for students of minority racial and ethnic heritage, implemented or adopted by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, including enrollment data and nature of the programs, designated by school.

44. Copies of any and all documentation relating to vocational education programs, implemented or adopted by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, including enrollment and graduation data and nature of the programs.

45. Copies of any and all documents concerning gifted and talented programs, services, or resources, including enrollment data and nature of the programs offered by the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, including enrollment data, designated by school.

46. Copies of any and all documents concerning programs or efforts to enhance parent involvement in their children's education prepared by or for the Norwich School District from 2002 to the present, including enrollment data, designated by school.

5

Exhibit B

DOCKET NO. X07 HHD-CV-14-5037565-S

CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING, INC., ct al.

SUPERIOR COURT

COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET Plaintiffs

v. AT HARTFORD

M. RODI RELL, et al. Defendants FEBRUARY 7, 2014

AFFIDAVIT OF ELEANOR M. MULLEN

STATE OF CONNECTICUT)

) ss: HARTFORD

COUNTY OF HARTFORD )

I, Eleanor M. Mullen, having been duly sworn, hereby say from my personal knowledge:

1. I am above the age of 18 years.

2. I understand and believe in the obligation of an oath.

3. I am an Assistant Attorney General employed by the Connecticut Office of the Attorney

General and have been assigned to work on the above captioned case.

4. During January 2012, the defendants issued subpeonas for discovery requests to the

school districts of Windham, Waterford, Norwich, New London, New Britain, Hartford,

Danbury, Bridgeport, and Plainfield. The subpoenas were directed to the school districts

in which the plaintiff students reside as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint

(Doc. #135.00) and issued to those districts as third parties. With the permission of the

defendants, the school districts were represented by plaintiffs' counsel for the limited

Exhibit B

purpose of responding to discovery. I After the issuance ofthe subpoenas, the plaintiffs

filed their Corrected Third Amended Complaint listing those same districts in addition to

other districts as members of the plaintiff organization, Colllleeticut Coalition for Justice

in Education Funding (hereinafter "CCJEF") in Paragraph 47 thereof. (See Doc.

#163.00).

5. On February 29,2012, plaintiffs' counsel filed objections on behalf of the districts of

Windham, Waterford, Norwich, New London, New Britain, Hartford, Danbury, and

Bridgeport to the defendants' request for teacher evaluations from 2002 to the present

and continued to assert objections via correspondence from plaintiffs counsel, dated June

8, 2012. (See CCJEF v. Rell, Docket No.: X07-HHD-CV05-4050526-S, Doc.# 150.00-

# 150. 70; see also Attachment I, Letter from Rosen to Parks, dated June 8, 20 12). The

districts' objections included assetiions that the request was overly broad, vague,

burdensome, not limited in time, irrelevant and an invasion of teachers' privacy pursuant

to C.G.S. §l0-151c. The district ofHatiford also objected on the basis of the request

being harassing. Additional objections were raised via correspondence dated June 15,

2012 and August 21, 2012, from plaintiffs' counsel stating that teacher evaluation files

would be too numerous to redact without undue burden. (See Attachment 2, Letter from

Rosen to Parks, dated June 15,2012, Re: CCJEFv. Rell School District Subpoena

Response Update, Request No. 19; see also Attachment 3, Letter from Rosen to Mullen,

dated August 21,2012, Re: CCJEF v. Rell).

6. During the summer of2012, the undersigned made a good faith effort to resolve the

discovery dispute by addressing the districts' substantive objections and further limiting

1 Plaintiffs' counsel, David Rosen, initially filed his appearance on March 6, 2012 on behalf of all the districts listed above except for the district of Plainfield. On December 17, 2012 plaintiffs' counsel, Hunter Smith, entered his appearance on behalf of all the districts listed above, including the district of Plainfield.

2

Exhibit B

the request to the time period 2010 to the present without prejudice to renew the request

for production dating back to 2002, if necessary. In addition, the defendants agreed to

accept the teacher evaluations in redacted form with no personally identifYing

information and pointed out the more than adequate resources of the plaintiffs' legal team

to alleviate the burden of the districts in responding to the discovery request. (See

Attachment 4, Letter from Mullen to Rosen, dated June 27,2012 RE: CCJEF v. Rei!; see

also Attachment 5, Letter from Mullen to Rosen, dated August 30,2012, RE: CCJEF v.

