Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:91 —cv-001 80-RNC Document 533-3 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 4
See aiso, Burke, v. New York City TmnsitAuth., 110 F.R.D. 660,667 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citing
L0m)(directing disclosure of non-party employee drug test records held by employer); Inmates
ofUnit 14 v. Rebideau, 102 F.R.D. 122 (N.D.N.Y. 1984) (personnel files of non-patty
correction officers ordered produced in inmate civil rights case); American Civii Liberties Union
ofMississzppi' v. Finch, 638 F. 2d 1336, 1342-4-4 (Sm Cir. l98l)(0rdering production of
confidential files of government commission).
The most important consideration in resolving the conflict between the plaintiffs’ need
for confidential information about plaintiff class members is the importance ofthe information
to plaintiffs’ case — the considerations involved inthe first and fourth prongs of the four-part
Lore test. Inmates of Unit I4 v. Rebideau, 102 F.R.D. at 128. It is readily apparent that it is
critical that plaintiffs have this information. After waiting in vain for defendants’ analysis for
five years, plaintiffs cannot be expected to wait for and rely upon defendants’ analysis of the
data any longer. Moreover, plaintiffs cannot fulfill their duty as class representatives if they do
not review the CSDE data to determine why the size ofthe class has been drastically reduced
and more than 600 students float in and out of the class. Given the magnitude of this problem
and the longstanding failure of defendants to respond to concerns expressed by plaintiffs and the
EAP about missing class members, it would be irresponsible of plaintiffs to rely on def`endants’
assurances.
The second and third prongs of the Lora test are also met here. While it may be
necessary to release computer data to plaintiffs’ counsel that contains confidential information
on non-class members, that data will be released only to plaintiffs’ counsel and plaintiffs’
10

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC Document 533-3 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 2 of 4
computer experts. Plaintiffs’ educational experts will not have access to these databases as they
will be provided analyses of only data relating to class members. Moreover, the release of this
information will be subject to the strict provisions ofthe attached proposed Protective Order.
As several courts in this district have held, the entry of an appropriate Protective Order will
adequately safeguard confidential information about non—c1ass members while ensuring that
plaintiffs have the infomation they need to represent the class. See, Connecticut Traumatic
Brain Injury Association v. Hogan, No. H-90-97 (PCD)(Exhibit E), pp. 6-7, c:`zz“n_g Doe v,
Meacham, [26 F.R.D., 444, 449 (D. Conn. 1989).
III. CONCLUSION:
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs request that the Court order the defendants to
respond fully to interrogatories ## 3, 4 and 5 insofar as they request specific explanations and
data as to why approximately 600 students have floated in and out of the CSDE data set, and the
reasons why over 1000 students have been exited from the class since implementation of the
Settlement Agreement was ordered by the Court. In addition, the Court should order the
defendants to produce all CSDE computer data on class members together with all handbooks,
manuals and instructions relating to such data, so that plaintiffs and their experts can conduct
their own independent analysis of the CSDE data and a timely follow-up investigation. To the
extent that the production of all CSDE computer data will require the production of information
on students who are not members of the class, the plaintiffs request that the Court enter the
Protective Order attached as Exhibit E to this Motion.
l 1

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC Document 533-3 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 3 of 4
PLAINTI?*$, - ·
By if/@2 wx
David C. Shaw, Esq.
The Law Offices of David C. Shaw, LLC
Fed. Bar N0. ct05239
34 Jerome Ave., Suite 210
Bloomfield, CT 06002
Tel. (860) 242-1238
Fax. (860) 242-1507
Email: [email protected]
I2

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC Document 533-3 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed first class, postage prepaid to
counsel of record on August 22, 2007.
Darren P. Cunningham
Assistant Attomey General
State of Connecticut
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141
David C. Shaw, Esq.
13