Rei!). Nonetheless, plaintiffs' counsel instructed the undersigned verbally to file a

motion to compel.

7. Following the court's denial of the Defendants' Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order

(Doc.# 168 .00 and #207.00), the undersigned contacted plaintiffs' counsel to confirm

the districts' position regarding the production of the teacher evaluations. (See

Attaclm1ent 6, email from Mullen to Rosen, dated January 21, 2014 4:05PM, Subject:

CCJEF v. Rei! Outstanding Discovery Requests). Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that the

districts' position remained unchanged and that the defendants should file a motion to

compeL (See Attachment 6, email from Smith to Mullen, dated January 28,2014 11:27

AM, Re; CCJEF v. Rei! Outstanding Discovery Requests).

Subscribed and sworn to before me This 71

h day of February, 2014

Commissioner of the Superior Court

3

/) I

G~ !Ji./J?~ Eleanor M. Mullen

Attachment 1 to Exhibit B

David Rosen & Associates PC Attorneys at Law

Stephen Park, Esq. State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street

June 8, 2012

400 Orange Street New Haven, Cl' o6su

phone 203·787-3513 fax 203•789.1005

drosen@davidrosenlaw .com

Hartford, CT 06106 VIA EMAIL & REGULAR MAIL

Re: CCJEF v. Rell District subpoena objections on First Amendment and teacher privacy grounds

Dear Assistant Attorney General Park:

This letter responds to issues raised in your May 17, 2012 letter, the most recent status conference on May 29,2012, and our telephone call with you on June I, 2012.

Districts' First Amendment Objections to Requests 4 and 5 of Defendants' Subpoena Duces Tecum

After consultation with our clients, we have decided to withdraw our First Amendment objections to those two requests. Our withdrawal of these objections, with respect to any documents these districts may possess related to any CCJEF membership dues they may pay, shall not be construed as a waiver of CCJEF's or its members' rights under the First Amendment as they protect against disclosure of membership lists, membership dues, or any other membership matters generally. The Districts will make reasonable effort to comply with the requests to the extent that any responsive documents exist. We reserve our right to object in the future on other grounds that may apply to these requests.

Districts' Teacher and Administrator Privacy Objections to Requests 19, 20, and 24 of Defendants' Subpoena Duces Tecum

Regarding Requests 19 and 20, we continue to assert our previous objections, including that the requests are overly broad, vague, and unduly burdensome, and an invasion of teachers' and administrators' privacy pursuant to C.G.S. §I 0-151 c, which provides that any "records of


Page Two June 8, 2012

teacher perfonnance and evaluation shall not be deemed public records." Teachers must "consent in writing" to the release of any such perfonnance and evaluation records./d. Defendants, in their response to our initial objections in a lette~-dated April 2, 2012, argue that statutory rights have been waived. However, we are not aware of evidence, nor has the State presented any evidence, to suggest any "intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a ~<Down right or privilege." Paulsen v. Manson, 203 Conn. 484, 489 (1987). Districts may not waive the personal rights of teachers, and we are not aware of teachers who have waived their right to privacy in their evaluations. We further maintain that the redaction of private details would be exceptionally burdensome on the districts considering the volume and scope of the requested documents.

Regarding Request 24, Districts have expressed some confusion on the precise nature of the request. It is unclear whether the Request seeks documents regarding teacher misconduct, teacher perfonnance, both, or neither. Pursuant to C.G.S. §10-ISic, teacher evaluations are protected from disclosure, whereas "personal misconduct of a teacher shall be deemed public records .... "We therefore request that the State clarity Request 24. We maintain our objections to infonnation that does not fall under the "personal misconduct" exception to the presumptive privacy of teacher evaluations.

Finally, per our conversation on June I, we will follow up with another letter to the State on June 15,2012 clarifYing the status of the Districts' continued search for documents, the burdensomeness of particular requests, and any clarifying questions they have regarding particular requests.

Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters; we look forward to discussing them with you further.

Sincerely,

Dril~ DNR!ami



Stephen Park, Esq. State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street

June 15,2012

400 Orange Street New Haven, CT o6su

phone 203·787•3513 fax 203·789.16os

[email protected]

Hartford, CT 06106 VIA EMAIL & REGULAR MAIL

Re: CCJEF v. Rei! School District Subpoena Response Update

Assistant Attorney General Park:

This Jetter responds to issues raised in our April 23, 2012 meeting in New Haven, the most recent status conference on May 29,2012, and our telephone call with you on June I, 2012.

Districts' Need for Clarification and Explanation of Burdensomeness

At the April 23 meeting, the Defendants requested from the School Districts ("Districts") who have been issued subpoenas a list of information regarding whether additional documents might exist beyond those produced. Additionally, the Defendants requested explanation from the Districts as to why further searches or production would be unduly burdensome. In response, the Districts have also explained the degree to which they need further clarification on a number of requests, which remain too broad or vague for the Districts to understand which documents might be responsive. These responses are representative of a consensus among the Districts, which we have aggregated here for your convenience.

The following explanations do not address or affect any other objections raised, nor do they limit the School Districts' objections in any way,

Request 1: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request. Compiling information beyond the materials already disclosed would require extensive staff time to compile disparate notes, emails, and preliminary presentations. Additional responsive documents, if they exist, are stored in antiquated computer systems or the files of previous administrations that are difficult to access.

Request 2: Districts believe that they have fully complied with this request.


June 15,2012 Page Two

Request 3: Districts have made their best efforts at compliance; however, many Districts believe that the Defendants already have this infonnation.

Request 4: Districts are in the process of complying with this request and have no burdensomeness objection.

Request 5: Districts are in the process of complying with this request and have no burdensomeness objection.

Request 6: Districts believe that they have fully complied with this request so far as it relates to large grants. Districts do not track smaller grants for which they do not apply themselves. The small grants are too numerous and often organized at the school level, through school-based parent-teacher organizations, other non-profit organizations, and individual donations. It would be unduly burdensome for Districts to search the files of each individual school.




Request 10: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request. Specific schools within the Districts may have responsive documents back to 2002, but it would be unduly burdensome for Districts to search the files of each individual school.

Request 11: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request. Beyond official communication sent from the Districts, most parent communication is organized by individual schools, but it would be unduly burdensome for Districts to search the files of each individual school.

Request 12: Districts require further clarification in order to perfonn a thorough search. The request, even after clarification, remains too vague to consider the types of documents being sought. Districts acknowledge that responsive documents exist, but it would be unduly burdensome for Districts to produce every document within the scope of the request. The universe of documents envisioned by the State would include every piece of paper or email issued by the district office, every principal, and every teacher regarding an early learning program-including teacher notes, Jesson plans, curriculum guides, emails about individual students, etc.


June 15,2012 Page Three

Request 13: Districts require further clarification in order to perform a thorough search. The request, even after clarification, remains too vague to consider the types of documents being sought. Districts acknowledge that responsive documents exist, but it would be unduly burdensome for Districts to produce every document within the scope of the request. The universe of documents envisioned by the State would include every piece of paper or email issued by the district office, every principal, and every teacher regarding education in the district-including teacher notes, lesson plans, curriculum guides, emails about individual students, etc.

Request 14: Withdrawn.



Request 17: Districts do not maintain centralized records for this information. For years in which Districts did not have centralized application systems, documents are scattered among different schools, individual teacher files, and filing locations. Scattered specific documents may exist, but it would be unduly burdensome for Districts to search the files of each individual school and each teacher file. With high numbers of applicants for every position and no central policy for collecting the information, staff time and quantity of files would be unduly burdensome on the Districts.


Request 19: With reference to Districts' existing objections, Districts believe that teacher evaluation files would be too numerous to redact without undue burden. Personnel files number in the thousands, and full compliance would require staff time that would be unduly burdensome on the districts.

Request 20: Notwithstanding other objections, Districts believe that teacher exit interview files, such as they exist, would be too numerous to redact without undue burden. Personnel files number in the thousands, and full compliance would require staff time that would be unduly burdensome on the Districts.


Request 22: Districts have made their best efforts at compliance; however, many Districts believe that the Defendants already have this information.


June 15,2012 Page Four

Request 23: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request. Compiling information beyond the materials already disclosed would require extensive staff time to compile disparate notes, emails, and preliminary presentations. Additional responsive documents, if they exist, are stored in antiquated computer systems or the files of previous administrations that are difficult to access.

Request 24: With reference to Districts' existing objections, Districts believe that teacher . discipline and termination files, such as they exist, would be too numerous to redact without

undue burden. Personnel files number in the thousands, and full compliance would require staff time that would be unduly burdensome on the Districts.

Request 25: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request; however, production beyond the number and age of current computers is, in many cases, either not obtainable, or overly burdensome to obtain.

Request 26: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request. Further production, however, would be too time consuming to put together as information does not exist in any type of easily producible method, and would require a major reallocation of staff and resources.

Request 27: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request. Generally, new texts are purchased with each curriculum revision. To actually look at each textbook and determine age would be extremely burdensome and an undo strain on staff resources.

Request 28: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request. To the extent such documents may exist, further production would be enormously time consuming and require extraordinary funding increases and incredibly burdensome staff reallocations.


Request 30: Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request. Districts believe further attempts at production would be duplicative and a waste of resources, as this information, in many cases, is already on file with the State as part of the strategic school profiles.

Request 31: Districts require further clarification in order to perform a thorough search and determine what sort of programs ought to be included.

Request 32: Districts request clarification on what scores the Defendants are seeking. Some Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request, but additionally


June 15,2012 Page Five

contend that the State already has this information.

Request 33: Districts request clarification on what scores the Defendants are seeking. Other Districts believe that they have complied with the substance of this request, but additionally contend that the State already has this information.



Request 36: Districts believe they have complied with the substance of this request, however, to the extent such documents are obtainable, Districts do not believe production of every work order, etc. would be feasible, and an attempt to do so would be overly burdensome, time consuming, and a considerable strain on staff resources.

Request 37: Districts believe they have complied with the substance ofthis request, however, to the extent such documents are obtainable, Districts do not believe production of every work order, etc. would be feasible, and an attempt to do so would be overly burdensome, time consuming, and a considerable strain on staff resources.

Request 38: Districts believe they have complied with the substance of this request, however, to the extent such documents are obtainable, Districts do not believe production of every work order, etc. would be feasible, and an attempt to do so would be overly burdensome, time consuming, and a considerable strain on staff resources.


Request 40: Notwithstanding other objections, most Districts believe they have fully complied with this request.

Request 41: Districts believe this request to be too broad and ask for clarification, further specifying the nature of the information requested.

Request 42: Districts believe they have complied with the substance ofthis request. Further production of such information would be overly burdensome as there are far too many different programs stretching back over the designated time frame, and, further, in many Districts, virtually every program in some Districts benefits or is, in part, directed toward, low income students.

Request 43: Districts request further clarification as to what children this request is explicitly referencing.


' '

June 15,2012 Page Six


Request 45: Districts believe they have complied with the substance of this request; however, Districts believe the state is already in possession of this material, and any 1\lflher production would be unreasonably voluminous.

Rccjucst 46: Districts believe they have complied with the substance oflhis request; however, in most cases, any further production would be unreasonably voluminous due to the sheer number of programs over the designated time period.

Districts with Additional Documents To Disclose

To date, Danbury Public Schools and the School District of New London have additional documents that they arc ready to disclose. We stand ready to arrange exchanges of those documents.

Thank you for your prompt attention to these malters; we look forward to discussing them with you fmthcr.

Sincerely,

'Ulo;Q. ~ David N. Rosen

DNR/ami



Eleanor M. Mullen, Esq. Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141

Re: CCJEF y. Rell, et al

Dear Eleanor,

August 21,2012

VIA EMAIL

400 Orange Street New Haven, Cf o6sn

phone 203-787-3513 fax 203·789.16os

[email protected]

Thanks for your August IS letter and the summary of your phone call with Doug Cunningham. Some things to keep in mind:

First, Districts have already responded to the bulk of and are continuing to respond to your requests for records. So far, they have produced thousands of pages of relevant material despite the ambiguity, breadth, and size of the requests in their original forms. They continue to work diligently to provide additional records based on your clarifications and new requests. Some Districts have already responded with updated documents, and many are making additional documents available for review in the coming month.

Second, your most recent clarifications regarding specific requests came by letter on July 18, 2012. Since then, Districts have done their best to respond to the clarifications as quickly, accurately, and thoroughly as possible. New Britain, for example, provided updates less than three weeks after receiving your clarifications, including responses to new requests made informally through the July 18 letter. We don't think it's fair to the Districts to describe their efforts as lack of cooperation or as prejudicial. After all, the clarifications arrived in June and July, and Districts are short staffed in the summer;' they are preparing for the next school year; and they are have to complete all their end-of-year forms due to the State Department of Education by September I. Despite these challenges, Districts have done their utmost to comply and cooperate with your requests fully, and many have planned to provide updated documents shortly after September I.

Given that context, we have the following responses to issues raised in your letter.


Page Two August 21,2012

Danbury

The "discrepancy" you raise appears to be the result of miscommunication that occurred in June regarding additional documents Danbury had. In response to Peter Chen's query on June 14 as to whether Danbury had additional documentation to disclose, Danbury's legal counsel responded that there were additional documents available for inspection and review. On June 15, Mr. Chen informed you that Danbury had additional documents to produce, When you then contacted Danbury's legal counsel asking if the district had additional documents to produce, counsel did not know of any physical documents, as the additional documents she had previously referenced to Mr. Chen are only available on-site for review on District computers. That misunderstanding should no longer remain, as counsel, the clinic, and you are all aware that Danbury's additional documentation consists not of physical documents but of computer files available for on-site inspection and review. There is no discrepancy between statements regarding the difficulty in attaining responses from districts and the experiences of Danbury's legal counsel. We have been in touch with Danbury's counsel regarding production throughout the summer and specifically as your clarifications to requests were made in mid-July, As a note, Danbury's additional production will be available for the State's review in mid-September.

CCJEFDues

Districts confirm their understanding of the nature of the request. New Britain, New London, and Waterford have responded regarding CCJEF dues paid. For all other Districts, records responsive to your request do not exist. The delay you mention between your letter on July 13 and your conversation with Mr. Cunningham on August 8 is not unreasonable for an update from all the Districts, given the challenges in contacting and receiving information from Districts during the summer months. Nor is it a delay in production; responsive records, where they exist, have been provided or made available for review.

New Britain

New Britain is aware that your office believes their Subpoena response to be incomplete. However, the District has spent many hours searching and re-searching for responsive records, and it has provided every document believed to be responsive to your requests as clarified, including timely responding to your new requests for superintendant evaluations and Board of Education meeting minutes reaching back to 2005. Upon our request, New Britain is continuing to make a good faith effort to search for additional documents, but has noted that if documents do not exist, they cannot produce them. In regard to Requests 4 and 5, New Britain notes that as no payments have been made, it cannot provide additional documentation beyond that statement.


Page Three August 21,2012

New London

New London provided the State with additional documents during July. Upon receiving further clarifications from you, the District has begun searching for any additional documents that may be responsive to the requests. The District plans on having additional documentation in early September, as you mention in your letter. Specifically, responses to Request 4 regarding funds paid to CCJEF are available in the District office for review.

Hartford, Waterford, Danbury and Norwich

These districts intend to have additional documentation available in early September, as discussed in your telephone call with Mr. Cunningham. Again, please keep in mind the timing of your most recent clarification.

Bridgeport

Bridgeport wants you to call to schedule a time to review documents under the parameters discussed in your telephone call with Mr. Cunningham. Please contact Lissette Colon at 203-275-1001.

Windham

Windham does not have any more documents to produce, with the exception of its response to your new requests. The district can make Board of Education meeting minutes available in mid-September, but does not issue superintendant evaluations.

Plainfield

Plainfield has had to delay production of your new requests but is still happy to provide for the State to come review its initial production at a mutually convenient date. Please contact Kenneth DiPietro, Superintendent, at 860-564-6403 or [email protected] to schedule review.

New Requests

The following Districts have complied or plan to comply with your informal request for records regarding Board of Education meeting minutes and superintendent evaluations without requiring you to make a formal production request: New Britain, Waterford, Danbury, Plainfield, Norwich, Windham and New London. Hartford has not yet responded to this query. Bridgeport requires issuance of a subpoena regarding the new records requested.


Page Four August 21, 2012

Teacher Evaluations

As we have stated numerous times, this is a burdensome request. Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 10-151 e provides thnt a tcncher's consent in writing "shall be required for each request for a release of such records" of teacher performance and evaluations. Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 31-1281: moreover, generally prohibits an employer's disclosure of individually identillable information contained in personnel tiles without the employee's authorization. We are nonetheless willing to discuss possible resolutions to this issue, but are not in a position to produce these documents at this time.

Thank you again for writing and for your cooperation.

DNR/ami

Sincerely,

&Rosen


GEORGE C. JEPSEN ATrORNilY GENERA!,

Via e/r:cfrau/c mall and First Class Mall

David N. Rosen, Esq. David Rosen & Associates PC 400 Orange St. New Haven, CT 06511

RE: CCJEF v. Rell

Dear Attorney Rosen:

Office of'l11e Attorney General

State of Connecticut

June 27, 2012

.15 Elm St1·cct P.O. Box 120

Hnt'ffhrd, Cl' 06141·0120

Te1: ( 860) 808-5318 Fax: (860) 808-5388

Thank you for your letters dated June 8 and J1me 15, 2012, regarding the Defendants' subpoenas for document production served on the school districts you represent. I write to respond to each letter.

June 8, 2012 Letter

Distt·icts' First Amendment Objections to Requests 114 and 115.

We appreciate your decision to withdraw your previously stated objections. We understand that your decision to withdraw your objection shall not act as a waiver for any objections CCJEF might later assert. In your letter you did not indicate when we could expect to receive such materials. Given the amount oftime that has transpired since we issued the requests and the very focused nature of these requests, please produce the responsive materials by July 11,2012.

Districts' Teacher and Administrator Privacy Objections to Production Requests #19, #20, and #24.

To the extent you rely upon Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1 0-151 c to continue to assert an objection to Request 1119 for teacher and administrator evaluations, your reliance is misplaced. This statute exempts these records from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that require disclosure of public records under FOIA. FOIA is not applicable to requests made pursuant to a subpoena for purposes of litigation. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-213 (b) (1 ), Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department v. Freedom of Information Commission, 252 Conn. 377, 396, 746 A.2d 1264 (2000) (Connecticut FOJA does not affect or limit discovery rights; FOIA is irrelevant to a determination of whether documents are discoverable in litigation). The Districts


have not pointed us to any authority establishing a statutory or constitutional right of teachers and administrators to shield their evaluations from discovery in civil litigation. As stated previously, the Districts may redact any personal identifying information ti·om the teacher and administrator evaluations prior to producing them to the Defendants.

The plaintiffs have alleged that the state has failed to make available to all Connecticut students "highly qualified teachers" and "highly qualified administrators." We are clearly entitled to defend against these allegations and the teacher and administrator evallmtions are relevant. However, in an effort to address the alleged burdensome nature of the request, we are willing to limit the time period to 2010 to the present, without prejudice to renew our requests for production dating back to 2002, if necessary.

As to the objection to Production Request #20, there appears to be some confusion in characterizing exit interviews as evaluations, especially given the clarification provided by defendants in their responses to the Districts' objections dated April 2, 2012. The clarification clearly indicates that exit interviews are not related to teacher performance. 1 Nonetheless, to the extent the Districts continue to maintain the characterization of exit interviews as evaluations, please refer to om· response above as to the privacy objection to teacher and administrator evaluations and the limitation of the request to the time period 2010 to the present.

As to Production Request #24, we clarify the request as seeking the disciplinary records of teachers and administrators, including those based on misconduct and/or performance. To the extent the Districts maintain their objection to information not falling under the "personal misconduct" exception set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-151c, please refer to our response above as to the privacy objection to teacher and administrator evaluations and the limitation of the relevant time period.

June 15, 2012 Letter

In response to the Districts' continuing objections claiming our requests are unduly burdensome, we are willing to limit the requests to the time period 2010 to the present, without prejudice to renew our requests dating back to 2002, if necessary. Accordingly, please produce the responsive materials for Requests #1, #6, #10, #11, #17, #19, #20, #23-#28, and #36-#38 by July 11, 2012. As to the requests for clarifications for several of the requests, namely Requests #12, # 13, #31-#33, #41, and #43, we will be providing those clarifications in the immediate future. We will also provide fi.trther clarification as to Requests #36-#38 to avoid the production

1 The tenn "exit interviews11 refers to the practice of interviewing employees/teachers at the time of their voluntary sepnration from employment in order to ascertain the reasons for separation or leaving employment, their next employment opportunity, and whether the teacher would consider returning to employment wilhin the District and lhc factors that are mosl important h1 affecting retum to the District.

2


of work orders. In addition, we will provide a response to the assertions of full compliance with several of the Requests, specifically #2, #3, #7-#9, #16, #18, #22, #30, #40, #42, #45, and #46.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Eleanor M. Mullen Assistant Attorney General

3


,i()RGE C. JEPSEN ATI'ORN!ll.' GI!NI!RAI,

·it~·~

•

Office of'I1te Attorney Geneml

State of Connecticut

VIA Electronic Transmission And First Class Mail

David Rosen, Esq. David Rosen & Associates, P.C. 400 Orange St. New haven, CT 06511

August 30, 2012

55 Elm Strccl P.O. IJox 120

Har110rcl, CT00141-0120

Tel: ( 860) 808-5318 Fax: (860) 808-5388

RE: CCJEF v. Rell- Defendants' January 2012 Subpoena Duces Tecum Requests to the Districts ofHatiford, New Britain, Windham, New London, Plainfield, Bridgeport, Norwich, Danbury, and Waterford.

Dear Attorney Rosen:

Thank you for your August 21 letter. I would like to request that any future production be made in electronic format pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-9( d) to the extent it is available in that format as in the case ofDanbmy. I would also appreciate definite dates for the districts' production in September.

I would also like to clarity some matters raised in your letter. Notwithstanding your assetiions as to some districts having already responded with updated documents to the clarifications and new requests, I want to clarify that the production received to date is limited to that from New London on July 18 and New Britain on August 10. New London provided additional documents on July 18 which the district representative had previously disclosed but not copied at the time of my first visit to the district's office for its initial production on May 9, 2012, including budgets and superintendent presentations. (See attached "New London Responses to CCJEF Subpoena, dated July 18, 20 12). 1 These documents were not responsive to any of the clarifications. New Britain provided documents on August 1 0, 2012, related to the new requests for superintendent evaluations and Board of Education minutes but no "updated" documents, as you describe, relevant to the clarifications. In fact, your letter indicates that New Britain considers its production to be complete with its initial production and the production on August 1 0. Please let me know if my understanding of the recent New London and New Britain production is not correct.

1 Please note that no documents were included in this production relevant to Request 25 despite the listing of the same on the responses.


In addition, I want to point out that I do not agree with the characterization of the discrepancy smTOunding the Danbmy's legal counsel experiences with the Yale Education Adequacy Clinic based on my conversation with the counsel. However, as stated previously, I request Danbury's production in electronic format to the extent possible pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-9( d).

Finally, I am llllclear at this point as to whether the objection to production of the teacher evaluations and exit interviews has been withdrawn. As you know, we addressed the claimed burdensome nature of the requests by limiting the time period to 2010 to the present. We also agreed to accept the documents in redacted form with any personally identifying information removed. While the districts have claimed such redaction to be burdensome, certainly the plaintiffs' legal team has more than adequate resources to alleviate this burden. We have also previously responded to your objection based on Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151 c in my June 27 letter. While the statute exempts the records from disclosme under FOIA, FOIA is not applicable to requests made pursuant to a subpoena for purposes of litigation. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § l-213(b )(1 ), See also Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department v. Freedom of Information Commission, 252 Conn. 377, 396, 746 A. 2d 1264 (2000). Furthermore, your reliance upon Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-128f is misplaced given that the statute does not apply to public employers. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-128a(4), See also Hat1ford v. FOIC, 201 Conn. 421,430-31 (1986). The bottom line is that you have provided no authority establishing a statutory or constitutional right of teachers and administrators to shield their evaluations or exit interviews from discovery in civil litigation. However, given that you have stated a willingness to discuss possible resolution, we request that you schedule a phone call to discuss the same. I am available Septem)Jer 4, the morning of September 5, and September 7.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

EMM

cc: Helen Cantwell, Esq. Douglas Cunningham

Very truly yours,

(tuM" J1? )I(JL Eleanor M. Mullen Assistant Attorney General

2


Mullen, Eleanor M.

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject: Attachments:

Dear Eleanor,

Hunter Smith <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:27 AM Mullen, Eleanor M. CCJEF Team ([email protected]); '[email protected]'; Anna Maria Irizarry; David Rosen; James Maguire; Sarena Boulier; Shelley Adkins Re: CCJEF v. Rell Outstanding Discovery Requests Plainfield Production - Facilities. pdf

I'm responding to your January 21 e-mail to David. I will respond to each of the items in your e-mail by number:

1. Our clients felt strongly about this issue when we consulted with them in 2012 and we believe their position is justified on the merits. In the event one or more of our clients changes its position we will of course let you know, but if the State maintains that it is entitled to production of teacher evaluations, it should file a motion to compel.

2. The attached pdf file lists Bates ranges at which documents relating to Plainfield School District's facilities appear. Please disregard the first row, which references a Hartford document. You will also find Plainfield High School's 2003 response to the SDE School Facilities Survey on the SDE's website: https://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/dgm/edOSO/pickyear.aspx#.

3. We do not currently represent East Hartford or Stamford. If East Hartford or Stamford elects to have our firm or the Yale clinic represent them, we will inform you promptly.

Best,

Huntet· Smith David Rosen & Associates, P.C. 400 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 tel: (203) 787-3513 fax: (203) 789-1605

From: Mullen, Eleanor M. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:05PM To: David Rosen Cc: AG-DL-CCJEF; CCJEF Team ([email protected]) Subject: CCJEF v. Rell Outstanding Discovery Requests

Attorney Rosen:

I am writing to ascertain the Districts' position on several outstanding discovery requests which we previously made. As I am sure you recall, the Districts filed objections to these requests on March 6, 2012. The purpose of this letter is to satisfy the requirements of Practice Book§ 13-lO(c) so that we may move forward. Given the short amount

1


of time before this case is set to be tried and our desire to get this material as soon as possible, we would like to hear back from you with your position by Tuesday, January 28, 2014.

First, we requested teacher evaluations from 2010 to the present in #19 of the Production Requests attached to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, issued to the Districts in January 2012. We exchanged several emails and letters regarding the Districts' objections to this request between June and August, 2012. I believe that my letter to you, dated August 30, 2012 (attached above), was the last discussion on the matter followed by a phone call in which you advised me to file a motion to compel. As part of my good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes, I would appreciate it if you would confirm the position of the Districts.

Second, in my letter to you, dated July 13, 2012 (attached above), I requested "any and all documents provided by the Districts to the Plaintiffs" relevant to Requests #37, #38, and #39 of the Production Requests. These requests relate to Paragraph 59d of the Second Amended Complaint, now Paragraph 72d of the Corrected Third Amended Complaint. No responsive documents have been received to date from any of the Districts. As part of my good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes, please advise as to the position of the Districts.

Finally, we would like to inform you that we intend to file subpoenas to the two new districts- Stamford and East Hartford --that were put into issue by the plaintiffs by virtue of being added to the Corrected Third Amended Complaint. Please advise whether you also represent these districts so that we may proceed accordingly. Please also note that the discovery issues discussed herein are not meant to be all-inclusive of items not yet produced that we may consider including in additional motions to compel.

!look forward to hearing from you,

Eleanor Mullen

Eleanor May Mullen

Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06 I 06

Phone: 860.808.53 I 8 Fax: 860.808.5347 Email: [email protected] URL: http://ct.gov/ag/

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: The Information contained In this e-mail is confidential and protected from general disclosure. If the recipient or the reader of this e-mail is not the Intended recipient, or person responsible to receive this e-mail, you are requested to delete this e-mail immediately and do not disseminate or distribute or copy. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify us Immediately by replying to the message so that we can take appropriate action immediately and see to it that this mistake is rectified.

2